Reflecting on Reagan

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Now that the period of mourning is over, it is now appropriate to reflect on the Reagan presidency.

From a personal perspective, I can say without a doubt that his administration rejuvenated the military following the Vietnam war. In many ways I think the country healed from that debacle under his leadership. He was a likeable and funny man.

That said, there were problems.

The size of the government increased on Reagan's watch...inspite of his open admonitions against big government. Sixty percent of government growth since 1980 has occured under the administrations of Reagan and Bush 41 and Bush 43. Government is bigger, inspite of the fact that Republican presidents have reigned for 16 of the last 24 years.

Deficit spending, and the national debt, have traditionally gone up under Republican presidents. This has led many to question the reputed "fiscal responsibility" of the GOP, including Senator John McCain. Reference this link to see the up and down nature of expenditures under Republicans and Democrats. Deficit spending and national debt always go up under the Republicans, down with the Democrats.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

I can not verify all of the followingbut what Ive found so far is below, and throw it out for debate.

Things that happened under Reagan:

THE ECONOMY.

On his watch, our national debt increased faster than growth of national income and GDP in eight years. The deficit doubled and our national debt almost tripled.

Spending increased by almost 80 percent. More money was spent by the government during his eight years in office than was spent by the government in the prior fifty years.

Interest rates shot through the roof. Real interest rates stood at 8%, and prime interest rates reached 20%. Home loan interest rates got as high as 16%. (I remember these rates...I financed my first car at this time)

On his watch, unemployment hit a whopping 10.8%...the highest since the Depression.

Under Reagan, there were more farm foreclosures, bank failures, Savings and Loan failures, and personal bankruptcies than under any other President.

During his administration the largest one day percentage decline in DOW history took place, October 19 of 1987. I remember this clearly, too, as I was sitting in my brokers office at the time. This was an interesting place to be given this historic event.

As California Governor on a conservative platform he increased spending by 112%. He increased personal income taxes by 60%, a tax increase on cigarettes by 200%, state tax collections by 152%. He gutted Californias mental health programs, thereby placing thousands of people with mental health problems on the street.

SCANDALS.

Because of the Iran/Contra scandal, more members of his administration (over 100) were charged with crimes than the sum total of all other members of all other presidents in the 20th century. An assistant Secretary of State was indicted, and an assistant Secretary of Defense was sent to prison.

During the Iran/Contra investigations he testified under oath 130 times, "I don't remember." This may or may not be significant as a sign of his approaching Alzheimers disease, as retired Admiral John Poindexter made the same claim 128 times under oath.

Medal of Honor winner Charlie Liteky, a former Army chaplain who saved 20 soldiers in Viet Nam, returned his medal in open protest after hearing Reagan state I am a Contra too. The Contras, a Nicaraguan rebel group, were among a number of U.S. supported Central American right wing organizations that have reportedly killed thousands of men, women and children.

FOREIGN POLICY

Under Reagan arms were sold to both Iran and Iraq. We openly traded to Iraq, secretly to Iran.

Reagan supported the Apartheid government of South Africa, and labeled Nelson Mandelas ANC a terrorist organization. When Congress voted to level sanctions against South Africa's regime, Reagan vetoed the bill.

MENTAL COMPETENCY.

Once his wife sat nearby and whispered answers to questions. This was, unfortunately, picked up by the microphone. This I can verify. Ive seen the clip.

He fell asleep while the Pope spoke. He also invited the Pope to visit the White House and told him to Bring the wife and kids. While this may reflect the Presidents sense of humor, rather than a mental decline, it is at the very least in poor taste if this was an attempt at a joke.

Once his press secretary removed him from the microphone because he could not answer questions. Then, as the reporter yelled out answer my question he replied My handlers won't let me speak. He'd keep a staff member nearby to tell the press what "he really meant".

He never had a press conference where he didn't make at least one incorrect statement. He made more recorded misstatements than any other President to date.

A Special Assistant said on national TV sometimes you had to hit him on the head with a 2 x 4 to get his attention

His official biographer state on national TV After he was shot in 1981 he got slower and slower each year. His speech got slower. He deliberated more and he hesitated more when he spoke. He lost his physical quickness and would not make decisions on the spot. It was a very, very slow and steady mental and physical decline.

Those of us who remember his service can recall a distinct decline in his performance during his second term versus his first. When his Alzheimers diagnosis was released, many of us were not surprised.

GAFFES

His administration tried to classify ketchup and relish as vegetables for school lunch programs.

Reagan stated that trees were the number one polluter of the environment.


TRADITIONAL VALUES.

He was the first president to have been divorced, and was openly alienated from his children. His second wife, Nancy, was pregnant with their daughter Patti when he married her.

He was a "shill" in Las Vegas many years ago. If you don't know what a "shill" is, Google it.

Though he promoted his religious faith, he never had an active church membership during his tenure. He used an astrologer while in office, however.


Regards,


Steve
 

Phoenix44

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
64
Location
Long Island
Thank you Hardhead for that recap and analysis.

Reagan was a human being and President of the US. He had people who loved him, and he died of a terrible disease. For that, we should feel for him. But he was a bad President, and we should not let the memorial events of the past week allow us to lose our sense of history.
 

loki09789

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
2,643
Reaction score
71
Location
Williamsville, NY
Phoenix44 said:
Thank you Hardhead for that recap and analysis.

Reagan was a human being and President of the US. He had people who loved him, and he died of a terrible disease. For that, we should feel for him. But he was a bad President, and we should not let the memorial events of the past week allow us to lose our sense of history.
Yeah, ending the cold war with diplomacy instead of blood shed was the worst.
 
M

MisterMike

Guest
Wow. They're getting better.

Let just blame him for "That increased our arrogance and insularity, left us in charge of the world and to blame for everything, paving the road to 9/11."

..as that clown Ted Rall just did.

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/
 

jeffbeish

Blue Belt
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
236
Reaction score
13
Location
Central Florida
Phoenix44 said:
Thank you Hardhead for that recap and analysis.

Reagan was a human being and President of the US. He had people who loved him, and he died of a terrible disease. For that, we should feel for him. But he was a bad President, and we should not let the memorial events of the past week allow us to lose our sense of history.

There is a sure fire cure for that, pervert poffers die.
 

Ender

Black Belt
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
684
Reaction score
21
well let's set the record straight before we go into these wild Reagan Bashing posts.

BEFORE Reagan got into office:

In 1980, Inflation was around 18%. Interest rates were about 21%, and the unemployment rate was at 12%. There were 11 dictators in central america. The savings and loans were at the brink of bankruptcy, there were about 25,000 Soviet Nuclear warheads aimed at us to be launched at any given time, and AIDS was just starting out.

When Reagan left office inflation fell to 9%, Interest rates had come down to about 12% and the Unemployment rate was at 5.6% (5% in considered full employment). Coincindently, 5.6% was the same unemployment rate for the economy in 1995 when Clinton was running on a robust economy. Finally, today there is only 1 dictator in central america because of the continued policy left over from the Reagan Administration.

Because if the high inflation, Savings and Loan were hurting in a big way. People were no longer saving because the banks could only pay 4-6% interest on passbook accounts (under federal law) while Certificates of Deposits (the first CD's) were paying up to around 16%. Who would put money into savings accounts then? The other problem is that S&L loans account for approximately 30-40% of all home loans. Without them, homeownership would be greatly reduced, especially at the lower economic end of the spectrum. Rich people would still be able to afford homes even if they had to pay higher rates.The Administration had to take action or face a huge problem later on. The strategy was two fold: 1, allow S&L's to pay out greater dividends to replenish and encourage savings so they could continue to loan out money for home loans, and 2, allow the S&L's to invest in the stock market. This strategy proved to be a success except for a few who misused the new privileges and caused several S&L failures. the actual number was .1% of all S&L's were involved in the scandal.

The deficits were caused by 3 reasons. 1. The government lost revenues because of lower inflation rates. Taxes are based on percentages and with wages and earnings not rising as fast as they once did, there would be a smaller amount flowing into the government coffers. 2. The defense spending increase and 3. the refusal of congress to cut spending on social programs
The tax cuts are usually blamed for the deficits by most liberals, but the fact is, tax revenues INCREASE money going into the government. We can go into that discussion later. Tax cuts are now standard economic practices and are taught in just about every economics class. Reagan presided over the largest economic expansion in history. this expansion included MANUFACTURING, and not the speculative expansion that Clinton presided over. This is a HUGE difference, and one of the reasons Reagan won 49 states in his re-election.

Aids was discovered in 1984 by Dr. Robert Gallo as head of a team of doctors for the National Cancer Institute. The Reagan Administration budgeted $6 millions dollars to keep the research going. When He left office, the Administration spent $8 BILLION on Aids research that produced the first treatments to fight this disease. So the notion thet He didn't do anything to fight aids is just simply wrong.

The last thing I want to point out is the fall of the Soviet Empire. We were primarly in a pissing contest with the Soviets. They had steadily increased military spending while we we cutting back. Reagan upped the ante by increasing defense spending, knowing the Soviets would be hard pressed to keep up. He then did basically what Bill Gates did. He sold the Soviets on the Star Wars (SDI) bluff, when he had nothing. There was no technology at that time that he could point to and say, this is our new weapon. (I did work on two different SDI prototype versions, and BTW, we do have the technolgy now). But he followed up with projects to develop this weapon and that was the breaking point of the Soviets. Their economy was at a 35% efficiency rate and there was no way they would be able to spend the money to develop their own version. Gorbachav knew this and tried to open up the Soviet economy to to a more capitalistic approach, but it got away from him. Freedom has a tendency to do that. So basically, we outspent them into their collapse. The threat of nuclear annihilation has subsided to maybe 100 nukes pointed at us instead of 25,000. Couple that with maybe 1-2 nuclear threat from a terrorists, we can see we are much safer now. Although we still have to be vigilante.
 
OP
hardheadjarhead

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Good riposte, Ender.

For the deficit you list the second causal reason as being increased defense spending...and later point out we outspent the Soviets. This was Reagan's doing, yet some argue that the "Evil Empire" would have collapsed of its own weight and that such spending was not needed. On the other hand, I can state with confidence that when he entered office our military was unprepared to go toe to toe in a conventional war with the Soviet Union. His efforts, as I aknowledged earlier, changed that. I served back then, and our gear and training was crap. Within ten years it was first rate.

Insofar as Congress refusing to cut social programs...can we blame them, given the unemployment rate at the time? I doubt too many Republican congressmen were keen on doing that given the needs of their constituents. When Newt Gingrich called for military cutbacks and base closings and cuts in social programs a large number of Republicans told him to shove it. It sounds great to do all of those things until you realize that cutting services gets you thrown out of office. For an excellent analysis of the complexity of this political process, you might check the book "Tell Newt To Shut Up" by David Maraniss and Michael Weisskopf.

Insofar as AIDS, Reagan's biographer Lou Cannon says that Reagan's response was halting and ineffective. Reagan never even mentioned it in a speech until 1987. Here is a somewhat damning expose that takes the wind out of the sails of your argument that the administration did anything meaningful insofar as this disease.

http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/presidency.html

Here's yet another one:

http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Jan2004/bronski0104.html

The above article has a wealth of information concerning Reagan's negligence and includes this horrific story:

The most memorable Reagan AIDS moment was at the 1986 centenary rededication of the Statue of Liberty. The Reagan’s were there sitting next to the French Prime Minister and his wife, Francois and Danielle Mitterrand. Bob Hope was on stage entertaining the all-star audience. In the middle of a series of one-liners, Hope quipped, “I just heard that the Statue of Liberty has AIDS, but she doesn’t know if she got it from the mouth of the Hudson or the Staten Island Fairy.” As the television camera panned the audience, the Mitterrands looked appalled. The Reagans were laughing. By the end of 1989, 115,786 women and men had been diagnosed with AIDS in the United States—more then 70,000 of them had died.


As far as Jeff Beish's comments, I'll let them slide. He can ignore the children worldwide that have contracted this disease through no fault of their own...I elect not to. Two of the five people I know who have HIV are children and hardly perverts. Of the remaining three, all adult and all dead, two were Gay and the other was a heterosexual.

This latter man's child and her mother both contracted the disease from him.


Regards,


Steve
 

jeffbeish

Blue Belt
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
236
Reaction score
13
Location
Central Florida
I have to laugh when I hear that the economy now is the worst since the Great depression. Because I grew up at the tail end of that period and forward I can say without qualification that the worst economy, and general moral of our country, was the one that Ronald Reagan took over as President. But there must be those here who were born yesterday and did not live through that ridiculous 1976 1980 period. Yeah, I was also in SAC.
 
OP
hardheadjarhead

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Jeff, I don't believe anybody here stated that this economy is the worst since the Depression. I certainly don't think so. Further, the thread is about Reagan and his tenure, not the current economy. If you want to start a thread on the current economy, do so. I'll jump in.

You are correct that the morale of the country was low from 1976-1980. It was probably lower in the late sixties and early seventies...but you're on the mark.

It was a bad time back then. We had just ousted President Nixon following the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. Our embassy to Iran had been taken over and Americans were taken hostage. A botched raid failed to rescue them and this embarrassed us badly and further shook our confidence in our military. The economy sucked. Crime rates were high. We had a growing drug problem. We had gas shortages. Songs like "Muskrat Love" and "Billy Don't Be a Hero" made the charts and lingered there like a broccoli fart in an elevator. People wore lime green polyester leisure suits and flared pants. Elvis was fat.

Back to Reagan, then?

Reagan stated this during his first Inaugural address:

"It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people."

It didn't happen.

Let me contrast some figures from Reaganomics and good old Big Government Bill Clinton's stats as President.

The Federal workforce increased from 2.8 million to 3 million under Reagan. Contrast this to Clinton, who shrank it from 2.9 million to 2.68 million.

Federal spending, as a share of GDP, shrank under Reagan a whopping one percent from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent. Under Clinton it shrank from 21.4 percent to 18.3 percent.

Some Reagan apologists would point out that marginal tax rates went down under his tenure. Yet those marginal rate reductions that took place in 1986 were spearheaded by Senator Bill Bradley (D) in a response to public outrage that Reagan's earlier tax cuts had left wealthier Americans and profitable corporations paying little or no taxes at all.

Another Reagan quote from his first inauguration speech:

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?"

The hypocrisy here is noteworthy, given the massive increase in deficit spending on his watch. We were able to recover from it, as our "Baby Boomers" were in their peak earning years and able to help the nation get out of debt. They are aging and retiring, however, and not in a position to do that again should the need arise.

To quote Dick Cheney, "Reagan taught us that deficts don't matter." But that refers to our present crisis, which I promised not to do in this thread.


Regards,


Steve
 
OP
hardheadjarhead

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Phoenix44 said:
Can you say "Iran-Contra"?


I referenced indirectly in the first post. Who wants to run with that one?

Permit me this observation on White House scandals.

I find it interesting...and infuritating... that Nixon wasn't tried for his role in Watergate (in fact was "pardoned" by Ford before he was tried). Reagan didn't get impeached for Iran-Contra. Bush the elder didn't get impeached for his role in Iran-Contra, either. Both Watergate and Iran-Contra are perfect examples of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

Yet we spend millions of dollars in order to impeach a President for saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." We get totally wrapped around the flywheel about oral sex with an intern.* At the time Ken Starr openly indicated that he had no impeachable material with which to indict the Clinton regarding the Whitewater investigation. So he went after the sex issue.

No pun intended, but that just blows me away.




Regards,


Steve

*Subsequent investigations find no fault on the part of Hillary or Bill Clinton nor any wrongdoing on their part in the Whitewater investigation...and it makes page six of the paper.
 

Phoenix44

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
64
Location
Long Island
"'My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific.'

George W. Bush, who apparently forgot about a little something called World War II, Tokyo, Feb. 18, 2002"

Sorry Hard One: The current administration deserves a whole new thread to itself!!!
 
OP
hardheadjarhead

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Phoenix, that is my signature. I put it at the bottom of all my posts and many of my e-mails. It is one of the many idiotic "Bushisms" I make every effort to draw the public's attention to...but it had nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

I'd be more than happy to start a thread on "Dubya". But here we're talking about Reagan.

Who wants to start on Iran-Contra? Anyone? Anyone?


Regards,


Steve
 
OP
hardheadjarhead

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Ah, I see. Glad you liked it, Phoenix.

Is there no one to open up on Iran-Contra when reflecting on Reagan and his qualities as President?

I'll start...and give a little background. Researching this was enlightening.

-----

Reagan's administration illegally funded the Nicaraguan resistance movement by selling arms to Iran. The United States Congress had previously prohibited the sale of arms to Iran. Funding the Contras and selling arms to Iran was also in violation of UN sanctions.

At the time Iran was (and still is) supporting terrorism targeting the West. The sale was seen as a means of appeasement of a country that had earlier stormed the U.S. embassy and taken Americans hostage for 444 days. They had financed a 1983 suicide bombing that killed 241 Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.

In June of 1985 Reagan said "Let me further make it plain to the assassins in Beirut and their accomplices, wherever they may be, that America will never make concessions to terrorists -- ". Iran had been labled by Reagan in July of 1985 as part of a "confederation of terrorist states" that had committed acts of war on the United States. He declared Iran to be an enemy of the U.S.

39 days later his aides were illegally selling arms to Iran.

The Contras were a right wing resistance movement pledged to overthrow the Sandanista government, the latter a democratically elected leftist government in Nicaragua. Independent Western observers determined that the elections putting the Sandanistas in power had been fair and free, with six opposing parties winning over a third of the seats in the legislature. Reagan's administration determined, however, that the Sandanistas were puppets of Cuba and the Soviet Union.

The Contras trafficked in drugs and arms in order to fund their efforts against the Sandanistas. The drug trafficking was known to Lt. Colonel Oliver North, who was implicated in the scandal. North did not make this information available to the DEA. There is some evidence that the CIA might have been directly involved in this drug trafficking.

The Reagan government, in direct violation of the 1982-83 Boland Amendment, ferried funds and weaponry to the Contras that were gleaned from the illegal sale of TOW missles to Iran. The CIA provided training to the Contras as well.

Reagan's personal diary stated "I agreed to sell TOWs to Iran," in a January 1, 1986 entry. He later claimed he had not been informed of the operation.

On November 18, 1987, Congress issued a report stating that President Reagan bore ultimate responsibility for the actions of the aides that carried out the arms sale, and that his administration exhibited "secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law."

The International Court of Justice (the World Court) found the U.S. culpable in the affair and demanded that we pay restitution. We refused and subsequently vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on all countries to observe international law. The United Nations General Assembly pressured the U.S. to pay by passing a resolution...Israel and El Salvador were the only two countries to side with the U.S. against the resolution.

The fine has yet to be paid.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/political-scandal/iran-contra/




Regards,


Steve
 

qizmoduis

Purple Belt
Joined
May 22, 2002
Messages
315
Reaction score
7
Location
Schwenksville, PA
Why are you blaming Reagan for all this? Shouldn't the focus of your attention be on the true architect of Reagan's presidential policies: his and Nancy's astrologer?
 

Ender

Black Belt
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
684
Reaction score
21
HHJH

I'm impressed...someone I can finally have a decent discussion with and who uses SOME logic...*L

Anyway, Reagan did run on a platform of less government with the intention of dismantling the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Energy. I would agree with both of these moves. As our educational system has moved towards greater federal control, it has increasingly failed. Our schools were better when they were under the local control of their municipalities. And what does the Dept of Energy really do? Farm subsidies should be abolished too now that we have become more globalized. I think any farmer can now sell their crops on the global market without the need of protection from the government. Reagan did intend to reduce the size of the government but he did SLOW DOWN the rate of growth even though he couldn't reverse the tend. Clinton HAD to reduce the size of the government because of the deficits. Many say this was a smart strategy on the part of Bush to dump it on Clinton. This way there would be no increases on pork barrel and domestic spending.

As far as Iran-contra goes, I think the intent was noble to help the contras overthrown the dictators down in Central America. Many were claiming that he was carrying on a secret war. but in reality these things happen all the time under every president. Clinton was fighting a secret war in Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru in the fight against drugs. Nixon got into Laos, I don't see much diference. Carter essentially traded "Arms for Peace" when he gave Israel and Egypt Tanks, Planes and munitions. Basically he said "play nice with each other and we will give you weapons". So no president will ever be impeached for these activities because they relate to national security.

And the real story behind Iran-contra was we had been sending arms to Iran for quite some time. But the problem was when they wanted the high speed surface to air missles (Sparrow misslies I beleive) and we sent them low speed air to ground missiles (Penguin missiles). Either someone messed up the order, or they intentionally tried to rip off the Ayatollah. Either way he got pissed and broke the story public.

Reagan was never an Aids activst and really, we were still trying to get a handle on the problem and the disease. All he really could do was allocate more money for research. Which is what he did. As far as the joke was concerned, thats just really reaching, hearing a joke, laughing and trying to tie it to 70,000 people dying is just ludicrous, if not just tacky.

And personally I voted for Jimmy Carter. I think he was an honest, caring, compassionate individual and probably the smartest president we ever had (he was a nuclear engineer). But he was not a leader, and he got too deep into the details of things. Someone at that level, be it a corporation,a country or any large organization, cannot know all the details going on at any given time, and he tried to. And I agreed with his policy of the price freeze on oil during the embargo, he wanted to make sure the poor would still have access to gasoline and heating oil. But it was the wrong move. Price controls and freezes only drive up demand because people then fear the better get all they can while the price is low. Nixon and Ford tried the same thing but with no success. I know the standard line from the left is that we had inflation because of shock to the economy from oil prices. But really Carter blew it. Japan and Germany, at that time, imported 95-99% of their oil from the middle east. They let the market dictate the price of the oil and it went up to $4/litre. But their inflation rates stayed at 7 and 9% respectively, while ours soraed to 18%. So in a nutshell, this is what made Reagan's approach so different. It was a pardigm shift for the US. Keep the goverment out of the market as much as possible. Put the money in the hands of the people.
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
You might want to look at Lawrence Walsh's--the Special Prosecutor--final report. It is at:

http.//fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh

Here's a lovely tidbit:

"The underlying facts of Iran/contra are that, regardless of criminality, President Reagan, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the director of central intelligence and their necessary assistants committed themselves, however reluctantly, to two programs contrary to congressional policy and contrary to national policy. They skirted the law, some of them broke the law, and almost all of them tried to cover up the President's willful activities."

Just incidentally, the Nicaraguan government (those racist bastards, by the way) was democratically elected. But then so was Allende's Chilean government, and we conspired to overthrow that, too.

Good thing we impeached Bill Clinton, ain't it.
 

loki09789

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
2,643
Reaction score
71
Location
Williamsville, NY
Ender said:
And personally I voted for Jimmy Carter. I think he was an honest, caring, compassionate individual and probably the smartest president we ever had (he was a nuclear engineer). But he was not a leader, and he got too deep into the details of things. Someone at that level, be it a corporation,a country or any large organization, cannot know all the details going on at any given time, and he tried to. And I agreed with his policy of the price freeze on oil during the embargo, he wanted to make sure the poor would still have access to gasoline and heating oil. But it was the wrong move. Price controls and freezes only drive up demand because people then fear the better get all they can while the price is low. Nixon and Ford tried the same thing but with no success. I know the standard line from the left is that we had inflation because of shock to the economy from oil prices. But really Carter blew it. Japan and Germany, at that time, imported 95-99% of their oil from the middle east. They let the market dictate the price of the oil and it went up to $4/litre. But their inflation rates stayed at 7 and 9% respectively, while ours soraed to 18%. So in a nutshell, this is what made Reagan's approach so different. It was a pardigm shift for the US. Keep the goverment out of the market as much as possible. Put the money in the hands of the people.
Thanks for bringing this point up. I thought Reagan was a good president, I think Carter is a VERY decent and moral man with more character than most Presidents we have had. I mourned Reagan, I will mourn Carter when he passes. His post Presidency work is a testimony to why and how he made decisions while in the office...
 

Ender

Black Belt
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
684
Reaction score
21
loki09789 said:
Thanks for bringing this point up. I thought Reagan was a good president, I think Carter is a VERY decent and moral man with more character than most Presidents we have had. I mourned Reagan, I will mourn Carter when he passes. His post Presidency work is a testimony to why and how he made decisions while in the office...

Carter's post presidency work is admirable as long as he stays out of politics. He tends to muck things up there. He's the one that brokered the deal in which we send North Korea technology to build a nuclear reactor on the promise they would not build weapons. He sold Clinton on the idea that they needed the technology to feed their population. Again, good intentions by the man, but not a real good solution to the problem. He needs to stay focused on issues that can be less damaging if they go wrong.
 
Top