Oh, did my tantrum interrupt yours, so sorry, you may have center stage back! Poor Reagan he gets credit for Carter's mess up and Congress growing the debt! But Obama not given same consideration, I see how you're, so carry on!
He who laughs last!
- Thread starter Mott the Hoople
- Start date
Oh, did my tantrum interrupt yours, so sorry, you may have center stage back! Poor Reagan he gets credit for Carter's mess up and Congress growing the debt! But Obama not given same consideration, I see how you're, so carry on!
No, you also said that Carter had "consistently high unemployment," which is incorrect. And I acknowledged that inflation and interest rates were indeed high, but that inflation was ebbing and interest rates were high to produce that effect (so bitching about both the problem -- high inflation -- and the solution -- high interest rates -- is stupid) and that these were the result of FED policies that the President does not control.
Because Reagan had time sufficient for that to occur. Carter didn't have that.
But you praise Reagan for making the economy shittier (when really it was the FED) while shitting on Carter (again, really the FED) for doing the same thing. Reagan benefited from having time on his side, while Carter didn't.
Actually, I didn't say that. I said that I didn't say that the President has no influence over the FED. There's a difference. And no, it isn't a coincidence that the FED cut rates because (1) it didn't really cut rates all that much (the range was tweaked slightly, but the market reaction was dramatic) and (2) inflation started to ebb in response to the dramatic rate increase. The high interest rate policy was working, so the FED signaled that it would reduce rates.
The evidence you have for this assertion is exactly zero. What actually happened is this: (1) the FED increased rates to stem inflation; (2) inflation started to ebb and the FED slightly lowered its target rate; (3) the market rate decreased dramatically in response to the lower target range; (4) inflation began to level out and to tick up slightly signaling that the effect of high rates was transitory; (5) the FED increased rates substantially and inflation subsided; (6) the FED again reduced the bench mark rate range (1981 now) and again inflation leveled off and began to increase; (6) the FED responded by again raising rates and inflation dropped accordingly; (7) the early 1980s recession started and the FED maintained elevated rates as necessary to control inflation until it was back down to acceptable levels.
The chart below (that I'm posting again) tells the whole story. Carter and Reagan had nothing to do with it:
You miss my point. If Reagan's term spanned from 1979 - 1983, instead of 1981 - 1985, he likely would have been a one term president. Timing matters.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Shiiit. Carter was a pillar of rectitude and competence compared W. Who are you kidding? Carter, as President, was vastly superior and far, far, far more competent than W was on his best day. Now as far as being a politician went, yea, Carter could be a real dope where as W certainly had marginally better political skills but only marginally so. W became a first term President through a complete fluke of our political system. He lost the popular vote but won the electoral college by 5 electoral votes. Where as Carter won by 57 electoral votes. So as first term President Carter out performed W significantly, which granted aint setting the bar very high as W is considered the second most inept occupant of the White House only being beaten by Warren G. Harding. Bush, to be fair, outperformed Carter by earning a second term by only 36 electoral votes against a very weak opponent. Though I can think of no fuck ups that Carter made that could remotely compare to Bush's handling of the War on Terror, The immoral Iraq war, the Hurricane Katrina disaster and his being asleep at the wheel when the economy tanked....twice! So when you compare their first terms, both politically and as chief executive, Carter out performed W significantly which, again, aint exactly setting the bar to high considering what a fuck up Bush was.
I think the eye opener for me on Carter was revisiting his debates with Reagan. The perception at that time was Carter had his ass handed to him (and I shared that view in 1980) but with 20/20 hindsight on virtually every major policy point they debated Carter was right and Reagan was wrong.
So I wouldn't be picking on Carter to much cause he wasn't half the fuck up your Messiah W was.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
??? Sorry, we were having a discussion on the economic conditions inherited by Reagan. You are the one who came stomping in with your 'Reagan tripled the debt', which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Hence my tantrum comment.
As I stated, NEITHER party has been fiscally responsible since Ike was in office. But again, that is completely off the point of what we were discussing. I would be happy to further that discussion with you if you like. As for Obama, he absolutely inherited a mess... just as Reagan did. Unlike Reagan, Obama has not made the tough choices to fix the long term problems. That is why unemployment remains high, why the labor force continues to shrink and why growth is anemic at best. All standing in stark contrast to the actions taken by Reagan.
The Reagan hagiography is awesome. It's something that I'll just never understand, though. I guess having only one successful president in the past half a century does that to Republicans.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Not if he still ran against Mondale. LOLNo, you also said that Carter had "consistently high unemployment," which is incorrect. And I acknowledged that inflation and interest rates were indeed high, but that inflation was ebbing and interest rates were high to produce that effect (so bitching about both the problem -- high inflation -- and the solution -- high interest rates -- is stupid) and that these were the result of FED policies that the President does not control.
Because Reagan had time sufficient for that to occur. Carter didn't have that.
But you praise Reagan for making the economy shittier (when really it was the FED) while shitting on Carter (again, really the FED) for doing the same thing. Reagan benefited from having time on his side, while Carter didn't.
Actually, I didn't say that. I said that I didn't say that the President has no influence over the FED. There's a difference. And no, it isn't a coincidence that the FED cut rates because (1) it didn't really cut rates all that much (the range was tweaked slightly, but the market reaction was dramatic) and (2) inflation started to ebb in response to the dramatic rate increase. The high interest rate policy was working, so the FED signaled that it would reduce rates.
The evidence you have for this assertion is exactly zero. What actually happened is this: (1) the FED increased rates to stem inflation; (2) inflation started to ebb and the FED slightly lowered its target rate; (3) the market rate decreased dramatically in response to the lower target range; (4) inflation began to level out and to tick up slightly signaling that the effect of high rates was transitory; (5) the FED increased rates substantially and inflation subsided; (6) the FED again reduced the bench mark rate range (1981 now) and again inflation leveled off and began to increase; (6) the FED responded by again raising rates and inflation dropped accordingly; (7) the early 1980s recession started and the FED maintained elevated rates as necessary to control inflation until it was back down to acceptable levels.
The chart below (that I'm posting again) tells the whole story. Carter and Reagan had nothing to do with it:
You miss my point. If Reagan's term spanned from 1979 - 1983, instead of 1981 - 1985, he likely would have been a one term president. Timing matters.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Be fair. Ike was one of the best 5 or 6 Presidents in our history.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, he was not. While Carter was certainly smarter than Bush, he was an equally pathetic (if not worse) President.
So when we are comparing them as politicians, especially in terms of the job they shared... you go from 'he was far superior' to 'he was a dope and W might be slightly better'. LMAO...
which is irrelevant to how they performed in their first terms. Just nonsense from you.
Based on winning by more electoral votes??? are you smoking crack?
By who? You?
Again with your stupidity. Getting re-elected doesn't make Bush better or worse than Carter.
Carter was asleep at the wheel when the economy tanked. Bush was in his second term. The economy was already tanking when he took office for his first term. Pretending otherwise is simply ridiculous. Again, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, Iran, poor handling of the OPEC embargo, yeah... as I stated, Carter/Bush/Obama all in the running for worst since Hoover.
Wrong. Reagan did indeed hammer Carter and Reagan was the one that got the job done. Carter was every bit the fuck up Bush was, as I stated, they are in a tight race with Obama right now for who sucked worst.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
no, he gets credit for fixing Carter's mess up......
Awahahahaha, they hear harps at the very mention of his name! I guess you are right, slim pickins!
cawacko
Well-known member
And how many successful Democratic Presidents are there in the last sixty years? One? Doesn't say a whole lot for American voters.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well to quote H. L. Menken "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of a USC grad!"
