Liberal Forum

Silverfox » 18 Feb 2014 3:29 pm » wrote:This one is interesting too... (same source) ... is there a pattern around recessions? What's happening at the end?

As is this one... what were you saying about Carter? Looks as if the participation rate was increasing faster in the 70s ...

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 3:25 pm » wrote:
Oh, so "chumminess" is why they trashed his economic record for years as the economic boom took off?

Imbecile.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:32 pm » wrote: Isn't this funny.

Why, just a few minutes ago, you were sneering that I was tilting at windmills against monolithic agreement. You were sneering that NO ONE agrees with my premise that Reagan sucked on economics.

And suddenly, you are referencing (As usual, with ZERO sourcing) a vast left wing conspiracy to "trash" his economic record.

Which is it, Glory Hole? Am I winging it, as you claimed in the OP, or am I spewing talking points, as the above implies?

Pick a position and STICK, weasel.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 3:31 pm » wrote:
Are you blaming Reagan for the two recessions early in his presidency?

If so, on what basis?

Ignoring the fact that the country was close to collapsing into a depression as he left office.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 3:31 pm » wrote:
Are you blaming Reagan for the two recessions early in his presidency?

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:35 pm » wrote: You're being a little hard on the gipper there, junior.

But at least you are not trying your usual lie about Carter's economy. He handed off a growing, recovering economy - about 3% YOY growth, if recollection serves.

Let's go back to 1982, in many ways the bleakest year since the Depression. The economy had emerged severely damaged by the stagflation of the 1970s. Americans' confidence, both in government and in the economy, had reached a low ebb in 1980. Many felt our best years lay behind us.

On the nations' campuses and even in some of its boardrooms, people were talking about capitalism as a failed system.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/article ... _boom.html

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 3:42 pm » wrote:
Gosh, I hate to get in the way of your ignorance and psychosis again with actual reality.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 12:42 am » wrote:
Your first link verifies every critique I made of reagan - he looks worse than Carter, ESPECIALLY when you take into account that Carter droped our debt to GDP ratio instead of hiking it as reagan did.

Your second link, while I ACCEPT it, confuses me. How can a baby hating big borrower like reagan , who eats tomorrow's baby food today and peddles ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches - how can a guy like that reduce inflation, when he borrowed so much **** money that it amounted to almost two thirds of the entire economy he inherited? He inherited what - a 3.2 trillion dollar economy? Then he borrows 1.8 trillion?

He was the first guy since WWII who did not drive the debt to gdp ratio down. Only one president has done so since, and that was Billy Clinton - twice.

How can you defend a big spending, big borrowing liberal who federalized education, against a small borrowing, government shrinking peanut farmer who committed adultery, but only in his heart?

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 3:42 pm » wrote:
Gosh, I hate to get in the way of your ignorance and psychosis again with actual reality.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:43 pm » wrote: Oh, goodie. Talking points. Rhetoric instead of data.

tharock220 » 18 Feb 2014 3:44 pm » wrote: Nice strawman. Reagan growth outpaced inflation, people went to work, and inflation adjusted income increased. None of those happened for Reagan.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

We're not talking about Reagan's other policies. We're talking about which one was better economically. It's Reagan by a mile. This is not something that can be disputed.

tharock220 » 18 Feb 2014 3:44 pm » wrote:
Nice strawman. Reagan growth outpaced inflation, people went to work, and inflation adjusted income increased. None of those happened for Reagan.

http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

We're not talking about Reagan's other policies. We're talking about which one was better economically. It's Reagan by a mile. This is not something that can be disputed.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:35 pm » wrote:
You're being a little hard on the gipper there, junior.

But at least you are not trying your usual lie about Carter's economy. He handed off a growing, recovering economy - about 3% YOY growth, if recollection serves.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:51 pm » wrote:
Your chart makes Carter look pretty damned good for working families, as regards inflation-adjusted dollars. Thanks for that.

Which part of my post was a straw man? Was it where I said Reagan took over a 3.2 trillion dollar economy and borrowed 1.8 trillion against it?

Was it where I complained that he was known for backwards engineering his numbers, using smoke and mirrors and - dare I use this phrase? - voodoo economics?

And as for your complaint against my cheap shots on side issues, COME ON, MAN. It's me. You know I gotta do what I gotta do.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 3:49 pm » wrote: Say, where are your stats on job creation under Reagan?

golfboy » 18 Feb 2014 3:53 pm » wrote: Sounds like you better get your memory checked because your source in the OP says he handed off a -0.2 GDP.

tharock220 » 18 Feb 2014 3:56 pm » wrote:
We're not talking about Reagan's fiscal policies, military, or anything else. Your strawman was your attempting to address the simple point I made about Carter never having inflation lower than GDP growth with those things.

As for income, it actually decreased during the Peanut Farmer's Presidency.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:59 pm » wrote:
I'm happy to argue Carter's numbers with you.

Will you agree to use 76-80, or 77-81. Choose, and we can dialogue. Continue to dance, and we cannot.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 4:03 pm » wrote:
If you look at the economy he took over, he did quite well. If you factor in the fraudulent gas shortage, he worked miracles.

And remember - he didn't have trillions in borrowing to fall back on, as Reagan did.