This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules
User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
greatnpowerfuloz » 15 Mar 2014 5:18 pm » wrote:Thanks, cannon.

I'd assumed 'real' vs 'manipulated' would have been clear to the fellow. Obviously not.
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).

User avatar
tharock220

Share      Unread post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 82
Politics: Anarchist

Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2014 5:35 pm » wrote:
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 are all the legacy of Reaganomics - as is our reduced sovereign rating. That brick road in America's windshield? That's the end of Reagan Way, son.

Will you EVER stop defending America's undoing?
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 your masters you want me to debunk?

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 5:48 pm » wrote:
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?
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! :rofl:

The giant sucking sound the chart divulges is, in your partisan world, evidence FOR Reaganomics? :faint:

User avatar
tharock220

Share      Unread post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 82
Politics: Anarchist

Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2014 6:09 pm » wrote:
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! :rofl:

The giant sucking sound the chart divulges is, in your partisan world, evidence FOR Reaganomics? :faint:
What's better Cannon, incomes staying the same and prices dropping, or prices and income increasing equally?

Are you done defending your OP?

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 6:19 pm » wrote:
What's better Cannon, incomes staying the same and prices dropping, or prices and income increasing equally?

Are you done defending your OP?
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 implements it?

User avatar
tharock220

Share      Unread post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 82
Politics: Anarchist

Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2014 6:26 pm » wrote:
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 implements it?
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.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
tharock220 » 15 Mar 2014 6:29 pm » wrote:
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.
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 quote, snapback intact:
Cannonpointer » 10 Mar 2014 2:02 pm » wrote: On top of all that, pal, I already acknowledged very clearly that you have partially defeated my OP, and I have as a result clarified my thesis. Sometimes OPs are written in haste, and what one is looking to argue is not clearly enunciated. If all you wanted was to prove Carter's economy - after inflation - was stagnant, then you are the victor and may the force be with you. But there are other comparisons left to make, for ME - and I say your drug store cowboy cannot - ON BALANCE - stand up to my peanut farmer. Puddemup, puddemup. :ninja:
Yet you, in the face of that, continually try to stick me with an OP that I have abandoned, bowing to your superior evidence.

I remain in the fight, but with the modified thesis that Carter was better for America and that Reagan was a disaster for America. His economic model is a proven failure. We're still using it - derr.

Carter was still on FDRnomics - but with the added weight of LBJ's great society and Nixon's withdrawal from Bretton Woods. Give all of that, plus the energy crisis, Carter made a fine showing. Reagan sold us down the tubes and stabbed the working man in the back. I have shown you the math. Frankly, I am flabbergasted that you have not yet apologized.

User avatar
tharock220

Share      Unread post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 82
Politics: Anarchist

Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2014 6:41 pm » wrote:
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 quote, snapback intact:


Yet you, in the face of that, continually try to stick me with an OP that I have abandoned, bowing to your superior evidence.

I remain in the fight, but with the modified thesis that Carter was better for America and that Reagan was a disaster for America. His economic model is a proven failure. We're still using it - derr.

Carter was still on FDRnomics - but with the added weight of LBJ's great society and Nixon's withdrawal from Bretton Woods. Give all of that, plus the energy crisis, Carter made a fine showing. Reagan sold us down the tubes and stabbed the working man in the back. I have shown you the math. Frankly, I am flabbergasted that you have not yet apologized.
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 came down.

User avatar
crimsongulf

Share      Unread post

User avatar
        
        
Posts: 3,604
Politics: Capitalist

AbitaBeer
The only thing Carter grew was peanuts and the market for cardigan sweaters.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
tharock220 » 04 Apr 2014 10:27 am » wrote:
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 came down.
Tripling the debt - that doesn't measure in at all? Just - poof - of no consequence?

You girls have filled Lake Michigan with tears over Obie's spending. He is far from tripling the debt, son. He hasn't even doubled it, as Bush did.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
crimsongulf » 04 Apr 2014 12:27 pm » wrote:The only thing Carter grew was peanuts and the market for cardigan sweaters.
Your ignorance is showing.

Google inflation. Google interest rates. He grew both.

But DON'T google unemployment. We are comparing Carter to Reagan - and Reagan used a dishonest measure (reaganomics, doncha know - ketchup is a vegetable), making the comparison apples to oranges.

Carter counted the unemployed as unemployed. Reagan counted only those drawing benefits. Many, many, many of Reagan's numbers were similarly engineered. The man was a stuffed shirt.

User avatar
crimsongulf

Share      Unread post

User avatar
        
        
Posts: 3,604
Politics: Capitalist

AbitaBeer
Sorry, my clarity of recollection is not clouded by bathtub chemicals.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
crimsongulf » 04 Apr 2014 6:59 pm » wrote:Sorry, my clarity of recollection is not clouded by bathtub chemicals.
How dayuh you! You cad, you give me the vaypahs!


MY SALTS!

User avatar
tharock220

Share      Unread post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 82
Politics: Anarchist

Cannonpointer » 04 Apr 2014 6:54 pm » wrote:
Tripling the debt - that doesn't measure in at all? Just - poof - of no consequence?

You girls have filled Lake Michigan with tears over Obie's spending. He is far from tripling the debt, son. He hasn't even doubled it, as Bush did.
Yet he's nearly added more to the debt than the two of them combined. We're comparing Carter and Reagan's economies not their policies or spending.

User avatar
Cannonpointer

Share      Unread post

User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
Posts: 201,035
Politics: Insurrectionist
Location: Your sister's bedroom - the slutty one

WhistleSNAP
tharock220 » 04 Apr 2014 7:03 pm » wrote:
Yet he's nearly added more to the debt than the two of them combined. We're comparing Carter and Reagan's economies not their policies or spending.
Silly me. I consider TRIPLING the national debt an being the first post-WWII Resident to grow the debt-GDP ratio an aspect of the ECONOMY.

Hey, try this: Pretend it was Carter that tripled the debt.

See it now? Yeah. You see it now. Good on ya.

User avatar
crimsongulf

Share      Unread post

User avatar
        
        
Posts: 3,604
Politics: Capitalist

AbitaBeer
Billy was the mastermind of the Carter empire.

User avatar
onlyaladd

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 813
Politics: Anarchist

crimsongulf » 04 Apr 2014 6:59 pm » wrote:Sorry, my clarity of recollection is not clouded by bathtub chemicals.
If that's not an admission of defeat what is?

User avatar
tharock220

Share      Unread post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 82
Politics: Anarchist

Cannonpointer » 04 Apr 2014 7:07 pm » wrote:
Silly me. I consider TRIPLING the national debt an being the first post-WWII Resident to grow the debt-GDP ratio an aspect of the ECONOMY.

Hey, try this: Pretend it was Carter that tripled the debt.

See it now? Yeah. You see it now. Good on ya.
If you think I give Reagan a pass on his deficits I don't. I'm wondering if I should subject you to a Voight-Kampff test to make sure you're not a computer whose only purpose is to say "Reagan tripled the debt". We both agree to that. Now explain why you think it matters to their economies.

User avatar
Endoscopy

Share      Unread post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 55
Politics: Conservative

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:20 pm » wrote: Thank you for showing Reaganomics at work. You eat your own leg, you dine well for a while. But the chickens DO come home to roost, son.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I NOTICE THAT YOU DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO REFUTE THE GRAPH

This graph show the results of Reagan creating jobs and Obama killing jobs. Why don't you discuss it instead of the stupid rant signifying nothing.

Typical Alynski response to my post. Straight from Rules for Radicals.
Never discuss the issue with the opposition because it humanizes them.
Demonize the opposition.

According to this graph Reaganomics created jobs for the working people.
Obama using Carternomics is killing jobs for the working people.
To me that is the chickens coming home to roost for Democrats failure.

REAGAN SUCCEEDED AT CREATING JOBS
OBAMA FAILED AT CREATING JOBS
USING CARTERS METHODS

User avatar
Endoscopy

Share      Unread post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 55
Politics: Conservative

Cannonpointer » 10 Mar 2014 5:58 am » wrote: Let me see if I get what you're supplying to the conversation:

You are saying that Cater walloped all five of the republicans who served before him following the conclusion of WWII, and was only ever beaten by the very slgihtest of edges (3/10ths of a percent) by ONE republican - a man who borrowed during his tenure more than half of the entire GDP in the year that he was elected?

WOWZA! Thank you for that support! I am actually PLEASED that there was finally one measure which, no matter how insignificantly or by what razor-thin margin, Reagan bested Carter. I mean, let's face it:

Jobs? Carter.
Shrinking government? Carter.
Civil rights/CIA prevented from spying on our own citizens? Carter.
Avoiding international conflict/dead troops? Carter.
Fiscal discipline? Carter.
Shrinking debt to GDP ratio? Carter.
No drug dealing by CIA? Carter.
No selling of WMDs to Iran? Carter.
No training, funding, creating of Al Qaida? Carter.
No supplying Saddam with WMDs to use on the Kurds? Carter.
No raping nuns, murdering priests or high-tailing it out of Lebanon in a cut-and-run? Carter.
Keeping his vice president honest, steering clear of the Medellin cartel, other unsavories? Carter.
No Major Flagg types snappy-saluting and Fawn Halling in the Whitehouse basement? Carter.
HONEST, FORTHRIGHT communication with the folks? Carter.
Protecting Social Security in a lock box? Carter.

Reagan's razor thin victory over Carter (3/10ths of a percent) - his ONLY success in any honest comparison of their records - came at the cost of the unborn.

Image

Reagan cut top tax rates while saying of our school children, "Let them eat ketchup." Cutting taxes while increasing spending - a republican habit that has resulted in ALL of America's republican presidents being bigger borrowers that the democrats they followed since WWII - is not good government. It's POLITICS: "Hey, I'm your buddy - the Candy Man." Whatever you need, good old Uncle Sugar will provide - and your grand kids get the tab.

I don't think much of dems, but at least they have the balls to ask TODAY'S voters to pay a bigger piece of today's spending than they palm off on the precious, precious unborn. Reagan was the FIRST PRESIDENT SINCE WWII to increase the debt to GDP ratio, and the biggest borrower in history to that time.

FDR borrowed an average of 21 billion per year to get us out of a global depression and then fight history's biggest war ever. And that money was in the form of war bonds, purchased by AMERICAN CITIZENS, not multinational corporations - and not a penny of it stolen from Social Security.

Reagan? He borrowed 231 billion per year - the ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT at the end of WWII, - every stinking year of his tenure, just to keep his corporate masters from paying their share on the windfalls he engineered for them through crony capitalism.

Image

And that's just the money he BORROWED. Let's discuss the money he STOLE. The Social Security Amendment of 1983 was rammed through congress as a 30 year "fix" for social security. Instead, it was a tax hike on working people. In 1983, Reagan ginned up a panic that Social Security might be in trouble. He hiked withholding rates to the highest in history - punishing labor while cutting taxes on capital - and he KEPT THE SURPLUS. It was not deposited into the SSA account, and used to buy T-Bills. No. It was flat-out stolen and spirited directly into the treasury, to replace the money the richest were no longer contributing. He did it again in 1984. and in 1985. Then 86, 87 and 88. His first two years were the only two that he did not steal the ENTIRE SURPLUS from Social Security - after raising the rate.

What a rat Reagan was. That Johny Hinckley seemed like such a nice boy.
:die: :die: :die: :die: :die:
Try going wit a more current graph.

Here re the figures of the presidents not adjusted for inflation.

BARACK OBAMA DEFICITS
FY 2013 - $672 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. 1.1% inflation to 2013

GEORGE W BUSH DEFICITS
FY 2008 - $1.270 trillion. Democrat congress
FY 2007 - $501 billion. Democrat congress
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

BILL CLINTON
FY 2001 - $133 billion.
FY 2000 - $18 billion.
FY 1999 - $130 billion.
FY 1998 - $113 billion.
FY 1997 - $188 billion.
FY 1996 - $251 billion.
FY 1995 - $281 billion.
FY 1994 - $281 billion.

GEORGE H W BUSH
FY 1993 - $347 billion.
FY 1992 - $399 billion.
FY 1991 - $432 billion.
FY 1990 - $376 billion.

RONALD REAGAN
FY 1989 - $255 billion.
FY 1988 - $252 billion.
FY 1987 - $225 billion.
FY 1986 - $297 billion.
FY 1985 - $256 billion.
FY 1984 - $195 billion.
FY 1983 - $235 billion.
FY 1982 - $144 billion.

JIMMY CARTER Big inflation causing later years to be bigger
FY 1981 - $90 billion.
FY 1980 - $81 billion.
FY 1979 - $55 billion.
FY 1978 - $73 billion.

OBAMA DOES NOT LOOK SO GOOD HERE
FACTS NOT MADE UP FIGURES

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bill Gates [Bot], Buffalo, ConsRule, d1063n35, DeplorablePatriot, FOS, freeman, Goodgrief, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Ike Bana, Independent, Jantje_Smit, jefftec, Jinn Martini, Makallbuks, Monderegal, nefarious101, NEILCAR, Neo, Nostradamus' omh, PaperLi [Bot], roadkill, SJConspirator, sooted up Cyndi, Steve Jobs [Bot], supraTruth4, Vegas, walkingstick, Warcok, Xavier_Onassis, Zeets2 and 1 guest