News-Record.com

The economic disaster that was the Jimmy Carter presidency was caused by:

1 - The breakdown of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement, a control loop with the US Dollar tied to gold and the rest of the world currencies tied to the US dollar.

2 - The Kennedy Expansion (actually happed under Johnson), with America at it's absolute peek in 1966. As dollars started pouring into the US treasury, Republicans doing nothing - from 1964 to 1974 not a single Republican promoted a tax-cuts - as the democrats spent the cash on The Great Society, which seemed very do-able at the time - a slam dunk.

... as an aside: Oil was $2.90 in 1966.

3 - The Vietnam War, another slam-dunk .. make you own contemporary parallels.

4 - A flood of newly-minted US Dollars to stave the economic turndown that had started in 1966, and a few months later the de-linking of gold from the US Dollar.

5 - The resulting inflation:

3% 1972
6% 1973
11% 1974

... with a progressive tax system, not indexed to inflation so as your salary went up to "make up the difference", you were pushed into the next bracket.

6 - In 1966 the Republican leadership proposed a 10% surtax on personal incomes. When in that election cycle they picked up 4 dozen house seats, they made that 10% surtax a reality.

7 - In 1969, Nixon repealed the Investment Tax Credit, and restricted loopholes in the capital gains tax.

8 - Nixon backed rapid money expansion - including planned deficit spending in 1970 and 1971 - the "Full Employment Budget Idea" - to pump up the economy in time for the 1972 election.

9 - With the obvious failure of this "Full Employment Budget Idea", in 1971 Nixon:

- a 90 day freeze on wages, prices, rents.
- a six month freeze on government wages.
- "temporary" suspension of dollar-to-gold conversions
- a 10% tax on imports

Good letter, Mr. Miles. The Carter years will long be remembered by those who have a grasp on reality as a lesson on just how low liberal economic ideology can drag a country.

Nixon, 1969: "The Need for a Republican Congress" must be "superior" to the goal of fighting Inflation.

In 1969, Nixon proposed a 10% increase (and got 15%) in Social Security payments - plus another 10% in 1971 - plus another 20% in October 1972 - a month before the election.

Worse - he proposed and got the indexing of Social Security payments.

... and all those g-man regulatory agencies you love to hate: OSHA, EPA, Consumer Product Safety? Richard Nixon.

... and the bailout of Penn Central (today's Amtrack) .. and the bailout of Lockheed as well.

Need we mention the continuation of the Vietnam war?

The Carter years will long be remembered by those who don't know sh*t except how to bash non-republicans.

Neo - Here's you chance !! Tell us what Jimmy did that was so damaging !! We're Waiting !!

I missed the Killer Rabbit story, Mr. Miles .. hereit is:

http://www.narsil.org/politics/carter/killer_rabbit.html

Also interesting is the fact that his apologists will go back 60 years or more to provide cover for him.

BTW, for starters you can ask Mohammad Reza Shah what a great dude the peanut farmer was. (is)

But I have no hopes of changing any minds here. Carter is the darling of the left because, among other things, he travels the globe meeting with terrorist leaders and trashing Bush on foreign soil. This is like 'Tylenol Extra Strength' for those who suffer from BDS.

JDR did somone piss in your cornflakes? I thought everyone knew that Nixon's eight years set the country up for the Carter years. Why old peanut brain did absolutely everything right, we had low inflation, low interest rates, high employment, and lets not forget the nearly two year day camp in Iran for our folks. And silly me thought you were a moderate who spread the blame around. I guess our current downturn has nothing to do with a democratic congress that promised the solution to everything. I am waiting for that special plan Pelosi has hidden to deal with the evil oil companies.

"3 - The Vietnam War, another slam-dunk .. make you own contemporary parallels."

Uh, the Vietnam War ended in January 1971. Carter was elected in 1976.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation (as high as 20%), coupled with very high interest rates (as high as 20%), oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s.

And, to think that everyone is running around now crying about the state of the economy, and it's Bush's fault. Interest rates? While mortgage rates today are modest, I remember mortgage rates of 10-12% in those days. Now, people would be rioting in teh streets, if they had that to face.

Jimmy Carter - A man in search of a lost legacy.

"Uh, the Vietnam War ended in January 1971. Carter was elected in 1976."

This IS the most ignorant statement today, but the day is still young!

Oak, you probably believe the talking heads who are trying to determine whether we are or we are not in a recession.
Fact is, we never know we were in a recession until it is over! Stock markets are ahead of the general economy by anywhere from 12 to 18 months. Remember when the markets started tumbling???? Remember the burps and gulps in the last year? Go back and do a little homework before showing your ignorance again. Your lack of economic knowledge is equalled by your friend, neocon, and that, my friend, is nothing to be proud of.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2328720

I don't know why I even bother with two individuals who have little or NO knowledge of what they are discussing. Maybe this will help you, Oak & Neo:

" If you look at nominal commodity prices from 1963-1971, you can see that they were flat. But this was the period when Keynesian economics became dominant in U.S. policy. The tax cut of 1963 was the start of this period, and through most of the 1960s the money supply grew by faster and faster rates. Thus the stability of commodity prices during this time meant that they were falling in real terms and were becoming unnaturally undervalued."

The end of the Vietnam War affected our economy for at least 10 years. Economists and business leaders have used the 1971 - 1980 period to show how buying the indices would have left one with the exact same dollar they started with--no more, no less. All of that after an entire decade.

James, great posts, as usual. Hard to convince two anvils that the sky is blue.

Oak and Neo, (and Joker/Keith Goodman)

While I don't subscribe to all of Katz's theories, he has been correct on summing up the past. Maybe you can READ a little rather than doing your "passive" learning from FoxNews.
Here is an explanation for the "Money Magazine" folks--ORR and Neo. (BTW, "Money" magazine is to investors, what the National Enquirer is to journalism)

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Katz/dec262006.html

http://www.efmoody.com/investments/returns.html

Bottom line: ORR and neoclown, you have zero credibility!
James D. summed it up perfectly with,

"The Carter years will long be remembered by those who don't know sh*t except how to bash non-republicans."

No truer words have been spoken.

"I thought everyone knew that Nixon's eight years set the country up for the Carter years".

... only those that have read and search beyond the Oh Really? Factor. Here's a couple starters, both highly respected and 100% conservative economic scholars:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Works-Anniversary-Gateway-Contemporary/dp/0895263440

http://www.amazon.com/Impostor-George-Bankrupted-America-Betrayed/dp/0385518277/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209823036&sr=1-1

... btw Nixon was only in office 5-1/2 years.

==

"I guess our current downturn has nothing to do with a democratic congress that promised the solution to everything".

I'm certainly not defending the democratic congress ... but if you're blaiming them for everything going on, you REALLY need to read and search beyond the Oh Really? Factor.

I think, TLC, the 1971 was just a typo, right Oak Ridge Runner? Or do you have some other data .. maybe from O'Really?

==

No one argues those things happened during Carter's administration. I asked WHAT did Carter specifically do to cause the economy to suffer?

"Carter is the darling of the left .. "

Maybe. He's not my "darling" .. I have little reason to "support" him .. he really didn't do much .. but the continued bashing ... in obvious ignorance .. grates.

- issued an Executive Order declaring unconditional amnesty for Vietnam War-era draft evaders.

A possible rub for those that actually served.

- issued a "hit list" of 19 projects that he claimed were "pork barrel" spending.

GOOD!

- signed into law a bill containing much of the "hit list" projects.

OPPS!

- Vetoed a public works package calling it "inflationary" ...

GOOD

- Carter signed legislation greatly increasing the payroll tax for Social Security.

BAD

- Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act created 103 million acres (417,000 km²) of national park land in Alaska.

GOOD

- Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was passed, which phased out the Civil Aeronautics Board.

GOOD

- Somewhat successful in deregulating the trucking, rail, communications, oil and finance industries.

GOOD

==

But the BEST-EST thing of all - we can all agree: "Carter legalized home-brewing [which] led to a renewal of appreciation for beer styles largely unseen due to the dominance of the large [EEEEVVVILLLL CORPORATE] brewing companies and prefaced a leap in the number of U.S. micro-breweries beginning in the late 1980s."

James,
If one had bought the S&P index in 1971 and sold it in 1980 (I forget the exact months) it would have been a wash. I'm sure there are some charts floating around out there showing it, but the end of the Vietnam war exacerbated the entire economic shift.
Funny how neo, ORR and jokerboy don't blame Ford for any of the problems, but have no problem (sans intellect) blaming Carter. Hard to argue with rocks.

I remember the Carter years pretty clearly. He was (and still is) a pacifist. He made the push for human rights & freedom the mainstay of US foreign policy (albeit building on earlier work of President Ford.) He understood limits of military might.

The result speaks for itself. Nine years after his presidency, sooner than anyone had imagined, we won the cold war without firing a shot, when the people of eastern Europe rose up and demanded more freedom.

Compare that with our current leadership, who's foreign policy is based on the notion that our overwhelming military might can impose the US will on the rest of the world. We're currently trying to accomplish that objective on a 3rd world country that had been starved by 12 years of worldwide sanctions before our attempted conquest. The world watches and laughs as the Iraq quagmire sucks dry the US military, treasury & will.

Carter did have his faults, but I sure miss him these days.

joker - i forgot this book, also "kind" to Jimmy .. although our current Secretary of Defense is probalby not a hard core conservative as are Bartlett and Wanniski.

http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Ultimate-Insiders-Story-Presidents/dp/1416543368/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209824694&sr=8-1

TLC .. I'm actually OK with Ford. The more I learn, the more I like. I think he holds the record for the most Vetos / years in office - which is generally a good way to curb the bozos of Congress.

Kornbluth - the point you make is the exact point made by Gates .. who was actually there (in the WH) .. and who wrote that book from retirement, with no axe to grind.

... one more thing about Carter - then I'm off.

I sense his great weakness was calling it like he saw it, and just not playing the game well.

For example, Reagan lowered the unemployment numbers by adding the active military to the count. One may argue this does or does not make sense .. but it makes the official record skewed. Every admistration since has done the same thing - fudging the way numbers are counted to make themselves appear better.

James,
Ford, like LBJ understood how congress works. We haven't had a President since then who can nuance that the way those two did. Ford's pardon of Nixon was the best strategy for the good of the country. We all knew Nixon was a criminal, but compare that to the Impeachment of Clinton for lying about a hum job.

As to the Congress, the GOP has proven time and again, they KNOW how to get elected. Their problem is, they don't know how to govern.

(Too many folks are so partisan, they quit being Americans--neo, Tonymo, ORR, et al.)

I can't believe the News and Record would even post such a blatantly racist comment as this one- calling Senator Obama "B. Hussein Obama." And it pains me to know there are Americans so close-minded and misguided as to think the man's middle name is relevant to his fitness to be president. He was given that name 45 years ago by his African father, whom Barack Obama hardly even knew. It is haters like Mr. Miles, and several others on this thread, who give other proud, respectful Americans a bad name.

"The result speaks for itself. Nine years after his (Carter's) presidency, sooner than anyone had imagined, we won the cold war without firing a shot, when the people of eastern Europe rose up and demanded more freedom.
;
;
;
;
pause
;
;
;
;

Ok, now I'm back off the floor and my kids are staring at me and wondering why I was laughing so hard.

Got it, Carter won the Cold War through pacifism. That's right, I remember Carter's famous quote at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin:

"General Secretary Brezhnev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Brezhnev, open this gate! Mr. Brezhnev, tear down this wall!"

Since you seem intent on re-writing history Kornbluth, thanks for the laugh. I don't know why you miss Carter Kornbluth, he's still quite active visiting terrorists and despots worldwide.

modemocrat, it's folks like you who think you see racism at every corner. It's the guys name for pete's sake, since when did it become taboo or racist to use someone's name?

Yawn. Sad part is, little Dan probably wasn't even born or was a toddler when Carter was President.
JDR, Kornbluth,
See you guys later. It's ridiculous to post when the FoxNews addicts show up.

Dan ... with all due respect .. it is YOU that seems to lack clear historical perspective.

I will offer you the same challange offered to others responding to this thread:

"WHAT did Carter specifically do to cause the economy to suffer?

"Here's you chance !! Tell us what Jimmy did that was so damaging !! We're Waiting !!"

or in your case .. WHAT did Reagan specifically do to cause the USSR to collapse? The only thing I'll grant you is Star Wars, which ... the quote I like is " .. was only believed by Reagan and a few at the the Kremlin." .. and even as I grant you Star Wars .. WHAT specific action did the Kremlin take - expressly Star Wars relater - that causes the USSR to collapse?

I'll hold my freaking breath, Dan .. you have a HUGE challenge ahead of you.

Now of course the Cold War was not won by Carter's simple pacifism .. but neither was it won by Reagans' "famous quote".

Do you really believe Ronnie's little speech had the Kremlin skaking in their boots? GET REAL Dan .. Jesus God get real.

Put up or shut up my Friend.

Bad day again JDR? You sure get pissy in your posts lately. My post simply replied to Kornbluth's idea that Carter ended the Cold War with pacifism. It didn't mention the economy.

You yourself noted that Reagan added personnel to the military. Figure that out. And you mentioned Star Wars, it didn't have to work, but the Soviets feared it may work. Argue what you want about Reagan, but Carter had nothing to do with ending the Cold War. Hell he couldn't get a few helicopters to land safely. Is it mere coincidence that the Iranian hostages were released when Reagan was sworn in?

Reagan's quote didn't end the Cold War, that quote was on June 12, 1987 and the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989. That quote however carried much symbolism about the plight of East Germany, you cannot deny it.

Off to a wedding, if my post doesn't fulfill your needs and desires, sorry, but I have to put on a suit now, something I seldomly do thank goodness.

"Come here to this gate! Mr. Brezhnev, open this gate! Mr. Brezhnev, tear down this wall!"

Um, Dan, Mr. Brezhnev didn't tear down the wall. The eastern Europeans realized life would be better in a free society and rose up and demanded more freedoms and independence from the Soviets.

As I mentioned above, Carter was the president who made the push for human rights & freedom the mainstay of US foreign policy. The conventional wisdom had been that the cold war could only be ended with an armegedon type all-out war between the east and west. I get the impression some people were disappointed when we didn't get this war after the pacifist approach succeeded.

I respect Carter more now than during his presidency (I voted against him twice) because the older I get, the more I realize that peacemakers do much more to keep us safe than warmongers.

The peanut farmer abandoned the shah of Iran by sending senior American military personnel to restrain the shah's resistance to the Ayatollah Khomeini's radical uprising in 1979. Now we are stuck with a worldwide Iranian-backed Shiite terrorist regime that is learning how to make nuclear weapons. Mohammad Reza Pahlevi presided over an Iran that was pro-western, and anti-terrorism. Many historians (those not on the payroll of npr or suffer from severe bds) lay about 90% of the blame for the unrest in the ME directly at the feet of the noodle spined Carter, who presided over 18% interest rates, gas rationing, and American citizens being held hostage for 444 days by a crazed anti-America fruitcake while he (Carter) fulfilled the role of 'useful idiot' to terrorist regimes around the globe admirably.

Dewy eyed liberals will bleat about his (the shah's) 'human rights' violations, while academia elitists welcome the butcher of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Columbia U to further warp our youths' brains. (as if the lamestream media and what passes as an education system in this country needs any help with THAT)

...But the peanut farmer's escapades while he was in the WH pales in comparison to the treasonous acts he has put under his belt during the last few years by legitimizing terrorist organizations around the world by meeting with them and lending them credence. No wonder they want Hussein Obama to be the next president.

He is now more of a useful idiot than ever.

Suffice to say, neo and Dan deserve each other. It is obvious they drink from the same well.

`

Kornbluth,
I have been fortunate enough to meet President Carter on two separate occasions and actually converse with him. He is, no doubt, an honorable man and a very humble man. He believes in the "servant as leader" approach which is quite foreign to today's leadership in the White House.
He has dedicated his life to "Waging Peace" which places him miles apart from our present leader.
Per the comments from neocon, Carter agitates those who think that by ignoring problems, they go away.

Carter believes that for any peace to occur, BOTH SIDES have to sit at the table. Wow! What a novel approach.

Of course, neo calls that "legitimizing terrorist organizations". (Hint: You know you are on the right side of an issue when neocon is on the polar opposite)
With the neoconservative record on torture, 'pre-emptive war' and lack of peace talks---it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize they're on the wrong track.
So, Kornbluth, I must agree with your points. The world was definitely safer under Carter, and we actually had a national energy policy for a while.

Ford retired to Palm Springs and played golf.

Reagan retired, made multimillion dollar speeches to foreigners, AMWAY conventions and large corporations before settling down with his elite cadre' in California .

Jimmy Carter founded a center to "Wage Peace" and has helped eradicate Guinea worm in Africa. While others talk, Carter keeps on trying to make the world a better place.

So to all the bloviating conservative Christians--which one is more like
Jesus--- Jimmy Carter or George Bush?

Better yet, "What Would Jesus Do?" What Carter has done, or what George W. Bush has done?

(and the silence was deafening)

`

I may be pissy ... but your post was ignorant .. sorry that's how I see it and facts were presented to back that position. Here're a couple more facts:

Carter' raised global awareness on the illegitimacy of the Soviet Empire, causing problems within the leadership. When Walesa did the strike thing in Poland, the now stressed USSR did not have the balls to send in the troops to squelch it – that was a major change of “strategy” for the USSR, who had been “called out” by Carter's "pacifism." That failure to use Soviets brutality gave courage to other acts of dissent .. since it had been shown the Soviets were no longer willing to smash heads to hold power.

Subtle? Sure .. but real . show me otherwise – I’ll ask please to remove any element of hiss.

Reagan added personnel to the military – while tripling America’s debt. There was also wide spread semi-corruption. During Reagan’s era, I worked in DC and saw several examples first hand; money flowed like wine if you had some wacky idea to be pursued plus a friend placed high in the military. But that’s not what I was talking about, I was talking about how unemployment figures were re-calculated - he added 2.1 million "fully employed" military to the rolls - that makes the reported unemployment number go down.

Subtle? Sure .. but real – a fact. Show me otherwise – I’ll ask please to remove any element of hiss.

I agree Reagan's “tear down this wall” quote carried much symbolism (it was Gorbachev, btw) .. but by the time he gave that speech – 1987 – The Soviet leadership was already facing severe economic problems – and none caused by Star Wars, at least not that I’ve ever found. The Soviets feared Star Wars .. but show me where they did anything other than wring hands. Fact is, they had too many other problems.

In my opinion it was not a coincidence the Iranian hostages were released when Reagan was sworn in. The Iranians waited until Jimmy was out of office to rub it in Carter’s face, since he had given refuge to The Shah. Do you really believe they did it because they were scared of Ronnie?.

==

I hope the wedding was great .. sorry about the suit .. maybe tomorrow you’ll have time to post some facts – which is all I ever ask for.

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE [TypeKey Profile Page] said:

Yawn. Sad part is, little Dan probably wasn't even born or was a toddler when Carter was President.
JDR, Kornbluth,
See you guys later. It's ridiculous to post when the FoxNews addicts show up.

I LOVE it when TLC makes assumptions. We all know what that does.

As for "It's ridiculous to post when the FoxNews addicts show up." you could have stopped after the word "post" and been correct about your postings.

James,
Historically, you are right on target. But if one were hooked up to the right wing
I.V. drip bags, they have no clue about real history, just what they hear from right wing radio, and of course, FoxNews.

Don't know if you saw it the other day, but FoxNews' talking heads were discussing the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. While they were talking, there were two pictures on the screen, one of Honest Abe and one of FREDERICK DOUGLAS!! The talking heads had no clue there was anything remotely wrong with that.
So no wonder folks like Dan think that the "history lessons" they get from Sean Hannity are true. Garbage in/Garbage out.
: )

James,
Here's a link to the FoxNews Lincoln Douglas debate debacle!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/fox-news-lincoln-douglas_n_99331.html

------------------------------------------------------NicDanger,
How's the house out in the noisecone doing? Sorry to hit your delicate spot.
: )

Was the Shah Pro Western? Sure.

Did the peanut farmer screw up by not providing military support for the Shah? Possibly. Interestingly it was Brzezinski who argued for American military personnel .. and I generally agree (what little I’ve read) with Brzezinski. It could also be argued the Shaw was on his death bed anyway and no one was in line to replace him, so Khomeini would have eventually won anyway. We’re into speculation now – even all those historians not on npr’s payroll.

I offer no defense nor criticism of Carter’ meetings with terrorist organizations .. but I do wonder how we’re ever gonna advance if we do not talk with folks. We could try shooting them all .. but we probably do not have enough bullets.

Was the Shah Pro Western? Sure.

Did the peanut farmer screw up by not providing military support for the Shah? Possibly. Interestingly it was Brzezinski who argued for American military personnel .. and I generally agree (what little I’ve read) with Brzezinski. It could also be argued the Shaw was on his death bed anyway and no one was in line to replace him, so Khomeini would have eventually won anyway. We’re into speculation now – even all those historians not on npr’s payroll.

I offer no defense nor criticism of Carter’ meetings with terrorist organizations .. but I do wonder how we’re ever gonna advance if we do not talk with folks. We could try shooting them all .. but we probably do not have enough bullets.

A spokesperson who was present at the meeting when the noodle spined peanut farmer met with the leader of the terrorist group 'Hamas' said the mood was "warm".

I'm sure the famalies of these American victims of these cowards who send children strapped with bombs into a crowded marketplace will be overjoyed at that news:

Four young Americans killed by a Hamas bomb at Hebrew University in 2002.

The New Jersey woman who was among the 15 killed by the Hamas bombing of a Jerusalem pizzeria in 2001.

The two US citizens killed, along with 13 others, in the 1997 Hamas bombing of a crowded outdoor market in Jerusalem.

The three Americans among the 26 victims of a 1996 Hamas passenger bus bombing in Jerusalem

Has Carter endorsed Hussein Obama yet?

So the shah was gonna die anyway...good judgment dictated that the noodle spined peanut farmer capitulate to the islamic America hating extremists who turned Iran into a 17th century hell hole, because "Khomeini would have eventually won anyway".

Going back to 1944 to provide cover him made more sense.

All this talk back and forth about who's good and who's bad only reminds me of what I knew all along. Nixon was as bad as Carter, neither was worth a crap. Then again neither was Gerald Ford.
With all the points about Carter, I'm surprised no one mentioned The Panama Canal giveaway.

"Um, Dan, Mr. Brezhnev didn't tear down the wall."

Really?

"I have been fortunate enough to meet President Carter on two separate occasions and actually converse with him."

Good for you.

I have been fortunate enough to meet Lech Walesa once in Gdansk (2006) and listen to his experiences in the Solidarity movement. We also toured the museum. It's quite impressive. This guy actually lived in an oppressive society ruled by communism and fought against it with bravery.

You got the short end of the stick in meeting signficant politcal figures Demon Deacon. Back to the wedding party.

"You got the short end of the stick in meeting signficant politcal figures Demon Deacon."

Bet neither of you had the AP run a photo of you with said political figure.

"Back to the wedding party."

Really dedicated to this blog, eh Dan?

Hope the bride and groom know that harping on Jimmy Carter is more important to you than celebrating their lifelong commitment to each other!

I am not and will not defend Carter for his recent adventures in the Middle East. See Above.

Yes the shah was gonna die anyway. Who would you have suggested to the noodle spined peanut farmer support? As the Kinks once sang .. "Wholl be the next in line? There were tree choices:

Constitutionalists - the National Front of Iran. Most have never heard of then because they were small and weak. They were also promissing the same stuff the Shah had promised - basically for all Iranians a pot to piss in - but the Shah had reneged, so why would they be any better.

Marxists - enough said.

Islamists - including the Ayatollah Khomeini who had - almost because of is exile - become the Mohammed reincarnate. That's a tough opponent.I offer no defense nor criticism of Carter’ meetings with terrorist organizations .. but I do wonder how we’re ever gonna advance if we do not talk with folks. We could try shooting them all .. but we probably do not have enough bullets.

I am not and will not defend Carter for his recent adventures in the Middle East. See Above.

Yes the shah was gonna die anyway. Who would you have suggested to the noodle spined peanut farmer support? As the Kinks once sang .. "Who’ll be the next in line? There were tree choices:

Constitutionalists - the National Front of Iran. Most have never heard of then because they were small and weak. They were also promising the same stuff the Shah had promised - basically for all Iranians a pot to piss in - but the Shah had reneged, so why would they be any better.

Marxists - enough said.

Islamists - including the Ayatollah Khomeini who had - almost because of is exile - become the Mohammed reincarnate. That's a tough opponent.

Going back to 1944 to provide cover .. was as an outline for the “misery index” of Carter – the original thread topic.

I’ve yet to see a SINGLE thing in this thread that showed why Carter is to wholly blame for the economic hole that occurred while he was in office.

If the generic you wants to fully blame Carter, then you must give Clinton FULL credit for the economic boom that occurred while he was in office, as well as Bushy the entire blame for 9-11 and for the current economic turndown happening now.

As for the Panama Canal giveaway ... I was upset when it happened ... but I'm not sure anyone is the worse for it ... in fact the Panama economy is growing quite well, and a strong economy there is, imho as well as the humble opinion of others, the best way to stem illegal immigration to the USA as well as provide a market for US Exports.

"Um, Dan, Mr. Brezhnev didn't tear down the wall."

"Really?"

Really .. Brezhnev died in 1982.

Hey dude, you asked for specifics about what Carter did that was so bad for the country, and I gave it you.

Your reaction was: buhbuhbuhda "it was gonna happen anyway"... plueeeeze.

The damage done by the noodle spined peanut farmer's abandonment of the shah is immeasurable. It sent a clear and resounding message to the radical, America hating mullahs of that area that America's commitment to the more moderate leaders of that era was finite and if they were patient enough, the US would fold and sharia law would rule the land once more...after all that's what allah demands for the world, right?

The more moderate of ME leaders(indeed, the WORLD) in waiting also got the message: The US cannot be trusted to stand by their friends when the going gets tough.

Now Carter is trotting around the globe sucking up to terrorist leaders in the vain hope of salvaging some sort of legacy that, should the US education system ever recover from the throes of liberalism, will show him to be somewhat of a success in foreign relations.

Spin this with a Letterman-like 'top ten list' all you want, but the bottom line is Carter abandoned our ally in the ME and opened the door to the chaos we bear witness to in that region today.

I'm not "fully blaming" Carter. No president can fully control the economy...except in a communist regime, and even there, there is an underground capitalist system in play.
I'm pointing out his micro-management of such things like the 'energy crisis' of that era where he implemented government control over the free market (gas rationing)) led to shortages and long gas lines and produced his legacy: This translates into an economy that sucks. The misery index spiked during this time. Spin away.

BTW, I give Bill Gates, et al credit for the 'Clinton economy". Slick willie merely racked in the taxes and credit for it. Kudos to the liberal press and substandard education system.

"Really .. Brezhnev died in 1982"

Neither you nor Kornbluth get the joke, if you go back to my 3:06 post from yesterday it's quite apparent.

rahrah, the wedding was at 6 pm, the reception ended at 9:30, the hotel party started down the hallway soon afterward. Basically a bunch of drunk people by 11 so a post or two was more interesting at that point :)

I see your point, and do not disagree .. but "abandonment" as part of political expediency, is a long standing "tradition" .. where do you want to start ? North Korea? Cuba? Vietnam? Central America? Somalia? Iraq the First? To lay 100% of the blame on a peanut farmer is childish...and you never told me who would be the Shah's replacement? Maybe Chalabi was available?

As for " he implemented government control over the free market (gas rationing) " .. I don't recall that, so I looked it up on the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis

"In November 1978, A strike .. at Iran's nationalized oil refineries .. reduced production .. skilled oil workers) fled the country. On January 16, 1979, Shah of Iran .. left Iran at the behest of Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar (a long time opposition leader himself ...

"The Carter Administration began a phased decontrol of oil prices on 5 April ... domestic U.S. oil output rose .. oil imports fell sharply. However, since there were no price controls on imported oil, this had no impact on boosting the supply of gasoline in 1979. Hence, long lines appeared at gas stations, as they had six years earlier during the 1973 oil crisis.

"Carter, as part of his administration's efforts at deregulation, proposed removing price controls that had been imposed in the administration of Richard Nixon during the 1973 crisis."

Maybe you have you eras confused, Neo ... lemme know.

My Bad, Dan. I now see your joke.

Do you really think the Hostages were released the day Carter left because the Iranians we s.c.a.r.e.d of Ronnie?

No confusion here. From your link:

"However, a widespread panic resulted, driving the price far higher than would be expected under normal circumstances. In the United States, the Carter administration instituted price controls."

Carter's meddling with the market and trying to micro-manage it 'fixed' nothing. Try 1944 again. Who knows, maybe it will fly this time. ****************************************************
"North Korea? Cuba? Vietnam? Central America?"

How many of these regimes have a policy of strapping bombs on children and drugged women in order to slaughter innocent Americans and make sharia law the new world order? At least these countries had the balls to dress their citizens with military uniforms while opposing the US, unlike Carter's friend 'Hamas' who walked through the door Carter opened for them.

I'm constantly amazed at the level of support this quack simply because he opposes Bush at every turn and undermines national security with his ass kissing policy of terrorist organizations.

I tried following that wiki link, Neo .. it was a dead end, and it was spos' to go to a college anyway, so we all know the author was a gay professor anyway.

Everywhere else - I get support for my position, including this clearly unkind to Carter link:

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Jimmy_Carter_Budget_&_Economy.htm

Which says "He proposed a limit on imported oil, gradual price decontrol on domestically produced oil, a stringent program of conservation, and development of alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear, and geothermal power, oil and gas from shale and coal, and synthetic fuels."

Maybe you can find better info. I wait - but at this point, you should be kissing his wrinkled and clairvoyant ass.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/10/was_jimmy_carte.html

"Jimmy Carter did not impose energy price controls.
"They were imposed by Nixon.

"Carter actually removed them. No, it was not a 100% lifting at one time. It was a staged lifting. But, by the time he left office he had removed most of them. On a percent basis, Carter lifted more price controls then Reagan did.

"You can get the data at DoE.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566991_3/Jimmy_Carter.html

Freeing domestic oil prices, however, caused a rise in inflation, an increase in prices of goods and services without an increase in their value. Inflation, which had been increasing since the late 1960s, now reached its highest point since the end of World War II in 1945. Carter refused to impose price or wage controls; instead, he asked large businesses to hold down prices and labor unions to avoid new wage demands. Unfortunately, these measures had little effect.

Neo, you'll be happy to know that the Iraqi Constitution that American Soldiers are defending includes a statement that declares Islam as the official religion of Iraq, the basic source of legislation, and that no law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

Sounds like sharia law in Iraq isn't too far off.

I was quoting from YOUR wiki link. I know Carted did not impose price controls, and never took the bait you've been dangling.

Your link from 1:17 PM says it all:

"On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession"...
" but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration."

So a question for you: If the noodle spined peanut farmer's woes were a result of "The breakdown of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement", and the rest of the Letterman list, what did slick willie do reverse those effects...jump in TL CANADIAN'S 'way back machine' and reverse the Bretton Woods agreement along with the other bad influences that hampered the Carter economy? Hmmm?

*******************************************************

rahrah, you're right. This is why I've advocated the big hammer all along. Iraq should be in the cooling off period now, awaiting the construction of the first Ford plant, Chuckie Cheeses, and the First United Methodist Church... but bleeding hearts like Bush allows the dewy eyed liberals dictate war policy in this country and refused to clean house.

"I have been fortunate enough to meet Lech Walesa once in Gdansk (2006) and listen to his experiences in the Solidarity movement. We also toured the museum. It's quite impressive. This guy actually lived in an oppressive society ruled by communism and fought against it with bravery."

Well, the OBVIOUS question is, WHY do you have your head so far up your arse if you actually LISTENED TO HIM???????

neocon - said on May 4, 2008 3:02 PM:

"I know Carted (sic) did not impose price controls, and never took the bait you've been dangling.

neocon - had said on May 4, 2008 7:40 AM :

"I'm pointing out [Carter's] micro-management of such things like the 'energy crisis' of that era where he implemented government control over the free market (gas rationing)) led to shortages and long gas lines and produced his legacy: This translates into an economy that sucks. The misery index spiked during this time. Spin away ."

Oh I mis-read .. "he implemented government control over the free market (gas rationing)) .. " yea, that's it, I mis-read.

==

Clinton did nothing - never said he did.

==

Just for clarity - "The breakdown of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement" - started under Johnson and was a growing problem made much worse by Nixon (see above) until a collapse of the Oil Cartel in the early 80's gave it a breather ... but we're still feeling the effects of currencies floating without a real-world anchor.

I've yet to see any data - from you or anyone else for that matter - that contradicts.

I continue to patiently wait.

rahrah:

I will back Neo - he has advocated the big hammer ... but his idea of "Iraq should be in the cooling off period " is the half-life from the nuc' tipped cruise missiles .. as we turned it .. "into a sheet of glass" ... I think a direct quote.

It would probalby pain him to remember the cruise missile program was a key thrust of the peanut farmer:

http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5738

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Jimmy_Carter_Homeland_Security.htm

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-109.html

MY link from 1:17 PM says it all - well it says half anyway:

"On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession ... but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration."

Was he ineffective? Yes - show me where I said otherwise. AlI have been arguing is he did not CAUSE it. I'll wait some more, but Dang, Neo - when will a little humility slip into that thick head of yours?

"Oh I mis-read[sic] (sic, since we're pickin' peanuts outta shit) .. "he implemented government control over the free market (gas rationing)) .. " yea, that's it, I mis-read.

We finally agree. I know Carter did not implement price controls. You've been trying to get someone...anyone...to state as much so you could spring your "Nixon did" comment on them as if this were some huge revelation only you were privy to.

The Carter Presidency:
18% interest rates, 7.5% unemployment, hyper inflation, wall street in turmoil, 'energy crisis', gas lines, consumer confidence in the tank, deficits in place of the promised balanced budget, the ME falling into the islamofascists' control.

Here is my humility, JDR:

I can produce no documents on WH stationary bearing Carter's signature that states the above should be the law of the land. I cannot fine one shred of evidence where Carter signs an executive order making 7.5% unemployment rate the law of the land. I can produce not one Carter cabinet member speaking on the condition of anonymity, that swears Carter ordered the 18% interest rates, nor can I produce a note signed by the ayatollah Khomeini thanking Carter for deposing the shah and allowing him to return Iran to the glory days of sharia law enjoyed by Iranian women in the 17th century. (Praise be to Allah)

So I guess you're right...Carter was just the victim of a bad decision made back in 1944 which ended purely by coincidence with the onset of the Reagan years.

My bad.

... whatever, Neo - I wasn't baiting anyone - you infer incorrectly. I was pointing out that Carter was not the bad apple - THEN - he has been made to appear. No one herein has offered any evidence to the contrary. I make no judgement on his international actions post-office.

BTW ... I have also been arguing that the decision made in 1944 .. was a GOOD decision .. I have been arguing the ABANDONMENT of that decision was bad. Read up and get it straight, Brother.