Why didn't John Kerry get a post-convention bounce?

[Bo]

Swift-boating?

[Bo]

Swift-boating?

I remember that happening around the GOP convention though...that was about a month after the Democratic convention.

Well I guess Kerry was just a bad candidate. Also Bush probably already began scaring people about Kerry beign weak on terrorism.

[Bo]

This is great! I'm starting a new thread about worst candidates in MODERN history since 1952.

1. Walter Mondale
2. Michael Dukakis
3. John Kerry
4. Bob Dole
5. George McGovern
6. Jimmy Carter

You are right about Barry Goldwater. He led to the Reagan Revolution which has made conservatism mainstream.

You forgot Al Gore. He was running in a much more favorable environment than Kerry was.

[Bo]

This is great! I'm starting a new thread about worst candidates in MODERN history since 1952.

1. Walter Mondale
2. Michael Dukakis
3. John Kerry
4. Bob Dole
5. George McGovern
6. Jimmy Carter

You are right about Barry Goldwater. He led to the Reagan Revolution which has made conservatism mainstream.

You forgot Al Gore. He was running in a much more favorable environment than Kerry was.

I'll tell you what sometimes I do want to put Gore as the third worst behind Mondale and Dukakis.

I would even put Gore above Mondale and Dukakis. Mondale never had a chance, Dukakis did have a chance but the issues in 1988 (good economy+Reagan's popularity+no foreign wars) favored Bush Sr. In 2000, the issues (good economy+lack of foreign threats+Clinton's popularity) favored Gore, but Gore still blew the election.

[Bo]

Anybody would have beaten that moron, Gore would have crushed him.

Actually, that's false. Despite Bush Jr.'s incomptence and lack of intellect, he knew how to run a good and extremely nasty and dishonest campaign. He would have beaten a lot of candidates with those kinds of campaign skills. Gore might have beat Bush Jr., but also might not have. It depends on what kind of campaign he would have ran. I mean, after all, Gore did lose in 2000 when all the factors were in his favor.

[Bo]

Anybody would have beaten that moron, Gore would have crushed him.

Actually, that's false. Despite Bush Jr.'s incomptence and lack of intellect, he knew how to run a good and extremely nasty and dishonest campaign. He would have beaten a lot of candidates with those kinds of campaign skills. Gore might have beat Bush Jr., but also might not have. It depends on what kind of campaign he would have ran. I mean, after all, Gore did lose in 2000 when all the factors were in his favor.

Bush ran a very friendly campaign.

I'd replace the word friendly with either "scary", "nasty", or "dishonest".

[Bo]

LOL no there werent any attack ads, just a bunch of hipocrits wearing bandaids with purple hearts in them. Probably one of the single most disgraceful displays I have ever seen.

More disgraceful than Kerry taking up a cause with Jane Fonda?

For the millionth time now, that photo was fabricated.

[Bo]

LOL he always does that. He just makes this crap up as he goes. All of his arguments are  just made up and he will finish with stuff like "they dont teach that in schools anymore". LOL I would like to know what they taught him. And he doesnt even know what the definition of treason is.

Derek is just a right-wing pundit that echoes all of Fox News's talking points in this Forum.

[Bo]

I am talking about the recession that started in 2008. And wow dude yes life was good under Clinton and horrible under Bush. Worse president ever by far.

You don't find it funny that we had 56 months of economic growth under Bush Jr. and not even 10 months after the democrats won back both houses, the economy was in shambles? You don't blame Chris Dodd and Barack Obama for accepting sweet heart deals on their loans at the expense of us common folks? You don't blame the greed of the American people who were flipping houses and causing inflation in exchange for a profit? I don't blame the president for the way things are either. It's all what you make of it.

I mostly blame Bush Jr. and Greenspan for the current recession (and financial crisis) since Greenspan (with Bush Jr.'s support) kept interest rates too low for too long and thus blew a housing bubble. Also, I blame the Republicans in the late 1990s who proposed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to deregulate derivatives.

[Bo]

I am talking about the recession that started in 2008. And wow dude yes life was good under Clinton and horrible under Bush. Worse president ever by far.

You don't find it funny that we had 56 months of economic growth under Bush Jr. and not even 10 months after the democrats won back both houses, the economy was in shambles? You don't blame Chris Dodd and Barack Obama for accepting sweet heart deals on their loans at the expense of us common folks? You don't blame the greed of the American people who were flipping houses and causing inflation in exchange for a profit? I don't blame the president for the way things are either. It's all what you make of it.

I mostly blame Bush Jr. and Greenspan for the current recession (and financial crisis) since Greenspan (with Bush Jr.'s support) kept interest rates too low for too long and thus blew a housing bubble. Also, I blame the Republicans in the late 1990s who proposed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to deregulate derivatives.

The recession, or the housing market meltdown? The latter was caused by low interest rates but more than anything the buy/sell buy/sell mentality that drove us since the 90's which goes back to 1996. When the economy is good, the next downturn is the end result so really it's all a state of mind. The economy has always been what it is. It's us who make it go up and down.

The low interest rates were started by the GOP Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, in 2001 with Bush Jr.'s support. That's what caused the housing bubble. Greenspan could have made interest rates much higher and also could have begun raising them much sooner. Bush could have always told Greenspan that he believes that the Fed is pursuing the wrong economic policy.

[Bo]

I am talking about the recession that started in 2008. And wow dude yes life was good under Clinton and horrible under Bush. Worse president ever by far.

You don't find it funny that we had 56 months of economic growth under Bush Jr. and not even 10 months after the democrats won back both houses, the economy was in shambles? You don't blame Chris Dodd and Barack Obama for accepting sweet heart deals on their loans at the expense of us common folks? You don't blame the greed of the American people who were flipping houses and causing inflation in exchange for a profit? I don't blame the president for the way things are either. It's all what you make of it.

I mostly blame Bush Jr. and Greenspan for the current recession (and financial crisis) since Greenspan (with Bush Jr.'s support) kept interest rates too low for too long and thus blew a housing bubble. Also, I blame the Republicans in the late 1990s who proposed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to deregulate derivatives.

The recession, or the housing market meltdown? The latter was caused by low interest rates but more than anything the buy/sell buy/sell mentality that drove us since the 90's which goes back to 1996. When the economy is good, the next downturn is the end result so really it's all a state of mind. The economy has always been what it is. It's us who make it go up and down.

The low interest rates were started by the GOP Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, in 2001 with Bush Jr.'s support. That's what caused the housing bubble. Greenspan could have made interest rates much higher and also could have begun raising them much sooner. Bush could have always told Greenspan that he believes that the Fed is pursuing the wrong economic policy.

You could've written a letter too. I mean it's your first amendment right isn't it? I love it when democrats try to blame the GOP for every bad thing about their lives.

I was a minor before this year. I'm not sure the Federal Govt. reads letters from minors.

[Bo]

I am talking about the recession that started in 2008. And wow dude yes life was good under Clinton and horrible under Bush. Worse president ever by far.

You don't find it funny that we had 56 months of economic growth under Bush Jr. and not even 10 months after the democrats won back both houses, the economy was in shambles? You don't blame Chris Dodd and Barack Obama for accepting sweet heart deals on their loans at the expense of us common folks? You don't blame the greed of the American people who were flipping houses and causing inflation in exchange for a profit? I don't blame the president for the way things are either. It's all what you make of it.

I mostly blame Bush Jr. and Greenspan for the current recession (and financial crisis) since Greenspan (with Bush Jr.'s support) kept interest rates too low for too long and thus blew a housing bubble. Also, I blame the Republicans in the late 1990s who proposed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to deregulate derivatives.

The recession, or the housing market meltdown? The latter was caused by low interest rates but more than anything the buy/sell buy/sell mentality that drove us since the 90's which goes back to 1996. When the economy is good, the next downturn is the end result so really it's all a state of mind. The economy has always been what it is. It's us who make it go up and down.

The low interest rates were started by the GOP Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, in 2001 with Bush Jr.'s support. That's what caused the housing bubble. Greenspan could have made interest rates much higher and also could have begun raising them much sooner. Bush could have always told Greenspan that he believes that the Fed is pursuing the wrong economic policy.

You could've written a letter too. I mean it's your first amendment right isn't it? I love it when democrats try to blame the GOP for every bad thing about their lives.

I was a minor before this year. I'm not sure the Federal Govt. reads letters from minors.

I believe that and I'd believe you're still a minor because of how you miss the point. The point is anyone can write a letter to the government. Anyone could have told Greenspan that. The economy is what it is and any good or bad cycle evens out.

I'm not a minor. And I seriously doubt Greenspan and most politicans actually care about what people write to them about.

[Bo]

I am talking about the recession that started in 2008. And wow dude yes life was good under Clinton and horrible under Bush. Worse president ever by far.

You don't find it funny that we had 56 months of economic growth under Bush Jr. and not even 10 months after the democrats won back both houses, the economy was in shambles? You don't blame Chris Dodd and Barack Obama for accepting sweet heart deals on their loans at the expense of us common folks? You don't blame the greed of the American people who were flipping houses and causing inflation in exchange for a profit? I don't blame the president for the way things are either. It's all what you make of it.

I mostly blame Bush Jr. and Greenspan for the current recession (and financial crisis) since Greenspan (with Bush Jr.'s support) kept interest rates too low for too long and thus blew a housing bubble. Also, I blame the Republicans in the late 1990s who proposed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to deregulate derivatives.

The recession, or the housing market meltdown? The latter was caused by low interest rates but more than anything the buy/sell buy/sell mentality that drove us since the 90's which goes back to 1996. When the economy is good, the next downturn is the end result so really it's all a state of mind. The economy has always been what it is. It's us who make it go up and down.

The low interest rates were started by the GOP Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, in 2001 with Bush Jr.'s support. That's what caused the housing bubble. Greenspan could have made interest rates much higher and also could have begun raising them much sooner. Bush could have always told Greenspan that he believes that the Fed is pursuing the wrong economic policy.

You could've written a letter too. I mean it's your first amendment right isn't it? I love it when democrats try to blame the GOP for every bad thing about their lives.

I was a minor before this year. I'm not sure the Federal Govt. reads letters from minors.

I believe that and I'd believe you're still a minor because of how you miss the point. The point is anyone can write a letter to the government. Anyone could have told Greenspan that. The economy is what it is and any good or bad cycle evens out.

I'm not a minor. And I seriously doubt Greenspan and most politicans actually care about what people write to them about.

I wouldn't either if I was hired by the president to do a job. It's not like I'd be going anywhere. That's why you're supposed to write to your congressmen. They don't teach that in public schools anymore.

What's the point of writing to politicians if they don't care what you write to them about? And also, I seriously doubt Greenspan would have bothered reading a letter from a 10-year old kid.

[Bo]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

[Bo]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

[Bo]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

You're happy that people get blamed for something they didn't do? What a great American, at least you're a democrat still. You realize that would be like me saying that I hope people lose jobs and families struggle so that Obama loses in 2012? No we wouldn't have been better off because unlike you, we care about our country first and Kerry would've been stubborn enough to try something of his own in Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten more troops killed or pulled out and had both countries collapse because he'd do so prematurely. At least Obama just continued Bush's policies mostly except for the torture issue. Stop thinking like a partisan and start thinking like an American.

Bush did support Greenspan when he blew up that housing bubble, and that caused the financial crisis. Kerry would have just gotten blamed for the timing. I don't know how Kerry would have handled Iraq, but I do think that he would have done a better job of handling Afghanistan. Bush gave Obama a huge mess in Afghanistan because he essentially ignored it for his last six years. And Obama saved our economy from total collapse, gave us universal healthcare, and gave us financial reform, which are things Bush wouldn't have done. And you know that many Republicans actually do want the economy to go bad so that Obama will lose reelection.

[Bo]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

You're happy that people get blamed for something they didn't do? What a great American, at least you're a democrat still. You realize that would be like me saying that I hope people lose jobs and families struggle so that Obama loses in 2012? No we wouldn't have been better off because unlike you, we care about our country first and Kerry would've been stubborn enough to try something of his own in Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten more troops killed or pulled out and had both countries collapse because he'd do so prematurely. At least Obama just continued Bush's policies mostly except for the torture issue. Stop thinking like a partisan and start thinking like an American.

Bush did support Greenspan when he blew up that housing bubble, and that caused the financial crisis. Kerry would have just gotten blamed for the timing. I don't know how Kerry would have handled Iraq, but I do think that he would have done a better job of handling Afghanistan. Bush gave Obama a huge mess in Afghanistan because he essentially ignored it for his last six years. And Obama saved our economy from total collapse, gave us universal healthcare, and gave us financial reform, which are things Bush wouldn't have done. And you know that many Republicans actually do want the economy to go bad so that Obama will lose reelection.

No giving loans to people from ACORN based on racial fairness that was started under the Clinton administration was what caused the financial crisis. There were no back room fat cat deals like you and your party want America to believe. It was the fairness requirements combined with politicians like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama getting sweet heart deals from the corporate fat cats in exchange for favorable treatment from the government. What do you think of Fannie and Freddie being exempt from this new financial reform legislation? Are you suddenly supporting all that now?

Giving loans to poor people who couldn't afford it helped cause the housing bubble itself, but the financial crisis was caused by the financial deregulation that the Republicans proposed. Without that financial deregulation, the housing recession would have probably been much less severe and there would have been no financial crisis. That financial deregulation allowed commercial and investment banks to combine together, and that allowed those banks to become "too big to fail" (during the housing bubble) and to drag down the whole U.S. economy with them once they indeed failed after the housing bubble burst. And I know that the current financial reform that the Democrats passed isn't the best bill they could have written.

[Bo]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

You're happy that people get blamed for something they didn't do? What a great American, at least you're a democrat still. You realize that would be like me saying that I hope people lose jobs and families struggle so that Obama loses in 2012? No we wouldn't have been better off because unlike you, we care about our country first and Kerry would've been stubborn enough to try something of his own in Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten more troops killed or pulled out and had both countries collapse because he'd do so prematurely. At least Obama just continued Bush's policies mostly except for the torture issue. Stop thinking like a partisan and start thinking like an American.

Bush did support Greenspan when he blew up that housing bubble, and that caused the financial crisis. Kerry would have just gotten blamed for the timing. I don't know how Kerry would have handled Iraq, but I do think that he would have done a better job of handling Afghanistan. Bush gave Obama a huge mess in Afghanistan because he essentially ignored it for his last six years. And Obama saved our economy from total collapse, gave us universal healthcare, and gave us financial reform, which are things Bush wouldn't have done. And you know that many Republicans actually do want the economy to go bad so that Obama will lose reelection.

No giving loans to people from ACORN based on racial fairness that was started under the Clinton administration was what caused the financial crisis. There were no back room fat cat deals like you and your party want America to believe. It was the fairness requirements combined with politicians like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama getting sweet heart deals from the corporate fat cats in exchange for favorable treatment from the government. What do you think of Fannie and Freddie being exempt from this new financial reform legislation? Are you suddenly supporting all that now?

Giving loans to poor people who couldn't afford it helped cause the housing bubble itself, but the financial crisis was caused by the financial deregulation that the Republicans proposed. Without that financial deregulation, the housing recession would have probably been much less severe and there would have been no financial crisis. That financial deregulation allowed commercial and investment banks to combine together, and that allowed those banks to become "too big to fail" (during the housing bubble) and to drag down the whole U.S. economy with them once they indeed failed after the housing bubble burst. And I know that the current financial reform that the Democrats passed isn't the best bill they could have written.

Well I hope you're happy that poor people caused the housing bubble which caused alot of families to go hungry who weren't already poor. Regulations have done nothing but kill jobs in terms of economics because the government is run by those who FLUNK OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR and can't do anything else for a living. Why would you think for half a second that the politicians who want to regulate know what they are talking about? What about those banks merging caused the housing burst? WHAT ABOUT THEM MERGING CAUSED THE COLLAPSE? Not the best? That's because the democrats in congress are a bunch of people who either couldn't get a job in the private sector like Obama, have so much money that they don't want others on their level like John Kerry, or want our economy to fail so government can run our lives like Pelosi.

It's very simple, members of ACORN took out loans that they had no intention of paying back. Middle class America defeated themselves with the old buy/sell technique that is caused by greed and eventually it got to a point where homes couldn't appreciate in value anymore.

How did the housing bubble cause people to go hungry? Some regulations are actually good for the economy to prevent/limit corporate abuse and greed. You know that the economy was heavily regulated between the 1930s and 1970s and grew at a pretty fast pace most of the time. Once commercial banks were allowed to combine with investment banks, commercial banks undertook a huge amount of risky investments in the housing industry (which they were not allowed to do before) and thus many of the commercial banks lost a lot of money or became bankrupt once the housing bubble burst. Had the Republicans not deregulated the financial sector, our economy would have been in better shape right now.

[Bo]

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

You're happy that people get blamed for something they didn't do? What a great American, at least you're a democrat still. You realize that would be like me saying that I hope people lose jobs and families struggle so that Obama loses in 2012? No we wouldn't have been better off because unlike you, we care about our country first and Kerry would've been stubborn enough to try something of his own in Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten more troops killed or pulled out and had both countries collapse because he'd do so prematurely. At least Obama just continued Bush's policies mostly except for the torture issue. Stop thinking like a partisan and start thinking like an American.

Bush did support Greenspan when he blew up that housing bubble, and that caused the financial crisis. Kerry would have just gotten blamed for the timing. I don't know how Kerry would have handled Iraq, but I do think that he would have done a better job of handling Afghanistan. Bush gave Obama a huge mess in Afghanistan because he essentially ignored it for his last six years. And Obama saved our economy from total collapse, gave us universal healthcare, and gave us financial reform, which are things Bush wouldn't have done. And you know that many Republicans actually do want the economy to go bad so that Obama will lose reelection.

No giving loans to people from ACORN based on racial fairness that was started under the Clinton administration was what caused the financial crisis. There were no back room fat cat deals like you and your party want America to believe. It was the fairness requirements combined with politicians like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama getting sweet heart deals from the corporate fat cats in exchange for favorable treatment from the government. What do you think of Fannie and Freddie being exempt from this new financial reform legislation? Are you suddenly supporting all that now?

Giving loans to poor people who couldn't afford it helped cause the housing bubble itself, but the financial crisis was caused by the financial deregulation that the Republicans proposed. Without that financial deregulation, the housing recession would have probably been much less severe and there would have been no financial crisis. That financial deregulation allowed commercial and investment banks to combine together, and that allowed those banks to become "too big to fail" (during the housing bubble) and to drag down the whole U.S. economy with them once they indeed failed after the housing bubble burst. And I know that the current financial reform that the Democrats passed isn't the best bill they could have written.

Well I hope you're happy that poor people caused the housing bubble which caused alot of families to go hungry who weren't already poor. Regulations have done nothing but kill jobs in terms of economics because the government is run by those who FLUNK OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR and can't do anything else for a living. Why would you think for half a second that the politicians who want to regulate know what they are talking about? What about those banks merging caused the housing burst? WHAT ABOUT THEM MERGING CAUSED THE COLLAPSE? Not the best? That's because the democrats in congress are a bunch of people who either couldn't get a job in the private sector like Obama, have so much money that they don't want others on their level like John Kerry, or want our economy to fail so government can run our lives like Pelosi.

It's very simple, members of ACORN took out loans that they had no intention of paying back. Middle class America defeated themselves with the old buy/sell technique that is caused by greed and eventually it got to a point where homes couldn't appreciate in value anymore.

How did the housing bubble cause people to go hungry? Some regulations are actually good for the economy to prevent/limit corporate abuse and greed. You know that the economy was heavily regulated between the 1930s and 1970s and grew at a pretty fast pace most of the time. Once commercial banks were allowed to combine with investment banks, commercial banks undertook a huge amount of risky investments in the housing industry (which they were not allowed to do before) and thus many of the commercial banks lost a lot of money or became bankrupt once the housing bubble burst. Had the Republicans not deregulated the financial sector, our economy would have been in better shape right now.

Corporate abuse and greed? 1932 called and the democrats want their talking points back. The economy was regulated alot until after Carter and look at the economy in the 80's and 90's. Risk, success, and failure is the American way as everyone gets to compete equally under the law. Again what about the GOP deregulations caused the housing market bubble?

Once commercial and investment banks were allowed to combine, commercial banks undertook a bunch of risky investments in the housing industry which they were not allowed to do before.     This caused those banks to become much larger and more volitaile, and thus made the U.S. economy much more dependent on those banks because they became so large. Once the housing bubble burst and those banks either lost a lot of income or failed and declared bankrupcy, then those banks dragged the whole U.S. economy down with them and caused the financial crisis and Great Recession of 2008. As for real GDP growth, here it is for every decade since the 1940s:

http://www.measuringworth.org/datasets/usgdp/result.php

1940s: U.S. real GDP grew by 72%
1950s: 50%
1960s: 54%
1970s: 37%
1980s: 35%
1990s: 37%
2000s: 20%

Thus, the data shows that real GDP growth was actually higher before Reagan came into office and pursued his massive deregulation policies. Also, Reagan's massive deregulation made the economy much less stable, leading to the savings and loans crisis in the late 1980s and the financial crisis of 2008.

[Bo]

There is more to the economy than GDP such as taxes and unemployment rate. There is even more to life than a good economy.

I proved my point that Reagan's deregulation policies didn't do anything positive for the economy, though, and just caused two financial crises.