Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN
CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN
By Cannonpointer
16 Feb 2014 2:56 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
16 Feb 2014 12:59 pm
So, are you saying that we would have been better off with Carter? If so, how do you think he would have changed history.greatnpowerfuloz » 16 Feb 2014 12:55 pm » wrote:
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.
16 Feb 2014 1:00 pm
There's a remedy for that sideswipe to the OP. Present alternative numbers or an alternative explanation for those numbers. Just remember to incorporate Post # 4 in your critique, since it goes on to break down raw debt vs. debt to GDP ratio - reagan loses either way, of course - but the second way accounts for reagan's failure to keep the dollar sound (inflation).tharock220 » 16 Feb 2014 12:51 pm » wrote:
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.
The numbers speak against the conservative MSM narrative. I have clearly demonstrated that. If you can save the narrative, then by all means, do get busy. Hold your end, son.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
16 Feb 2014 1:01 pm
Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 12:50 pm » wrote:
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
Prepare to have your *** kicked by your own numbers again.
1977 4.6
1978 5.6
1979 3.2
1980 -0.2
1981 2.6
Your graph shows Carter's number at 3.4% average growth during his Presidency
1977 through 1980 (4.6 + 5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2) / 4 = 3.4
1978 through 1981 (5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2 + 2.6) / 4 = 2.8
According to your own graph, in order to get a 3.4% gdp, Carter took an economy running at 4.6% and handed it off at -0.2%
16 Feb 2014 1:03 pm
OOOH!crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 8:14 am » wrote:Well, I guess when the current incompetent is in office it is only fitting that the left attempts to change 25 yr old history.
An irrelevant ad hominem - the contards are hot this morning!
Such a BLISTERING "rebuttal!"
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
16 Feb 2014 1:06 pm
Only an observation on the nattering nabobs.Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 1:03 pm » wrote:
OOOH!
An irrelevant ad hominem - the contards are hot this morning!
Such a BLISTERING "rebuttal!"
16 Feb 2014 1:13 pm
Nope. Clem will harrumph and repeat the conservative media narrative. That's it. I told ya - I've watched this clown for years.Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 8:21 am » wrote:
Surely you could cobble together some support for your argument from that?
If not, maybe you could provide something to support your claims?
The closest you will get to a source is a self-righteous claim that he USED to source, and it's your fault you were not present to pay attention. But that's a lie. He never used to source. He used to do the same thing: CLAIM he used to source.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
16 Feb 2014 1:15 pm
And, enter the fallacies:
"As is well know," as Josef Goebbels used to say...RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 8:43 am » wrote:
This is not a matter of debate or dispute. No one with the slightest knowledge or common sense would claim that Carter was better on the economy than Reagan.
No one.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
16 Feb 2014 1:16 pm
Why do you keep ranting about sources? Have you realized yet that your own graph and numbers confirmed my statement about Carter and debunked yours?Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 1:13 pm » wrote:
Nope. Clem will harrumph and repeat the conservative media narrative. That's it. I told ya - I've watched this clown for years.
The closest you will get to a source is a self-righteous claim that he USED to source, and it's your fault you were not present to pay attention. But that's a lie. He never used to source. He used to do the same thing: CLAIM he used to source.
Your graph shows Carter's number at 3.4% average growth during his Presidency
1977 through 1980 (4.6 + 5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2) / 4 = 3.4
1978 through 1981 (5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2 + 2.6) / 4 = 2.8
According to your own graph, in order to get a 3.4% gdp, Carter took an economy running at 4.6% and handed it off at -0.2%
16 Feb 2014 1:16 pm
Look again. I never said it grew by 154%. Read BEFORE you post and no re-reading will be necessary.tharock220 » 16 Feb 2014 8:49 am » wrote:154% implies the economy would more than double in size. Since that didn't happen I'll let you feel silly about your inability to do third grade arithmetic before dealing with the rest of your post.
I said he grew the economy TO 154% of what it was when he took it over - and that means he turned it over to Reagan at just over half the size it was when he got it from Ford.
Still - nice try.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
16 Feb 2014 1:21 pm
It's beyond doubt that Carter and Dems were crashing the economy, not that moonbats have any clue what accepted reality is.Silverfox » 16 Feb 2014 8:52 am » wrote:OK. Here are your questions:
Q: What's the average altitude of plane that starts and 20,000 feet and begins to nosedive?
A: There is insufficient data to calculate an average. Nonsense question.
Q: What's the average altitude of same plane after a competent pilot takes over at 5,000 feet and brings it back up to 15,000 feet?
A: How long does each part take, what is the rate of descent and what is the rate of ascent? Given that, we can arrive at an average. Insufficient data.
Q: And who's the better pilot, the one who almost crashed the plane or the one who saved it?
A: Insufficient data. Depends on the reason for the nosedive and what happened to the original pilot. In your scenario it could even be the same pilot who had just been to take a leak.
There you go.
Your turn.
However, typically, you avoided the central point; stats mean nothing if things like direction aren't taken into account. Carter left an economy plunging down into chaos and deep recession.
Reagan turned it around and left a huge peacetime boom.
That makes your GDP statistics not so much meaningless, as deceitful, hiding the truth.
16 Feb 2014 1:23 pm
Please show your undeceptive math, then. I am not staying your hand.Cedarswamp » 16 Feb 2014 9:36 am » wrote:
My bad, I wasn't applying it in the context of the OP, but to ROI.
Cannons point is deceptive though using the nominal GDP instead of the real GDP.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
16 Feb 2014 1:23 pm
Oh gosh, a silly Nazi comparison.Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 1:15 pm » wrote:And, enter the fallacies:
"As is well know," as Josef Goebbels used to say...
Mental illness is such a sad thing to see.
16 Feb 2014 1:24 pm
Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 12:50 pm » wrote:
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
Prepare to have your *** kicked by your own numbers again.
1977 4.6
1978 5.6
1979 3.2
1980 -0.2
1981 2.6
Your graph shows Carter's number at 3.4% average growth during his Presidency
1977 through 1980 (4.6 + 5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2) / 4 = 3.4
1978 through 1981 (5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2 + 2.6) / 4 = 2.8
According to your own graph, in order to get a 3.4% gdp, Carter took an economy running at 4.6% and handed it off at -0.2%
16 Feb 2014 1:24 pm
That's funny. Two of Ford's last three years were in the negative, and you characterized that as a "stable, growing economy."RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 1:21 pm » wrote:
It's beyond doubt that Carter and Dems were crashing the economy, not that moonbats have any clue what accepted reality is.
However, typically, you avoided the central point; stats mean nothing if things like direction aren't taken into account. Carter left an economy plunging down into chaos and deep recession.
Reagan turned it around and left a huge peacetime boom.
That makes your GDP statistics not so much meaningless, as deceitful, hiding the truth.
ONE of Carter's last three years was MARGINALLY negative, and you characterize that in terms just short of apocalyptic.
You seem to be a bit of a hack, clemtard.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
16 Feb 2014 1:26 pm
Goofy's first attempt is a desperate restating of the conservative mainstream media narrative - not shocking. No evidence, no refutation, just bluster - a chip off the old clemtard.golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 9:43 am » wrote: Carter decimated the military, gutted the economy and turned over a country in recession.
Two words for idiots that want to crow about Carter: Misery Index.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
16 Feb 2014 1:28 pm
Prove my sources are partisan, moonbat.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?
Nothing? I have had many threads on the subject filled with data and logic.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.
Don't remember you commenting in them.
I don't waste my time with a psychotic proving that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Anyone with eyes, a little knowledge and a little common sense sees what an embarrassment you are to yourself.
16 Feb 2014 1:29 pm
I just used your own numbers to show you lied.Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 1:26 pm » wrote:
Goofy's first attempt is a desperate restating of the conservative mainstream media narrative - not shocking. No evidence, no refutation, just bluster - a chip off the old clemtard.
Open wide and swallow your failure.
Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 12:50 pm » wrote:
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
Prepare to have your *** kicked by your own numbers again.
1977 4.6
1978 5.6
1979 3.2
1980 -0.2
1981 2.6
Your graph shows Carter's number at 3.4% average growth during his Presidency
1977 through 1980 (4.6 + 5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2) / 4 = 3.4
1978 through 1981 (5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2 + 2.6) / 4 = 2.8
According to your own graph, in order to get a 3.4% gdp, Carter took an economy running at 4.6% and handed it off at -0.2%
16 Feb 2014 1:31 pm
If I had said he grew it BY 154%, then yeah. But I said, "TO."tharock220 » 16 Feb 2014 11:50 am » wrote:
Sigh....lolberals and their math. 100% growth means doubled son.
It's a WORD problem, son. You have to understand the WORDS to compute the math. The preposition "TO" is a very different math instruction than the preposition "BY."
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
16 Feb 2014 1:34 pm
The bottom line is only as good as the environment that produced it and only as good as what contributed to it. If 40% of the bottom line is comprised of ill-gotten or fabricated assets, the bottom line is tainted. We've certainly seen this.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.
16 Feb 2014 1:37 pm
Make up your mind. In your math, you show -0.2 as the third number, using the October fiscal year as the measuring stick. But in your follow-on explanation, you use -0.2 as the hand-off year, using the election year as the measuring stick. This type of mathematical mishmash is poor presentation, son.golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 1:29 pm » wrote: I just used your own numbers to show you lied.
Open wide and swallow your failure.
Prepare to have your *** kicked by your own numbers again.
1977 4.6
1978 5.6
1979 3.2
1980 -0.2
1981 2.6
Your graph shows Carter's number at 3.4% average growth during his Presidency
1977 through 1980 (4.6 + 5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2) / 4 = 3.4
1978 through 1981 (5.6 + 3.2 + -0.2 + 2.6) / 4 = 2.8
According to your own graph, in order to get a 3.4% gdp, Carter took an economy running at 4.6% and handed it off at -0.2%
I will get to your presentation soon, so please: Try to refine it in the interim, make it less dishonest.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
Who is online
In total there are 3602 users online :: 14 registered, 18 bots, and 3570 guests
Registered users: Vegas, Johnny You, *Roshambo, Blackvegetable, Squatchman, Buffalo, RebelGator, FJB, LowIQTrash, PhiloBeddo, Deezer Shoove, nefarious101, Fuelman, PoliticalPopUp
Bots: Firefox/7.0, facebookexternalhit, Yahoo! Slurp, Not, ADmantX, CriteoBot, proximic, Kinza, DuckDuckGo, LCC, YandexBot, Mediapartners-Google, Baiduspider, DuckDuckBot, Googlebot, bingbot, Applebot, curl/7