Liberal Forum

crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 12:04 pm » wrote:
I was in the adult world under both of them, I will stick with Reagan for results. Carter was stuck with the title of most incompetent POTUS ever, till now.

translation:
because I am so programmed that I must attach my agenda to meaningless labels to make it seem like I have more that a peabrain.

crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 12:00 pm » wrote:
Only under Carter did mortgage rates equal credit card rates.

I was going to get to that, but the lolberals' inability to do basic percentage change calculations diverted me. GDP doesn't distinguish between real growth and inflation. An example, under liberal economics if one widget is $1 in 2013 and it's $2 in 2014 then that's growth. Conversely, if a widget is $1 in 2013, but two are produced in 2014 for $.50 each, then you have had no growth. Basically, all of Jimmy Carter's growth was inflation.

I have always been pragmatic and results orientated and pay little attention to Carter supporters in this thread. Their kumbaya clouded memory of Carter has no bottom line results.

As far as positive results, Reagan left Carter in the dust.

Carter took an economy growing at over 5%, and handed it off at -0.2%
Reagan took that -0.2% and left it at 4.2%.

And idiots like Cannon claim Carter was a success.

Brattle Street » 16 Feb 2014 12:09 pm » wrote:
translation:
because I am so programmed that I must attach my agenda to meaningless labels to make it seem like I have more that a peabrain.

Simply look at the results of each administration, then talk agenda. Carter damned near took us under with incompetency, not too mention damaging the American spirit more than any POTUS to date at that time. He has now been surpassed by barry for that title.

crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 12:04 pm » wrote: I was in the adult world under both of them, I will stick with Reagan for results. Carter was stuck with the title of most incompetent POTUS ever, till now.

Because I know you're my age and lived through the gas lines, I'll stand beside you on that.

Golfboy has no such experience. He relies on soundbites.

Defend the little **** if you want. I know for a fact that neither Carter nor Reagan was all hearts, flowers and good times. The state of the union's been going downhill since Vietnam.

greatnpowerfuloz » 16 Feb 2014 12:23 pm » wrote:
Because I know you're my age and lived through the gas lines, I'll stand beside you on that.

Golfboy has no such experience. He relies on soundbites.

Defend the little **** if you want. I know for a fact that neither Carter nor Reagan was all hearts, flowers and good times. The state of the union's been going downhill since Vietnam.

I love someone as uninformed as you, claiming others don't have the "experience" to debate.
I just showed you the GDP numbers for Carter and Reagan, do you dispute those numbers?
No. All you can do is launch another ignorant personal attack.

Again, I go to results, GDP statistics under either one have no meaning. Results do, so Reagan wins easily on that.

To ozzie, no politician has ever been all roses.

crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 12:20 pm » wrote:I have always been pragmatic and results orientated and pay little attention to Carter supporters in this thread. Their kumbaya clouded memory of Carter has no bottom line results.

As far as positive results, Reagan left Carter in the dust.

Anecdotes are fun and all, and I don't know you personally so I'm not trying to be a dick, but what you experienced individually is not indicative of a President's overall success.

All I'm saying is when inflation is higher than growth, you're not really doing that well. Maybe your personal account of the times squares with what my numbers say.

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 6:09 am » wrote:
Hilarious that the psychotic is standing by this stunningly stupid claim.

But he must have an absolutely impeccable source, having rejected every one of mine!

about.com



Let's see more of the wisdom and subject matter carried by his source. CP would never, EVER cite a questionable source!

Wow, they have a candy "expert!"

And an expert on grandfathers!

Then they must be experts on Economics and history, too!

I love psychotic moonbat humor!

So, you make no claim that my source is partisan - just that they are not entirley political in their reportage?

And you post no alternative numbes. You do not disagree with my numbers, AT ALL. You merely make weak attempts to mock my source - again, not by any claim of partisanship and not by any claim of inaccuracy. Just by an irrelevant ad hominem.

So you got nothin?

K. That's one contard down - didn't even TRY.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 12:32 pm » wrote: So, you make no claim that my source is partisan - just that they are not entirley political in their reportage?

And you post no alternative numbes. You do not disagree with my numbers, AT ALL. You merely make weak attempts to mock my source - again, not by any claim of partisanship and not by any claim of inaccuracy. Just by an irrelevant ad hominem.

So you got nothin?

K. That's one contard down - didn't even TRY.

I didn't need to make a claim that your source was partisan, I used your own source to kick your *** with the facts.
Your link shows that Carter took an economy growing at over 5%, and handed it off at -0.2%
Reagan took that -0.2% and left it at 4.2%.

crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 12:20 pm » wrote:I have always been pragmatic and results orientated and pay little attention to Carter supporters in this thread. Their kumbaya clouded memory of Carter has no bottom line results.

As far as positive results, Reagan left Carter in the dust.

So, nothin then? Thanks. Ctiminy. That's two who cannot refute an iota of my thesis, hiding behind vaguely implied anecdotal evidence which he hasn't even the temerity to harrumph into a fully formed lie. Well done - two down.

tharock220 » 16 Feb 2014 12:29 pm » wrote:
Anecdotes are fun and all, and I don't know you personally so I'm not trying to be a dick, but what you experienced individually is not indicative of a President's overall success.

All I'm saying is when inflation is higher than growth, you're not really doing that well. Maybe your personal account of the times squares with what my numbers say.

DAMIT! I had grown fond of this lantern! ANGRY FACE EMOTICON!

tharock220 » 16 Feb 2014 12:29 pm » wrote:
Anecdotes are fun and all, and I don't know you personally so I'm not trying to be a dick, but what you experienced individually is not indicative of a President's overall success.

All I'm saying is when inflation is higher than growth, you're not really doing that well. Maybe your personal account of the times squares with what my numbers say.

Not throwing rocks here either. IN my corporate days, I have seen many an exec on the way out due to failure try to claim success with numbers.

Only numbers that matter are bottom line numbers.

Given enough google time, one can contradict any number or graph posted on this forum, but it never changes the bottom line.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 12:38 pm » wrote: I didn't need to make a claim that your source was partisan, I used your own source to kick your *** with the facts.
Your link shows that Carter took an economy growing at over 5%, and handed it off at -0.2%
Reagan took that -0.2% and left it at 4.2%.

I'll go peek, chicken lips - but I already know you played cook-the-books by two facts:

1. You're using 1 year to describe Carter's economy, and
2. It wasn't his last year in office - it was the election years when Reagan was never president - the year Carter made his budget two months before the election.

You're a sad little fellow, but at least for all of your dishonesty you have the balls to try - something criminy and clemtard lacked.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 12:41 pm » wrote:
I'll go peek, chicken lips - but I already know you played cook-the-books by two facts:

1. You're using 1 year to describe Carter's economy, and
2. It wasn't his last year in office - it was the election years when Reagan was never president - the year Carter made his budget two months before the election.

You're a sad little fellow, but at least for all of your dishonesty you have the balls to try - something criminy and clemtard lacked.

I'm not suing 1 year to describe Carter's economy, I used his entire Presidency. Do please try to keep up.

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.

That, he will not do. He has already counted himself out. He's jut here to jeer from the cheap seats.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 12:46 pm » wrote: I'm not suing 1 year to describe Carter's economy, I used his entire Presidency. Do please try to keep up.

Not in the post that I responded to, you didn't. You used his third fiscal year to define what he "turned over" to Reagan. That was dishonest on two counts but, as I said, better then clem and crimson.

Here, since you're busy waiting until I get to your attempt at a rebuttal and shred it, refute these numbers (since they refute your thesis) - or mock them without providing alternative numbers - whatever it is you feel you need to do:

title=US%20Federal%20Debt%20Since%20The%20Founding&units=p&size=l&year=1970_2000&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a&spending0=36.69_36.22_35.22_33.73_32.27_33.09_34.47_34.80_33.86_32.37_32.60_31.82_34.96_38.81_39.80_43.09_47.54_49.53_51.00_52.31_55.28_60.05_63.10_65.26_65.54_66.36_66.10_64.44_62.30_59.93_56.56

crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 12:41 pm » wrote:
Not throwing rocks here either. IN my corporate days, I have seen many an exec on the way out due to failure try to claim success with numbers.

Only numbers that matter are bottom line numbers.

Given enough google time, one can contradict any number or graph posted on this forum, but it never changes the bottom line.

Hey I'll be the first to admit numbers can be used in basically any way that suits your needs. The OP is a prime example of that. The point is that anecdotes are not an effective form of debate when talking about something like a President's success.

crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 12:20 pm » wrote:I have always been pragmatic and results orientated and pay little attention to Carter supporters in this thread. Their kumbaya clouded memory of Carter has no bottom line results.

As far as positive results, Reagan left Carter in the dust.

By lowering the marginal tax on higher income brackets and raising them on the lower income brackets. By relying more heavily on payroll tax and new investment tax for revenue than on taxes on higher earners and capital gains (which he subsequently raised back up to 28% after cutting them to 20%). By being the first to raid the SS fund. By increasing public expenditure (normally a growth move) by raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion and by doing so, turning the US from being the biggest creditor nation into the biggest debtor nation.

Yeah, Reagan was first at a lot of things. And they all served to make him look better than Carter when viewed in isolation. But in retrospect, any good economist can to point to Reagan's policies as the start of the decline that has led the economy to where it is today.

So kudos to Reagan for coming out smelling sweeter than Carter. 30 odd years later, we see how well the Gipper **** on us and no one thinks he smells very good at all.

Cedarswamp » 16 Feb 2014 7:52 am » wrote: You fail to account for inflation.

In the OP, yes. To account for inflation, you have to look at the debt to GDP ratio as the standard of measure. I did it in a follow-on post:

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

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

blaq bla, bla bla,

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.

There ya go. I accounted for inflation.