Dear o sung wu,

Sorry mate but we are certainly going to differ on this one.

It was you who invited me to use Google to see what you were talking about re: Carter.

Well I did and any information which aligns to your take came from Kessler's book regarding the Secret Service. It has been shown to contain absolute doosies of inaccuracies and just outright nonsense, an example of which I quoted to you.

Now you might prefer to have these discussions purely based on opinion without the inconvenience of having those opinions tested with facts. But that is not how I operate.

You may well feel that using a source to support my opinion “really tiresome” but I find the task of having to go away and see if there is any veracity in your opinion equally tiresome if not more so.

Therefore I will continue to furnish quotes/facts to back up my opinions and I feel I do not over use them, if not for you at least for the few others who might be reading our exchanges.

You of course are welcome to continue posting unsubstantiated opinion as by your own words this is how you prefer to discuss things. For that I will not judge you. ;)

Dear mhaze,

In an example of utter disconnect with the facts you wrote;

“Its both sad and awfully funny when events that occurred within someone's lifespan are so misunderstood by them. Much of the last 50 years seem to be rather opaques to poor SR. The economy in the later Reagan years was among the best over the past 50 years.”

Well here are a bunch of 'inconvenient truths'.

Nixon/Ford drove the 29.3% jobs growth of Kennedy-Johnson down to 16.2% and headed south. Carter steadied the ship at 12.8% which Reagan grew to 17.7%. GHW Bush then trashed this to 2.5%, Clinton rescued it to a figure above Reagan's to 20.9%. Then GW Bush dropped it to an unbelievable 1% before a Democratic President in Obama rescued it and returned a figure of 9.7%.

While granted Reagan was the only Republican President not to increase the unemployment rate during their term since Truman none of the Democratic Presidents did either.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/

Anyway by what measure do you put Reagan's economic performance above Clinton's?

from SR..."[Clinton] rescued the economy from the Reagan disaster."

On the face of it, its a moronic statement even by SR standards. Since Clinton didn't immediately follow Reagan, if he rescued the economy (he didn't) it was from Bush, not Reagan.

And then to show my "disconnect with the facts" he comes up with some highly dubious data (they use non-farm employment figures for reasons that make no real sense) he shows that the "Reagan disaster" was job growth of 17.7%. Even using SR's dodgy numbers that's the second highest out of those he mentions. (BTW the real numbers are Reagan 16.5%, Clinton 15.6%.... http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment).

So Reagan's economy has massive job growth but is somehow, in SR's fantasies, a disaster.

In reality what happened was SR shot his mouth off, got called out and then desperately searched for some data, valid or not, which would, in his mind, justify his original error. Normally, if you wanted to show an economic disaster you'd point to GDP or inflation or unemployment or some combination of these and a dozen other factors. That SR was reduced to using the highly dubious figures he used, shows just how wrong he was.

"Anyway by what measure do you put Reagan's economic performance above Clinton's?"

You can tell that SR knows he's on dodgy ground by how quickly he's trying to change the subject.

On a tangentially related subject, I noticed that Warren is now admitting that she's not an Amer-Indian. Who can remember SR's hysterical assertions that her DNA proved otherwise. I'm guessing SR has already shot that bit of lunacy down the memory-hole although one would think its probably full by now.

So Belly, are you in favour of killing 150 people to avenge the drone or not?

Or are you going to take the 5th AGAIN.

mhaze here we go again, another silly question, maybe because that is all you can muster
reread your own posts above
You CLEARLY say only your view is right
So whatever I say, in your eyes, will be wrong
Sir try, know it is hard, to imagine others may just be right and you wrong
Now 150 dead, 10.000 if needed
Trump is the school yard bully, who runs when confronted

Dear mhaze,

Lol. Hysterical? Really? I think one only has to look at the last two posts in our exchange to determine who holds that title old chap.

Now where were we?

Reagan's attempt to use national debt to 'fix' the economy is well known. It increased 186% during his two terms (ave 93% per term) and set the stage for out of control debt levels that have bedevilled every President since. While previously Carter increased levels by 43% in a single term it was not even close to Reagan's largess.

After Reagan GHW Bush tamed it to a degree with a 54% increase but it was Clinton who showed the most restraint by far averaging just 16% increase per term. The next republican president GW Bush then resorted to Reaganomics and shot the debt through the roof, though not quite at Reagan's stratospheric levels, averaging over 50% per term. It took a Democratic president in Obama, even faced with having to use a large chunk as a stimulus package combating the GFC, who averaged 36% increase per term.

We don't know what Trump's figures are yet but there seems little desire to check the national debt growth at all.

You whinged “You can tell that SR knows he's on dodgy ground by how quickly he's trying to change the subject.”

This was because I asked “Anyway by what measure do you put Reagan's economic performance above Clinton's?"

Well no, the reason I asked it was because you had claimed; “The economy in the later Reagan years was among the best over the past 50 years.”

Best to try and keep up old chap. It makes for a more coherent discussion.