Liberal Forum

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.

Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2014 5:35 pm » wrote:
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?

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 5:48 pm » wrote:
It pains me to see you stuck on talking points. What seems lost on is your graph says more is being produced without corresponding increases in cost inputs. So prices come down. That means an increase in real income. Did we see that under Carter or Reagan?

Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2014 6:09 pm » wrote:
The irony is so thick I could cut it with a shoe. The chart shows that the "increase in real income" is at the expense of workers!

The giant sucking sound the chart divulges is, in your partisan world, evidence FOR Reaganomics?

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 6:19 pm » wrote:
What's better Cannon, incomes staying the same and prices dropping, or prices and income increasing equally?

Are you done defending your OP?

Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2014 6:26 pm » wrote:
Prices on WHAT dropping? Gasoline? Butter and eggs?

The fact that cheap gadgetry went down in price is a function of 2 things: Slave labor, and technological progress. Reagan can b e thanked for only one of those.

Just out of curiosity - why won't you defend Reaganomics when a black guy implements it?

tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 6:29 pm » wrote:
Are we talking about today or the Reagan and Carter presidencies? I'm not defending anything. I'm forcing you to defend your OP. The most fun thing is knowing you know you can't defend it anymore and watching you bring up all matter of unrelated topics.

Cannonpointer » 10 Mar 2014 2:02 pm » wrote: 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.

Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2014 6:41 pm » wrote:
You are being dishonest. I have already granted that my OP was ill conceived and did not really set up the battle that I wish to have: An honest comparison of the two presidents, rather than me having to prove the more narrow and difficult claim that Carter was better on the economy. Here is my quote, snapback intact:


Yet you, in the face of that, continually try to stick me with an OP that I have abandoned, bowing to your superior evidence.

I remain in the fight, but with the modified thesis that Carter was better for America and that Reagan was a disaster for America. His economic model is a proven failure. We're still using it - derr.

Carter was still on FDRnomics - but with the added weight of LBJ's great society and Nixon's withdrawal from Bretton Woods. Give all of that, plus the energy crisis, Carter made a fine showing. Reagan sold us down the tubes and stabbed the working man in the back. I have shown you the math. Frankly, I am flabbergasted that you have not yet apologized.

tharock220 » 04 Apr 2014 10:27 am » wrote:
Your attempting to qualify Carter's poor showing, but you have no proof Reagan would have performed better or worse from 78-81 or whatever years are in question. A straight up comparison of their respective economies reveals Reagan's was better. Unemployment dropped, income grew, and inflation came down.

crimsongulf » 04 Apr 2014 12:27 pm » wrote:The only thing Carter grew was peanuts and the market for cardigan sweaters.

crimsongulf » 04 Apr 2014 6:59 pm » wrote:Sorry, my clarity of recollection is not clouded by bathtub chemicals.

Cannonpointer » 04 Apr 2014 6:54 pm » wrote:
Tripling the debt - that doesn't measure in at all? Just - poof - of no consequence?

You girls have filled Lake Michigan with tears over Obie's spending. He is far from tripling the debt, son. He hasn't even doubled it, as Bush did.

tharock220 » 04 Apr 2014 7:03 pm » wrote:
Yet he's nearly added more to the debt than the two of them combined. We're comparing Carter and Reagan's economies not their policies or spending.

crimsongulf » 04 Apr 2014 6:59 pm » wrote:Sorry, my clarity of recollection is not clouded by bathtub chemicals.

Cannonpointer » 04 Apr 2014 7:07 pm » wrote:
Silly me. I consider TRIPLING the national debt an being the first post-WWII Resident to grow the debt-GDP ratio an aspect of the ECONOMY.

Hey, try this: Pretend it was Carter that tripled the debt.

See it now? Yeah. You see it now. Good on ya.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:20 pm » wrote: Thank you for showing Reaganomics at work. You eat your own leg, you dine well for a while. But the chickens DO come home to roost, son.

Cannonpointer » 10 Mar 2014 5:58 am » wrote: Let me see if I get what you're supplying to the conversation:

You are saying that Cater walloped all five of the republicans who served before him following the conclusion of WWII, and was only ever beaten by the very slgihtest of edges (3/10ths of a percent) by ONE republican - a man who borrowed during his tenure more than half of the entire GDP in the year that he was elected?

WOWZA! Thank you for that support! I am actually PLEASED that there was finally one measure which, no matter how insignificantly or by what razor-thin margin, Reagan bested Carter. I mean, let's face it:

Jobs? Carter.
Shrinking government? Carter.
Civil rights/CIA prevented from spying on our own citizens? Carter.
Avoiding international conflict/dead troops? Carter.
Fiscal discipline? Carter.
Shrinking debt to GDP ratio? Carter.
No drug dealing by CIA? Carter.
No selling of WMDs to Iran? Carter.
No training, funding, creating of Al Qaida? Carter.
No supplying Saddam with WMDs to use on the Kurds? Carter.
No raping nuns, murdering priests or high-tailing it out of Lebanon in a cut-and-run? Carter.
Keeping his vice president honest, steering clear of the Medellin cartel, other unsavories? Carter.
No Major Flagg types snappy-saluting and Fawn Halling in the Whitehouse basement? Carter.
HONEST, FORTHRIGHT communication with the folks? Carter.
Protecting Social Security in a lock box? Carter.

Reagan's razor thin victory over Carter (3/10ths of a percent) - his ONLY success in any honest comparison of their records - came at the cost of the unborn.



Reagan cut top tax rates while saying of our school children, "Let them eat ketchup." Cutting taxes while increasing spending - a republican habit that has resulted in ALL of America's republican presidents being bigger borrowers that the democrats they followed since WWII - is not good government. It's POLITICS: "Hey, I'm your buddy - the Candy Man." Whatever you need, good old Uncle Sugar will provide - and your grand kids get the tab.

I don't think much of dems, but at least they have the balls to ask TODAY'S voters to pay a bigger piece of today's spending than they palm off on the precious, precious unborn. Reagan was the FIRST PRESIDENT SINCE WWII to increase the debt to GDP ratio, and the biggest borrower in history to that time.

FDR borrowed an average of 21 billion per year to get us out of a global depression and then fight history's biggest war ever. And that money was in the form of war bonds, purchased by AMERICAN CITIZENS, not multinational corporations - and not a penny of it stolen from Social Security.

Reagan? He borrowed 231 billion per year - the ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT at the end of WWII, - every stinking year of his tenure, just to keep his corporate masters from paying their share on the windfalls he engineered for them through crony capitalism.



And that's just the money he BORROWED. Let's discuss the money he STOLE. The Social Security Amendment of 1983 was rammed through congress as a 30 year "fix" for social security. Instead, it was a tax hike on working people. In 1983, Reagan ginned up a panic that Social Security might be in trouble. He hiked withholding rates to the highest in history - punishing labor while cutting taxes on capital - and he KEPT THE SURPLUS. It was not deposited into the SSA account, and used to buy T-Bills. No. It was flat-out stolen and spirited directly into the treasury, to replace the money the richest were no longer contributing. He did it again in 1984. and in 1985. Then 86, 87 and 88. His first two years were the only two that he did not steal the ENTIRE SURPLUS from Social Security - after raising the rate.

What a rat Reagan was. That Johny Hinckley seemed like such a nice boy.