User avatar
crimsongulf
04 Apr 2014 12:27 pm
crimsongulf
User avatar
The only thing Carter grew was peanuts and the market for cardigan sweaters....
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
tharock220
04 Apr 2014 10:27 am
tharock220
User avatar
Your attempting to qualify Carter's poor showing, but you have no proof Reagan would have performed better or worse from 78-81 or whatever years are in question. A straight up comparison of their respective economies reveals Reagan's was better. Unemployment dropped, income grew, and inflation cam...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Mar 2014 06:41 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
You are being dishonest. I have already granted that my OP was ill conceived and did not really set up the battle that I wish to have: An honest comparison of the two presidents, rather than me having to prove the more narrow and difficult claim that Carter was better on the economy. Here is my quot...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
tharock220
15 Mar 2014 06:29 pm
tharock220
User avatar
Are we talking about today or the Reagan and Carter presidencies? I'm not defending anything. I'm forcing you to defend your OP. The most fun thing is knowing you know you can't defend it anymore and watching you bring up all matter of unrelated topics....
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Mar 2014 06:26 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
Prices on WHAT dropping? Gasoline? Butter and eggs? The fact that cheap gadgetry went down in price is a function of 2 things: Slave labor, and technological progress. Reagan can b e thanked for only one of those. Just out of curiosity - why won't you defend Reaganomics when a black guy implement...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
tharock220
15 Mar 2014 06:19 pm
tharock220
User avatar
What's better Cannon, incomes staying the same and prices dropping, or prices and income increasing equally? Are you done defending your OP?...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Mar 2014 06:09 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
The irony is so thick I could cut it with a shoe. The chart shows that the "increase in real income" is at the expense of workers! The giant sucking sound the chart divulges is, in your partisan world, evidence FOR Reaganomics?...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
tharock220
15 Mar 2014 05:48 pm
tharock220
User avatar
It pains me to see you stuck on talking points. What seems lost on is your graph says more is being produced without corresponding increases in cost inputs. So prices come down. That means an increase in real income. Did we see that under Carter or Reagan? Anymore regurgitated nonsense from you...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Mar 2014 05:37 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
The right wankers cry about expanding government and burgeoning debt, while defending expanding government and burgeoning debt. It's really very curious and schizophrenic. But then, they live in the land where ketchup is a vegetable (depending on who declares it such, OF COURSE)....
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Mar 2014 05:35 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
Real income, as I already showed you with a handy graph, TANKED next to productivity. Under Reagan, families gave more and more, getting less and less in return. Today's economy is merely Reaganomics plus time, son. Latch key kids, full penitentiaries, wide spread drug addiction and an anemic dollar...
— LiberalForum Archive