Liberal Forum

Huey » 12 Jan 2015 4:54 am » wrote: Tan u durl hab tum peckew?

PEEEEEES?

NO!

Cannonpointer » 12 Jan 2015 5:32 am » wrote: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%.

.

Which has almost nothing to do with actual reality.

That's what happens when an ignorant psychotic looks at a chart and offers a wild guess.

No, the economy as Reagan entered office was in chaos and on the verge of collapse. Your, snicker, "correction" was a dead cat bounce before the collapse continued.

Carter's numbers were in a significant upward trajectory at handoff.

Find a mainstream source to back that up, psycho.

The chart also shows that Reagan's big spending could only artificially stimulate the economy for a few years.

Where did you say that huge Obama Boom was hiding, psycho?

Oh that's right, you dodged the question and babbled some psychotic nonsense.

After it overheated, it went into free fall, costing Bush his job.

A moderate recession is "free fall?" Only in the moonbat dictionary.

Cannonpointer » 12 Jan 2015 5:32 am » wrote: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

How typically dishonest, blaming Reagan for a tax hike O'Neil pushed on him, which Reagan called the biggest mistake of his presidency.

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.

More fake moonbat history.

1986 was Tax Reform, and as much was cut in taxes as raised, psycho.

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

Reagan was fighting against liberal Dems and a few Beltway Repubs for spending restraint. Psychotics claim otherwise.

Babble away.

Cannonpointer » 12 Jan 2015 5:32 am » wrote: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

5.6 what, moonbat, bushels of grain? Hectares? Pints of ale?

I'll bet that isn't about budgeting at all.

Carter grew the economy much greater than Reagan. Reagan presided over the highest unemployment rate (10%) that this country saw since b4 WW2. Reagan outspent Carter. Reagan broke American laws (iran/contra) (October surprise) and he paid honor to Nazis at a Nazi cemetery (Bonzo goes to Bitburg).

Doesn,t look like a contest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDD7LpsW6p8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8e_b6nvHTU

danobivins » 12 Jan 2015 9:25 am » wrote:Carter grew the economy much greater than Reagan.

Another anti-reality psychotic babbling in complete ignorance.

RichClem » 12 Jan 2015 8:58 am » wrote: More fake moonbat history. 1986 was Tax Reform, and as much was cut in taxes as raised, psycho.

Take it up with Wiki, you ***.

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%.

There it is, you **** mouthed, lying sack of ****. So just shut the **** up - your **** doesn't fly here, ***. Your pretense that you're too stupid to understand what you're responding to is rejected, ***. If you can't keep up, go the **** away. We don;t need first graders, you bleating moron. I made my language crystal clear - as can be seen above. And I provided the quote above, and I linked the quote to the source.

I did my job. I stated my thesis, backed it with evidence, and sourced the evidence.

It's your duty to understand what you're responding to, you ***-felching wad of used toilet paper.

RichClem » 12 Jan 2015 9:07 am » wrote:
5.6 what, moonbat, bushels of grain? Hectares? Pints of ale?

I'll bet that isn't about budgeting at all.

That you don't know what this stat represents, as many times as it's been used in this thread, says everything, you dirty diaper.

Cannonpointer » 12 Jan 2015 5:24 pm » wrote:Take it up with Wiki, you ***.

There it is, you **** mouthed, lying sack of ****. So just shut the **** up - your **** doesn't fly here, ***. Your pretense that you're too stupid to understand what you're responding to is rejected, ***. If you can't keep up, go the **** away. We don;t need first graders, you bleating moron. I made my language crystal clear - as can be seen above. And I provided the quote above, and I linked the quote to the source.

I did my job. I stated my thesis, backed it with evidence, and sourced the evidence.

It's your duty to understand what you're responding to, you ***-felching wad of used toilet paper.

Wow, who would ever think you're mentally impaired?

Say, if little jimmy carter was so great on the economy, why did the liberal New Republic call him a failure toward the end of his presidency?

Why did liberals "turn on him?"

Maybe because you're an imbecile and an ignoramus, perhaps?

I remember as a mere callow college student when I made out that Jimmy Carter was finished: when liberals turned on him. For example, Ken Bode, then the revered moderator of “Washington Week in Review” on PBS, wrote in 1979 “It’s Over For Jimmy” in The New Republic: “The past two weeks will be remembered as the period when President Carter packed it in, put the finishing touches on a failed presidency”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... elding.php

RichClem » 15 Jan 2015 5:14 pm » wrote:
Wow, who would ever think you're mentally impaired?

Say, if little jimmy carter was so great on the economy, why did the liberal New Republic call him a failure toward the end of his presidency?

Why did liberals "turn on him?"

Maybe because you're an imbecile and an ignoramus, perhaps?

Your mouth is a hole where arab men ehacutalte.I answer for me, and I don't take the word of pakistani cum dumpsters as to who is and is not liberal - nor do I presume to explain what other adults are thinking, toilet.

You think the media owned and operated by your wall street heros is liberal, you eager pakistani face rape opportunity. If you don't see it at the rest area, you assume it's liberal, bathroom boy.

Meanwhile, you post charts that you don't understand, and then name call when you're asked what the chart means by an honest poster who would never post **** that he doesn't even comprehend.

You're a hack and a spewbot, andf you only post to me because you want to suck my cock.

Now, these are my instructions, ***. Post to me again, so that everyone will know I speak the truth, and you are genuinely after my dick.

DO IT, SISSY.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote:Carter grew the economy in the four years of HIS budget 78,79, 80 and 81 (he took office in 77, but that was ford's year - and a good one) faster than reagan did in his eight years 81-89. If anyone wants to swap years (pretend 77 was Carter's, even though the fiscal year runs from October to October) that's fine, too. Either way, Carter ROMPS on Reagan - I just want to be accurate.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Ye ... istory.htm

In 4 years, carter grew the economy to 154% of where he took over. It was 2.086 trillion in 77 when he took office, and 3.211 trillion for 81 - his last fiscal budget. The numbers are even better if you run it by election year rather than fiscal year (the more accurate and honest measure).

In his 8 years, Reagan took the economy from 3.211 trillion - Carter's last fiscal year - to 5,6577 trillion in 1989 - his last fiscal year, That's an increase to 177% of what it was when he took over - in EIGHT years. Carter almost made that figure in FOUR years.

Aided and abbetted by a willing conservative MSM, repukes have floated a false narrative about Carter and reagan, playing the former as befuddled and incompetent and the latter as an economic goliath. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is why, in the face of ALL EVIDENCE, contards pretend the press is "librul." It's called projection.

I want to give credit where it's due: Glory Hole Clem is the fool who got me to googling and discovering these facts. My own nature is what gets me crowing about it.

Contards, you are on notice: CARTER WAS BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN. SO WAS CLINTON - BETTER THAN REAGAN, BUSH AND BUSH. You people suck at business and the economy - and everything else. You even suck off men in public bathrooms.

Let's see what Forbes has to say: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/ ... -creation/

Simple question canobrattle?

What were the economic numbers when Peanuts took office and what were they when left office?

The numbers are on the thread. Good luck.

Huey » 16 Jan 2015 4:33 am » wrote:
I am a homosexual who has never in his life addressed any OP you have ever written, without lying. I have not even TRIED to address THIS OP - nor will I. You have pwned the entire right wing with this thread, and I have no chops. I HAVE NO CHOPS! Hashtag, I suckjout loud!

So I am going to pretend that I'm doing something other than masturbating. What were the economic numbers when Peanuts took office and what were they when left office?

The numbers are on the thread. Good luck.

I don't need luck, tub. I don't allow *** who have never addressed the OP to assign me homework, You tell us how many dicks you sucked last month. The numbers are in your complexion, Pimples.

Come back and say some more stupid **** to prove you want some of this dick, kid.

DO IT!

Good luck.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote:Carter grew the economy in the four years of HIS budget 78,79, 80 and 81 (he took office in 77, but that was ford's year - and a good one) faster than reagan did in his eight years 81-89. If anyone wants to swap years (pretend 77 was Carter's, even though the fiscal year runs from October to October) that's fine, too. Either way, Carter ROMPS on Reagan - I just want to be accurate.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Ye ... istory.htm

In 4 years, carter grew the economy to 154% of where he took over. It was 2.086 trillion in 77 when he took office, and 3.211 trillion for 81 - his last fiscal budget. The numbers are even better if you run it by election year rather than fiscal year (the more accurate and honest measure).

In his 8 years, Reagan took the economy from 3.211 trillion - Carter's last fiscal year - to 5,6577 trillion in 1989 - his last fiscal year, That's an increase to 177% of what it was when he took over - in EIGHT years. Carter almost made that figure in FOUR years.

Aided and abbetted by a willing conservative MSM, repukes have floated a false narrative about Carter and reagan, playing the former as befuddled and incompetent and the latter as an economic goliath. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is why, in the face of ALL EVIDENCE, contards pretend the press is "librul." It's called projection.

I want to give credit where it's due: Glory Hole Clem is the fool who got me to googling and discovering these facts. My own nature is what gets me crowing about it.

Contards, you are on notice: CARTER WAS BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN. SO WAS CLINTON - BETTER THAN REAGAN, BUSH AND BUSH. You people suck at business and the economy - and everything else. You even suck off men in public bathrooms.

Let's see what Forbes has to say: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/ ... -creation/

Simple question canobrattle?

What were the economic numbers when Peanuts took office and what were they when left office?

The numbers are on the thread. Good luck.

Huey » 16 Jan 2015 4:47 am » wrote: I am a homosexual who has never in his life addressed any OP you have ever written, without lying. I have not even TRIED to address THIS OP - nor will I. You have pwned the entire right wing with this thread, and I have no chops. I HAVE NO CHOPS! Hashtag, I suckjout loud!

So I am going to pretend that I'm doing something other than masturbating. What were the economic numbers when Peanuts took office and what were they when left office?

The numbers are on the thread. Good luck.

I don't need luck, tub. I don't allow *** who have never addressed the OP to assign me homework, You tell us how many dicks you sucked last month. The numbers are in your complexion, Pimples.

Come back and say some more stupid **** to prove you want some of this dick, kid.

DO IT!

Good luck.

Cannonpointer » 16 Jan 2015 4:55 am » wrote:
I don't need luck, tub. I don't allow *** who have never addressed the OP to assign me homework, You tell us how many dicks you sucked last month. The numbers are in your complexion, Pimples.

Come back and say some more stupid **** to prove you want some of this dick, kid.

DO IT!

Good luck.

Once again CanoBrattle does not wish to discuss an OP, particularly his own.

Huey » 16 Jan 2015 4:56 am » wrote: Once again CanoBrattle does not wish to discuss an OP, particularly his own.

Okay, you followed orders, ***. I get that you want some dick and are not ashamed to just throw your request out there.

But there's still a problem with your ****-mouthing. You're a little punk that could not discuss an OP if it would save him from the big mean beardy beardies that dominate his night terrors, torture-queen. Now,Get off my dick, sissy.

You don't have the chops to discuss the OP - and your shallow pretense that telling me to fetch is "discussing" fools no one, and overlooks the fact that you're nothing but prison ****** - a litle *** of a man who would **** his pants and sit all day in it before daring to smack talk a grown man about fetching things in the real world.

I already told you, queer. I do not allow *** to assign me homework. If you EVER get the balls to address the OP, I'll fall over, little girl. Now, drag your stink ****** out of my thread, bittch.

Or say some more stupid **** to indicate you want some dick, you little ***.

Cannonpointer » 16 Jan 2015 5:12 am » wrote:
Okay, you followed orders, ***. I get that you want some dick and are not ashamed to just throw your request out there.

But there's still a problem with your ****-mouthing. You're a little punk that could not discuss an OP if it would save him from the big mean beardy beardies that dominate his night terrors, torture-queen. Now,Get off my dick, sissy.

You don't have the chops to discuss the OP - and your shallow pretense that telling me to fetch is "discussing" fools no one, and overlooks the fact that you're nothing but prison ****** - a litle *** of a man who would **** his pants and sit all day in it before daring to smack talk a grown man about fetching things in the real world.

I already told you, queer. I do not allow *** to assign me homework. If you EVER get the balls to address the OP, I'll fall over, little girl. Now, drag your stink ****** out of my thread, bittch.

Or say some more stupid **** to indicate you want some dick, you little ***.

It was a simple question related to YOUR OP. Afraid to post the answer? Afraid to accept reality?
Very entertaining.

There is an element of unfairness in attributing economic growth to a president, of course. The government has limited influence on the economy, and the president can have limited influence on government policy, as anyone watching the current debate in Washington has surely noticed. Normal economic cycles mean that growth is likely to be less impressive for a president who enters office at the end of a boom, as George W. Bush did, and better for one who enters when growth is weak, as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan did. If normal cyclical factors return, and President Obama has a second term, his record should end up much better than it currently appears. If he loses, he could be like Gerald Ford, who also took office during a deep recession.
With all those caveats, here are the annualized growth rates for real G.D.P. for every president who took office after the end of World War II.
Each president is given credit for growth through the quarter before he left office. For those who left at the end of their terms, that would be the fourth quarter of the election year. For Richard M. Nixon, who resigned during the third quarter of 1974, it is through the second quarter of that year.
Also shown are the figures for Presidents Bush and Obama that would have appeared had the numbers been calculated before today’s announcement of second quarter data and revisions to earlier numbers.
They are listed in reverse order of growth.
Barack Obama, 1.2% annual G.D.P. growth rate (previously 1.5%)
George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%)
George H.W. Bush, 2.1%
Gerald Ford, 2.2%
Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5%
Richard Nixon, 3.0%
Jimmy Carter, 3.2%
Ronald Reagan, 3.5%
Bill Clinton, 3.8%
Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0%
John F. Kennedy, 5.4%

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... -d-p/?_r=0