Liberal Forum

sunburn » 24 Oct 2023, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 10:05 am

like I said, you can crunch the numbers anyway you want~  I lived during those years and those are my first hand accounts.

That's called anecdotal evidence.

CP supplied you with empirical evidence.
 

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014, 3:56 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2014, 3:56 am

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/

with a mortgage rate of 10% on a home loan, higher for second mortgages and credit cards were over 25%. on unpaid balances which calculates to over 2% a month. so when saving passbook accounts only paid 2% a quarter institutions were yielding 7% a month and government taxes revenues were compounding on every dollar exchanged every exchange 50% the value of the paper currency.

How planned obsolescence happens when everyone believes tomorrow is a physical event.

Sumela » 24 Oct 2023, 10:33 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 10:33 am

That's called anecdotal evidence.

CP supplied you with empirical evidence.
 

So are working theories and spiritual theologies sustaining symbolism over substance facts legally binding to each ancestor every generation living forward now.

Nostradamus'omh » 24 Oct 2023, 11:06 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 11:06 am

So are working theories and spiritual theologies sustaining symbolism over substance facts legally binding to each ancestor every generation living forward now.

I was  very young back then. Carter was potus- I got a 100 bucks interest on 2k.  I liked that. lol
Reagan won. I went out looking for work and applied. I had 5 sheet job offers! It was great.  

Then our rural area went onto BOOM!  The factories- booming- the restaurants full...  i remember all that.
 
Ironically now? We have NO restaurants- no banks- no drugstore- nothing... you tell me? nothing!
 

sootedupCyndi » 24 Oct 2023, 11:56 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 11:56 am

I was  very young back then. Carter was potus- I got a 100 bucks interest on 2k.  I liked that. lol
Reagan won. I went out looking for work and applied. I had 5 sheet job offers! It was great.  

Then our rural area went onto BOOM!  The factories- booming- the restaurants full...  i remember all that.
 
Ironically now? We have NO restaurants- no banks- no drugstore- nothing... you tell me? nothing!

no wallmart or Home Depot?

Mrkelly » 24 Oct 2023, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 12:38 pm

no wallmart or Home Depot?

nope!  walmart -35 miles a way- which isn't bad?
We have a McDonalds- a  Tractor supply- a few hardware stores.. nothing!
i shop online for everything
Home depot- is an hour away. It's a big trip to go there... like a safari?     hour there and back.? 
 

sooted up Cyndi » 24 Oct 2023, 11:56 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 11:56 am

I was  very young back then. Carter was potus- I got a 100 bucks interest on 2k.  I liked that. lol
Reagan won. I went out looking for work and applied. I had 5 sheet job offers! It was great. :lol:  

Then our rural area went onto BOOM!  The factories- booming- the restaurants full...  i remember all that.
 
Ironically now? We have NO restaurants- no banks- no drugstore- nothing... you tell me? nothing!
 

You have something urban sprawls don't know anything about. Living in real time. They only get rational ideas now isn't eternity to keep them from using their brain and mind what society nurtured since birth.

Nostradamus'omh » 24 Oct 2023, 2:58 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 2:58 pm

You have something urban sprawls don't know anything about. Living in real time. They only get rational ideas now isn't eternity to keep them from using their brain and mind what society nurtured since birth.

Sometimes i think being a hilly billy simpleton- is a blessing?  
 i actually wish I was retardo like joe? Pass me an ice cream- and i'll lay down on the beach?  
 

sooted up Cyndi » 24 Oct 2023, 3:12 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 3:12 pm

Sometimes i think being a hilly billy simpleton- is a blessing?  
 i actually wish I was retardo like joe? Pass me an ice cream- and i'll lay down on the beach? :wave:  
 

Ancestrally learning to life off the land teaches not to feed off ancestries of your own kind inventing ways to fool anyone believing now isn't eternity knowing their body is limited to eternally separated now.

Sumela » 24 Oct 2023, 10:33 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 10:33 am

That's called anecdotal evidence.

CP supplied you with empirical evidence.

na, those numbers don't come close to what actually went on.
Each admin crunches numbers so they look good.
I suppose millions of people out of work is anecdotal. lmao.
 

FJB » 24 Oct 2023, 7:28 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 7:28 am

WOW.... YOU CAN LIE WITH THE BEST OF THEM

Too bad you cannot refute with the best of them, kid.

Screeching "Liar" doesn't answer to facts from perfectly middle of the road sources.   
 

FJB » 24 Oct 2023, 7:30 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 7:30 am

YOU ARE A LIAR, YOU ARE JUST GIVING OPINION, NOT FACTS

Sure, pookie bear. 

For progs like you, MATH is a matter of opinion.

2+2 = depends on how ya look at it.

Homo.
 

sunburn » 24 Oct 2023, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 10:05 am

like I said, you can crunch the numbers anyway you want~  I lived during those years and those are my first hand accounts.

I just did, kid. They crunched against you. 

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.
 
 

sunburn » 24 Oct 2023, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 10:05 am

like I said, you can crunch the numbers anyway you want~  I lived during those years and those are my first hand accounts.

You don't have to like it, child - but you need to face it.

Reagan collect a bit more and spent a hell of a lot more than his predecessors. 

You need to stop focusing on denial - I HAVE the numbers. This is where you trot out the excuses - denying just makes you look stupid. 



 

Nostradamus'omh » 24 Oct 2023, 10:45 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 10:45 am

with a mortgage rate of 10% on a home loan, higher for second mortgages and credit cards were over 25%. on unpaid balances which calculates to over 2% a month. so when saving passbook accounts only paid 2% a quarter institutions were yielding 7% a month and government taxes revenues were compounding on every dollar exchanged every exchange 50% the value of the paper currency.

How planned obsolescence happens when everyone believes tomorrow is a physical event.

I was pretty sure I explained that Carter was a sin eater. He was paying for johnson's and nixon's sins. 

If you're too stupid to comprehend that, then you won't. Obviously, you either ignored my first iteration of it or were too stupid to understand it. I don't know which explanation is uglier. 

 
 

sunburn » 24 Oct 2023, 4:33 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 4:33 pm

na, those numbers don't come close to what actually went on.
Each admin crunches numbers so they look good.
I suppose millions of people out of work is anecdotal. lmao.

You just prefer when Rs

crunch the numbers  
 

Sumela » 24 Oct 2023, 7:45 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 7:45 pm

You just prefer when Rs

crunch the numbers

Rs cannot do anything about these numbers but throw chaff. 

Reagan simply DID grow government and DID outspend Carter and DID triple the national debt and DID have the biggest deficits since FDR during WWII and DID grow the federal bureaucracy and DID assume a great deal more federal involvement in education and DID have the first public bailout of a bank failure in half a century AFTER changing the rules back to the **** show that caused the Great Depression. 

Reagan simply WAS the first president since WWII to increase the national debt as a function of GDP.

The neocons can holler "but Russia," and they can yell "but Tip Oneill." That's about it. Hell, they can't even blame Barney Frank - that has to break their hearts...

sunburn » 24 Oct 2023, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 10:05 am

like I said, you can crunch the numbers anyway you want~  I lived during those years and those are my first hand accounts.

Run, fellas - he's armed with anecdotes.

I lived through those years, too - and I am equally armed with anecdotes. 

Your anecdotes are no better or worse than mine - so they cancel each other out. 

We're left with facts - and facts just suck for progressives and neocons. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 24 Oct 2023, 8:22 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 8:22 pm

Rs cannot do anything about these numbers but throw chaff. 

Reagan simply DID grow government and DID outspend Carter and DID triple the national debt and DID have the biggest deficits since FDR during WWII and DID grow the federal bureaucracy and DID assume a great deal more federal involvement in education and DID have the first public bailout of a bank failure in half a century AFTER changing the rules back to the **** show that caused the Great Depression. 

Reagan simply WAS the first president since WWII to increase the national debt as a function of GDP.

The neocons can holler "but Russia," and they can yell "but Tip Oneill." That's about it. Hell, they can't even blame Barney Frank - that has to break their hearts...

His admin literally created the utter disaster

that is now Afghanistan.

Socialist Affie in the 70s...Its what WASH DC hated...success.


 
 

Sumela » 24 Oct 2023, 8:30 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2023, 8:30 pm

His admin literally created the utter disaster

that is now Afghanistan.

Socialist Affie in the 70s...Its what WASH DC hated...success.

Iran in the 50s - pre-shah - was the same, until the queen's CIA overthrew the government at the behest of BP.