User avatar
tharock220
11 Mar 2014 12:23 am
tharock220
User avatar
Your verbosity betrays your lack of evidence. I didn't say inflation under Reagan gets a bye. All I said was it was lower than GDP growth. Reagan's spending habits are not relevant to your OP. If you want to have that discussion we can do so, but you can't claim Carter's presidency produced a be...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
10 Mar 2014 02:14 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
We have another issue in contention, as well. You know how that colored fella in the whitehouse is having himself a "jobless recovery?" And you know how that sucks for a lot of folks, on account of they consider having a job a sort of "economic" measure - as in, not having a job puts a strain on the...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
10 Mar 2014 02:02 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
Utterly irrelevant. I see how you are when I get you on the run. Carter's economy would not have to grow, if Reagans shrunk more. So right there, without any further arguments of context, is an example of how full of **** you are when you say that the inflation issue NECESSARILY ends the debate. ...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
tharock220
10 Mar 2014 01:46 pm
tharock220
User avatar
For ****'s sake dude, I'm not arguing that Carter was bad, that Reagan was good, deficits, gold standards, or energy prices. You said Carter grew the economy much better than Reagan. My response was every year of Carter's presidency, inflation outpaced GDP growth. Changes in prices are part of GD...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
10 Mar 2014 01:39 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
**** and poppycock, son. Proving Carter sucks - which you AIN'T - would not even put a tiny DENT in my thesis, if I proved Reagan sucked worse. You've defeated my argument for one element of the economy, but as you know from a shameful career of desperately defending incompetent republicans, context...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
golfboy
10 Mar 2014 01:37 pm
golfboy
User avatar
Carter was handed a roaring economy and drove it into the ground: 1977 4.6% $2,086.0 1978 5.6% $2,356.6 1979 3.2% $2,632.1 1980 -0.2% $2,862.5...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
10 Mar 2014 01:25 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
I just want to kind of isolate this part of your post and look at it as a stand alone.Making excuses why my OP is wrong. The part of me that gets along in society knows I should not be proud of that accusation. But how many times does a guy get a chance to make excuses why his OP is wrong? I feel j...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
10 Mar 2014 01:20 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
Oh, that. Hey, dollars are dollars - not my fault republicans ****-canned the gold standard and went to fiat currency. What - I have to explain everything? I'm only one man - one powerful, handsome, brilliant man. But just one man. Okay, okay, so I forgot I had an OP to defend here. Lemme go loo...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
tharock220
10 Mar 2014 01:09 pm
tharock220
User avatar
Again, we're not talking about your respect for Reagan's economy, we're talking about your thesis which is a comparison of their individual economies. You're losing your initial argument, and you know this. So your response has been to attack the Reagan's policies, but doing so does not support your...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
10 Mar 2014 01:05 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
When you double the national debt to prime the economy instead of being a fiscal conservative like Carter, it will certainly APPEAR that your unborn children's money is "yours." After all, you're spending it, right - and your kid owes it? That IS what occurred, is it not? I'll be delighted to learn...
— LiberalForum Archive