Ronald Reagan on Appeasement

Correct, it was a brilliant economic stimulus package that created many jobs after Gore invented the internet... :laugh: :wavey: :thumbs:

 

Carter trusted an evil empire and we were watching the Soviets build arms like crazy, expand, and threaten more of the globe...offering a Neville Chamberlain-like style of appeasement instead of "peace through strength."

Carter gave away the Panama Canal.

Inflation, interest, and unemployment all went crazy under Carter.

Carter created the Department of Education--one of the biggest boondoggles to ever befall the American public.

Carter began the push for granting minority protection status for gays.

Interest rates hit 21.5%
Unemployment hit 8%
Inflation hit 13%

Carter signed the Salt II treaties, which immediately emboldened the Soviets, who tried to conquer Afghanistan.

Carter's response to such was...to boycott the Olympics.


The point of all this: Reagan won 44 states in 1980. He inherited a mess from an ethical, well-meaning, but lousy president.

 

Yes you do. There were no hostages when Carter was sworn in. Period. You are wrong.

 

Inflation went out of control on the previous administration. Ford even spoke it in his famous WIN (Whip Inflation Now) speech.

The 21.5% interest rate that Volker implemented is said by many economist to have saved the economy from run away inflation. It was working so well, Regan kept him on for the first part of his administration.

 

No, I agree with that. However, they were released minutes after Regan was sworn in. If you want to give Regan all the credit before he ever sat in the seat then so be it but I know better.

 

Wow, LB...another page or two, and you'll have Carter on Mt. Rushmore!

 

I won't give Carter any credit for getting our hostages out. You can discount Reagan if you want, I know better. It was a completely different Military after Reagan was sworn in.

 

So if you assign criticism to Carter for the poor economy during his term, then you must assign high marks to Clinton for the great economy during his two terms and very bad marks to Busk for the recession/looming depression which occurred during his administration. Am I correct?

 

Carter, with a democratic majority, did great damage with his leadership style, and over-reliance on government. Yes, he had more influence than he should. Yes, he messed it up pretty good.

Clinton worked with a dem and a republican majority. I thought his morals stunk, but yes...between some of his advisors, a number of his decisions, and a couple of republican decisions, I would say he deserves credit for much of the 1990's growth.

Bush deserves a good deal of credit for the funk we're in, because of his extravagant spending...but I think congress (both D's and R's) also spent us into trouble.

So in short: Yes to Clinton, and a qualified yes to Bush.

However, I still contend that the president should not have that much influence on the economy Constitutionally....but he does.

 

Naw, far from it. I wasn't on the side of the peanut farmer but I do believe right is right. Credit should be given where due. He has done a lot of good since leaving office. More than he did while in.

On the same topic, the nation will always remember the leadership Bush showed on 9/11. No matter what else is said about his presidency, he deserves credit for true leadership in the ruins of the WTC.