Liberal Forum

Carter was handed a roaring economy and drove it into the ground:
1977 4.6% $2,086.0
1978 5.6% $2,356.6
1979 3.2% $2,632.1
1980 -0.2% $2,862.5

tharock220 » 10 Mar 2014 1:09 pm » wrote:
Again, we're not talking about your respect for Reagan's economy, we're talking about your thesis which is a comparison of their individual economies. You're losing your initial argument, and you know this. So your response has been to attack the Reagan's policies, but doing so does not support your initial assertion that Carter's economy as better.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gdp-adju ... ion-2011-5

**** and poppycock, son. Proving Carter sucks - which you AIN'T - would not even put a tiny DENT in my thesis, if I proved Reagan sucked worse. You've defeated my argument for one element of the economy, but as you know from a shameful career of desperately defending incompetent republicans, context matters. For starters, I have arguments that mitigate in favor of Carter even in the face of that inflation, which you cannot deny belongs to Nixon. The only setback I have suffered is that his economy was flat to slightly down - admittedly a SLIGHT potential handicap in a thread designed to crow about economic growth.

But wait, there's more. If Carter's economy, under a lesser man such as reagan, would have shrunk at a much faster rate, that is onl one of several ways my thesis is still in the running. I have not even had time to run the numbers on Reagan as regards inflation - and we STILL have to sort through the fact that Reagan had two enormous crutches that Carter did not have: Reagan was borrowing annually, on average, almost what Carter borrowed in four. When your guy is getting the proven benefit of Keynesian stimulus (He DID prove the benefit - right? Or did he fail?), the comparison is not apples to apples. You're gonna have to account for Reagan's inflation, Reagan's borrowing, and Reagan's raiding of Social Security in order to give me an apples to apples comparison before you get to go crowing, son.

I smell fear. You remind me of an elephant I raped, son - all spooky and fidgety, but knowing it was gonna happen and knowing it was gonna hurt.

Cannonpointer » 10 Mar 2014 1:39 pm » wrote:
**** and poppycock, son. Proving Carter sucks - which you AIN'T - would not even put a tiny DENT in my thesis, if I proved Reagan sucked worse. You've defeated my argument for one element of the economy, but as you know from a shameful career of desperately defending incompetent republicans, context matters. For starters, I have arguments that mitigate in favor of Carter even in the face of that inflation, which you cannot deny belongs to Nixon. The only setback I have suffered is that his economy was flat to slightly down - admittedly a SLIGHT potential handicap in a thread designed to crow about economic growth.

But wait, there's more. If Carter's economy, under a lesser man such as reagan, would have shrunk at a much faster rate, that is onl one of several ways my thesis is still in the running. I have not even had time to run the numbers on Reagan as regards inflation - and we STILL have to sort through the fact that Reagan had two enormous crutches that Carter did not have: Reagan was borrowing annually, on average, almost what Carter borrowed in four. When your guy is getting the proven benefit of Keynesian stimulus (He DID prove the benefit - right? Or did he fail?), the comparison is not apples to apples. You're gonna have to account for Reagan's inflation, Reagan's borrowing, and Reagan's raiding of Social Security in order to give me an apples to apples comparison before you get to go crowing, son.

I smell fear. You remind me of an elephant I raped, son - all spooky and fidgety, but knowing it was gonna happen and knowing it was gonna hurt.

For ****'s sake dude, I'm not arguing that Carter was bad, that Reagan was good, deficits, gold standards, or energy prices. You said Carter grew the economy much better than Reagan. My response was every year of Carter's presidency, inflation outpaced GDP growth. Changes in prices are part of GDP growth, that's why the BEA uses real growth by subtracting the inflation rate from GDP. So in reality, Carter's economy never grew once.

tharock220 » 10 Mar 2014 1:46 pm » wrote:
For ****'s sake dude, I'm not arguing that Carter was bad, that Reagan was good, deficits, gold standards, or energy prices. You said Carter grew the economy much better than Reagan. My response was every year of Carter's presidency, inflation outpaced GDP growth. Changes in prices are part of GDP growth, that's why the BEA uses real growth by subtracting the inflation rate from GDP. So in reality, Carter's economy never grew once.

Utterly irrelevant. I see how you are when I get you on the run.

Carter's economy would not have to grow, if Reagans shrunk more. So right there, without any further arguments of context, is an example of how full of **** you are when you say that the inflation issue NECESSARILY ends the debate.

You want to sit here and pretend that Carter's inflation actually matters, but Reagan's borrowing just gets a bye, Reagan's massive pile of **** he left in order to produce his results just gets a bye?

So you completely get apples to apples - and insist on it - when you like them apples and doing so give you the opportunity to ask me how I like them apples. But when the apples make you panic, make you quiver - when the apples mitigate against YOUR guy, - then all of a sudden, "That stuff is just a bunch of crap. It don't matter." The only apples that count are the ones that down your guy."

On top of all that, pal, I already acknowledged very clearly that you have partially defeated my OP, and I have as a result clarified my thesis. Sometimes OPs are written in haste, and what one is looking to argue is not clearly enunciated. If all you wanted was to prove Carter's economy - after inflation - was stagnant, then you are the victor and may the force be with you. But there are other comparisons left to make, for ME - and I say your drug store cowboy cannot - ON BALANCE - stand up to my peanut farmer. Puddemup, puddemup.

We have another issue in contention, as well. You know how that colored fella in the whitehouse is having himself a "jobless recovery?" And you know how that sucks for a lot of folks, on account of they consider having a job a sort of "economic" measure - as in, not having a job puts a strain on their economy?

Yeah, well, we are just gonna have to deal with the fact that one measure of the economy is employment - jobs. And a whole bunch of the jobs in the Reagan economy were created by Carter. How do I know? I got the chart - Forbes told me so.

I reckon, too, that if the entire economy that Reagan was accountable for had all gone to two guys guys, and everyone else had starved to death, he would not be judged by raw numbers ir inflation-adjusted numbers alone. There are more ingredients in a presidency than how much you can run up your grandkids' debt-slavery to "earn" the respect of folks who hate kids. There zare actually several comparisons where Reagan looks like a turd beside Carter - but let's address the issue of jobs for a minute.

Now, you have two problems comparing that lightweight ken doll to my peanut farmer, on the jobs front:

1. Carter Created a hell of a lot more jobs per annum than Reagan - more than 25% more. Hell, Carter out produced BOTH bushes and Gerry Ford. In fact, he DOUBLED the three of them - and between them, they served three terms and a ford fart.

2. The other issue id this game Reagan played with the tax code to manipulate (bribe with public money) employers into dumping their full timers and hiring two part timers to puff up reagan's numbers. He was always playing **** games like that - ketchup is a vegetable; a log with a nick in it is a "manufactured item for export" - he was more Clinton than Clinton on the manipulation tip.




For the record, I am dropping my sword and acknowledging my error as regards my original claim. Carter's economy was not QUITE as good as reagan's (though I think Carter was better on the economy - he just had too many republicans between him and the last non-republican president. He was batting clean up for an economy that was overheated by a guy trying to get re-elected and willing to do whatever foul thing it is that bad people do to overheat economies. Plus Nixon. He's poopy.

Carter served during a GLOBAL recession, so some of the other kids probably did some stuff.

Cannonpointer » 10 Mar 2014 2:02 pm » wrote:
Utterly irrelevant. I see how you are when I get you on the run.

Carter's economy would not have to grow, if Reagans shrunk more. So right there, without any further arguments of context, is an example of how full of **** you are when you say that the inflation issue NECESSARILY ends the debate.

You want to sit here and pretend that Carter's inflation actually matters, but Reagan's borrowing just gets a bye, Reagan's massive pile of **** he left in order to produce his results just gets a bye?

So you completely get apples to apples - and insist on it - when you like them apples and doing so give you the opportunity to ask me how I like them apples. But when the apples make you panic, make you quiver - when the apples mitigate against YOUR guy, - then all of a sudden, "That stuff is just a bunch of crap. It don't matter." The only apples that count are the ones that down your guy."

On top of all that, pal, I already acknowledged very clearly that you have partially defeated my OP, and I have as a result clarified my thesis. Sometimes OPs are written in haste, and what one is looking to argue is not clearly enunciated. If all you wanted was to prove Carter's economy - after inflation - was stagnant, then you are the victor and may the force be with you. But there are other comparisons left to make, for ME - and I say your drug store cowboy cannot - ON BALANCE - stand up to my peanut farmer. Puddemup, puddemup.

Your verbosity betrays your lack of evidence. I didn't say inflation under Reagan gets a bye. All I said was it was lower than GDP growth. Reagan's spending habits are not relevant to your OP. If you want to have that discussion we can do so, but you can't claim Carter's presidency produced a better economy than list the reasons why Carter's economy was worse. Do you not see anything wrong with that???

tharock220 » 11 Mar 2014 12:23 am » wrote:
Your verbosity betrays your lack of evidence. I didn't say inflation under Reagan gets a bye. All I said was it was lower than GDP growth. Reagan's spending habits are not relevant to your OP. If you want to have that discussion we can do so, but you can't claim Carter's presidency produced a better economy than list the reasons why Carter's economy was worse. Do you not see anything wrong with that???

Reagan's spending habits propped up a fake economy. Living on borrowed money is merely the ILLUSION of a "good" economy - not a genuinely good economy. You are defending the results of a big borrowing, big spending nanny government as a "good" economy. A genuinely good economy does not hinge on tripling the nation debt, son. And for you to pretend that his massive government spending was not stimulative and to ignore that it was based on borrowing and to say it has "nothing to do with the economy" - well, that's just silly, sir.

Carter's economy must be judged in the context of the three enormous challenges he inherited - challenges predicated on policies of previous democrat and republican administrations: a financial correction (currency inflation) caused by Nixon's withdrawal from Bretton Woods and embracing of fiat currency (a continuation of LBJ's friendship with paper money); the energy crisis - engineered during Nixon/Ford and sprung on Carter (He punished the perps with a windfall profits tax, but that did not undo the shock to our economy); and a global recession.

You have already seen the jobs created during the Carter years - more per year than Reagan by over 25%, and a higher percentage of them full time. How do you justify just breezing past more than ten million jobs in 4 years - a better jobs record than any president past or present? Are jobs - like borrowing and spending - not "part of the economy?"

Some stats about the US government:

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Now, remove 8 zeroes and pretend it’s a household budget:

• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/us-budget-nu ... level.html

GeorgeWashington » 12 Mar 2014 8:35 pm » wrote:Some stats about the US government:

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Now, remove 8 zeroes and pretend it’s a household budget:

• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/us-budget-nu ... level.html

Excellent explanation of why Reagan's "good" economy was a mirage. Reagan tripled the debt, ushering in the current era of big spending and taxing the unborn. The Von Mises Institute ranks Reagan very low - here's a paragraph that gives you a hint of the flavor:

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

"Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted."


Carter was the last president whose economy did not reflect theft from the unborn - but to conservatards, that is not just good: It's GREAT. He's the greatest president ever to these retards who celebrate the enslavement of those not yet born.

The flim flam man's part time job economy and massive sucking sound from Wall Street, his eating of the next generation's lunch, his massive inflation of the size and scope of government, his fake numbers predicated on borrowed stimulus - these are a sign of greatness (so long as a white man is doing them).

Cannonpointer » 12 Mar 2014 7:27 pm » wrote:
You have already seen the jobs created during the Carter years - more per year than Reagan by over 25%, and a higher percentage of them full time. How do you justify just breezing past more than ten million jobs in 4 years - a better jobs record than any president past or present? Are jobs - like borrowing and spending - not "part of the economy?"

Lol...Reagan's job numbers in his second term were better than Carter's kiddo. So unless you have evidence that Carter's job numbers would have been the same in a potential second term you're just posturing and trying to fudge the data.

If you want to have a discussion about Reagan's deficit spending I'll do it with you, but you can't say Reagan's economy was better because he increased the debt and Carter's was worse because of the gold standard and high energy prices in a thread where you're trying to show Carter's economy was better. Seriously Cannon, do you not see the contradictory nature of that???

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 1:19 pm » wrote: Lol...Reagan's job numbers in his second term were better than Carter's kiddo. So unless you have evidence that Carter's job numbers would have been the same in a potential second term you're just posturing and trying to fudge the data.

Link?

And be forewarned - I have the breakdown for Carter v Reagan as regards Full time v Part time - REAL jobs vs "ketchup is a vegetable" jobs.

That's the problem with your hero Ronnie. All of his numbers have asterisks next to them. None of the results you laud him for really belong to him. RIGHT NOW, today, on this board, there are people cussing the negro for Reagan's debts.

Yes, I can judge Reagan's economy IN CONTEXT. And carter's economy IN CONTEXT.

That is actually what any honest comparison strives to do - apples to apples, not apples to carburetors. When Reagan gets kudos for wild stimulus spending and tripling the national debt - kudos from people who are cursing obama for wild stimulus spending and barely even moving the national debt, relative to what Reagan did - then there is CLEARLY a context issue in the debate.

I doubt very seriously you are willing to cosign Obama's significantly more conservative approach to borrowing. Yet you are crediting Reagan's economic "accomplishments" without any consideration of what those "accomplishments" really were: Redistribution of wealth from the unborn to the born.

If Carter had tripled the debt to move enormous sums of money from one class to another, could he have counted that as part of HIS economy - with your support?

Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2014 1:36 pm » wrote:
Link?

And be forewarned - I have the breakdown for Carter v Reagan as regards Full time v Part time - REAL jobs vs "ketchup is a vegetable" jobs.

That's the problem with your hero Ronnie. All of his numbers have asterisks next to them. None of the results you laud him for really belong to him. RIGHT NOW, today, on this board, there are people cussing the negro for Reagan's debts.

Yes, I can judge Reagan's economy IN CONTEXT. And carter's economy IN CONTEXT.

That is actually what any honest comparison strives to do - apples to apples, not apples to carburetors. When Reagan gets kudos for wild stimulus spending and tripling the national debt - kudos from people who are cursing obama for wild stimulus spending and barely even moving the national debt, relative to what Reagan did - then there is CLEARLY a context issue in the debate.

I doubt very seriously you are willing to cosign Obama's significantly more conservative approach to borrowing. Yet you are crediting Reagan's economic "accomplishments" without any consideration of what those "accomplishments" really were: Redistribution of wealth from the unborn to the born.

If Carter had tripled the debt to move enormous sums of money from one class to another, could he have counted that as part of HIS economy - with your support?

Ironic you'd want to "consider things in context" when your OP, of which you were so proud, did no such thing and instead used raw GDP numbers.

Carter was limited on how much he could borrow because of his stagflation. So in addition to your assertion being invalid because it's speculative, it's also invalid because it's unrealistic.

Oh, and on the topic of full time vs part time, you mean like this graph here where it shows Reagan's full time job growth more than doubles Carter's???



And the nice thing about Reagan was the jobs stayed and income grew. Not so much with Carter dude.

The sad thing for Carter is millions of baby boomers came of age during his presidency. Reagan got generation x, a much smaller generation, coming of age, and he still managed to get more people into the labor force than Carter. 'Splain that one Lucy.

tharock220 » 11 Mar 2014 12:23 am » wrote: Your verbosity betrays your lack of evidence. I didn't say inflation under Reagan gets a bye. All I said was it was lower than GDP growth. Reagan's spending habits are not relevant to your OP. If you want to have that discussion we can do so, but you can't claim Carter's presidency produced a better economy than list the reasons why Carter's economy was worse. Do you not see anything wrong with that???

The Carter Presidency produced a better 'real' economy. Reagan's economy was propped up by borrowing. The trick is in taking out everything Reagan borrowed to boost the economy. Then you get to a place where apples to apples comparisons reside.

Even Reagan came to the conclusion that his initial supply side economic theories were doomed to failure. Fortunately, he recognized this fact early on and borrowed his way out of the hole he was digging the economy into. He liked the borrowing thing so well, he continued it until it eventually reaped some benefits. I have no great problem with Reagan's borrowing his way into a better economy. Consumption spending has been proven to revive economies (though only a portion of his spending was consumptive). His expansion of the EIC for instance, played a part in the recovery by boosting consumer spending. I do take great issue however, with policies he put in place that allowed for the free flow of immigrants into a labor market looking for cheap labor and which sought to move the wealth from the middle class to the upper class. We're still paying the price for those policies.

Carter was much more of a fiscal conservative than Reagan and could have pulled off even better results, had he chosen to substantially increase the debt and raid the SS fund.

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 2:02 pm » wrote: Ironic you'd want to "consider things in context" when your OP, of which you were so proud, did no such thing and instead used raw GDP numbers.

Carter was limited on how much he could borrow because of his stagflation. So in addition to your assertion being invalid because it's speculative, it's also invalid because it's unrealistic.

Oh, and on the topic of full time vs part time, you mean like this graph here where it shows Reagan's full time job growth more than doubles Carter's???



And the nice thing about Reagan was the jobs stayed and income grew. Not so much with Carter dude.

Your chart makes the affirmative claim that only 5.6 million jobs were created from 1978 to the present. Yet, you present other charts - as do I - crediting Reagan with 16 million jobs. That's nonsensical. Fun with numbers? I don't even know how to respond to something that makes no sense to me, and contradicts numbers that we both agree to.

Besides, if you look at how many of those jobs were as jail guards due to Reagan growing our prison population above that of every nation on earth, you will see that government spending accounted for an enormous part of Reagan's job growth:



Likewise, many of the jobs are making armaments - government jobs disguised as private sector because maga-corps are dipping their beaks. So much of Reagan's "success" is based on such "fun with numbers," made possible by Reagan's tripling of the national debt - selling the unborn into the very debt slavery that you complain about today.

When a guy is hiding his unemployment by refusing to count those not drawing benefits - Reagan was the first to pull that "ketchup is a vegetable" trick - and by jailing those who don't have jobs (creating government jobs for their guards), you pull a "double Reagan," as future mathematicians will eventually call the "fun with numbers" tricks used to justify Reaganomics.

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 2:02 pm » wrote:The sad thing for Carter is millions of baby boomers came of age during his presidency. Reagan got generation x, a much smaller generation, coming of age, and he still managed to get more people into the labor force than Carter. 'Splain that one Lucy.

Reagan's economy required two workers per family, creating a generation of latch key kids. Family income went up a smidge under Reagan, but work force participation by mothers with young children went through the roof - mostly reflecting one or more part time, low wage jobs per mom. Here, let me chart that for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=carter+ ... 1024%3B581



Is that REALLY the "great" Reagan economy that you are willing to defend, son?

greatnpowerfuloz » 15 Mar 2014 3:45 pm » wrote:
The Carter Presidency produced a better 'real' economy. Reagan's economy was propped up by borrowing. The trick is in taking out everything Reagan borrowed to boost the economy. Then you get to a place where apples to apples comparisons reside.

Even Reagan came to the conclusion that his initial supply side economic theories were doomed to failure. Fortunately, he recognized this fact early on and borrowed his way out of the hole he was digging the economy into. He liked the borrowing thing so well, he continued it until it eventually reaped some benefits. I have no great problem with Reagan's borrowing his way into a better economy. Consumption spending has been proven to revive economies (though only a portion of his spending was consumptive). His expansion of the EIC for instance, played a part in the recovery by boosting consumer spending. I do take great issue however, with policies he put in place that allowed for the free flow of immigrants into a labor market looking for cheap labor and which sought to move the wealth from the middle class to the upper class. We're still paying the price for those policies.

Carter was much more of a fiscal conservative than Reagan and could have pulled off even better results, had he chosen to substantially increase the debt and raid the SS fund.

This is not Cannon's op sweetie. I'll bite though. Please quantify this "real economy" of which you speak.

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 4:40 pm » wrote:
This is not Cannon's op sweetie. I'll bite though. Please quantify this "real economy" of which you speak.

I can give you some examples. Carter's economy was not built on low age jobs. He did not lie about his unemployment numbers by using "ketchup is a vegetable" math, leaving out any unemployed person not currently drawing benefits. He did not triple the national debt to artificially grow the economy. He did not radically expand government (he shrank it, in fact) in order to achieve his employment numbers.

Reagan was the undisputed KING of throwing shadows and creating false narratives - and the conservative mainstream media were willing accomplices.

Once you start taking the "ketchup is a vegetable" gimmicks out of Reagan's numbers, and account for the issues that Carter inherited from Nixon/Ford, the math starts lining up a little differently. If you want to see America's manufacturing jobs under Reagan, get a quick look:




There they go, Japan-bound...

Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2014 5:09 pm » wrote:
I can give you some examples. Carter's economy was not built on low age jobs. He did not lie about his unemployment numbers by using "ketchup is a vegetable" math, leaving out any unemployed person not currently drawing benefits. He did not triple the national debt to artificially grow the economy. He did not radically expand government (he shrank it, in fact) in order to achieve his employment numbers.

Reagan was the undisputed KING of throwing shadows and creating false narratives - and the conservative mainstream media were willing accomplices.

Once you start taking the "ketchup is a vegetable" gimmicks out of Reagan's numbers, and account for the issues that Carter inherited from Nixon/Ford, the math starts lining up a little differently. If you want to see America's manufacturing jobs under Reagan, get a quick look:



There they go, Japan-bound...

And yet real income decreased under Carter but grew by more than 10% under Reagan and the ISM index was above 50 for his presidency.

Another straw man little fella. I guess you're finished defending your OP.

Thanks, cannon.

I'd assumed 'real' vs 'manipulated' would have been clear to the fellow. Obviously not.

greatnpowerfuloz » 15 Mar 2014 5:18 pm » wrote:Thanks, cannon.

I'd assumed 'real' vs 'manipulated' would have been clear to the fellow. Obviously not.

So then you can't quantify Carter and Reagan's "real economies" then?

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 5:15 pm » wrote:
And yet real income decreased under Carter but grew by more than 10% under Reagan and the ISM index was above 50 for his presidency.

Another straw man little fella. I guess you're finished defending your OP.

Real income, as I already showed you with a handy graph, TANKED next to productivity. Under Reagan, families gave more and more, getting less and less in return. Today's economy is merely Reaganomics plus time, son. Latch key kids, full penitentiaries, wide spread drug addiction and an anemic dollar are all the legacy of Reaganomics - as is our reduced sovereign rating. That brick road in America's windshield? That's the end of Reagan Way, son.

Will you EVER stop defending America's undoing?