Epicurus
Reasonable
I wish there were Republicans who hid behind the Libertarian label. It does not seem to be the case.
But I completely agree with Paul's analysis of blowblack.
The Southern White Man's Party
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
I wish there were Republicans who hid behind the Libertarian label. It does not seem to be the case.
But I completely agree with Paul's analysis of blowblack.
How come I"m not allowed to use the word evil? I believe evil exists. Is there a problem with that? I will remind you my pretties, of a little thing our fouding fathers liked to call, religious freedom, and just because I believe in evolution doesn't mean it's ok to limit mine. This is Bullshit, and I'm filing a complaint.!
HaHa
I have no problem with you using the word evil. The Contras were evil. Our government did lots of evil stuff.
I just think its funny that alleged Ron Paul-supporters got twisted off on the word evil, when - at a fundamental level - Ron Paul basically agrees with you.
Ron Paul fans aren't going to like hearing this: but the US president from modern history, with the closest approximation of traditional libertarian foreign policy, was Jimmy Carter. Reagan would have been the absolute antithesis of a libertarian foreign policy. Bill Clinton too.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Rstring is pretty defensive of Carter. He did lay a lot of the groundwork for the deregulation of important industries.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Jimmy Carter was a pretty cool guy who just happened to be president at a horrible time. I wish he would've kicked Reagan's ass, honestly.
cawacko
Well-known member
Not a rhetorical question, what reforms are you referring to?
Epicurus
Reasonable
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-recession1982.htm
Myth: The recession of 1982 was Carter's fault.
Fact: That recession occurred in the second year of Reagan's term, following tax cuts and deregulation.
Summary
The recession of 1982 hit during Reagan's second year in office. Double-digit inflation was well on its way to being defeated by this time, and Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation policies were already in effect. Blaming Carter's tax and regulation policies for this recession is therefore difficult.
Argument
Many conservatives and libertarians take it as an article of faith that the unusually severe recession of 1982 should be blamed on Carter's mishandling of the economy, even though it happened in the second year of Reagan's term. But why should that be? Was the 82 recession really the fault of Carter? Let's take a look:
Reagan came into office in January 1981, and within 108 days passed a budget that contained his famous supply-side tax cuts. Of course, a budget passed in 1981 would be enacted in 1982, so business owners had plenty of advance notice of their impending good fortune. It is true the tax cuts were supposed to be phased in over three years, 10 percent a year. But David Stockman had produced computer simulations "proving" that the tax cuts would result in 5 percent growth in 1982 alone. Optimism was so high that today Stockman derisively refers to the 5-percent growth calculation as the "Rosy Scenario."
Furthermore, Reagan imposed a moratorium on all new federal regulation enforcement the moment he took office. In fact, the Reagan administration began slashing and burning existing federal regulation; it cut the Federal Register nearly in half by 1986.
Yet 1982 was the worst year since the Great Depression, with -2.2 percent growth. Why should that be? The private sector knew about the tax cuts well in advance. Many conservatives argue that impending changes in tax rates affect corporate behavior; for example, when the rich learned in 1986 that capital gains would be raised in 1987, they took all the appropriate counter-measures in 1986. Then why did this not occur in 1981, with news of massive tax cuts on the horizon?
Furthermore, by 1982 there had already been enormous cuts in the capital gains tax, the most sacred tax cut that conservatives hold dear. Between 1978 and 1982, the top rate on capital gains was cut from 39 to 20 percent. And the top rate on unearned income fell from 70 to 50 percent (mirroring a similar rate cut in earned income).
As for deregulation, that actually began under Carter, not Reagan. Carter deregulated airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates, and set up much of the deregulation machinery that Reagan would later use.
The supply-sider's dream was largely realized by 1982 -- and yet that year turned out to be the worst year since the Great Depression. So the question is: why is Carter still to blame for the that recession, when Reagan had a full year to install a radical supply-side agenda?
Carter's double-digit inflation? But double-digit inflation was already tumbling by 1982!
cawacko
Well-known member
Imho, this seems to be coming from a very biased perspective seeing that they refer to supply side economics as "radical".
This talks a lot about why Carter wasn't to blame for the '82 recession but your original point was it was Carter's reforms that led to the success in the '80's.
Your article mentions that he started the deregulation of various industries but not much else. Is that what you are saying is responsible for the '80's financial boom?
Epicurus
Reasonable
This one illustrates my point considerably better.
http://www.mises.org/story/535
Rethinking Carter
As the political season stumbles to a close, we need to remember that the historical relationship between economic policy, economic performance, and political rhetoric can be wildly unpredictable. For example, all these years later, it is worth reconsidering the presidency of Jimmy Carter, from 1977 to 1981. Many of the reforms that took place under his watch are responsible for at least some of the current prosperity.
In one sense, this is true. I was truly ecstatic in voting against Carter in 1980 and cheered his exit from the Oval Office. In retrospect, however, I believe that my judgment of the man was too harsh. Carter does not receive the due that should be coming to him regarding his economic record, and in many ways he is the real architect of our current prosperity, not the present set of clowns in the White House. That he does not receive more credit, I believe, is mostly due to the fact that Carter is nearly clueless about his own accomplishments and has never sought to promote them. In other words, we had a chief executive who could not tell the good from the bad about his administration.
Republicans like to point to the failures of the Carter Administration and then claim that Ronald Reagan brought us into the present era. Alas, while I prefer Reagan to Carter, I cannot say that the above statement is true. Granted, much occurred during the Reagan Administration that was good, but if truth be known, many of the important initiatives that enabled those boundaries to expand came from Carter's presidency.
To understand the magnitude of change we have witnessed in the last 20 years or so, remember that in 1980 the Interstate Commerce Commission regulated both trucking and the railroads.
Airlines had been "deregulated" for only two years. Government controlled the pricing and allocation of oil in the United States. "Regulation Q" and other restrictions on banks and financial institutions kept capital formation in the doldrums. Another way of putting it was that many sectors of this economy were more socialistic then than they are now.
Carter's administration played a large part in many of the deregulation efforts. Unfortunately, he usually only got it half right, which reflected his core statist philosophy.
Take oil deregulation, for example. By 1980, the oil situation in this country was critical. On the left, Carter's Democratic challenger Ted Kennedy was advocating outright nationalization of the oil industry. On the other side, Republican Ronald Reagan was calling for complete decontrol. Carter took the "middle road."
First, he announced gradual decontrol of oil prices and the phasing out of the Keystone-Cops like government allocation system. However, Carter also pushed a "Windfall Profits Tax" on the belief that decontrol would bring higher prices and, thus, higher profits to oil companies that "really don't deserve them." The Wall Street Journal so opposed Carter's oil tax that it published an editorial, "Death of Reason," on the day Congress passed the tax, bordering the editorial in black.
Full decontrol was scheduled to take place in the spring of 1981, but Reagan upon taking office lifted controls almost immediately, thus receiving credit for what was mostly the action of his predecessor. While Carter was mistaken in his belief that decontrol would automatically increase oil profits (many investors also made the same error), one must also recognize the political heat he took for his actions, especially from the left. Ralph Nader, who had endorsed Carter as a "breath of fresh air" just four years earlier, denounced oil decontrol as "the greatest anti-consumer action of this century" and predicted $600 a barrel oil by 1990.
http://www.mises.org/story/535
Rethinking Carter
As the political season stumbles to a close, we need to remember that the historical relationship between economic policy, economic performance, and political rhetoric can be wildly unpredictable. For example, all these years later, it is worth reconsidering the presidency of Jimmy Carter, from 1977 to 1981. Many of the reforms that took place under his watch are responsible for at least some of the current prosperity.
In one sense, this is true. I was truly ecstatic in voting against Carter in 1980 and cheered his exit from the Oval Office. In retrospect, however, I believe that my judgment of the man was too harsh. Carter does not receive the due that should be coming to him regarding his economic record, and in many ways he is the real architect of our current prosperity, not the present set of clowns in the White House. That he does not receive more credit, I believe, is mostly due to the fact that Carter is nearly clueless about his own accomplishments and has never sought to promote them. In other words, we had a chief executive who could not tell the good from the bad about his administration.
Republicans like to point to the failures of the Carter Administration and then claim that Ronald Reagan brought us into the present era. Alas, while I prefer Reagan to Carter, I cannot say that the above statement is true. Granted, much occurred during the Reagan Administration that was good, but if truth be known, many of the important initiatives that enabled those boundaries to expand came from Carter's presidency.
To understand the magnitude of change we have witnessed in the last 20 years or so, remember that in 1980 the Interstate Commerce Commission regulated both trucking and the railroads.
Airlines had been "deregulated" for only two years. Government controlled the pricing and allocation of oil in the United States. "Regulation Q" and other restrictions on banks and financial institutions kept capital formation in the doldrums. Another way of putting it was that many sectors of this economy were more socialistic then than they are now.
Carter's administration played a large part in many of the deregulation efforts. Unfortunately, he usually only got it half right, which reflected his core statist philosophy.
Take oil deregulation, for example. By 1980, the oil situation in this country was critical. On the left, Carter's Democratic challenger Ted Kennedy was advocating outright nationalization of the oil industry. On the other side, Republican Ronald Reagan was calling for complete decontrol. Carter took the "middle road."
First, he announced gradual decontrol of oil prices and the phasing out of the Keystone-Cops like government allocation system. However, Carter also pushed a "Windfall Profits Tax" on the belief that decontrol would bring higher prices and, thus, higher profits to oil companies that "really don't deserve them." The Wall Street Journal so opposed Carter's oil tax that it published an editorial, "Death of Reason," on the day Congress passed the tax, bordering the editorial in black.
Full decontrol was scheduled to take place in the spring of 1981, but Reagan upon taking office lifted controls almost immediately, thus receiving credit for what was mostly the action of his predecessor. While Carter was mistaken in his belief that decontrol would automatically increase oil profits (many investors also made the same error), one must also recognize the political heat he took for his actions, especially from the left. Ralph Nader, who had endorsed Carter as a "breath of fresh air" just four years earlier, denounced oil decontrol as "the greatest anti-consumer action of this century" and predicted $600 a barrel oil by 1990.
Lao Tse
Verified User
Rove and bush are committed to amnesty for the same reason democrats are committed to amnesty, LOWER WAGES FOR EVERYBODY. Get a grip, guys. Your racist analysis is pathetic. You keep yourselves stupid with your refusal to see things as they are.
Last edited:
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Oh, it could get very much worse indeed. Just ask any German or Italian over the age of 70.
Duhla, they call this a debate at that shit junior college you went to.
I misstook it for a jab at southerners out of you sense of insecurity.
No, they call this debate at the shit junior college I went to:
yu ged gerbr and you're friend the spinter both nothing but coffe fethers lol
But then I took some online courses at the university of phoenix, and I bettered myself.
Did you want the website?