Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote: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.

Would a sane, informed person ever accept such utter hooey?

An economy growing by 50% during the Carter years? Freaking ridiculous.

And what does his last fiscal budget have to do with anything?

You're mixing paint thinner with maple syrup.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 12:23 pm » wrote:
Would a sane, informed person ever accept such utter hooey?

An economy growing by 50% during the Carter years? Freaking ridiculous.

And what does his last fiscal budget have to do with anything?

You're mixing paint thinner with maple syrup.

I think you've been drinking too much paint thinner.

This thread must really be painful to you.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 1:15 pm » wrote:And, enter the fallacies:
"As is well know," as Josef Goebbels used to say...

When someone points out established, accepted reality, psychotics make comparisons with Nazis.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 12:23 pm » wrote:
Would a sane, informed person ever accept such utter hooey?

An economy growing by 50% during the Carter years? Freaking ridiculous.

And what does his last fiscal budget have to do with anything?

You're mixing paint thinner with maple syrup.

Did you notice that cannon gave Carter credit for 5 years, 77 through 81? No to mention the "to 154%", which clearly is dishonest, trying to make Carter's "accomplishment" look better than it was.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:05 pm » wrote: WHAT SOURCES, moonbat? You have not brought ONE SOURCE to this thread.

So a fact-filled and logic-filled column by a prestigious columnist isn't a source?

We're supposed to accept your psychotic moonbat judgment over his?

We all know now that you're just an excuse-generating, shameless lying troll.

golfboy » 19 Feb 2014 12:33 pm » wrote: Did you notice that cannon gave Carter credit for 5 years, 77 through 81? No to mention the "to 154%", which clearly is dishonest, trying to make Carter's "accomplishment" look better than it was.

It is arguably acceptable to credit or blame a president for an economic trend that continues after he leaves office.

Carter's trend was DOWN, to anyone with eyes, which excludes psychotics and liars.


And anyone with the slightest knowledge about the era would immediately see that the GDP numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, assuming they're correct at all.

But psychotics bleat with glee about what a huge success Carter was.

golfboy » 19 Feb 2014 12:33 pm » wrote: Did you notice that cannon gave Carter credit for 5 years, 77 through 81? No to mention the "to 154%", which clearly is dishonest, trying to make Carter's "accomplishment" look better than it was.

More info on Cannon's lie:

1977 4.6% $2,086.0
1978 5.6% $2,356.6
1979 3.2% $2,632.1
1980 -0.2% $2,862.5
1981 2.6% $3,210.9

In order to reach Cannon's "to 154%% claim, you have to give him credit for gdp growth in 1977 AND 1981. Since he was only President for 4 years, you can only give him credit for 4 years. either 1977 through 1980, or 1978 through 1981.
When you do that, you find his actual increase was only 37.1%, or "up to 137%" in 1977 through 1980 in Cannon's vernacular, or 36.3% for 1978 through 1980.

No matter which date range you select, Cannon is a liar.

golfboy » 19 Feb 2014 12:49 pm » wrote: More info on Cannon's lie:

1977 4.6% $2,086.0
1978 5.6% $2,356.6
1979 3.2% $2,632.1
1980 -0.2% $2,862.5
1981 2.6% $3,210.9

Looks like a strong downward trend, especially if you include 1982 which saw the worst recession since the Great Depression.

CP claimed that Carter left Reagan a strong economy.

Cannon is a liar.

That's very well established.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 12:17 pm » wrote:
I have a subscription and have never heard of the moonbat.

But established, accepted reality is that Carter was a disaster on the economy.

Underlining it makes it no more defensible, retard.



Carter created over ten million jobs in HALF the time it took Reagan to create 16 million - and a higher percentage of Reagan's were part time and low wage service sector jobs - MCJOBS.

Furthermore, Carter had a smaller population to work with - so there should be some adjustment for THAT.

Also, carter did not extend amnesty to illegal aliens, thus daylighting their jobs and taking credit for "creating" jobs that were merely moved from the underground economy to the official economy.

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

This link will earn you an indulgence, my son. You have my undying gratitude. I have incorporated it into the OP by the magic of my edit power, applied in the spirit of this thread being NUMBER ONE ON GOOGLE (WOO HOO) when you search, "Carter grew the economy."

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 2:43 pm » wrote: Underlining it makes it no more defensible, retard.

It's called accepted reality, psycho, underline or not. The issue is settled, not that you were ever aware it happened.

And no useless chart hides the fact that your claim Carter left Reagan a strong economy was stupidly wrong.

Carter created over ten million jobs in HALF the time it took Reagan to create 16 million - and a higher percentage of Reagan's were part time and low wage service sector jobs - MCJOBS.

What Carter policies resulted in job creation, troll? Name them and give us a laugh.

And after receiving a moderately health economy, he left the it on the verge of collapse; on the edge of a depression.

Resulting in the worst recession since the Great Depression, with unemployment hitting 10 or 11%. Real unemployment might well have been higher.

Meaning whatever jobs were created might well have been lost.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 3:17 pm » wrote:
It's called accepted reality, psycho, underline or not. The issue is settled, not that you were ever aware it happened.

That's your position. Others may differ.

You asked about Reagan's job creation. You have received your answer: Good, but not nearly as good as Carter.

Carter wins on borrowing. Carter wins on reducing the debt to GDP ratio. Carter wins on keeping the debt low. Carter wins on jobs. Carter wins on never breaking the law to get what he waned. Carter win on not having a rogue colonel dealing WMDs and drugs out of the pentagon.

Carter wins on not federalizing education and thus attacking states rights. Carter wins on creating mostly FULL TIME jobs instead manipulating the tax laws to create a bunch of part time pretend jobs.

Carter wins on counting THE JOBLESS in his unemployment figures, instead of only those drawing unemployment benefits.

Carter wins on shrinking, not growing, government. Carter wins on keeping our soldiers alive, instead of getting them bombed, then cutting and running.

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 3:26 pm » wrote: That's your position. Others may differ.

True, there are always a few fringe, clueless imbeciles.

It's settled to everyone else.

You asked about Reagan's job creation. You have received your answer: Good, but not nearly as good as Carter.

Once again ignoring the fact that Carter left an economy in chaos and on the verge of collapse.

Carter wins on borrowing. Carter wins on reducing the debt to GDP ratio. Carter wins on keeping the debt low. Carter wins on jobs. Carter wins on never breaking the law to get what he waned. Carter win on not having a rogue colonel dealing WMDs and drugs out of the pentagon.

Carter wins on not federalizing education and thus attacking states rights. Carter wins on creating mostly FULL TIME jobs instead manipulating the tax laws to create a bunch of part time pretend jobs.

Carter wins on counting THE JOBLESS in his unemployment figures, instead of only those drawing unemployment benefits.

Carter wins on shrinking, not growing, government. Carter wins on keeping our soldiers alive, instead of getting them bombed, then cutting and running.

Putting your ignorant, psychotic opinion over those who are more knowledgeable and have better judgment.

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 3:26 pm » wrote: That's your position. Others may differ.

No, that's a blatant lie, as usual. That was the opinion of liberal Time, liberal Newsweek, the liberal New Republic and every major network that reported their facts and conclusions.

Many if not most liberal historians have finally accepted reality, too.

It was also the position of every conservative publication and public figure of whom I'm aware.

So who exactly do you have on your side, moonbat?

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 3:48 pm » wrote: Once again ignoring the fact that Carter left an economy in chaos and on the verge of collapse.

You keep frantically moving the bar, and you keep getting your *** handed to you.

Come on, tell the truth. You HAVE to be embarrassed. Are you going to cut and run again, like you did after gloating about romney's impending triumph?

Be honest. This is for posterity.

How bad does it feel, having ALL OF THIS POSITIVE STUFF ABOUT CARTER shoved right down your talking-points parroting gullet?

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 3:51 pm » wrote:
No, that's a blatant lie, as usual. That was the opinion of liberal Time, liberal Newsweek, the liberal New Republic and every major network that reported their facts and conclusions.

Many if not most liberal historians have finally accepted reality, too.

It was also the position of every conservative publication and public figure of whom I'm aware.

So who exactly do you have on your side, moonbat?

Math, as already shoved down your throat.

Forbes, as already shoved down your throat.

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 3:53 pm » wrote: You keep frantically moving the bar, and you keep getting your *** handed to you.

Moving the bar? What a shameless freaking lie. How many times do I have to repeat what's historically established?

Carter left an economy in chaos and on the verge of collapse. You lied that he left a strong economy, which even your stats show to be false.

And you ignored my factual citation from Wiki.

Come on, tell the truth. You HAVE to be embarrassed. Are you going to cut and run again, like you did after gloating about romney's impending triumph?

Be honest. This is for posterity.

How bad does it feel, having ALL OF THIS POSITIVE STUFF ABOUT CARTER shoved right down your talking-points parroting gullet?

I don't care how dishonest and psychotic you are.

Dodge questions? Perish the thought!

Where's the psychotic?

.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 7:46 am » wrote: Facts are not facts if they're cited in an oped or column?

So if either carry the date, that's not a fact?

If either cites the cost of Obama's Stimulus, that's not a fact?

If either note that X million jobs were created in 2013, that's not a fact?

If either give the price of gold on a particular date, that's not a fact?

Thanks for confirming once again that you're severely mentally ill as well as a shameless liar.

Where's the psychotic?

Busy writing more bulls***, fiction and lies.

.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:27 pm » wrote: Oh, so you have no idea what the conditions were. Thanks for admitting that.

Inflation that peaked at roughly 12%.

A recession Carter's last year in office.

A Prime Rate that exceeded 20%.

Plummeting incomes his last couple years in office.

A rising Misery Index, that fell under Reagan.

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 3:55 pm » wrote:Math, as already shoved down your throat.

Damn man, you're the LAST person that should be talking about math... I've been shoving your own numbers down your throat for days now.

golfboy » 19 Feb 2014 12:49 pm » wrote: More info on Cannon's lie:

1977 4.6% $2,086.0
1978 5.6% $2,356.6
1979 3.2% $2,632.1
1980 -0.2% $2,862.5
1981 2.6% $3,210.9

In order to reach Cannon's "to 154%% claim, you have to give him credit for gdp growth in 1977 AND 1981. Since he was only President for 4 years, you can only give him credit for 4 years. either 1977 through 1980, or 1978 through 1981.
When you do that, you find his actual increase was only 37.1%, or "up to 137%" in 1977 through 1980 in Cannon's vernacular, or 36.3% for 1978 through 1980.

No matter which date range you select, Cannon is a liar.