NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I've been hearing this for a long time now, and for most of that time, I figured it was nothing more than partisan bigotry and dismissed it out of hand.

But considering how much I hear it, I would like some serious discussion of this.

So, what exactly made Jimmy Carter the worst President ever?

I'm pretty sure the main reason you hear that is because he was a liberal Democrat.

Okay, I've been hearing this for a long time now, and for most of that time, I figured it was nothing more than partisan bigotry and dismissed it out of hand.
Why, so I wasn't the only one.

*waits to read replies*

Horrible economy in the 70s during his term (Which wasn't entirely his fault, the seeds had already been sown before he took office, and he did quite a bit to help the nation through it), his constant conflict with basically everyone in Washington, some staff disorganization, stubbornness, compromising on the wrong issues, his constant quest to do what he thought was right despite political consequences, and he gets assigned blame over the Iranian hostage crisis (Despite the fact he resolved it). I just read a biography of him, and IMO, he is FAR from the worst, he did some good in office. And he was actually not that liberal, fiscally he was more of a conservative than anything else. (Hence his conflict with other Democrats, and one of the reasons Ted Kennedy managed to mount a serious challenge for the nomination)

Okay, I've been hearing this for a long time now, and for most of that time, I figured it was nothing more than partisan bigotry and dismissed it out of hand.

But considering how much I hear it, I would like some serious discussion of this.

So, what exactly made Jimmy Carter the worst President ever?

never heard that. I know some don't consider Fmr Pres Carter to be a good president (but an awsome former president) but I haven't heard anyone say he was the worse.

It's quite a common talking point amongst the Right, they demonize him, and hold up Ronald Reagan as the saint who fixed the damage he caused.

I asked this exact same question on here about a year or two, and it turned into this several hundred long post thread of bile and acidity. :(

Enjoy!

*gets popcorn*

Hmm? That title goes to our dear friend JFK.

It's quite a common talking point amongst the Right, they demonize him, and hold up Ronald Reagan as the saint who fixed the damage he caused.

Yep.

Hmm? That title goes to our dear friend JFK.

.....riiiiight.

Talking point, yes. Fact, no.

He was very much the opposite of Reagan. Whether that's a bad thing is up for debate.

Carter: Intellectual naval officer/peanut farmer.
Reagan: Unintellectual movie actor.

Carter: Born-Again liberal Christian
Reagan: Literalist Christian, consulted astrologers

Carter: Limited military spending, sought arms limitation talks.
Reagan: Ramped up military spending.

Carter: Reduced U.S. oil imports by 50%, supported conservation.
Reagan: Eliminated Nixon's controls on oil, reduced environmental protection.

Carter: Liberal social policies; early supporter of gay rights, opponent of death penalty, supported Roe v. Wade despite being personally opposed to abortion
Reagan: Social conservative, escalated War on Drugs

Carter: Foreign policy focused on diplomacy and human rights
Reagan: Abandoned detente policy begun by Nixon, invaded Grenada, deployed troops to Lebanon

Carter: Not an effective president. Won the Nobel Prize and wrote numerous books after leaving office.
Reagan: Effective president, got Alzheimer's after leaving office.

Carter: Attacked by a rabbit.
Reagan: Co-starred with a monkey.

Okay, I've been hearing this for a long time now, and for most of that time, I figured it was nothing more than partisan bigotry and dismissed it out of hand.

But considering how much I hear it, I would like some serious discussion of this.

So, what exactly made Jimmy Carter the worst President ever?

Easy: he's not. He may be subpar, but he's nowhere close to worst.

Worst spot is clearly Dubya (illegal war, support of torture, electioral fraud., war crimes, multiple scandals).

Then come the people who broke the coutnry in two (buchanan, pierce), those who do nothing about scandals (nixon, grant, harding) and those who ruined the economy and/or gave us a huge debt (Hoover, Dubya, Reagen -- when they say we owe him a debt we can never repay, they don't know the half of it!:mad:)

And, for the record, Carter has one of the most successful post-presidencies of all presidents, if not THE most successful.

.....riiiiight.

I think he took too many risks with Russia, especially with the Cuban Missile crisis. All it would've taken is one misstep, and half the world would be a radioactive mess. The blockade was (In my opinion) an idiotic move. Castro was even trying to get the USSR to do a preemptive strike after the blockade was started. Any president who brings us that close to a Nuclear war because of his decisions deserves to go down as the worst US president ever.

I think he took too many risks with Russia, especially with the Cuban Missile crisis. All it would've taken is one misstep, and half the world would be a radioactive mess. The blockade was (In my opinion) an idiotic move. Castro was even trying to get the USSR to do a preemptive strike after the blockade was started. Any president who brings us that close to a Nuclear war because of his decisions deserves to go down as the worst US president ever.

The alternative to the blockade would have been an attack on Cuba, which people like Curtis LeMay were advising. McNamara says when he met Castro later, he said that had they attacked, Cuba would have launched the missiles.

Kennedy avoided nuclear war with his deft handling of the crisis.

I think he took too many risks with Russia, especially with the Cuban Missile crisis. All it would've taken is one misstep, and half the world would be a radioactive mess. The blockade was (In my opinion) an idiotic move. Castro was even trying to get the USSR to do a preemptive strike after the blockade was started. Any president who brings us that close to a Nuclear war because of his decisions deserves to go down as the worst US president ever.

Seconded. Its all very well to say in retrospect that the Russians backed down, so it was an important symbolic victory etc etc. The fact is that raising tensions to that degree and bringing the world to the brink of nuclear destruction was a ridiculous risk to take.

The alternative to the blockade would have been an attack on Cuba, which people like Curtis LeMay were advising. McNamara says when he met Castro later, he said that had they attacked, Cuba would have launched the missiles.

Kennedy avoided nuclear war with his deft handling of the crisis.

Or the other alternative, neither bombing Cuba nor introducing a blockade, recognising that the missiles would never have been launched because the US nuclear arsenal dwarfed that of the USSR, and any attack would have been met with utter destruction.

For the record, even the Wall Street Journal - and WSJ generally buys into all the conservative talking points - only puts Carter as being at worst seventh from being the worst president out of 40 ranked presidents.

Seconded. Its all very well to say in retrospect that the Russians backed down, so it was an important symbolic victory etc etc. The fact is that raising tensions to that degree and bringing the world to the brink of nuclear destruction was a ridiculous risk to take.

Again, what was the alternative? Let the Russians keep building missiles in Cuba? And the notion that it makes JFK the worst president ever is rather odd.

Carter: Born-Again liberal Christian
Reagan: Literalist Christian, consulted astrologers

Actually.....it was his wife that consulted astrologers and mediums. So far I haven't found any records of Mr. Reagan doing it himself.

Again, what was the alternative? Let the Russians keep building missiles in Cuba? And the notion that it makes JFK the worst president ever is rather odd.

The US stuck missiles in Turkey, pointing at major cities in the USSR, provoking the USSR into putting the missiles in Cuba. As President, either you get on the phone immediately and make an agreement that both sides will remove their weapons from each other's borders (the best option), or you let them put them there, knowing that the other side would be crazy to use them as they'd have the living crap blown out of them. What you don't do unless you are most silly is keep raising the tension so that there's a very real risk of nuclear war.

I do recognise its perhaps a bit extreme to call him the worst president ever based on one incident. For me, his domestic policies were very good. But if he had provoked a nuclear war, we'd probably all be dead, and his other policies would be kinda meaningless. So his actions on this matter shouldn't be downplayed just because we were lucky enough that there was no war.

As President, either you get on the phone and make an agreement that both sides will remove their weapons from each other's borders

That's.. kind of what happened.

As President, either you get on the phone and make an agreement that both sides will remove their weapons from each other's borders, or you let them put them there,
Assuming you mean publicly, which is political suicide for both Kennedy and Khrushchev. Ergo, it's a non runner.

That's.. kind of what happened.

Yup, but I mean to say he should have done it earlier. Better late than never, but MUCH better earlier.

That's.. kind of what happened.

But first he had to stall for a few days, blockade the island, and put off talks long enough to make Nuclear war a very possible outcome.

But first he had to stall for a few days, blockade the island, and put off talks long enough to make Nuclear war a very possible outcome.

Well he did have to make up for the Bay of Pigs, which was a spectacular failure for his administration.

Assuming you mean publicly, which is political suicide for both Kennedy and Khrushchev. Ergo, it's a non runner.

And if Kennedy had any sense, he would've realized that Political suicide is better then Nuclear annihilation. The whole thing was balanced on the edge of a pin.I think that's the saying, I might be wrong.

Actually.....it was his wife that consulted astrologers and mediums. So far I haven't found any records of Mr. Reagan doing it himself.

Yes, that's true, but Nancy Reagan had a lot of influence over Ronnie. According to Reagan's chief of staff, the entire summit with Gorbachev was planned around the astrologer's advice.

And I've read that his advisers say he was afraid of the "curse" where presidents die if they're elected in a year ending in zero.

Yes, that's true, but Nancy Reagan had a lot of influence over Ronnie. According to Reagan's chief of staff, the entire summit with Gorbachev was planned around the astrologer's advice.

And I've read that his advisers say he was afraid of the "curse" where presidents die if they're elected in a year ending in zero.

That is true, I will give you that. Now the Lincolns, they were very interesting if you want to talk about Presidential family that dab in Astrology, mediums and the Paranormal.

Yes, that's true, but Nancy Reagan had a lot of influence over Ronnie. According to Reagan's chief of staff, the entire summit with Gorbachev was planned around the astrologer's advice.

And I've read that his advisers say he was afraid of the "curse" where presidents die if they're elected in a year ending in zero.

I've read that Obama is a Muslim.

But I don't believe everything I read. Do you?

I've read that Obama is a Muslim.

But I don't believe everything I read. Do you?

So you don't believe that a President or his family would consult mediums or astrologers?

There's one thing about married men, is that most of the time, they're whipped. They're whipped because after awhile, you just want her to shut up, so you do whatever she says so you won't have to hear her nagging.

So you don't believe that a President or his family would consult mediums or astrologers?

There's one thing about married men, is that most of the time, they're whipped. They're whipped because after awhile, you just want her to shut up, so you do whatever she says so you won't have to hear her nagging.

You mean we wasted all that money demonising Obama when it was Michelle we should have been making crazy shit up about?

Oops

As President, either you get on the phone immediately and make an agreement that both sides will remove their weapons from each other's borders (the best option),
Not something that would have worked, one of the reasons why Khrushchev did this is the Kremlin viewed JFK as being to young and inexperienced, leading them to believe that he would be cowed by this move.
or you let them put them there, knowing that the other side would be crazy to use them as they'd have the living crap blown out of them.
As I've already pointed out this would have just led to the Soviets taking other liberties as it would have proven to them that they were right about JFK.
What you don't do unless you are most silly is keep raising the tension so that there's a very real risk of nuclear war.
Did he make mistakes in his handling of the situation (including the lead up to it), yes, probably. I however cannot say that I can really think of what he should have done instead.
I do recognise its perhaps a bit extreme to call him the worst president ever based on one incident. For me, his domestic policies were very good. But if he had provoked a nuclear war, we'd probably all be dead, and his other policies would be kinda meaningless. So his actions on this matter shouldn't be downplayed just because we were lucky enough that there was no war.
Actually, I cannot think of a time period, which if we had to have a nuclear war, that would have been better. The Nuclear arsenals of both sides were still small enough that it might not have caused nuclear winter, thus making it possible that it would have been a war that could actually have a winner.

Edit: although if we are to continue this discussion, it should probably have its own thread...

You mean we wasted all that money demonising Obama when it was Michelle we should have been making crazy shit up about?

Oops

I thought we did...

Hey, all you have to do is look at Hillary and Bill. Who do you think have the real power in that marriage?

For all I've said on JFK, the more I think on it, I'm inclined to say Reagan was the worst, because I can find so little good in his economic, social or foreign policy.

For all I've said on JFK, the more I think on it, I'm inclined to say Reagan was the worst, because I can find so little good in his economic, social or foreign policy.

He won the Cold War when the Soviet collapsed.

He won the Cold War when the Soviet collapsed.

Thats like claiming you won the Boxing Championship bout because your opponent had a heart attack moments before you started hitting each other.

Its technically accurate but you don't deserve any credit for it.

or you let them put them there, knowing that the other side would be crazy to use them as they'd have the living crap blown out of them.Except that Castro was that crazy. He said he was willing to sacrifice the country of Cuba to hit the U.S. with a nuke, in fact he recommended it. Not exactly the kind of guy you want to leave with nuclear weapons.

In the Fog of War, McNamara talks about the three questions he asked Castro and their answers:

[about Castro] I said, "I must have got the translation wrong." So I asked him 3 questions. One- did you know there were nuclear warheads in Cuba? Two- would you have recommended to Khrushchev to use nuclear missiles in the event of an American invasion of Cuba? And three- what would have happened to Cuba? He said, "One- I knew the missiles were there. Two- I would not *have* recommended it, I *did* recommend it! And three- we would have been totally obliterated".

The fact of the matter is we avoided a nuclear war, and got the weapons removed.

For all I've said on JFK, the more I think on it, I'm inclined to say Reagan was the worst, because I can find so little good in his economic, social or foreign policy.He won the Cold War when the Soviet collapsed.
Thats like claiming you won the Boxing Championship bout because your opponent had a heart attack moments before you started hitting each other.

Its technically accurate but you don't deserve any credit for it.


Actually, Reagan really can claim credit for it (or could, hard for him to claim credit for it now...), it was his upping the ante in the arms race that hastened the Soviet Union's economic collapse.

Carter's not the worst. Maybe the worse MODERN, but not the worst. Grant is definitely up there, Harrison was probably the most useless.

He wasn't the worst. I would say LBJ or Truman were worse post war. And in the whole history there were many worse Presidents.

He just lacked the type of leadership qualities needed for that time period. And he was a prat. So people don't remember him fondly.

He won the Cold War when the Soviet collapsed.

Hmm...well, the Soviet economy was fundamentally unsound and had been stagnating for years, so it was going to collapse eventually. Maybe he helped speed it up. Though if someone else was President when Gorbachev (or someone like him) had come to power, I still think reforms in the Soviet Union would have been introduced in an effort to keep the economy going, creating the momentum towards reform that would eventually bring the USSR down.

Ask someone who lvied at that time. normally Carter is followed by a spew of curse words. followed by thank god Reagan showed up.

Actually, Reagan really can claim credit for it (or could, hard for him to claim credit for it now...), it was his upping the ante in the arms race that hastened the Soviet Union's economic collapse.

It's like a drinking contest where one guy ends up dying and the other spends the next hour puking his guts out.

Ask someone who lvied at that time. normally Carter is followed by a spew of curse words. followed by thank god Reagan showed up.

Translation:
Ask a Republican who lived at that time. Normally Carter is followed by a spew of curse words. Followed by thank god Reagan showed up.

It's like a drinking contest where one guy ends up dying and the other spends the next hour puking his guts out.

True...
However the question was can Reagan take credit? And the answer is yes, the Soviet economy would not have collapsed when it did if it wasn't for Reagan ramping up the arm race.

Carter was president during the 1979 Energy Crisis, which is a very bad sort of thing to be associated with; he also presided over the last years of 70's stagflation, which wasn't very good for his image. Nixon and Ford, ironically, are saved from an associated with stagflation because everyone is too distracted by wangsting about Watergate.
More importantly than his policies, perhaps, were Carter's abysmal Public Relations failures. The most famous example being when he appeared on TV wearing a sweater and informed the public that he had installed a wood burning stove and solar panels in the White House.

He isn't. Next question.

Carter was president during the 1979 Energy Crisis, which is a very bad sort of thing to be associated with; he also presided over the last years of 70's stagflation, which wasn't very good for his image. Nixon and Ford, ironically, are saved from an associated with stagflation because everyone is too distracted by wangsting about Watergate.
More importantly than his policies, perhaps, were Carter's abysmal Public Relations failures. The most famous example being when he appeared on TV wearing a sweater and informed the public that he had installed a wood burning stove and solar panels in the White House.

hey y'all i am going to save energy by burning wood.

He isn't. Next question.

Who can we replace him with as a scapegoat for Republicans?

Who can we replace him with as a scapegoat for Republicans?

That's the problem, why does any rational adult need a scapegoat?

EDIT: Besides, I thought they blamed Clinton for everything.

That's the problem, why does any rational adult need a scapegoat?

EDIT: Besides, I thought they blamed Clinton for everything.

He's too damn charismatic.

Who can we replace him with as a scapegoat for Republicans?That's the problem, why does any rational adult need a scapegoat?

Please try to answer the question Mr. Intangelon...
;)

That's the problem, why does any rational adult need a scapegoat?

EDIT: Besides, I thought they blamed Clinton for everything.

Clinton actually produced a good economy.

EDIT: Besides, I thought they blamed Clinton for everything.

Only the neo-con wing. Old school liberal republicans still blame FDR.

(And I suppose the evangelists blame darwin).

Who can we replace him with as a scapegoat for Republicans?

With a bit of luck, Obama.

Harrison was president for six weeks before dying and was sick with pnemonia for the whole time, what is worse than that kind of failure?

Harrison was president for six weeks before dying and was sick with pnemonia for the whole time, what is worse than that kind of failure?

As he did absolutly nothing he automatically ranks higher than Bush

With a bit of luck, Obama.

Id rather he not pull a carter.
pull a Reagan would be much better.

Clinton actually produced a good economy.

And that stops the neo-cons from blaming him how?

Please try to answer the question Mr. Intangelon...
;)

I did. A scapegoat is unnecessary if you're a reasonable, rational adult who would rather build something than tear everything down for disagreement on one or two ridiculous issues.

With a bit of luck, Obama.Yes, who doesn't want the country to get worse just so we can blame Obama?

Id rather he not pull a carter.
pull a Reagan would be much better.

You need balls to pull a Reagan, and I don't think Obama has those, just lots of words.

Yes, who doesn't want the country to get worse just so we can blame Obama?

Since I'm not American... me. Your election is really more like a sport to me.

I did. A scapegoat is unnecessary if you're a reasonable, rational adult who would rather build something than tear everything down for disagreement on one or two ridiculous issues.

As I said, please try to answer the question and keep in mind we're talking about politicians so suppostions about what the actions of reasonable rational adults have no place here...
;)

As he did absolutly nothing he automatically ranks higher than Bush

ok, i'll give you that but no matter how you cut it Carter is hardly the worst president ever, can try Fillmore or maybe Andrew Johnson. Grant's administration was full of scandal.

Id rather he not pull a carter.
pull a Reagan would be much better.

i hope Obama if he's going to go on a spending spree will be a standard "tax and spend" liberal instead of a "spend and spend" conservative myself. ;)

Yes, who doesn't want the country to get worse just so we can blame Obama?

It's really disgusting. At least three posters on this forum have declared that they either want to 'do everything possible to undermine the president' and similar desires.

Someone made an actual argument with reasoning that went like this:

1. Obama (or McCain, the poster reasoned) would be a disaster for America.
2. Few people agree.
3. Therefore [the poster] hopes Obama (or McCain; this was before the election) screws things up real bad, so that everyone would see the light.

They want him to fuck up so they can feel justified for wanting him to fuck up.

And that stops the neo-cons from blaming him how?

Oh, that's easy -- Clinton balanced the budget for the first time since the 60's, which is clearly an anathema to neocons.

Yes, who doesn't want the country to get worse just so we can blame Obama?
If things get sufficiently worse, there might be an actual effort to correct the inherent injustices of the capitalist system this country is built on. The best Obama can hope to be is a reformist who'll patch up the system enough that there will be another 70 years before it all goes back to Hell.

Since I'm not American... me. Your election is really more like a sport to me.Oh right, a sport. It's not like America is tied in any way, shape, or form to the rest of the world. I've said it before and I'll probably say it a million more times, no one should want to see America enter into a depression or completely collapse.

Oh, that's easy -- Clinton balanced the budget for the first time since the 60's, which is clearly an anathema to neocons.

This is true. They are all closet Keynesians. Absolute disgrace really, they should have been sent back to the left where they belong.

If things get sufficiently worse, there might be an actual effort to correct the inherent injustices of the capitalist system this country is built on. The best Obama can hope to be is a reformist who'll patch up the system enough that there will be another 70 years before it all goes back to Hell.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism, just the way it's been executed. The next best system is bartering, and then daylight, and then socialism. So stop complaining about capitalism, because it's not just the best system, but the ONLY system.

i hope Obama if he's going to go on a spending spree will be a standard "tax and spend" liberal instead of a "spend and spend" conservative myself. ;)

I was thinking more fiscal policy. turn a recession into a boom is no easy task.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism, just the way it's been executed. The next best system is bartering, and then daylight, and then socialism. So stop complaining about capitalism, because it's not just the best system, but the ONLY system.

lol

Oh right, a sport. It's not like America is tied in any way, shape, or form to the rest of the world. I've said it before and I'll probably say it a million more times, no one should want to see America enter into a depression or completely collapse.

I'm not too concerned. The United States in itself won't bring down the world economy. Frankly, I'd be much more concerned if China went down.

lol

Well, if you've got a better one, I'd like to here it.

In deflationary times, spend and spend is far better than tax and spend. Just how it is. Of course government spending is no good if it doesn't go where it will circulate, or it is spent on useful stuff.

The worst thing you can do is tax people and spend the money on stuffs like productive industry. That just adds to the deflation.

Obama should rebate the past ten years of personal income taxes. This would in one fell swoop: 1) Cure the bad assets on bank balance sheets, 2) Put money into circulation.

Something like that. $600 checks are a waste of time and, frankly, insulting.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism, just the way it's been executed. The next best system is bartering, and then daylight, and then socialism. So stop complaining about capitalism, because it's not just the best system, but the ONLY system.

Um... there's a small list of alternatives. There's no such thing as a perfect system, but you know capitalism's not going to work if every fifty years we have to have someone patch it up with a little socialism.

EDIT: Is it just me or has this topic gotten off topic. lol.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism, just the way it's been executed. The next best system is bartering, and then daylight, and then socialism. So stop complaining about capitalism, because it's not just the best system, but the ONLY system.
There's nothing at all wrong with a system of exploitation that benefits only a small portion of the population and reduces human beings to consumer spending numbers. But this is all getting very off-topic, so let's get back to our regularly scheduled bitching...

You need balls to pull a Reagan, and I don't think Obama has those, just lots of words.
Reagan's policies were pretty clearly responsible for the economic troubles in Bush I's era. Much of that was due to the lasting fallout from the S&L crisis.

We're just starting to reach the point where we can put the Carter-to-Reagan bit in a good historical perspective.

I think we really can't call Carter such a bad president in retrospect, when we think carefully about what he did as president. Was he a bad politician? He clearly lost his re-election. Was his a bad administration? I don't think so.

I think in another 20-30 years, we will recognize Reagan as starting serious mid-term and long-term trouble for America in order to produce a short-term era of prosperity.

Mid-term, he caused the S&L crisis, which did a lot of harm right around the end of his term. Long-term, he was single-handedly responsible for making the national debt a growing concern. Bush I and Bush II will be assigned a fair share of blame for letting it grow, but it will be Reagan who is recognized as spending the nation into the hole in the first place.

Um... there's a small list of alternatives. There's no such thing as a perfect system, but you know capitalism's not going to work if every fifty years we have to have someone patch it up with a little socialism.

Socialism? Like... Soviet Union? Or do you just mean capitalism with welfare?

Harrison was president for six weeks before dying and was sick with pnemonia for the whole time, what is worse than that kind of failure?

Jackson and Van Buren orchestrating a genocide?

Socialism? Like... Soviet Union? Or do you just mean capitalism with welfare?

Um... socialism can be found thriving in Europe and China's dual system works extremely well.

Reagan's policies were pretty clearly responsible for the economic troubles in Bush I's era. Much of that was due to the lasting fallout from the S&L crisis.


Grow the S&Ls out of trouble was a consequence of carter era policies, not really Reaganomics. There are things you can pin on Reagan, (interest rates falling too quickly, teh panic over housing inventories in 1982, junk bonds, and stuff), but really not the S&Ls.

(Even though the legislation was actually passed in 81).

Also, the seeds of the debt problem started in 1968, when $1 of extra debt no longer produced at least $1 of GDP growth. This stuff only really started to get noticeable by Reagan's time, 'cos Nixon pulled the plug on Bretton woods. Of course, that is not to say that Reagan should not be held responsible for failing to act. But then so should everyone since him in equal measure.

Reagan's policies were pretty clearly responsible for the economic troubles in Bush I's era. Much of that was due to the lasting fallout from the S&L crisis.

We're just starting to reach the point where we can put the Carter-to-Reagan bit in a good historical perspective.

I think we really can't call Carter such a bad president in retrospect, when we think carefully about what he did as president. Was he a bad politician? He clearly lost his re-election. Was his a bad administration? I don't think so.

I think in another 20-30 years, we will recognize Reagan as starting serious mid-term and long-term trouble for America in order to produce a short-term era of prosperity.

Mid-term, he caused the S&L crisis, which did a lot of harm right around the end of his term. Long-term, he was single-handedly responsible for making the national debt a growing concern. Bush I and Bush II will be assigned a fair share of blame for letting it grow, but it will be Reagan who is recognized as spending the nation into the hole in the first place.
I'm going to be glad when Reagan is put in the historical place he belongs in, rather than continuing to be worshiped.

Um... socialism can be found thriving in Europe and China's dual system works extremely well.

China's dual system works well for the state and for those in power. For everyone else, not so much. (Though unlike with the Soviet Union, the Chinese economy is performing fantastically. It's just that only the really affluent people in power get to see the real benefits.)

China's dual system works well for the state and for those in power. For everyone else, not so much. (Though unlike with the Soviet Union, the Chinese economy is performing fantastically. It's just that only the really affluent people in power get to see the real benefits.)

True, but you have to give it some time. China's a relatively backward nation, but their middle class is growing quickly.

China's dual system works well for the state and for those in power. For everyone else, not so much. (Though unlike with the Soviet Union, the Chinese economy is performing fantastically. It's just that only the really affluent people in power get to see the real benefits.)

25 million people a year enter the middle class in china. Also their police are less assholey.

It's sort of the opposite of the US. (Or has been at any rate, it's about to hit a very bad patch).

Mind you it's far more capitalist than the US. I don't have rose tinted glasses about the place, but it's not the feudal hell hole that the United States is intent on becoming.

25 million people a year enter the middle class in china. Also their police are less assholey.

It's sort of the opposite of the US. (Or has been at any rate, it's about to hit a very bad patch).

Mind you it's far more capitalist than the US. I don't have rose tinted glasses about the place, but it's not the feudal hell hole that the United States is intent on becoming.
I find it hard to believe that China is far more capitalistic than the United States. I kinda had the impression we had the freest market on the planet. :confused:

25 million people a year enter the middle class in china.

How many people are born there, per year?
Also their police are less assholey.
Well, I think that'd work for almost anywhere.:p

Carter was a good man, but a bad president. A big part of his failure was trying to export culture in the form of Human Rights, and the world wasn't listening.


One thing I didn't like about Carter was that he destroyed some decent economic policies that Ford put in place, polices that had about an 18 month lead time to be effective. When everything looked shiny a year into his presidency, he took credit for the economy. Once his own policies kicked in with the same sort of delay, the economy went into the crapper.

(If things look shiny for Obama's economy after six-twelve months, I hope he gives credit to the Bush Bailout as being partially responsible. Economic fixes take time, and most politicians make the (correct) assumption that most voters don't realize this.

I've been reading on Carter actually, and his economic policies weren't really the problem, the economy was already going down the crapper when he was elected, though his policy was certainly badly timed, since everything went down the toilet just afterwards, which wasn't necessarily his fault, and certainly not in full. Ford and Nixon deserve just as much blame as Carter IMO, but the real problem really came from the Fed Reserve, not necessarily anybody's fault except theirs, Presidents really aren't all powerful dictators.

I find it hard to believe that China is far more capitalistic than the United States. I kinda had the impression we had the freest market on the planet. :confused:

Not even close. That's all propaganda. They have very free pro-business markets. Just don't criticize the government.

Plus in China, they execute corrupt government officials. A policy we should look into here - Senator Dodd.

Edit: Hong Kong, I think is number one. You could probably argue that the US actually is worse than Scandinavia in some respects.

Ah, doi. I completely forgot about Singapore, Hong Kong, and such.

Frisbee: I see. You think the world would eventually listen to Human Rights, or was it just Carter's particular brand they didn't like?

Um... socialism can be found thriving in Europe and China's dual system works extremely well.

Lies. That's just capitalism with welfare aspects. The Soviet Union was socialism. European "socialism" is a lie.

Lies. That's just capitalism with welfare aspects. The Soviet Union was socialism. European "socialism" is a lie.

No. The Soviet Union had COMMUNISM. Get it straight.

Frisbee: I see. You think the world would eventually listen to Human Rights, or was it just Carter's particular brand they didn't like?

Ky, it's thirty years later, and the world still isn't listening. In fact, countries like Sudan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea have felt the need to kick their anti-human rights agendas up a notch in order to make up for the loss of the communist bloc.

No. The Soviet Union had COMMUNISM. Get it straight.

*sigh*

The next person I have to explain this to gets shipped to Iran in a crate full of ham and beer.

Communism is not a feasible system. NO country has ever been communist. Socialism is the system that was used by the "communist" bloc. The system in European is just plain old capitalism combined with welfare aspects.

I find it hard to believe that China is far more capitalistic than the United States. I kinda had the impression we had the freest market on the planet. :confused:

List of countries by economic freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom)

List of countries by economic freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom)

Those don't mean anything. You'll be quoting the CPI to tell me that there is inflation next.

No. The Soviet Union had COMMUNISM. Get it straight.

That must be the reason why it was named Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Or USSR in short form.
Or Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik, SSSR pa rusky.
Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, CCCP if you need it in azbuka.

Communism was tought to be the goal, socialism was the way to achieve that goal. Believe me, I lived trough it (well in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic).

List of countries by economic freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom)

156 - Cuba - 27,5
157 - Korea, North - 3

Wow. Just... wow.

List of countries by economic freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom)

DAMN IT we need to deregulate until we are more free then Hong Kong.

Those don't mean anything. You'll be quoting the CPI to tell me that there is inflation next.

Ahem, I don't get how
an indicator which attempts to measure the degree of economic freedom, using a definition for this similar to laissez-faire capitalism, in the world's nations.
doesn't mean anything in the discussion of which market is closer to laissez-faire capitalism.

I can agree about flaws in methodology, but still...

DAMN IT we need to deregulate until we are more free then Hong Kong.

1. The list isn't right.

2. Can't happen here. In those countries the dudes who enforce the rules just look at them as rules to be obeyed, but are generally helpful about actually setting up anything. (I.e. they get out of the way). In the US, bureaucrats look upon it as their sacred mission to shut businesses down whenever it is possible. (Except for professional/financial services). This is why China has 80+ car manufacturers, and we are about to have none.

1. The list isn't right.

2. Can't happen here. In those countries the dudes who enforce the rules just look at them as rules to be obeyed, but are generally helpful about actually setting up anything. (I.e. they get out of the way). In the US, bureaucrats look upon it as their sacred mission to shut businesses down whenever it is possible. (Except for professional/financial services). This is why China has 80+ car manufacturers, and we are about to have none.

Never been in Italy or Czech Republic, have you?
Pffft... Complaining about US bureaucracy!
Italians invented bureaucracy, the czech made it into an art form ;)

Grow the S&Ls out of trouble was a consequence of carter era policies, not really Reaganomics. There are things you can pin on Reagan, (interest rates falling too quickly, teh panic over housing inventories in 1982, junk bonds, and stuff), but really not the S&Ls.
Bullcrap. I've read the full timeline on all the S&L stuff. (http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/index.html)

Yes, there were 1-2 pieces of deregulation passed under Carter that helped set up the problem. But 90+% of it can be laid squarely at Reagan-era deregulation - both through explicit changes in regulation, and gutting regulatory agencies.
(Even though the legislation was actually passed in 81).
1981, with Reagan in office and signing it into law.
Also, the seeds of the debt problem started in 1968, when $1 of extra debt no longer produced at least $1 of GDP growth. This stuff only really started to get noticeable by Reagan's time, 'cos Nixon pulled the plug on Bretton woods. Of course, that is not to say that Reagan should not be held responsible for failing to act. But then so should everyone since him in equal measure.
Again, bullcrap. Almost all of today's federal debt can be directly attributed to Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

If the Federal debt had grown close to interest rates - let's say 5% per annum - from 1980 to 2008, it would currently be passing 3.6 trillion. A much smaller and much more manageable number, and about one third of the current actual debt. About half of that difference is Reagan's fault, and Reagan's fault alone - and during Clinton's term in office, the debt grew by less than 5% per year.

Never been in Italy or Czech Republic, have you?
Pffft... Complaining about US bureaucracy!
Italians invented bureaucracy, the czech made it into an art form ;)

It's easier to set up a small business in Rome than in NYC. You have to look beyond the college type stuffs.

That must be the reason why it was named Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Or USSR in short form.
Or Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik, SSSR pa rusky.
Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, CCCP if you need it in azbuka.

And North Korea must be a democracy because it's named a Democratic People's Republic.

"Socialism" encompasses a broad range of ideas and movements. Many European nations can be considered as having a form of Democratic Socialism.

And North Korea must be a democracy because it's named a Democratic People's Republic.

"Socialism" encompasses a broad range of ideas and movements. Many European nations can be considered as having a form of Democratic Socialism.

If you had bothered to read the rest of my post you'd know why it was called socialist. Mainly because:
Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.
Communism was never acheved. A socialist authoritarian regime was installed instead.

Bullcrap. I've read the full timeline on all the S&L stuff. (http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/index.html)

Yes, there were 1-2 pieces of deregulation passed under Carter that helped set up the problem. But 90+% of it can be laid squarely at Reagan-era deregulation - both through explicit changes in regulation, and gutting regulatory agencies.

1981, with Reagan in office and signing it into law.

Again, bullcrap. Almost all of today's federal debt can be directly attributed to Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

If the Federal debt had grown close to interest rates - let's say 5% per annum - from 1980 to 2008, it would currently be passing 3.6 trillion. A much smaller and much more manageable number, and about one third of the current actual debt. About half of that difference is Reagan's fault, and Reagan's fault alone - and during Clinton's term in office, the debt grew by less than 5% per year.

If you are saying the S&Ls should have been collapsed in 1980, then I agree with you. But that was never going to happen. I am more than prepared to admit that plenty of bad things happened under Reagan, but you can't hang your hat on the S&Ls being his fault. Interest rates were mammoth when he took office yet most of the assets long term and predated that, yet most of the liabilities were short term.

Call it bullcrap all you want, but they were fucked in 1979. So don't blame Reagan. Yah, maybe he should have just wound them up then, but I don't think congress would have been for that either. So grow out of trouble was then order of the day.

It was a duration mismatch, caused by Paul Volcker (if you subscribe to the fed sets rates theory). Nothing to do with regulation.

And yes, 1968 is important, because it marks the date that debt was used to service debt.

And North Korea must be a democracy because it's named a Democratic People's Republic.

"Socialism" encompasses a broad range of ideas and movements. Many European nations can be considered as having a form of Democratic Socialism.

It's not socialism until industries become state property and wealth is divided equality.

It's easier to set up a small business in Rome than in NYC. You have to look beyond the college type stuffs.

Really? Do you have experience in this?
I'm sincerely interested in this point of view, as right wing politicians in Italy and Czech Republic are always beating the drum of "we should do as in the US where you can set up a business in no time" and other crap like that.

Ask someone who lvied at that time. normally Carter is followed by a spew of curse words. followed by thank god Reagan showed up.
It probably has something to do with the high unemployment rate, the high rate of inflation, the high interest rates on consumer credit, and the high mortgage interest rates. At the end of Carter's term, those rates were 7.5%, 12%, 20%, and 14%, respectively. Not much to brag about -- in fact the "Misery Index" was created in response to the lousy economy.

In other news, Carter also gave away the Panama Canal zone, established full diplomatic relations with China, and cast Taiwan to the wolves. It's been said that Jimmy Carter never met a dictator he didn't like.

No one liked him in Georgia much either. He'd be a much better ex-President if he would just stick to building houses.

He was elected in the wake of a Republican scandal and I see many parallels between him and Obama.

Really? Do you have experience in this?
I'm sincerely interested in this point of view, as right wing politicians in Italy and Czech Republic are always beating the drum of "we should do as in the US where you can set up a business in no time" and other crap like that.

Yah, I've set up a small business in NYC, and one of the partners was from Rome.

The fucking hassle in NYC is beyond belief. Then there is constant semi annual harassment, but unlike rome, you just can't buy them off.

If you had bothered to read the rest of my post you'd know why it was called socialist. Mainly because:

You're comunism was never acheved. A socialist authoritarian regime was installed instead.

You're correct in terms of Marxist philosophy. Calling the USSR a communist state is still correct, though, and is more specific and more widely used.

Anyway, we're way off topic.

If you are saying the S&Ls should have been collapsed in 1980, then I agree with you. But that was never going to happen. I am more than prepared to admit that plenty of bad things happened under Reagan, but you can't hang your hat on the S&Ls being his fault.
S&Ls ultimately failing, no.

S&Ls failing being a huge problem, yes. Ergo, the S&L crisis - the expensive and massive failure preceded by a few years of insane apparent growth on the part of S&Ls - yes.

1981, tax incentives for real estate lay ground for the real estate bubble the S&L crisis was mixed up in, and rules are changed to let insolvent S&Ls appear solvent. Read the timeline (http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/index.html). It took another
Interest rates were mammoth when he took office yet most of the assets long term and predated that, yet most of the liabilities were short term.

[quote]Call it bullcrap all you want, but they were fucked in 1979. So don't blame Reagan. Yah, maybe he should have just wound them up then, but I don't think congress would have been for that either. So grow out of trouble was then order of the day.
Everything done during the Reagan administration tried to sweep the problem under the carpet and make things look all OK - and in the process, made the problem much bigger, until it was too big to hide.
It was a duration mismatch, caused by Paul Volcker (if you subscribe to the fed sets rates theory). Nothing to do with regulation.

And yes, 1968 is important, because it marks the date that debt was used to service debt.
Again, deficit spending. During Reagan's years in office, the debt grew primarily due to deficit, rather than interest. If you're servicing debt with debt, guess what? It still grows at interest rates.

During Clinton's years in office, it grew below prevailing rates of interest. Look at the actual numbers. Prior to Reagan, the federal debt was under a trillion dollars. Had the debt simply grown at interest rates, it would be much smaller - and again, that's ignoring the brief budget surplus period. It's actually grown at a slower rate during the Bush II administration than it did during Reagan's era.

Almost all the modern federal debt is ultimately due to policy under three presidents - Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II - and we can thank Clinton and a Republican congress for reining it in slightly.

Would the federal debt still be an issue? Yes. Would it be as big an issue? No.

What I dislike most about Jimmy Carter is that he's bigoted against Israel and in favor of the Palestinians.

Clinton actually produced a good economy.

No, CLINTON did NOT produce a good economy; the economy was good because of the popularization of the Internet (which Al Gore did NOT invent; it was invented in the '60s by the United States Military; civilians started using it en masse in the '90s) and the proliferation of cell phones. Clinton just happened to be president when it happened; he certainly did not cause or produce it.

And if you still think he did, then I'd like somebody to explain just what he did to cause it.

It probably has something to do with the high unemployment rate, the high rate of inflation, the high interest rates on consumer credit, and the high mortgage interest rates. At the end of Carter's term, those rates were 7.5%, 12%, 20%, and 14%, respectively. Not much to brag about -- in fact the "Misery Index" was created in response to the lousy economy.
Particularly right at the end of his presidency.
In other news, Carter also gave away the Panama Canal zone,
Which was a good thing.
established full diplomatic relations with China,
Following up on Nixon's diplomatic efforts.
and cast Taiwan to the wolves.
Which hasn't happened yet, curiously enough.
It's been said that Jimmy Carter never met a dictator he didn't like.
Along with every other president.[/quote]

S&Ls ultimately failing, no.

S&Ls failing being a huge problem, yes. Ergo, the S&L crisis - the expensive and massive failure preceded by a few years of insane apparent growth on the part of S&Ls - yes.

1981, tax incentives for real estate lay ground for the real estate bubble the S&L crisis was mixed up in, and rules are changed to let insolvent S&Ls appear solvent. Read the timeline (http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/index.html). It took another
[quote]Interest rates were mammoth when he took office yet most of the assets long term and predated that, yet most of the liabilities were short term.


Everything done during the Reagan administration tried to sweep the problem under the carpet and make things look all OK - and in the process, made the problem much bigger, until it was too big to hide.

Again, deficit spending. During Reagan's years in office, the debt grew primarily due to deficit, rather than interest. If you're servicing debt with debt, guess what? It still grows at interest rates.

During Clinton's years in office, it grew below prevailing rates of interest. Look at the actual numbers. Prior to Reagan, the federal debt was under a trillion dollars. Had the debt simply grown at interest rates, it would be much smaller - and again, that's ignoring the brief budget surplus period. It's actually grown at a slower rate during the Bush II administration than it did during Reagan's era.

Almost all the modern federal debt is ultimately due to policy under three presidents - Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II - and we can thank Clinton and a Republican congress for reining it in slightly.

Would the federal debt still be an issue? Yes. Would it be as big an issue? No.

With all due respect you are looking at the wrong things. You might as well ignore stuffs like the birthright lottery.

As I said, should Reagan have failed the S&Ls? Yes. But that wasn't going to happen. Tip O'Neil is just as responsible by that standard, and I don't see you raging against him. But my point is that the S&L failure was nothing to do with the Reagen economic philosophy, it was a problem that his administration inherited, and both he and the democrats mishandled. (And let's be honest here, virtually every political regime mishandles specific economic problems, which is why they should stay out of the way).

Secondly, with respect to the 1968 point. That is when the country's debt started to become structurally unsupportable. I freely admit that Reagan, as he promised, should have dealt with it. But don't hold Clinton up as some paragon either. Reagan deficit spent under a limited monetary base regime, Clinton didn't. And in fact, clinton benefited from the liberlization of the shadow banking system. Even then all the net result of the Clinton era was to transfer increasing government debt to increasing private debt.

And of course under GWB everything came to a head.

What I am telling you is there are no good actors in this play and it is pointless to try and divide blame amongst them.

Are you going to rage against Obama next year when the deficit is north of $2 trillion? I won't. Because I recognize that it's not really his fault. But I will reserve the right to criticize him if I think he is backing foolish spending plans. Nor will I blame his economic philosophy if he happens to make a few mistakes with legacy stuffs.

Hes not. Bush Jr. is.

With all due respect you are looking at the wrong things. You might as well ignore stuffs like the birthright lottery.
With all due respect, you seem to be completely ignoring the history of the S&L crisis that I pointed you to. Twice.
As I said, should Reagan have failed the S&Ls? Yes. But that wasn't going to happen. Tip O'Neil is just as responsible by that standard, and I don't see you raging against him. But my point is that the S&L failure was nothing to do with the Reagen economic philosophy, it was a problem that his administration inherited, and both he and the democrats mishandled. (And let's be honest here, virtually every political regime mishandles specific economic problems, which is why they should stay out of the way).
It is a "problem" that was not, in fact, a major problem when he took office, which his administration watered, fertilized, and grew.
Secondly, with respect to the 1968 point. That is when the country's debt started to become structurally unsupportable. I freely admit that Reagan, as he promised, should have dealt with it. But don't hold Clinton up as some paragon either. Reagan deficit spent under a limited monetary base regime, Clinton didn't.
So explain how Clinton ended his term with something called a budget surplus.

Reagan spent on a deficit, and sharply increased the debt every single year, mainly because he felt the need for massive defense budget increases and, at the same time, major tax cuts for the rich.
And in fact, clinton benefited from the liberlization of the shadow banking system. Even then all the net result of the Clinton era was to transfer increasing government debt to increasing private debt.
Private debt rising is not a budgetary policy issue.
And of course under GWB everything came to a head.

What I am telling you is there are no good actors in this play and it is pointless to try and divide blame amongst them.

Are you going to rage against Obama next year when the deficit is north of $2 trillion? I won't. Because I recognize that it's not really his fault. But I will reserve the right to criticize him if I think he is backing foolish spending plans. Nor will I blame his economic philosophy if he happens to make a few mistakes with legacy stuffs.
I will hold Obama responsible for the contents of his budgets, and it will be worth watching to see how much the debt grows during his watch.

As with Reagan, Bush II for his first six years, and Clinton in his first two years, I expect him to have a cooperative Congress.

With all due respect, you seem to be completely ignoring the history of the S&L crisis that I pointed you to. Twice.

It is a "problem" that was not, in fact, a major problem when he took office, which his administration watered, fertilized, and grew.

So explain how Clinton ended his term with something called a budget surplus.

Reagan spent on a deficit, and sharply increased the debt every single year, mainly because he felt the need for massive defense budget increases and, at the same time, major tax cuts for the rich.

Private debt rising is not a budgetary policy issue.

I will hold Obama responsible for the contents of his budgets, and it will be worth watching to see how much the debt grows during his watch.

As with Reagan, Bush II for his first six years, and Clinton in his first two years, I expect him to have a cooperative Congress.

Fine. You are right. It is all Reagan. In 1980 the first thing he did was get in his time machine and go back to the sixties to privatize fannie and freddie. He then went forward to 1993 and removed the CFTC supervision of OTC derivatives, then went to 1998 and told Alan Greenspan to oversee the LTCM bailout. He also insisted upon the mid nineties mexican debt bailout, and changed banking reserves in the early nineties to make sure that citibank wouldn't go tits up from its third world debt. To put the final cherry on the cake he wizzed to 1999 to repeal glass steagall.

It's all Reagan's fault. The mess we are in today is 100% Reagan. Hell he even set the wage and price controls for Nixon. And at no point ever did anyone else ever have a choice. It's all Reagan.

Fine. You are right. It is all Reagan. In 1980 the first thing he did was get in his time machine and go back to the sixties to privatize fannie and freddie. He then went forward to 1993 and removed the CFTC supervision of OTC derivatives, then went to 1998 and told Alan Greenspan to oversee the LTCM bailout. He also insisted upon the mid nineties mexican debt bailout, and changed banking reserves in the early nineties to make sure that citibank wouldn't go tits up from its third world debt. To put the final cherry on the cake he wizzed to 1999 to repeal glass steagall.
Read more carefully, please.
It's all Reagan's fault. The mess we are in today is 100% Reagan. Hell he even set the wage and price controls for Nixon. And at no point ever did anyone else ever have a choice. It's all Reagan.
No.

But Reagan is responsible (partially) for a combination of:

Short term prosperity.
Mid-term problems (S&L meltdown that Bush I wound up cleaning up after).
Long-term problems that are starting to become more and more serious (size of the Federal debt; as I said, he's responsible for the greatest portion of the modern federal debt of any president).

On that account - and on the repeated failure of "trickle-down" Reaganomics, since we have seen that rising tides do not (in the 80s and in the 00s) lift all boats - history ought to judge him more poorly as a president than the citizens of the time he ruled. Who, for the most part, thought he did well enough to elect his VP soundly.

And if Kennedy had any sense, he would've realized that Political suicide is better then Nuclear annihilation. The whole thing was balanced on the edge of a pin.I think that's the saying, I might be wrong.

Unfortunately it's often been said that the meetings between Kennedy and his advisers at the time were a classic example of groupthink, and unfortunate situation whereby there is pressure (often implicit and subconscious more than an overt effort) on the members of the group to give evidence/opinions supporting the group consensus and suppression of contradicting arguments.

In other words, under a situation of immense pressure Kennedy was probably not able to analyze all the variables objectively (unsurprising, he was only human) but that the people who should have been raising these points and ensuring they got aired weren't due to the implicit pressures involved.

Ask someone who lvied at that time. normally Carter is followed by a spew of curse words. followed by thank god Reagan showed up.

Strangely enough you ask anyone who lived under Maggie Thatcher in the UK you'll generally get the same reaction, despite her taking over from a vastly unpopular Labour government. People's perceptions of the past are often coloured by what is said about the past rather than the reality. Which explains, for example, the glorification of the 50s as a Golden Age, when in reality unless you were a well-off, white, male, they were anything but.

Never been in Italy or Czech Republic, have you?
Pffft... Complaining about US bureaucracy!
Italians invented bureaucracy, the czech made it into an art form ;)

Nah, it was the Belgians who perfected it I can assure you.

Short term prosperity.
Mid-term problems (S&L meltdown that Bush I wound up cleaning up after).
Long-term problems that are starting to become more and more serious (size of the Federal debt; as I said, he's responsible for the greatest portion of the modern federal debt of any president).

On that account - and on the repeated failure of "trickle-down" Reaganomics, since we have seen that rising tides do not (in the 80s and in the 00s) lift all boats - history ought to judge him more poorly as a president than the citizens of the time he ruled. Who, for the most part, thought he did well enough to elect his VP soundly.

He's not responsible for any of those. It just doesn't work that way. He was president for eight years and made some mistakes. That is all. There were large secular forces that have shaped the economy since then. None of them to do with Reagan.

And I assume by trickle down, you mean supply side economics: which hasn't been operative since Alan Greenspan rejected monetarism. I don't give a fuck what journalists say. Those are the facts.

If you need to pin the blame on Reagan, and it makes you feel better, by all means go ahead. But you will only end up making the same misjudgments twenty years from now.

I'm starting to get how Neu Leonstein feels sometimes. There are large impersonal forces in operation here, and this need to anthropomorphize them is ridiculous.

Could he have made better decisions? Sure. But to say that he was responsible for things like 'short term prosperity' is completely tinfoil. You could level the same exact charge at FDR for the same reasons.

And Reagan did nothing structurally. All the structural changes happened under Clinton.

One of Carter's main flaws was that he was a micro manager. Being the head of the executive meant that he should have taken a more macro look at things and got other people to manage the smaller details. Carter had to manage every detail no matter how small and take control. The fact that he spent time drawing up a roster for the White House tennis courts is evident of that, had he not wanted to be in control of every little thing he would not have been a bad President.

*snip*
I don't think you can blame Reagan for economic problems such as the Savings & Loan Crisis. As you say, those are mostly out of his control. However, he did have a huge effect on tax policy and to a lesser extend monetary policy. Thus, the increased inequality can be blamed partially on Reagan, which is what bothers me about him.

Read more carefully, please.

No.

But Reagan is responsible (partially) for a combination of:

Short term prosperity.
Mid-term problems (S&L meltdown that Bush I wound up cleaning up after).
the S&L melt down was caused by Reagan getting rid of Tax shelters for the rich. The banks either needed to find another type of loan to specialize in or die
Long-term problems that are starting to become more and more serious (size of the Federal debt; as I said, he's responsible for the greatest portion of the modern federal debt of any president).

On that account - and on the repeated failure of "trickle-down" Reaganomics, since we have seen that rising tides do not (in the 80s and in the 00s) lift all boats - history ought to judge him more poorly as a president than the citizens of the time he ruled. Who, for the most part, thought he did well enough to elect his VP soundly.

It worked wonders. We are not an equality of out come country, we are an equality of chance. also a large part of economic decline of the lower classes was the crack bubble. How was Reagan responsible for the invention of a new way to ingest coke. (leaving out the Iran contra thing)

Well, if you've got a better one, I'd like to here it.

You are unaware of any other economic system than capitalism?

You are unaware of any other economic system than capitalism?

So tell him what these better ones are.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism, just the way it's been executed. The next best system is bartering, and then daylight, and then socialism. So stop complaining about capitalism, because it's not just the best system, but the ONLY system.lolWell, if you've got a better one, I'd like to here it.
You are unaware of any other economic system than capitalism?So tell him what these better ones are.

If you (and FO) were paying attention you would see that I bolded part of his statement, thus indicating what I was laughing at.

So stop complaining about capitalism, <SNIP>, but the ONLY system.

Does that make it a bit clearer?

If you (and FO) were paying attention you would see that I bolded part of his statement, thus indicating what I was laughing at.

Does that make it a bit clearer?

Should have read the whole thing first and not only the "if you have a better system..." one. :$

Should have read the whole thing first and not only the "if you have a better system..." one. :$

FO has no such excuse though...


For the record, I do believe that capitalism is the best system, but then its also the only one I'm truly familiar with

FO has no such excuse though...


For the record, I do believe that capitalism is the best system, but then its also the only one I'm truly familiar with

Alright, let's all revert back to bartering, socialism or feudalism, and we'll see if you still think that there's an actual alternative to capitalism.

Alright, let's all revert back to bartering, socialism or feudalism, and we'll see if you still think that there's an actual alternative to capitalism.

Are you even reading what I'm posting?

He's not responsible for any of those.
"The buck stops here." He is - though not the only responsible person - responsible for the ill effects of his actions as President, regulation he signed into law, enforcement policy decisions made by his administration, for tax cuts on the rich, for failing to address AIDS in a timely fashion.

Does he bear partial responsibility for all things that happened from 1981-1988? Of course not. Regulation and policy failures? Yes. Federal spending levels? Heck yes.
It just doesn't work that way. He was president for eight years and made some mistakes. That is all. There were large secular forces that have shaped the economy since then. None of them to do with Reagan.

And I assume by trickle down, you mean supply side economics: which hasn't been operative since Alan Greenspan rejected monetarism. I don't give a fuck what journalists say. Those are the facts.

By which I mean the theory that tax cuts on the rich cause economic growth. Something Reagan and Bush II both promoted and pushed through Congress, on an argument made publicly on a very large stage.
If you need to pin the blame on Reagan, and it makes you feel better, by all means go ahead. But you will only end up making the same misjudgments twenty years from now.
If you fail to recognize Reagan's errors in deregulating the banking industry - as Bush II failed to do - you risk causing yet another banking meltdown through negligence.
I'm starting to get how Neu Leonstein feels sometimes. There are large impersonal forces in operation here, and this need to anthropomorphize them is ridiculous.
There are causes and effects in operation here, and your failure to say anything indicating you've even read the link I put up about the S&Ls is ridiculous.
Could he have made better decisions? Sure. But to say that he was responsible for things like 'short term prosperity' is completely tinfoil. You could level the same exact charge at FDR for the same reasons.
You could, but you would have a much harder case in front of you.

Do I know that anything Reagan did helped the economy? No, but he at least failed to cause short-term problems. Do I know that he left some mid-term and long-term troubles? Yes.
And Reagan did nothing structurally. All the structural changes happened under Clinton.
And absolutely nothing Clinton did had a thing to do with the S&L crisis.

If you wanted to talk about the more recent banking crisis, most of the toxic loans were made by institutions that weren't even subject to the CRA - let alone caused by the CRA - and issued following early Bush II deregulation. But that's pretty far off topic. We're talking about an earlier banking meltdown related to an earlier real estate bubble.

The fact you keep drifting off the subject - examining the Reagan-Carter comparison - is part of what bothers me about your response. I think Reagan is a bit overrated, because he was a popular president (at the time).

Are you even reading what I'm posting?

Yes. I just don't care. Systems like socialism might exist, but they're so fucking retarded that nobody in their right mind would consider them to be options.

Yes. I just don't care. Systems like socialism might exist, but they're so fucking retarded that nobody in their right mind would consider them to be options.

Actually, apparently you aren't, since I said that I thought that capitalism was the best system.

Also whether you approve of other systems or not, they still exist, pretending that they don't is just dumb.

capitalism [is] the ONLY system.


Are you even reading what I'm posting?
Yes. I just don't care. Systems like socialism might exist


FO you have been demonstrated to be wrong, you contradict even yourself, and not a single one of your arguments has any shred of support to it.

And if you don't care what anyone else says, then why the fuck are you posting here?

Okay, I've been hearing this for a long time now, and for most of that time, I figured it was nothing more than partisan bigotry and dismissed it out of hand.

But considering how much I hear it, I would like some serious discussion of this.

So, what exactly made Jimmy Carter the worst President ever?

Having been around at the time, but taking into account I'm not American, what I remember is:

- Foreign affairs crises just prior to the 1980 election that seemed to turn out badly for America's reputation; had they not happened so close to the election he may have won.

- The oil shocks of the 70s had severely dented the confidence of Western nations which were beset with stagflation that orthodox economic solutions of the time seemed not to be able to solve.

- Even with his 1976 triumph he was seen as a hokey southerner who had no right to the presidency

- Reagan's style seemed the panacea for the poor self-image Americans had at the time.

He's not.

Bill was worse...

50+ Reasons Why Jimmy Carter Was a Better President Than Bill Clinton
by P.J. O'Rourke

The American Spectator, September 1993


1. Jimmy Carter had a nicer wife,
2. A smarter baby brother,
3. A less frightening mom,
4. And a...No, we can't bring ourselves to make fun of the first daughter, especially since some of us have been going through an awkward adolescent stage for nearly four decades. But we can say: "Darn it, Hillary, quit fussing with your hair and do something about Chelsea's."
5. And, speaking of coiffures, Jimmy Carter never in his life got a haircut that cost more than $2.50, if appearances are anything to go by.
6. Carter had governed a more important state.
7. Carter had once held a job.
8. He came from a more cosmopolitan hometown,
9. And had a more charismatic vice president.
10. It took Carter months to wreck the economy.
11. It took Carter weeks to become a national laughingstock.
12. Carter committed adultery only in his heart.
13. And, if we know anything about female tastes, Carter was telling the truth about that.
14. As for military record, Carter was, comparatively speaking, a regular Audie Murphy.
15. They were on drugs during the Carter administration--they had an excuse.
16. We were on drugs during the Carter administration--we had an excuse.
17. Carter looked--think back carefully, we promise we're telling the truth about this--less foolish in his jogging outfit.
18. Jogging actually worked for Carter. Say what you want against the man, he's no double-butt.
19. Carter passed out while jogging and the nation was safe for a moment.
20. Carter was a good man to have on board when your canoe was attacked by a swimming rabbit.
21. Carter hardly ever hugged or kissed anyone in public except Leonid Brezhnev.
22. The FBI didn't kill anybody at Jonestown.
23. Bert Lance could make a bigger splash doing a cannonball into the Camp David pool than Webb Hubbell.
24. Hamilton Jordan could beat Mack McLarty at arm wrestling.
25. Plus Jordan could get into Studio 54.
26. Joseph Califano was prettier than Donna Shalala.
27. And he opposed abortion (though maybe he hadn't met Donna yet).
28. Warren Christopher was young and full of pep during the Carter administration.
29. And Warren Christopher's initials look funnier on a brief case than Cyrus Vance's did.
30. Zbigniew Brzezinski is worth more points in a Scrabble game than Anthony Lake.
31. Jimmy Carter didn't play any Fleetwood Mac songs on the campaign trail,
32. Or any Judy Collins records at home,
33. Or any saxophones anywhere.
34. The Undead:
* Carter Administration: Miss Lillian
* Clinton Administration: VAT
35. No one can say a word against a Carter Supreme Court appointee.
36. Carter did not use Bloomsbury, Mayfair, Pall Mall, Hackney, Notting Hill, Shoreditch, or any other London neighborhood as the name of his child.
37. One thing about Carter-era inflation, the money may have been worthless but at least we had some.
38. Endangered Species
* Carter Administration: The Snail Darter
* Clinton Administration: The DLC
39. Jimmy Carter's nervous smirk was less demanding of a punch in the snoot, even if it did present a larger target.
40. Navy football team can whip Oxford's.
41. Carter did not, as part of focusing on his agenda, address himself as "Stupid." He let us do that for him.
42. Carter wore real blue jeans and not the Levi's 550 roomy-in-the-buns kind.
43. Carter's poll ratings were higher (in Iraq).
44. Carter walked the whole inaugural parade route.
45. Carter saved America from a plague of Misha the Bear Olympic mascot toys.
46. Has Bill Clinton helped the Shah of Iran get medical treatment?
47. Carter spent his time doing things like figuring out the White House tennis court playing schedule -- the man knew his intellectual limitations.
48. Carter had enough clout to get Lani Guinier appointed to the Justice Department (and anyone who gets shot down for holding Menckenish views about the excesses of democracy had to be some kind of friend of ours even if she doesn't know it).
49. Carter let the Soviets have Angola, Ethiopia, and South Yemen. And, in retrospect, the Soviets deserved no better.
50. Carter wasn't a throwback to the Carter Era.
51. And let us not forget that Jimmy Carter gave us one thing Bill Clinton can never possibly give us -- Ronald Reagan.
http://people.ku.edu/~dadams/prez.htm

Personally, I thought Carter was a pretty good president. He was intelligent, kind, and usually aimed for solutions that would improve the lives of people instead of trying to get the people killed.
Better than those moronic characters like Reagan and both Bushes. Even as a child I could not comprehend why anyone in their right mind would vote for such stupid, pointlessly aggressive, narrow minded, gun-loving, destruction-orientated chavs who speak mainly in cliche's.
But I am not an American.
Fortunately, judging by the last elections it seems that there are still quite a few Americans who seem to have common sense. Congrats Obama, I hope you do well.

Personally, I thought Carter was a pretty good president. He was intelligent, kind, and usually aimed for solutions that would improve the lives of people instead of trying to get the people killed.

That would make him a good person, but not necessarily a good president.

Why is Jimmy Carter the worst president of the United States Ever?

I don't like trying to name a president as best or worst, all have done what they think is right. The best, like the worst, is usually a matter of opinion and will differ depending on who you ask. But why has Carter been named by so many as a bad president?

You know how everyone these days is saying that Bush wrecked the economy? Carter was doing this sort of thing before Bush was a guv. I'm guessing that's one of the biggies.

Another was his energy policy. He had none. Well that's not fair, he told people freezing their asses off to bundle up in their homes instead of at least attempt to address the rising cost of fuels. He was also an anti-nuclear puppet.

There are more reasons to dislike Carter but there are also reasons to like him. Remember, Nixon ended a morally questionable war in a faraway country but that doesn't make him a saint. The same can be said of Carter and Bush, for all their faults they are not evil.

Well Carter in my opinion is not the worst president ever. Bush probably is.

Another was his energy policy. He had none. Well that's not fair, he told people freezing their asses off to bundle up in their homes instead of at least attempt to address the rising cost of fuels. He was also an anti-nuclear puppet.

Carter created the Department of Energy, and actually had the foresight to push conservation and alternative energy like solar. He actually started to reduce U.S. imports of oil (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimus2a.htm). Then about halfway into the Reagan administration they started to rise again, and have been rising ever since. If we'd kept to Carter's energy policy, we'd be a lot better off right now.

Okay, I've been hearing this for a long time now, and for most of that time, I figured it was nothing more than partisan bigotry and dismissed it out of hand.

But considering how much I hear it, I would like some serious discussion of this.

So, what exactly made Jimmy Carter the worst President ever?

Double digit interest rates

double digit inflation.

foreign policy failure, including the Iran Hostage Crisis, (had he addressed it effectively, there would have been NO 'Iran Contra affair') Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, failure to act in the nation's interest in several other fronts. Carter's attempted diplomatic punishments also backfired (the Embargo of the 1980 Winter Olympics and the Grain Embargo). His foreign policies also saw a further erosion of confidence in the United States AS an ally with the fall of Nicaragua to the Sandinistas (and their immediate turn to the Soviets for support and aid), the release of information on the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia (the Killing Fields) by Vietnamese forces that invaded that country to stem the flow of refugees OUT.

layoffs while inflation and interest rates were sky-high (the late 1970's saw the beginning of the trend toward de-industrialization of the midwest, including plant closures and massive layoffs.)

Military problems including (but not limited to) widespread abuse of illegal drugs, Crime from said drug abuse so rampant many officers had to have an armed escort to conduct barracks inspections (this is no joke-the military under Carter were notable for having insufficient parts for equipment that was rapidly falling behind the Soviets in capability, and a morale and training problem that turned it to a hollow force during a time of resurgent soviet aggression and the rise of Islamic Terrorism).

a gutted military that was unable to organize a rescue of Hostages in the American embassy in Teheran due to inability to coordinate undertrained and poorly maintained assets. (Look up "Operation Honey Badger")

Carter's worst failure, was failure to deliver on his promises, promises ranging from releasing the sealed report on the Kennedy Assassination "Early" (prior to the seventy-five year opening date), to his promises of a more "Morally defensible" foreign policy (instead of having influence to change the direction of third-world hellhole dictators, his policy resulted in third-world dictators having no reason to listen or moderate their actions whatsoever).

Carter's administration also saw the second oil crisis of the 1970's, complete with gas-lines and rationing, this, naturally, did 'wonders' for an economy that was already struggling with high interest rates (double digit prime rates) and runaway inflation. The term coined in those years was "Stag-flation", a Stagnant economy (no growth) with high inflation (because he turned on the printing presses and tried to print cash to get out of an economic crisis.)

In many ways, people can compare the current administration's failures to Carter's- inflationary issues during the election, plus near-bank-failure, plus a rising national debt, and international contempt.

There are a couple of key differences, however: Barack Obama is inheriting a much more professional, better trained, and more disciplined military with a far better internal morale than Reagan did, or Carter did- Carter inherited a post-vietnam military that was despised by a significant chunk of Americans, had just been handed a political-defeat with Vietnam and had a sense of being largely betrayed, that had been neglected by an actively hostile Congress in the post-watergate years. Obama's getting a military that is accustomed to winning, and to having the support of the public at large, this tends to make said military far more likely to actually fight in the event that they are called upon to defend the Republic, regardless of who's in power. Whether he keeps it or not is an open question.

The second difference, is that Obama's walking into a much more serious financial crisis in the long-term than Reagan did, and with less in the way of resources to address it. Reagan didn't take office on the heels of a bail-out bill that was passed mainly to insure the continuing mainline for his party's leadership. He could actually turn the damn presses off. Obama can't do this, and he can't benefit from the power of a divided government to stem the flow of non-critical funding flowing to non-productive sectors that Reagan could. Instead, he has a cooperative congress without oversight, and a great deal more power than either Reagan, or Carter had, with less oversight.

This may not be the best combination, since there's no 'control' over what excesses may wind up in the budgets, nor any serious possibility of cleaning up government corruption and reducing costs-additional revenue will go to...additional (non-productive) programmes (this follows the pattern of the expanded spending in the version of the bailout bill that actually PASSED).

Nixon's mistakes led to Ford, led to Carter, which led to Reagan as a reaction against Carter-so in a strange way, the Reagan deficit is largely Jimmy Carter's fault, as systems neglected under President Carter had to be re-built or re-placed in a hurry by the Reagan administration, and Carter's economic policies (which were largely responsible for the late '70's crisis) had to be reversed, undone, or re-done in a manner that functioned in a hurry-and hasty work leaves marks. The Carter years' mistakes drew out into the early eighties and were felt in the form of massive layoffs within the automotive industry-the first massive layoffs, the ones that made Mike Moore a star.

There's a LOT Obama can learn about what not-to-do from Carter-more, as a matter of fact, than he can learn of what not to do from Reagan or either Bush. (though the lesson "Banks need to be regulated, and Mortgages must not be sold to people who can't pay them" is a bipartisan lesson Obama should maybe take to heart with great sincerity. It does no good putting people into houses they can't afford the payments on!)

The US has had som egreat Presidents in its history: FDR and Lincoln are two who warm my heart - because those two saved Ameica from its dark side. Washington was a great military leader - as a president....I'm not sure but he helped get America through a difficult infancy. The most over-rated Presidents? I'd go for Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt. They both over-rated themselves too much as well as their fawning supporters. Reagan had luck on his side. The Araboil hike hit Jimmy Carter and not him.

Carter had many qualities but he was unlucky. He got compromised by the Iranian revolution, the post Vietnam fallout etc. However, he was nowhere near the worst.

Kennedy made some terrible blunders (escalating Vietnam, for instance)but he was also heroic and the brinksmanship over the Cubam missile crisis was a gamble that paid off. There was somethin great about JFK - everything seemed magnified.

So who was the worst president? Maybe Herbert Hoover but you could argue that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time as well. Unfortunately he didn't have enough answers for how to end the Great Depression,(or how to stop it from happening). Fortunately for the US and the world FDR did - Keynesian economics got the country working again and he had mastered the radio with his fireside chats. Under FDR the US realised its greatness, co-operated with the Allies to win WWII and he founded the UN.