Liberal Forum

This psychotic can't even tell if the sun is shining, let alone analyze statistics and their meaning in the large sense. Whose analysis should we accept, that of a psychotic moonbat? Or thecountry's best publications on the subject? Reagan's Legacy: Our 25-Year Boom By Investor's Business Dail...

You are dishonestly using Carter's third - and only negative - fiscal year in this statement....

What, then, was Reagan's? I already addressed inflation using the debt to GDP ratio. You can take the math from either side - straight dollars, or ratios to account for inflation, - and Reagan still doesn't look as good as Carter. Carter added 288 billions to the national debt - which actually RED...

You really shouldn't be talking about people bungling numbers when YOUR bungled numbers conflict with the graph you used to support them....

And no source to back that up. Typical. Looks to me as if Carter inherited a decent economy. Any other bulls*** you'd like to pass off? ONE of Carter's last three years was MARGINALLY negative, and you characterize that in terms just short of apocalyptic. You seem to be a bit of a hack, clemt...

Sorry man, but in order for your chart to be true, than it is me using the correct numbers. Let's review again, shall we? Annual GDP: 1977 4.6 1978 5.6 1979 3.2 1980 -0.2 1981 2.6 Your graph shows Carter's number at 3.4% average growth during his Presidency 1977 through 1980 (4.6 + 5.6 + 3.2 + -0...

No, his 8th grade grammar teacher. His math is right, the way HE set it up - just not the way I set it up. He misread the words. He doesn't understand prepositions. Word problems start with words and work on to math. He bungled the words, then got the math right (from a bungled beginning)....

A FULLY BLOWN anecdote - not jut an IMPLIED anecdote! His courage is GROWING!...

Make up your mind. In your math, you show -0.2 as the third number, using the October fiscal year as the measuring stick. But in your follow-on explanation, you use -0.2 as the hand-off year, using the election year as the measuring stick. This type of mathematical mishmash is poor presentation, son...

The bottom line is only as good as the environment that produced it and only as good as what contributed to it. If 40% of the bottom line is comprised of ill-gotten or fabricated assets, the bottom line is tainted. We've certainly seen this....