 mklosinski says: Here we have it. The worst president in recent history calling the current president the worst. Carter should be confined to his peanut farm. I can see GW Bush and Carter each claiming the other is the worst until the end of their lives. Perhaps they are co-worst. Compare the economy now to the economy under Carter and it is easy to see that while Bush isn't the greatest, he has a long way to go to be as bad as Carter was. The only way someone can claim Carter wasn't far and away the worst president (at least in recent history) is if they are too young or old to remember back when he was president, or if they are just political hacks trying to score political points. N2sooners, You make a fair point. I will just say this: If it were not for the Bush tax cuts, this economy would be far worse than the economy under Carter. I am no Bush apologist, I do believe he is a failure, and it would not take much for me to view him as worse than Carter and I am a staunch defender of Conservative principles. I think Bush is Neocon puppet and he doesn't even know it. Actually, few economists believe that Bush's tax cuts had anything to do with the recent economic growth experienced by the US (which is really economic growth experienced by the top American income earners). Daniel Altman asked 49 prestigious economists what they thought was responsible for the economic growth. Only 8 said that Bush's tax cuts had a role in economic growth, and of those 8, only three thought that Bush's tax cuts were the primary cause of economic growth. The other 41 economists thought other factors were responsible for our economic growth. Because the NYTimes is such an impartial source. I just asked ten of my friends and they all like paying less taxes, so there ya go. Good grief. It never ends with JK. The facts never get in the way of a good propaganda piece. If one is going to rely on an authority for complicated and technical questions such as what causes economic growth (as I have to, since I am not an economist), the choice is this: (a) some guy on the Internet (b) 49 economists surveyed by the New York Times Personally, I'd go with (b), but YMMV. Be accurate folks. Carter said W is the worst President ever in international relations. Nothing inaccurate there. Aside from that Bill Clinton delivered W. a much stronger economy than the economy Carter inherited, primed for inflation from the years of spending 10% of GDP on the Vietnam war. I wonder what our world might be like today if we had followed the Carter initiatives to develop alternative fuels instead of our national security being tied to the insecurity of the Middle East and it's oil fields. Thank Ronald Reagan for eliminating the program. If one is going to rely on an authority for complicated and technicalThe problem isn't that you take the word of economists selected for this piece and fronted by NYT. The problem is you ignore the unanimous economic principal that is basically supported by every economist. Probab;y even the ones in the survey. That is that tax burdens lifted from individuals and the private business have a tremendously positive impact on the availability of credit,... Actually, empiricial evidence suggests that the economic principle you outlined is not by any means an ironclad law of economic behavior. This doesn't mean it is totally incorrect, just that it doesn't hold universally or it is just describing a weak tendency. Check out this encyclopedia article on progressive taxation by Joel Slemrod, an economist who is an expert on the effects of taxation: After a decade featuring two major tax changes, many economists now doubt that tax policy has much effect on investment or saving. Alan Auerbach of the University of Pennsylvania has concluded that the 1986 tax changes playe... the choice is this:The problem is that you just assume the NYT fairly picked those economists. But since they were chosen this isn't anything like a poll. I could just as easily pick 50 economists that would have the opposite opinion if I chose wisely. Which basically makes the NYT data pretty much meaningless. Which basically makes the NYT data pretty much meaningless.If the NYT data are "pretty much meaningless", how meaningful is Willhelm's assertion? I'm just letting readers know that his claim is debatable. BTW, the article clearly states how it selected those economists it e-mailed: Altman sent e-mails to all 177 members of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s program on economic fluctuations and growth. Of those 177 members, 49 responded. So you could say it is something of a poll of clear experts on the subject matter. I was in my early teens when Carter was president. I remember him very well. The one thing that sticks out in my mind , ok two things, were the Iran Hostage situation and the incredibly long lines at the gas pumps. I don't think he was the worst president, because I think Junior deserves that honor, but he was a close second. Considering today's current events and what Jimmy Carter was able to accomplish I don't think you can really compare the two. The outstanding achievement of the Carter presidency was the peace settlement between Israel and Egypt. Over 13 days of meetings at the presidential retreat, Camp David, Carter persuaded President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel to end the 31-year state of war between their countries. Egypt was the first of Israel's Arab neighbors to make peace with the Jewish state. Israel ended its occupation of the Sinai peninsula and returned control of the territory to Egypt. President Carter later published his reflections on the Middle East conflict in his 1985 book, The Blood of Abraham. |
View the Top Clips from May 20, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
||||||||||||||||
