Liberal Forum

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:57 pm » wrote:
Uh, actually, no. Aside from that you never asked, I gave a direct answer to who I thought bears most of the blame for that debt, like it or not.

So as usual, you're writing bulls***, lying and evading. The self-professed Economics expert who'll bleat forever about what tangential issues he wants to cherry pick, will stonewall two key questions.

How many jobs were created after Reagan's tax cuts took full effect?

What policies and who caused the recessions of 1980 and 1981-2?

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:56 pm » wrote: Wrong thread, clem.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 7:00 pm » wrote: Okay, I will guess "six jobs" on the first question, and "I don't know, and I am sure you don't either" on the second.

Now, will you quit bleating?

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 7:04 pm » wrote:
It's just so sad that liberals beat their chests so loudly, then melt down into lies and bulls*** in the face of the smallest pressure.

You're an empty suit and a liar.

Have a nice troll life.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 7:02 pm » wrote:The coward hides behind troll excuses about "the wrong thread."

Well now we're in the "right thread."


So what's your excuse this time?

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 7:05 pm » wrote: Oh, clemmy. I don;t consider being trolled by you "pressure." I consider it "light work."

Thanks for dropping by.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 7:07 pm » wrote:
Oh, so the reason you stonewalled my questions over and over and over and over is because they're so easy!

Thanks for revealing to everyone on the board what a hopeless empty suit you are.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote:Carter grew the economy in the four years of HIS budget 78,79, 80 and 81 (he took office in 77, but that was ford's year - and a good one) faster than reagan did in his eight years 81-89. If anyone wants to swap years (pretend 77 was Carter's, even though the fiscal year runs from October to October) that's fine, too. Either way, Carter ROMPS on Reagan - I just want to be accurate.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Ye ... istory.htm

In 4 years, carter grew the economy to 154% of where he took over. It was 2.086 trillion in 77 when he took office, and 3.211 trillion for 81 - his last fiscal budget. The numbers are even better if you run it by election year rather than fiscal year (the more accurate and honest measure).

In his 8 years, Reagan took the economy from 3.211 trillion - Carter's last fiscal year - to 5,6577 trillion in 1989 - his last fiscal year, That's an increase to 177% of what it was when he took over - in EIGHT years. Carter almost made that figure in FOUR years.

Aided and abbetted by a willing conservative MSM, repukes have floated a false narrative about Carter and reagan, playing the former as befuddled and incompetent and the latter as an economic goliath. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is why, in the face of ALL EVIDENCE, contards pretend the press is "librul." It's called projection.

I want to give credit where it's due: Glory Hole Clem is the fool who got me to googling and discovering these facts. My own nature is what gets me crowing about it.

Contards, you are on notice: CARTER WAS BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN. SO WAS CLINTON - BETTER THAN REAGAN, BUSH AND BUSH. You people suck at business and the economy - and everything else. You even suck off men in public bathrooms.

Just to remind everyone what the OP is, so that we can stay on topic.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 3:25 am » wrote:BUT THERE IS MORE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ublic_debt

Reagan grew the debt by ALMOST 7 TIMES what Carter grew it by.

Carter added 288 billions to the national debt - which actually REDUCED the debt as a portion of the GDP (due to how much it grew by under his hand, with a democrat congress).

Reagan added 1.873 TRILLIONS to the national debt, which GREW our national debt, as a function of GDP, for the first time since WW!! - TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT as measured in dollars (does not account for inflation), and grew it by a whopping 23.5% as a function of GDP (ACCOUNTS FOR INFLATION)!

In summary, Reagan oversaw a stagnant economy (at least, as measured against Jimmy Carter's or Bill Clinton's), AND he added to our national debt.

The conservatives in the mainstream media and on this board can spin and spin, but they cannot make these numbers go away.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 4:25 pm » wrote:
Hey, put yourself in m place, pal. You contards lack empathy.

YOU are dancing around the gas shortage! YOU are dancing around the fact that we had only recently switched to a fiat currency. YOU are dancing around the fact that Reagan BORROWED PROSPERITY from the precious, precious unborn!

tharock220 » 18 Feb 2014 10:34 pm » wrote:
Reagan borrowed money because the strong US economy allowed him to find buyers of government bonds other than the Federal Reserve. Carter's weak economy due to high inflation prevented him from doing so.

You're defending your thread which states why Carter was better for the economy with all the reasons Carter's economy sucked. You can't have it both ways dude.

Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 7:03 am » wrote:If you don't like the use of annualised GDP, feel free to use a different measure, explain why it's better and provide numbers that support your argument.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 7:11 pm » wrote: Yes, clemmie, you have beaten me all over the board. I would beg for mercy, but I lack the requisite energy after the well documented, well argued thrashing you have given me.

Now I'm gonna get some ice cream. I enjoy putting your beatings on my ice cream.

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 3:49 am » wrote: Glory Hole just name calls and shouts slogans. You'll have to deal with someone else, if you wan a reasoned post.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:21 pm » wrote: No. I am arguing that they are not, in and of themselves, facts.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:21 pm » wrote: No. I am arguing that they are not, in and of themselves, facts.

Spirit of Molly » 19 Feb 2014 12:11 pm » wrote:That dastardly left-wing rag Forbes says that Carter had a better job creation record than Reagan

Spirit of Molly » 19 Feb 2014 12:11 pm » wrote:That dastardly left-wing rag Forbes says that Carter had a better job creation record than Reagan