Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:53 pm » wrote: I can just as easily sit here and....

And lie forever.

Congress never would have passed Reagan's tax cuts without his economic philosophy and political persuasion and power.

Only a liar would claim it was"Congress' tax cut."

Live with it, bitch.

Yes, we all know you're a shameless, unrepentant liar.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 5:35 pm » wrote: Look at the chart, retard. Look at Carter's RED line - the FULL TIME JOB line. It shoots up like a rocket. As soon as reagan takes over, it plummets - and never matches the blue line until he's gone.

.

Oh, that's just so clever!

First dealing with one stat, full job growth, then trying to sneak into another set of stats, comparing full time and part time job growth.

How typically deceitful and sneaky.

Anyone with eyes can see the full time AND part time job lines rising strongly and steadily once Reagan's tax cuts take full effect into an historic economic boom.

Not to mention dishonestly trying to pretend that Reagan was to blame for the 1982 recession.

golfboy » 19 Feb 2014 4:29 pm » wrote: 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.

Not to mention, inflation almost certainly isn't factored in.

Meaning by the psychotic's ranting pseudo-logic, one of the most economically successful countries in the world is Communist Zimbabwe, whose economy grew by maybe 700,000% last year!

Now they're all fabulously rich!

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 4:34 pm » wrote: Oh, that's just so clever!

First dealing with one stat, full job growth, then trying to sneak into another set of stats, comparing full time and part time job growth.

How typically deceitful and sneaky.

Nothing sneaky. Beat ya in BOTH, son.

What part of this jobs chart do you not understand?



Jobs was where you LAST moved the bar to. You followed me thread to thread, squawking about jobs.

So I SHOWED you jobs and now you're moving the goal posts AGAIN.

Okay, where to THIS TIME, retard?

What'r reagan's NEW claim to fame, with the following destroyed:

Small Government - Carter
Fiscal responsibility - Carter
Smaller deficits - Carter
Smaller debt to GDp growth - Carter
Less borrowing - Carter
BETTER JOBS RECORD - carter

Okay, Glory Hole, were to next. Set the goal post at your next desperate location an let's put the ball in play.

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 2:43 pm » wrote:
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.

Just some simple math shows that 10,300,000/4yrs = 2,575,000
yr., and Raygun had 16,100,00/8 = 2,012,500
yr. Looks to me like Carter created more jobs, and more jobs a year than Raygun. Everything else is BS!!!

shintao » 19 Feb 2014 7:47 pm » wrote:
Lust some simple shows that 10,300,000/4yrs = 2,575,000
yr., and Raygun had 16,100,00/8 = 2,012,500
yr. Looks to me like Carter created more jobs, and more jobs a year than Raygun. Everything else is BS!!!

Yes, Reagan scored 2 million per year. 25% of that is a half million. Carter scored a half million MORE jobs per year that ronald mcdonald.

So, if you take reagan's jobs record, and add 25% again, THAT is what Carter produced - but that is half the story.

Carter was in a global recession, sitting on top of a global emergency - the energy crisis. Just imagine if Carter'd had reagan's tailwind in his favor!

Also, half of REAGAN'S jobs were at mickey dees, after he tied tax cuts to hiring more and more part timers to COOK THE BOOKS.

Reagan was a goofball.




He ran from his scandals, he cut and ran from Lebanon - hell, he even ran from the oldest son of GHW Bush's top donor and family friend, John Warnock Hinckley, Sr.

I need to redo this

Just some simple math shows that Carter created 10,300,000jobs/4yrs = created 2,575,000 yr.,

and Raygun created 16,100,00jobs/8ys = 2,012,500 yr.


Looks to me like Carter created 562,500 more jobs a year than Raygun. Everything else is BS!!!

shintao » 19 Feb 2014 8:36 pm » wrote:I need to redo this

Just some simple math shows that Carter created 10,300,000jobs/4yrs = created 2,575,000 yr.,

and Raygun created 16,100,00jobs/8ys = 2,012,500 yr.

Looks to me like Carter created 562,500 more jobs a year than Raygun. Everything else is BS!!!

Yes, he saw reagan's jobs record and beat it by 25% again.

But again - that's in a down economy, against a guy using the tax code to push part time work, "teaching to the test," in essence. Backwards engineering his results, in other words - manipulating the data.

Hate people who do that.

shintao » 19 Feb 2014 8:36 pm » wrote:I need to redo this

Just some simple math shows that Carter created 10,300,000jobs/4yrs = created 2,575,000 yr.,

and Raygun created 16,100,00jobs/8ys = 2,012,500 yr.

Looks to me like Carter created 562,500 more jobs a year than Raygun. Everything else is BS!!!

Who looks at the average number of jobs created a year? That makes no sense...

shintao » 19 Feb 2014 7:47 pm » wrote:
Just some simple math shows that 10,300,000/4yrs = 2,575,000
yr., and Raygun had 16,100,00/8 = 2,012,500
yr. Looks to me like Carter created more jobs, and more jobs a year than Raygun. Everything else is BS!!!

Maybe Forbes is lying? To make carter look good?

I mean, you can't trust the librul meedja.

AmazonTania » 19 Feb 2014 8:49 pm » wrote:
Who looks at the average number of jobs created a year? That makes no sense...

Shintao does. I do. We're comparing results. It is an objective measure.

Your post makes no sense. What difference does it make to our thesis (Reagans suck and Carter rocks), whether we compare averages or compare aggregates?

How is one more or less nonsensical than the other, when the only purpose of the comparison was to compare? Did we USE THE DATA in any way OTHER than to compare? Did we, for example, try to skew the math of one particular year in the set, by saying, "well, carter DID create [whatever that average number was - 2.5 mil or something] that year?"

Did we?

No.

So the comparison was not used for any chicanery. It was not used in the place of a more appropriate number. No one was held to a separate standard. There was no harm, there was no foul.

You seem to do this **** a LOT: This general grumbling while we hand you your ***. It betrays your agenda, which is manifestly NOT a search fro truth but a desire to protect the prevailing narrative.

I am throwing numbers from reputable (to date, unchallenged) sources that blow the prevailing narrative to ****. If you're looking to call **** on my thesis, you need to get busy. What you have managed so far is to reveal that you think there are more than three branches of government, or, as a back up position, you believe that agencies of government exist which are neither executive, legislative or judicial.

That throws mud on your shiny new paint job, young lady. It detracts from your credibility, as this is a POLITICAL board, and even the worst hacks on this board have more civics under their belts than to buy THAT pure ****.

Now, get some steel in that spine. Put up a post with some meat. And keep your elbows off the table. Carriage, young lady - carriage!

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 7:23 am » wrote: Yes, it is incorrect, and if you knew just the very basics about that period, you'd have rejected it off the top of your head.

^^^^^
This is why no one respects you.
No facts to counter. Just bais vague meaningless ****. Amped up with bolding and insults. You are doing your cause a disservice and I wouldn't be surprised if your own minions tell you to stfu soon....yeah right. Repubs always circle their own burning wagons....just look at the Regan legacy.

shintao » 19 Feb 2014 8:36 pm » wrote:I need to redo this

Just some simple math shows that Carter created 10,300,000jobs/4yrs = created 2,575,000 yr.,

and Raygun created 16,100,00jobs/8ys = 2,012,500 yr.

Looks to me like Carter created 562,500 more jobs a year than Raygun. Everything else is BS!!!

FOOL
it does not matter how many jobs are created. The jobs lost and required to be created to keep up with population growth need to be equal or less than that number of jobs created or we lose. Currently we need more than 545,000 jobs a month to keep up with population growth. But listen to the administration crow about 250,000 jobs created in a month and later downgrade that number. Reagan created real jobs that increased the % of people working. Clinton grew the % a little. Bush caused some drop and then leveled but Obama has taken us below the end of Carters stagflation.


This is the graph that tells the real story about people working. It is normalized for population.

This queer thinks the thread's about obiewan.^^^^

What a clown.

Once again, another tard cannot touch my OP. Win CP.

Note, also, that the homosexual uses a chart which counts "labor force participation" - a sneaky reagan euphemism for PART TIME JOB!

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 6:23 pm » wrote: Nothing sneaky. Beat ya in BOTH, son.

What part of this jobs chart do you not understand?

Why I ever wasted my time with a dishonest psychotic.

Have a nice little troll life.

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2014 6:23 pm » wrote:What'r reagan's NEW claim to fame, with the following destroyed:

Small Government - Carter
Fiscal responsibility - Carter
Smaller deficits - Carter
Smaller debt to GDp growth - Carter
Less borrowing - Carter
BETTER JOBS RECORD - carter

Okay, Glory Hole, were to next. Set the goal post at your next desperate location an let's put the ball in play.

I can only assume with this astounding intellectual development and historical revelation that you've called a press conference to announce your findings.

Historians will be re-writing history books!


Economists will be re-thinking their theories!

Officials at the Reagan Library will be weeping and considering closing its doors!

All because of your brilliance!

Have a nice troll life, imbecile.

RichClem » 20 Feb 2014 8:02 am » wrote:
Why I ever wasted my time with a dishonest psychotic.

Have a nice little troll life.

Okay, thanks for stopping by. Nice seeing you.

RichClem » 20 Feb 2014 8:05 am » wrote: I can only assume with this astounding intellectual development and historical revelation that you've called a press conference to announce your findings.

Historians will be re-writing history books!

Economists will be re-thinking their theories!

Officials at the Reagan Library will be weeping and considering closing its doors!

Oh, your back.

So, still nothing? I pissed on your meme, exposed your hero as a mediocrity, proved that Carter beat him in every relevant measure, and you bring more rhetoric?

I thought you had made it to anger, richie, but I fear you are still in denial. That's disappointing. But you must grieve at your own pace, not mine. God bless you.

RichClem » 20 Feb 2014 8:05 am » wrote:Have a nice troll life, imbecile.

Okay, thanks for stopping by. Nice seeing you.

I guess it's time to repost this:

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 » 20 Feb 2014 4:25 pm » wrote:I guess it's time to repost this:

The year 1977 is the base year. Carter budgeted years 78, 79, 80 and 81. He grew the economy TO 154% of where he took it over.

If you prefer, I will use 77 through 80 as his years, with 76 as the base - but you won;t be happier. You'll go even DEEPER into denial.

Or - get ready, get ready, get ready...

YOU COULD SHOW US YOUR MATH, THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO DEFEND.

Not gonna happen!

You're in denial, throwing rocks. You got nothin' - we get it. You prove it every time you refuse to show the "right" math.

There sure were a lot of bathroomers crying in their beers over this thread.

Carter - a great president, or the GREATEST president? I report, you decide.