Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 9:20 pm » wrote:There it is, Glory Hole. There you are.

You post a random chart that you don't even know the meaning of. It's on a site that spew the right direction, so you assume it's bad on Carter.

Wow. You really are a piece of ****, Glory Hole.

I didn't quote enough from the site, but it shows a strong recovery after the Carter-caused recession.

Great job at ignoring this post, psycho.

.

RichClem » 11 Jan 2015 9:46 am » wrote:
I'm absolutely sure you'll like this one better.

Huey » 11 Jan 2015 9:28 am » wrote:Stupid **** thinks if he tells a lie lomg enough it will become the truth. The ends justify the means and all that. I don't have enough balls to confront him so I will just whisper about him and hope he doesn't see me.

Caught ya, sissy.

keep crying, little bitch. And keep doing it in a whisper - I like that. You sissy-chatter about me, but don't hit reply to my post because you hope you won't be noticed by the mean scary man - I get it. But I have no pity, coward.

You are really becoming a little soaked tampon bitch

RichClem » 11 Jan 2015 9:23 pm » wrote:
I didn't quote enough from the site, but it shows a strong recovery after the Carter-caused recession.

Great job at ignoring

Shut the **** up, punk.

You post charts you can't even explain. I have no time to waste on punks like you.

crimsongulf » 11 Jan 2015 9:26 pm » wrote:You are really becoming a little soaked tampon bitch

Snicker.

Button pushed.

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 9:29 pm » wrote:
Snicker.

Button pushed.

Not anywhere close, just sort of sad to see see you fall into the fathoms of the lonfo depths.

crimsongulf » 11 Jan 2015 9:30 pm » wrote:
Not anywhere close,

This is called a "tell," sissy britches. You're starting to fray, Delta Dawn.

crimsongulf » 11 Jan 2015 9:30 pm » wrote: Not anywhere close, just sort of sad to see see you fall into the fathoms of the lonfo depths.

notice what a little coward he is. is he too drunk to notice?
He offers nothing by troll crap.

He is all proud of himself for registering a complaint but lacking the balls to make an actual complaint, with actual substance, or ANYTHING that would risk being worth paying attention to.

RichClem » 11 Jan 2015 9:46 am » wrote: I cannot explain any of the charts I post.
But I'm absolutely sure you'll like this one better. I could fly to the moon before I could explain its meaning.

Needing penis, really. Lots of penis. Mouth, ***, hands - got a serious penis jones going.

Know where a fellow might find some ready penis?

RichClem » 11 Jan 2015 9:39 am » wrote: It's comparable to every chart I recall seeing. Where's yours, psycho?

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 9:28 pm » wrote: Shut the **** up, punk.
You post charts you can't even explain. I have no time to waste on punks like you.

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 9:28 pm » wrote: Shut the **** up, punk.

You post charts you can't even explain. I have no time to waste on punks like you.

Oh my, have you gone blind again? How tragic!

.

This graph shows the annual percentage change in gross domestic product (GDP) from 1970 to 2008. It was the sudden and sharp recovery in 1983 from the double-dip recession at the beginning of the Reagan years that gave rise to Reagan’s argument that tax cuts ignited the expansion.
http://acivilamericandebate.com/2011/04 ... ud-part-3/

Brattle Street » 11 Jan 2015 9:43 pm » wrote:
notice what a little coward he is. is he too drunk to notice?
He offers nothing by troll crap.

He is all proud of himself for registering a complaint but lacking the balls to make an actual complaint, with actual substance, or ANYTHING that would risk being worth paying attention to.

Challenge me at anytime, lil nappy.


MLB fits you so well.

Brattle Street » 11 Jan 2015 9:43 pm » wrote:
notice what a little coward he is. is he too drunk to notice?
He offers nothing by troll crap.

He is all proud of himself for registering a complaint but lacking the balls to make an actual complaint, with actual substance, or ANYTHING that would risk being worth paying attention to.

It's a southern thing. For generations, they lived in a system where pissing the big man off could be your ruin. So they learned to talk sideways, to sugar coat, to say without saying. They reflexively leave themselves room to back up, to change the meaning of their complaint. If he gave specifics, he could be refuted, his idea could be argued in a manner where objective measures apply. And he might lose. And losing could mean one's ruin, in the southern imagination.

Winning is rarely the primary object with your born and bred southerner. They want to win as much as the next guy, but their first attention is always to avoiding defeat - and that means never taking a stance that anyone can hold you to.

White southerners are a race unto themselves - a race of passive-aggressive ankle biters, gully dwellers, dry-gulchers, back shooters, side-of-the-mouth talkers and big-bellied sheriffs who defy satirization. If you hired a maudlin director widely known for going over the top, and gave him an over the top script that made white southerners look like ignorant apes, all that would be required to give the resulting film dignity would be period costumes. Go back 50 years and the thing would read like a documentary. Crimson hails from that milieu. Most of what you take for cowardice, I take for involuntary, conditioned reflex actions.

And gayness.

RichClem » 11 Jan 2015 9:51 pm » wrote: I cannot explain my chart again! How tragic!

It's penis that I am wanting. Will you PLEASE let me suck on your dick?

RichClem » 11 Jan 2015 9:39 am » wrote: It's comparable to every chart I recall seeing. Where's yours, psycho?

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 9:28 pm » wrote: Shut the **** up, punk.
You post charts you can't even explain. I have no time to waste on punks like you.

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 9:56 pm » wrote:There it is, Glory Hole. There you are.

You post a random chart that you don't even know the meaning of. It's on a site that spew the right direction, so you assume it's bad on Carter.

Wow. You really are a piece of ****, Glory Hole.

Oh my, have you gone blind again? How tragic!

.

This graph shows the annual percentage change in gross domestic product (GDP) from 1970 to 2008. It was the sudden and sharp recovery in 1983 from the double-dip recession at the beginning of the Reagan years that gave rise to Reagan’s argument that tax cuts ignited the expansion.
http://acivilamericandebate.com/2011/04 ... ud-part-3/

RichClem » 11 Jan 2015 9:51 pm » wrote: IF TAX CUTS IGNITED THE REAGAN EXPANSION, WHERE IS THE OBAMA BOOM?

CAN YOU MOONBATS EXPLAIN THAT?

TAX CUTS CANNOT POSSIBLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REAGAN EXPANSION, OR THERE SHOULD BE AN OBAMA BOOM!

WHERE IS THE OBAMA BOOM, YOU MOONBATS?

We don't know, or care, Glory Hole. What matters is that you post charts you cannot explain. You're a **** idiot. Go **** yourself. Beg another man for dick- will will not allow you to sup on my essence, you penis craving little fairy.

RichClem » 11 Jan 2015 9:39 am » wrote: It's comparable to every chart I recall seeing. Where's yours, psycho?

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 9:28 pm » wrote: Shut the **** up, punk.
You post charts you can't even explain. I have no time to waste on punks like you.

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 9:54 pm » wrote: It's a southern thing. For generations, they lived in a system where pissing the big man off could be your ruin. So they learned to talk sideways, to sugar coat, to say without saying. They reflexively leave themselves room to back up, to change the meaning of their complaint. If he gave specifics, he could be refuted, his idea could be argued in a manner where objective measures apply. And he might lose. And losing could mean one's ruin, in the southern imagination.

Winning is rarely the primary object with your born and bred southerner. They want to win as much as the next guy, but their first attention is always to avoiding defeat - and that means never taking a stance that anyone can hold you to.

White southerners are a race unto themselves - a race of passive-aggressive ankle biters, gully dwellers, dry-gulchers, back shooters, side-of-the-mouth talkers and big-bellied sheriffs who defy satirization. If you hired a maudlin director widely known for going over the top, and gave him an over the top script that made white southerners look like ignorant apes, all that would be required to give the resulting film dignity would be period costumes. Go back 50 years and the thing would read like a documentary. Crimson hails from that milieu. Most of what you take for cowardice, I take for involuntary, conditioned reflex actions.

And gayness.

LOL, yes, kind of like trying to satirize the National Enquirer. You can't go over the top of the top of the top.

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 9:24 pm » wrote:
Caught ya, sissy.

keep crying, little bitch. And keep doing it in a whisper - I like that. You sissy-chatter about me, but don't hit reply to my post because you hope you won't be noticed by the mean scary man - I get it. But I have no pity, coward.

Another epic Stipid **** melt down. You know it so when SF edits quotes.

Huey » 12 Jan 2015 4:28 am » wrote:Needin' me some dick. Anyone spare some cock?

No, son, No dick for you. But your mom will always give you another good, stiff fingering.

Ya can't always get what you want. But if you try some time, you just might find you get what you need.

Cannonpointer » 12 Jan 2015 4:51 am » wrote:
No, son, No dick for you. But your mom will always give you another good, stiff fingering.

Ya can't always get what you want. But if you try some time, you just might find you get what you need.

Maybe you can share a cell with prattle in the insitution.

Here's a graph I took off a queer who posts charts that he doesn't even understand:

http://acivilamericandebate.com/2011/04 ... ud-part-3/



As the graph clearly shows, Carter's worst year was flat, unlike the worst years of his predecessors, and his correction was well underway before he handed over the government to retard ronnie in the second quarter of fiscal year 1981. That year's growth was 2.6%. Here are the four years that Carter's house budgeted:

1978 5.6
1979 3.2
1980 -0.2
1981 2.6

As the chart above demonstrates, Carter's numbers were in a significant upward trajectory at handoff.

The chart also shows that Reagan's big spending could only artificially stimulate the economy for a few years. After it overheated, it went into free fall, costing Bush his job. Afterhe brought the country out of the free-fall Bush recession (see chart above), Clinton's spending grew slower than his revenues. Reagan's? Not at all - not at all. His revenue growth was quite anemic compared to the growth in spending.

Let's look at Reagan's taxes and spending, against the preceding 40 years: http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/ec ... /index.htm



I found it interesting that the graph at top looks very, very much like the graph immediately below. It seems pretty obvious that the jipper borrowed and spent his way out of trouble. The issue whether it was reagan's keynesian stimulus or his cocksuckerian tax breaks for the rich which saved murka from the fallout from the johnson/nixon breton woods backstab seems answered by this mirror which chart presents:



Excluding the various tricks intended to hit poorer Americans, like raising taxes on cigarette (but NOT pipe) tobacco, Reagan raised taxes on the bottom twice - in 1983, he raised the payroll taxes on all employees (no effect on capital gainers, or above the ceiling on big W2 earners), and in 1986 he raised the income taxes paid by the lowest paid workers - WHILE cutting top rates. Chumps like the sissies o this board ate that up - and it was against them, personally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Refor ... _tax_rates

The top tax rate for individuals was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%.[
4] Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[
5] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.

If one looks at the big spenders of the last 35 years, one sees Rs next to their names.



Ragan was a big government, big borrowing, big spending, big regulator.

TOTAL NUMBER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, BY ADMINISTRATION

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversigh ... ince-1962/

Year........Exec Civilians..........Military..........Judicial and legislative..........Total Federal Employees

1977........2,840,000 ..........2,112,000......53,000...............................5,005,000 .....................Ford's last Budget
1981........2,806,000 ..........2,122,000......54,000...............................4,982,000 .....................Carter's last Budget Civilian shrank, military grew
1989........3,064,000 ..........2,168,000......60,000...............................5,292,000 .....................Reagan's last Budget

As % of population, Reagan's military SHRANK. Civilian employees - federal bureaucrats - grew by leaps and bounds.

Let's look at population. https://www.google.com/fusiontables/Dat ... #rows:id=1 Ford's last year was 220,239,425 people in '77. Carter's last year was 229,465,714 - a population growth of 4.189% during his presidency. Reagan ended 1989 with 246,819,230 people - a population growth of 7.57%. Reagan's military forces (see above) grew by an anemic 2.2% (Carter's only grew by half a point, but Carter was CUTTING civilians, not padding the government employment roster with bureaucrats).

While Reagan was growing the population by 7.57% and the debt by 300% and the military by 2.2%, he was growing the CIVILIAN side of government - the part that focuses on we the people - by a whopping 9.2%. The man who promised to shrink government - who told Americans that government was the problem and that he was going to get government out of their way - grew that government faster than the population it served grew. The debt grew, the economy grew, the federal government's control of education grew, the federal labor force grew. The only thing that grew slower than the population was the military.