«1

Replies

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,917 Senior Member
    Did Carter sit back and watch the biggest collapse of the American economy since the Great Depression? Did Carter send us to war under false information? Hell Carter was even better regarding the deficit.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    You're right. Obama is way worse than Carter. :)

    No, look. These polls are stupid. They tend to be heavily skewed towards contemporaries. That's why Obama and Bush come in first and second, respectively. If you look at who's the best president, these also tend to skew towards contemporaries. Its the reason Nixon, Carter, Harding, and Buchannan never merit a mention.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Carter was "better" regarding the deficit because of inflation. Inflation wipes out debt.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    It's like stabbing chubs in the face.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    sherb wrote: »
    Carter was "better" regarding the deficit because of inflation. Inflation wipes out debt.

    So, I decided to look this up. For the periods 1977 through 1980, the deficit averaged 2.5% of GDP. For the periods 2001 through 2008, the deficit averaged 1.9% of GDP despite two ongoing wars. I don't think one could say that Bush was worse on the deficit. If we include 2009, the ratio did worsen considerably from when W took office but that was due to the recession, not Bush policies not associated with the worsening economy.

    I think the jury is out on the deficit argument.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,922 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Carter was "better" regarding the deficit because of inflation. Inflation wipes out debt.

    I don't think you can blame Carter for the rampant inflation of the 1970s. A major cause was Johnson and Nixon both choosing to have a war without raising taxes or selling bonds to pay for it. The other shoe has yet to fall following the same magical financial thinking about our Middle East and South Asian wars.

    But you are absolutely right about these pop culture polls skewing towards the two or three most recent bad-to-mediocre Presidents. When historians sort it out in the future I think Bush fils and Carter will rank towards the bottom, Ford and Bush per in the middling cluster and Clinton and Reagan in the upper quartile but far short of greatness. Ford possibly may be seen in retrospect to look better than he does closer at hand, much like Truman and Eisenhower.

    Obama's place - IMO - eventually will be determined by the fate of the healthcare act. At best he will be another LBJ, whose great achievements in the area of civil rights are tarnished by Viet Nam, at worst another Carter.

    All this should be taken mindful of the fact that neither blame nor credit for most of what takes place during a President's time in office belongs to him. (Or in the future, her.)
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    I'm not blaming him. I'm just saying it helps to wipe out debt.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,922 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    I'm not blaming him. I'm just saying it helps to wipe out debt.

    Absolutely. It's a favorite technique of many nations.

    Sorry I misunderstood your post.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,917 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    So, I decided to look this up. For the periods 1977 through 1980, the deficit averaged 2.5% of GDP. For the periods 2001 through 2008, the deficit averaged 1.9% of GDP despite two ongoing wars. I don't think one could say that Bush was worse on the deficit. If we include 2009, the ratio did worsen considerably from when W took office but that was due to the recession, not Bush policies not associated with the worsening economy.

    I think the jury is out on the deficit argument.

    Did Carter start with a projected surplus?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    George K wrote: »
    I don't think you can blame Carter for the rampant inflation of the 1970s. A major cause was Johnson and Nixon both choosing to have a war without raising taxes or selling bonds to pay for it. The other shoe has yet to fall following the same magical financial thinking about our Middle East and South Asian wars.

    All this should be taken mindful of the fact that neither blame nor credit for most of what takes place during a President's time in office belongs to him. (Or in the future, her.)

    With regards to the economy, I absolutely agree. The President likely has little effect on the economy during his tenure.

    With regards to the economy during the Carter Administration, I'd be more inclined to look towards OPEC for an explanation. Remember we had stagflation - inflation rising with a weak economy - not just inflation, which couldn't be explained by the Phillips Curve. Stagflation could be explained by the big increase in oil prices during that time. Higher gas prices basically acted as a tax on consumers - lowering aggregate demand- and at the same time led to increasing wage demands and higher goods prices - which then became embedded in inflation expectations, so wage demands increased further and so on and so on.

    It was these inflationary expectations and the resulting cycle that Volcker killed in 1981.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Did Carter start with a projected surplus?

    I don't know. Check here.

    www.lmgtfy.com
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,917 Senior Member
    Well while your at it Google how many balanced budgets Reagan submitted.
    1975 - $53.2 billion budget deficit

    1974 - $6.1 billion budget deficit

    1973 - $14.9 billion budget deficit

    1972 - $23.4 billion budget deficit

    1971 - $23 billion budget deficit

    1970 - $2.8 billion budget deficit

    1969 - $3.2 billion budget surplus

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/Budget-Deficit-History.htm
    2008 - $455 billion budget deficit

    2007 - $162 billion budget deficit

    2006 - $248.2 billion budget deficit

    2005 - $319 billion budget deficit

    2004 - $412.7 billion budget deficit

    2003 - $377.6 billion budget deficit

    2002 - $157.8 billion budget deficit

    2001 - $128.2 billion budget surplus

    2000 - $236.2 billion budget surplus

    1999 - $125.6 billion budget surplus

    1998 - $69.3 billion budget surplus
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Well while your at it Google how many balanced budgets Reagan submitted.

    Roosevelt didn't submit many either. Of course, without Reagan and Bush Sr., maybe Slick would never have.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,917 Senior Member
    Hahahahahahahahaha That is some funny shiite right there.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Well while your at it Google how many balanced budgets Reagan submitted.



    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/Budget-Deficit-History.htm

    Awesome. You've learned how to use the google machine.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,917 Senior Member
    Come to think of it fiscal year 2009 was Bush's also.
    2009 - $1.4 trillion budget deficit
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Oh, I don't doubt that the Bush Tax cuts had something to do with the increase in deficits in 2003, but by the end of the Bush administration, tax receipts relative to GDP were right there even with the historical average - like any supply-sider would expect.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Come to think of it fiscal year 2009 was Bush's also.



    Why would you just come to think of it, if I mentioned it in post 6?

    Of course, if you're going to give 2009 to Bush (which would be totally appropriate if we really think the President has any affect on the economy), then there goes the "Bush just sat back and did nothing while the economy went down the drain argument.

    FWIW, the size of the deficit is meaningless, it's the deficit relative to GDP that matters.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    It's two pages now, when do we actually address the fact that a plurality of Americans even think Obama is worse than W?
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,998 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    All this should be taken mindful of the fact that neither blame nor credit for most of what takes place during a President's time in office belongs to him. (Or in the future, her.)

    People love to "forget" Congress when sizing up a president.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,917 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    It's two pages now, when do we actually address the fact that a plurality of Americans even think Obama is worse than W?

    Is 5% more a plurality? Anybody who does not think Bush was the worst president of all time spends too much time smelling the inside of their colons.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,917 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Why would you just come to think of it, if I mentioned it in post 6?

    Of course, if you're going to give 2009 to Bush (which would be totally appropriate if we really think the President has any affect on the economy), then there goes the "Bush just sat back and did nothing while the economy went down the drain argument.

    FWIW, the size of the deficit is meaningless, it's the deficit relative to GDP that matters.

    Everybody saw this coming from 2006 forward and Bush did nothing but wait for it to happen. There were many proactive steps he could have taken, but being the ideologue he was he would rather sit back and watch it sink. He is our modern Nero.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Everybody saw this coming from 2006 forward and Bush did nothing but wait for it to happen.

    If everybody saw this coming, why did the stock market wait to top out in October 2007?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Is 5% more a plurality?

    Go here: www.lmgtfy.com
    And type in "What is a plurality?"
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,917 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    If everybody saw this coming, why did the stock market wait to top out in October 2007?

    The same reason Lehman Brother's tanked. Holding out hope. But we were discussing the pending mortgage crisis on this board in 2006. My Uncle predicted the devastation in 2007.

    http://www.economonitor.com/nouriel/2008/08/28/2006-and-2007-imf-speeches-by-roubini-predicting-the-recession-and-the-financial-crisisand-the-five-stages-of-grief/

    Here I already googled it for you.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,917 Senior Member

    Sept 2006
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Hextall wrote: »
    You're not doing this correctly.

    http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+plurality
    I can't be expected to do everything for him.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Everybody saw this coming from 2006 forward and Bush did nothing but wait for it to happen. There were many proactive steps he could have taken, but being the ideologue he was he would rather sit back and watch it sink. He is our modern Nero.

    Dubya may have been a lot of things, but he was no ideologue. Need I remind you of all the ways he wasn't?

    You want to accuse Bush of ramping up the deficit, great. He deserves it. But you can't very well accuse him of bailing out private companies (like America's favorite jobs program, GM) and being an free market ideologue.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    So, I listened up to 1:49. Krugman said it could be as big as the Tech Bust in the late 90's. So my first thought is, Krugman called for just another recession - not the Great Recession - so he didn't see it. My second thought is why didn't Slick stop the tech bubble bust? Everybody saw that.

    Anyway, you don't want to go there. Bush and Paulson tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie in 2005 but got stymied by Barney Frank. When it came to doing something about the housing market, nobody saw the potential for major problems earlier than W.

    Roubini was one of the very, very few that got it right, but he was nobody before that and he's been consistently wrong since.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.