Quote:
kuvasz wrote:
does anyone really think that had carter bombed tehran to ruble in late 1979 or early 1980 he would not have beaten reagan in 1980? carter could have ensured his re-election simply by having the american air force bomb the ever living crap out of iran and kill tens of thousands, and probably too the 55 hostages. the american people wanted him to. but he but chose to use less destructive methods. even then, had the helicopters gotten the hostages out instead of hitting that sand storm in the northern deserts of iran, carter would have declared a genius and beaten reagan.
3 things here.
1) You are suggesting as our elected representative he did a good job in part because he chose not to follow the will of the people he was representing.
Surely others, usually those teaching junior high school civics classes, have pointed it out to you; we live in a representative democracy, not a pure form of one. Those for whom we vote make the decisions of government. However, if we follow your logic, perhaps since the majority of Americans think we were wrong to invade Iraq, Bush should follow popular opinion and remove US troops. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, don't you think?
Is that a clear enough analogy? Would you like others?
Quote:
kuvasz wrote:
and before we talk about the economy under carter, just remember who he picked for the fed head and what volker did and at what it contributed to carter's re-election defeat. volker's necessary tight money belt monetary policies in 79-80 created the wave reagan's economic boon rode upon
Volker's tight monetary policies ratcheted down inflation at the same time it made business growth difficult. Once rampant inflation was squeezed out of the economy by late 1981- early 1982, the US economy was ready for growth again. This as much as anything led to the alleged Reagan growth spurt of the mid 1980's. Of course, a massive investment of government funding into weapons programs helped employment too.
Wars or arming for them have a way of promoting full employment.
It helps to know that Reagan's initial tax cut proposals of 1981 were promoted as economic stimulus packages that would affect the economy within a year. Yet, that was just a lie (we have David Stockman's word on that, and he was the head of OMB under Reagan), However, when one looks at the tax revenues in subsequent years, the tax cuts did little to stimulate the economy immediately and tax revenues, adjusted for inflation did not return to 1982 levels for 4 years. So much for the theoretical basis for the Reagan tax cuts. So much for Reagan's economic legacy. It was as phony as his hair dye.
However, Reagan's supply-side economics did cripple the government's capacity to function to the extent that taxes had to be raised in Reagan's second term. You did know that Reagan actually raised taxes more than Clinton did? In fact, so did Bush the greater. Bet you Faux News rarely mentions that little tidbit.
Quote:Interesting thought... Whose policies do you credit the boom of the 90s to then?
Quote:
kuvasz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
How does the very man who negotiated the "agreed framework" have the courage to bring up North Korea's nuclear weapons? This guy is blaming Bush for a problem he himself created. Whose idea was it to have the former President with the worst foreign policy in history stand up to endorse Kerry anyway? Will this help? By the way, I'm well aware the man is a Saint of a human being and always means well, but come on.
but, really?
the guy who brought 90 million egyptian muslims and 15 million israelis peacably together, after them having fought 3 bitter wars within 25 years has no seat at the table or is denied as a legitimate commentary voice when international diplomacy is the most important feature in the american tool-belt to secure the safety of americans.
I was referring to Carter, not Clinton. However, while you are on the subject, of rewriting history for ideological satisfaction; immediately after assuming office Bush the lesser communicated to the NKs that he was reneging on the food/aid for no-nukes agreement with NK. After this, the NKs embarked upon restarting their breeder reactor to get Bush the lesser back to the negotiating table. According to some estimates by the CIA, the NKs might have had one or two hidden nukes prior to 2001, now, in the 3 years since Bush the lesser walked away from negotiations with NK, the NK breeder reactors have produced enough fuel to produce scores of nukes.
That is what you refer to as advancing US goals under the Bush the lesser administration; that after over 3 years of the Bush the lesser's administration screwing around we are in a worse situation vis a vis the NK nukes than we were in 2001 when Bush the lesser took office. But that is lost on you because Carter/Clinton were negotiating with "a known mass-murderer"
Hello, Mcfly!?! What would you prefer your crazed enemy to have in his hands, two, or twenty nukes?
Quote:What precisely does that have to do with the disaster of the "agreed framework"? He, without authority, negotiated a deal with a suspected terrorist, a known mass-murderer where we provide a windfall of economic aide in exchange for Kim not building the bomb, which he quite predictably did anyway.
Blah, blah, blah. Having a senior moment are we? The US negotiates with mass murders all the time when it is in their interests. Two words to remind you of this, Saddam Hussein....and Grandpa George Prescott Bush negotiated deals with the Third Reich even after Hitler declared war on America, so this sort of thing is an obvious genetic trait in a Bush, greater, or lesser
BTW: Nixon negotiated economic agreements with greater mass murderers in Chou En-lai and Mao of China, and he did it secretly. However, since Nixon is a Republican he gets a pass or worse, and is not used as any type of baseline for presidential action in negotiations with adversaries.
Quote:
This lovely, benevolent, peaceful solution allowed Kim to strengthen his position while MILLIONS of North Koreans paid the ultimate price. MILLIONS. Are dead people from other countries less important than dead American Soldiers?
Quote:
Sorry, I don't think this is spinable. Carter's diplomacy with the monster Kim was a very, very predictable disaster.
kuvasz wrote:
as to carter's title of worst president for foreign policy, i would submit that many of the 900 dead american soldiers and 9,000 injured americans who were lucky enough to be in the armed forces under bush the lesser might disagree.
And upon such a silly submission, I think I'm going to back off and give you an opportunity do the same... see if you're really interested in pursuing this debate. I noticed this is the second thread I've peeked your interest on today... but I still want to make sure.
No, you referred to Carter as the president "with the worst foreign policy in history" and used the NK negotiations as prima fascia evidence of it. Did anyone die from these negotiations? Were the efforts of the NKs for nukes slowed by such negotiations or not? What alternative actions were you proposing back in 1979 about how to deal with North Korea? Nuclear warfare? Invasion of the North Korea? That would be interesting since North Korea then bordered on the Soviet Union and China, and both would have naturally acceded to US wishes to stay out of any fight between the US and NK. Ya' think? Was that your great alternative plan you had back then?
Quote:I noticed this is the second thread I've peeked your interest on today... but I still want to make sure.
Oh Bill, I can only imagine the heartbreak, but please, don't flatter yourself. You haven't peaked my interest other than to remind me of what John Stuart Mill once said
.."All conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative."
, saw Stephanie Tubbs since she was in Tammy's time slot (not bad, too self-conscious), saw Tammy (love Tammy, met her, helped elect her, annoyed that she was coralled to health care and could only touch on gay/ lesbian issues by meaningfully saying "domestic partners" [cut to cheering gay delegates]) saw Hillary (not bad at all) and saw... sigh... Bill.
