Liberal Forum

You JUST GOT THROUGH attributing 1981 to Reagan. IN YOUR LAST POST. You truly are a hypocrite, son....

Not much on math, are ya? That kind of growth is pretty easy to achieve after two down years. You would have to add the negatives and divide by three to get an honest picture of what Carter inherited. [/quote] That's funny. A flat year is a "powerful downward spiral?" It was followed by a 2.6% g...

Don't be freaking stupid. A president doesn't "own" an economy just because he took office. Did Dubya "own" the 2001 recession that began in March? Did Clinton "own" the strongly recovering economy as he took office? Is there any issue you won't utterly bungle?...

The chart was proof of YOUR claim, not mine. The problem for you is that YOUR chart, confirmed MY numbers, not yours. Either YOUR chart is wrong, or YOUR numbers are wrong. They cannot BOTH be correct. Get it yet?...

That it takes time to achieve a goal when the opposition party is strong and entrenched. But Reagan's side won in the end, and spending shrank by 2% of GDP over his eight years. (Or 3, I forget.) Go ahead, bleat your stupidity....

SO YOU ACCEPT THAT CHART - YOU'RE WILLING TO OWN THAT NUMBER? You have already been all over the board with the math, son. Pick 4 years to attribute to Carter and stick. Only then will I debate you on the numbers. Carter owns 1980 (-0,2%) and Reagan owns '81. Is that it? YES/NO...

5.4% is pretty strong growth, psycho. That's the economy Carter inherited. Here's 77 - 80: 77: +4.6 78: +5.6 79: +3.2 80: -.02 Failing to take into account the powerful downward spiral the economy was in; the chaos, the confusion, the utter lack of solution by most policy makers. Except Reagan...

So Reagan was ineffectual? That's your argument - Reagan was a hapless victim?...

We've already used your sources to debunk your own claims. Your chart showed Carter's average GDP to be 3.4% That means that Carter came to office with a first year GDP of 4.6%, and left with a -0.2%...

His big mistake was not adding 2 trillion to the national debt, and claiming that "money" as GDP....