Liberal Forum

crimsongulf » 04 Apr 2014 7:12 pm » wrote:Billy was the mastermind of the Carter empire.

All you remember was the beer.

Endoscopy » 04 Apr 2014 11:04 pm » wrote:

THE PARTY OF NO. THE PARTY OF DO WHATEVER IT TAKES. THE PARTY OF TOP PRIORITY TO PREVENT THE RE-ELECTION OF OBAMA. THE PARTY OF I DON'T CARE IF AMERICANS HAVE JOBS OR NOT. THE PARTY OF LET DETROIT GO BANKRUPT. THE PARTY OF OUTSOURCING IS A GOOD THING. THE PARTY OF DOWN SIZING, THE PARTY OF OFF SHORING, THE PARTY OF MURDER, TORTURE AND RAPE, THE PARTY OF CORPORATIONS OVER HUMANS, THE PARTY OF HATE, THE PARTY OF RIDICULING AMERICANS, THE PARTY OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION, THE PARTY OF DESTROYING AMERICA, THE PARTY OF CLASS WARFARE.

Endoscopy » 05 Apr 2014 12:54 am » wrote:[


RONALD REAGAN
FY 1989 - $255 billion.
FY 1988 - $252 billion.
FY 1987 - $225 billion.
FY 1986 - $297 billion.
FY 1985 - $256 billion.
FY 1984 - $195 billion.
FY 1983 - $235 billion.
FY 1982 - $144 billion.

JIMMY CARTER
FY 1981 - $90 billion.
FY 1980 - $81 billion.
FY 1979 - $55 billion.
FY 1978 - $73 billion.

REAGAN DOES NOT LOOK SO GOOD HERE
FACTS NOT MADE UP FIGURES

Since the subject is Carter & Reagan, I accept your defeat graciously.

tharock220 » 04 Apr 2014 9:20 pm » wrote:
If you think I give Reagan a pass on his deficits I don't. I'm wondering if I should subject you to a Voight-Kampff test to make sure you're not a computer whose only purpose is to say "Reagan tripled the debt". We both agree to that. Now explain why you think it matters to their economies.

Explain whiy you insist we account for inflation in quantifying Carter's economy yet ignore when assiduously referring to obie's debt only in whole numbers, not percentages. Explain why you continue to equate the real jobs Carter created with the McJobs your shill manipulated into existence through the tax code.

We both know you're having reaganomic fun with numbers.

Endoscopy » 05 Apr 2014 12:54 am » wrote:
GEORGE W BUSH DEFICITS
FY 2008 - $1.270 trillion. Democrat congress BUSH'S BILLS COME DUE
FY 2007 - $501 billion. Democrat congress ADULTS IN CHARGE, LOWEST DEFICIT IN 5 YEARS
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

BILL CLINTON
FY 2001 - $133 billion.
FY 2000 - $18 billion.
FY 1999 - $130 billion.
FY 1998 - $113 billion.
FY 1997 - $188 billion.
FY 1996 - $251 billion.
FY 1995 - $281 billion.
FY 1994 - $281 billion.

GEORGE H W BUSH
FY 1993 - $347 billion.
FY 1992 - $399 billion.
FY 1991 - $432 billion.
FY 1990 - $376 billion.

RONALD REAGAN
FY 1989 - $255 billion.
FY 1988 - $252 billion.
FY 1987 - $225 billion.
FY 1986 - $297 billion.
FY 1985 - $256 billion.
FY 1984 - $195 billion.
FY 1983 - $235 billion.
FY 1982 - $144 billion.

JIMMY CARTER Big inflation causing later years to be bigger THAT'S FUNNY, SINCE CLINTON'S DEFICITS ARE SMALLER THAN REAGAN'S, RETARD!
FY 1981 - $90 billion.
FY 1980 - $81 billion.
FY 1979 - $55 billion.
FY 1978 - $73 billion.

I took out Obiewan's, since I credit Bush with those numbers. Now, just look: 2 dems, 3 child molesters. Notice that all three child molesters are higher than the dems they follow - even higher than the dems that follow THEM.

Your OWN NUMBERS THAT YOU SUBMITTED demonstrate my point: Repukes are the big spending party.

Aso, piglet, I notice Bush's deficit when DOWN when the democrat congress (adults) took over in 2007. It wasn't until Bush's chickens came home to roost that the deficit shoot up. And the 2009 Budget is also Bush's budget, son. He wrote it, he signed it into law. Obie didn't even take office until 2009, and was responsible for the 2010 budget.

Cannonpointer » 06 Apr 2014 10:43 pm » wrote:
Explain whiy you insist we account for inflation in quantifying Carter's economy yet ignore when assiduously referring to obie's debt only in whole numbers, not percentages. Explain why you continue to equate the real jobs Carter created with the McJobs your shill manipulated into existence through the tax code.

We both know you're having reaganomic fun with numbers.

Because inflation is considered part of economic growth and it must be adjusted as such. You're percente argument is incredibly retarded. Using your logic, if someone grew the debt from $1 to $100 they'd be a worse president as far as debt goes than anyone in history, but I think adding $5 trillion in 4 years like this current guy has is just a little worse.

As for Reagan's McJobs, income fell during Carter's presidency. It grew by more than 10% while Reagan was in office.

Thinks sucked under Carter, at least that's what I've been told, and that's why he didn't get re-elected.

tharock220 » 07 Apr 2014 12:00 am » wrote: Things sucked under Carter, at least that's what I've been told, and that's why he didn't get re-elected.

It's true that Nixon's Bretton Woods default and Johnson's Great Society and the oil companies' fake gas shortage and the CIA's previous misbehavior in Iran all came to a head and exploded during Carter's tenure, and that DID make things kind of "suck." But I think there was more to his defeat than that.

For example, there is pretty good evidence that Carter's rescue attempt in Iran was sabotaged by the intelligence community and a deal was struck by the reagan campaign with the Iranians. In exchange for holding the hostages until Reagan's inauguration, they would be rewarded with the freeing up of every penny of frozen assets, they would face no reprisals, and they would receive American weapons - even if Congress passed a law forbidding it.

In any case, they DID do exactly that thing, and they DID receive precisely those rewards. Maybe it was just synchronicity, or haphazard coincidence.

Right.

And more than that, economic theory holds that unemployment, interest rates and inflation interact and mediate against each other. Any two being in double digits SHOULD drive the third into single digits. That theory was "disproved" under Carter. Yet, it is STILL taught at Yale and Harvard and Stanford and every other university in the country.

It's almost as if the folks in the know understand that "the fix was in" against Carter - the money guys wanted him gone.

America was feeling pretty low in the Carter years - and not just about the economy. We had disgraced ourselves in Viet Nam. Kent State, the Chicago Democratic Convention, Patty Heart, the Weather Underground, enormously divisive war protests involving hundreds of thousands, sit-ins, the murders of Bobby and MLK, and draft card burnings and flights from compulsive military duty to Canada - all of these gripping issues and many others were more recent and hotter in our national blood than 9-11 is today. We were at each other's throats about gun control and women's right and race relations and many, many other things. We were divided.

Reagan was a great shill and practiced bromide spewer. He had the banksters on his side and the media fawning over him - calling him "the Gipper," and "the Great Communicator." He tossed out wonderful marketing slogans like, "Morning in America," and "There you go again." He asked rhetorically, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago" - a winning question, the answer to which was not in any way the fault of Jimmah Cawhuh. Reagan underestimated the American people, and, sadly, it paid off.

I CHALLENGE you to watch the last real presidential debate. It was between Carter and Ford. After that, there have been some retarded exchanges of scripted bumper stickers and talking points, allowing the proponents of both candidates to declare victory since their candidate's slogans seemed the most palatable to them.

So, when you talk about why people like me wrong-headedly elected Ron Reagan, just know that it was because we were not so good and wise as to deserve good and wise leadership. I can play the youth card - it was my first presidential election. I was a raw-boned, patriotic country boy who drank the koolaid and responded like a good little monkey to slogans over substance and PR over statecraft. Mostly, we were pissed about Iran, and believed Reagan would bomb their *** - never DREAMING that the fix was in and he would unfreeze their assets and give them a free pass and sell them American military technology - never dreaming that he would declare jihad on the American working man and set the stage for a return to PRECISELY the wealth distribution of 1929, which brought on the Great Depression.

tharock220 » 04 Apr 2014 9:20 pm » wrote:
If you think I give Reagan a pass on his deficits I don't. I'm wondering if I should subject you to a Voight-Kampff test to make sure you're not a computer whose only purpose is to say "Reagan tripled the debt". We both agree to that. Now explain why you think it matters to their economies.

And let's not overlook the fact that Reagan also tripled the national debt.

Cannonpointer » 07 Apr 2014 12:56 am » wrote:
It's true that Nixon's Bretton Woods default and Johnson's Great Society and the oil companies' fake gas shortage and the CIA's previous misbehavior in Iran all came to a head and exploded during Carter's tenure, and that DID make things kind of "suck." But I think there was more to his defeat than that.

For example, there is pretty good evidence that Carter's rescue attempt in Iran was sabotaged by the intelligence community and a deal was struck by the reagan campaign with the Iranians. In exchange for holding the hostages until Reagan's inauguration, they would be rewarded with the freeing up of every penny of frozen assets, they would face no reprisals, and they would receive American weapons - even if Congress passed a law forbidding it.

In any case, they DID do exactly that thing, and they DID receive precisely those rewards. Maybe it was just synchronicity, or haphazard coincidence.

Right.

And more than that, economic theory holds that unemployment, interest rates and inflation interact and mediate against each other. Any two being in double digits SHOULD drive the third into single digits. That theory was "disproved" under Carter. Yet, it is STILL taught at Yale and Harvard and Stanford and every other university in the country.

It's almost as if the folks in the know understand that "the fix was in" against Carter - the money guys wanted him gone.

America was feeling pretty low in the Carter years - and not just about the economy. We had disgraced ourselves in Viet Nam. Kent State, the Chicago Democratic Convention, Patty Heart, the Weather Underground, enormously divisive war protests involving hundreds of thousands, sit-ins, the murders of Bobby and MLK, and draft card burnings and flights from compulsive military duty to Canada - all of these gripping issues and many others were more recent and hotter in our national blood than 9-11 is today. We were at each other's throats about gun control and women's right and race relations and many, many other things. We were divided.

Reagan was a great shill and practiced bromide spewer. He had the banksters on his side and the media fawning over him - calling him "the Gipper," and "the Great Communicator." He tossed out wonderful marketing slogans like, "Morning in America," and "There you go again." He asked rhetorically, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago" - a winning question, the answer to which was not in any way the fault of Jimmah Cawhuh. Reagan underestimated the American people, and, sadly, it paid off.

I CHALLENGE you to watch the last real presidential debate. It was between Carter and Ford. After that, there have been some retarded exchanges of scripted bumper stickers and talking points, allowing the proponents of both candidates to declare victory since their candidate's slogans seemed the most palatable to them.

So, when you talk about why people like me wrong-headedly elected Ron Reagan, just know that it was because we were not so good and wise as to deserve good and wise leadership. I can play the youth card - it was my first presidential election. I was a raw-boned, patriotic country boy who drank the koolaid and responded like a good little monkey to slogans over substance and PR over statecraft. Mostly, we were pissed about Iran, and believed Reagan would bomb their *** - never DREAMING that the fix was in and he would unfreeze their assets and give them a free pass and sell them American military technology - never dreaming that he would declare jihad on the American working man and set the stage for a return to PRECISELY the wealth distribution of 1929, which brought on the Great Depression.

Straw man about Reagan aside, the crux your argument appears to be Reagan and Carter presided over different economic circumstances and that Carter performs better than Reagan given those circumstances.

Now instead of complaining about Reagan and irrelevant issues, support that thesis.

....has anyone seen hide or hair of rich clem/amazon tuna? ...does anyone know what their new soks are?...maybe 'huey' ...'goofboy?'

tharock220 » 07 Apr 2014 2:12 am » wrote:
Straw man about Reagan aside, the crux your argument appears to be Reagan and Carter presided over different economic circumstances and that Carter performs better than Reagan given those circumstances.

Now instead of complaining about Reagan and irrelevant issues, support that thesis.

Just to be clear, I am not supposed to say anything bad about Reagan, to sustain a thesis comparing him negatively to Carter? That is really what you suggest?

tharock220 » 07 Apr 2014 2:12 am » wrote:
Straw man about Reagan aside, the crux your argument appears to be Reagan and Carter presided over different economic circumstances and that Carter performs better than Reagan given those circumstances.

Now instead of complaining about Reagan and irrelevant issues, support that thesis.

Just to be clear, I am not supposed to say anything bad about Reagan, to sustain a thesis comparing him negatively to Carter? That is really what you suggest?

tharock220 » 07 Apr 2014 2:12 am » wrote:
Straw man about Reagan aside, the crux your argument appears to be Reagan and Carter presided over different economic circumstances and that Carter performs better than Reagan given those circumstances.

Now instead of complaining about Reagan and irrelevant issues, support that thesis.

Just to be clear, I am not supposed to say anything bad about Reagan, to sustain a thesis comparing him negatively to Carter? That is really what you suggest?

i have discussed with several people your age cannon the accomplishments of carter...THERE WERE NONE. now considering i was but a wee lad at the time of the carter administration i will not pretend to know what was going on...but i do know that during carter we were on the welfare...at the end of reagan...we were off the welfare and my mother owned her own business and two houses...rocky balboa was broke and destitute..mooching off of pauly under carter...under reagan the man had italian sports cars and a nose job....

Cannonpointer » 07 Apr 2014 7:09 pm » wrote:
Just to be clear, I am not supposed to say anything bad about Reagan, to sustain a thesis comparing him negatively to Carter? That is really what you suggest?

Go right ahead, but bringing up deficit spending when talking about their respective economies is an inconsequential strawman. The raw numbers say Reagan was better. Your argument is that given their circumstances, Carter performed better. In order to prove that you need to show how Carter would have performed better than Reagan in the 80's or how Reagan would have been worse in the late 70's.

tharock220 » 08 Apr 2014 2:00 am » wrote:
Go right ahead, but bringing up deficit spending when talking about their respective economies is an inconsequential strawman. The raw numbers say Reagan was better. Your argument is that given their circumstances, Carter performed better. In order to prove that you need to show how Carter would have performed better than Reagan in the 80's or how Reagan would have been worse in the late 70's.

Perhaps I am dense, but I cannot see where tripling the national debt and leaving the unborn to pay for yesterday's party is "inconsequential" to judging Reagan's economic policies. You insist on judging them EXCLUSIVELY by the quality of the meals, without talking about the **** check. You DO understand that we are STILL paying the tab, do you not? You DO understand that when Reagan left office, his debts did not leave with him, do you not?

tharock220 » 07 Apr 2014 2:12 am » wrote:
Straw man about Reagan aside, the crux your argument appears to be Reagan and Carter presided over different economic circumstances and that Carter performs better than Reagan given those circumstances.

Now instead of complaining about Reagan and irrelevant issues, support that thesis.

I choose to use a life line, sir. Rand Paul says that Carter was better on the budget than Reagan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6u960 ... e=youtu.be

Cannonpointer » 24 Apr 2014 12:21 am » wrote:
I choose to use a life line, sir. Rand Paul says that Carter was better on the budget than Reagan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6u960 ... e=youtu.be

Great. We're not arguing about who was better fiscally. We're arguing about their respective economies.

tharock220 » 24 Apr 2014 12:36 am » wrote:
Great. We're not arguing about who was better fiscally. We're arguing about their respective economies.

Lol. I gotta throw any rock I can lay hand to.

It's too hard to judge Reagan's economy, unless we can agree on how to account for the fact that it has never been paid for - account for the fact that it set a new direction of borrow and spend, run up the debt, spend like Jesus is gonna fix it. It was a James Watt style presidency. How do we separate out how nice the dinner tasted from the fact that it STILL has never been paid for?

HOW DO WE CALL IT REAGAN'S ECONOMY, IF THE PEOPLE TASKED TO PAY FOR IT WERE NOT EVEN BORN YET? WASN'T IT THEIR ECONOMY, IF THEY ARE THE ONES PAYING FOR IT?

Cannonpointer » 24 Apr 2014 12:41 am » wrote:
Lol. I gotta throw any rock I can lay hand to.

It's too hard to judge Reagan's economy, unless we can agree on how to account for the fact that it has never been paid for - account for the fact that it set a new direction of borrow and spend, run up the debt, spend like Jesus is gonna fix it. It was a James Watt style presidency. How do we separate out how nice the dinner tasted from the fact that it STILL has never been paid for?

HOW DO WE CALL IT REAGAN'S ECONOMY, IF THE PEOPLE TASKED TO PAY FOR IT WERE NOT EVEN BORN YET? WASN'T IT THEIR ECONOMY, IF THEY ARE THE ONES PAYING FOR IT?

The longest time to maturity of bonds during Reagan's presidency was 11 years. He's been out of office for 25 years. I think the money he borrowed has been paid back.