Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, there wasn't a recession in the "70's" during the Carter administration. Second their is nothing remotely similar regarding either the causes or the policies embraced by the Carter administration or those being pursued by Obama's.
The 1980-81 recession was caused lingering fiscal problems left over from the Vietnam war, the second OPEC increase and by the Federal reserves monetarist manipulation of monetary aggregates in an effort to combat inflation. Unlike today, there was no fiscal stimulus or a reason for one.
Yup.
Carter's economic problems were not recession-related, but rather all about inflation (driven to a large degree by the oil crises of the time). The Reagan Administration tamed that inflation by raising interest rates drastically. It quickly ended the inflation - but at the cost of a recession. Reagan then ended that recession by lowering taxes AND practicing deficit spending (largely on the arms build-up). So after roughly 3 years of a miserable economy during Reagan's 1st term, the 2nd term produced robust economic growth - though at the cost of a growing deficit. In many way's it's not a whole lot different from Obama's approach - boost the economy by cutting taxes (at least on most of the population) AND increasing spending. It worked then, and it will work now.
This treaty was welcomed with controversy. The Arab nations, especially the Palestinians, condemned it and considered it as a stab in the back. PLO Leader Yasser Arafat said "Let them sign what they like. False peace will not last." [2] On the other hand, the treaty led both Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to share The 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for bringing peace between the two nations. However, Anwar Sadat became unpopular in the arab circle as well as within his own country. His unpopularity grew, leading to his assassination in On October 6, 1981 by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad[3].
The time that has elapsed since the Camp David Accords has left no doubt as to their enormous ramifications on Middle Eastern politics. Most notably, the perception of Egypt within the Arab world changed. With the most powerful of the Arab militaries and a history of leadership in the Arab world under Nasser, Egypt had more leverage than any of the other Arab states to advance Arab interests. One key point of criticism was at concluding a peace treaty without demanding greater concessions for Israeli recognition of the Palestinians' right to self-determination. Egypt was also suspended from the Arab League from 1979 until 1989.
The Camp David Accords also prompted the disintegration of a united Arab front in opposition to Israel. Egypt's realignment created a power vacuum that Saddam Hussein of Iraq, at one time only a secondary power, hoped to fill. Because of the vague language concerning the implementation of Resolution 242, the Palestinian problem became the primary issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict immediately following the Camp David Accords (and arguably, until today). Many of the Arab nations blamed Egypt for not putting enough pressure on Israel to deal with the Palestinian problem in a way that would be satisfactory to them.
This treaty was welcomed with controversy. The Arab nations, especially the Palestinians, condemned it and considered it as a stab in the back. PLO Leader Yasser Arafat said "Let them sign what they like. False peace will not last." [2] On the other hand, the treaty led both Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to share The 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for bringing peace between the two nations. However, Anwar Sadat became unpopular in the arab circle as well as within his own country. His unpopularity grew, leading to his assassination in On October 6, 1981 by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad[3].
I guess you dont care about the consequences
The major "consequence" was peace between the regions' two most bitter foes that's lasted nearly 30 years. The fact that that radicals assasinated Sadat doesn't change that. Are you suggesting that we should do what the most radical Middle-Eastern elements want us to do just because otherwise they'll be angry with us?
Reagan then ended that recession by lowering taxes AND practicing deficit spending (largely on the arms build-up). So after roughly 3 years of a miserable economy during Reagan's 1st term, the 2nd term produced robust economic growth - though at the cost of a growing deficit. In many way's it's not a whole lot different from Obama's approach - boost the economy by cutting taxes (at least on most of the population) AND increasing spending. It worked then, and it will work now.
Now I must ask.. Do you have any statistics to back your claim? The 'arms buildup' was axed by Congress before the end of Reagan's first term. Not to mention the fact that most of the tax cuts in his first bill were reversed less than a year later. The highest period of growth in the 80s occurred during a period in which government spending was at its lowest (down 8%). As a matter of fact, when the second wave of increases in government spending came about in the latter half of the 80s, the economy grew at a much slower pace.
The point is there is no significant evidence to show that government spending OR tax cuts has ever helped the economy to any significant degree.
Now I must ask.. Do you have any statistics to back your claim? The 'arms buildup' was axed by Congress before the end of Reagan's first term.
No it wasn't. I know that for a fact because I had a major career change (moved into computing) as a result of that military build up. Military spending rose from 303 Billion in 1980 to 405 Billion in 1985 to 427 Billion in 1989 (before dropping off in the 1990's.
No it wasn't. I know that for a fact because I had a major career change (moved into computing) as a result of that military build up. Military spending rose from 303 Billion in 1980 to 405 Billion in 1985 to 427 Billion in 1989 (before dropping off in the 1990's.
The first of Reagan's defense spending projects peaked in 1982 (in the middle of the recession) and ended in 1984. When the second wave of spending was initiated, the economy went from growing at rates of 6-8% per quarter to around 3-4%. The second wave declined starting in 1986 and the economy began to growth at faster rates until Black Monday and the S&L crisis.
The first of Reagan's defense spending projects peaked in 1982 (in the middle of the recession) and ended in 1984. When the second wave of spending was initiated, the economy went from growing at rates of 6-8% per quarter to around 3-4%. The second wave declined starting in 1986 and the economy began to growth at faster rates until Black Monday and the S&L crisis.
Well, I have no idea where you are drawing those conclusions (or what your chart shows). Even when I click on your link and look at item #23 (National Defense) it shows no such decline. The percent change from the preceding periods clearly shows a gain of 6.3% in 81 (from 80), 7.6% in 82 (from 81), 7.2% in 83 (from 82), 4.9% in 84 (from 83), 8.5% in 85 (from 84), 6.4% in 86 (from 85), 4.7% in 87 (from 86). It's not until 1988 where you have any decrease at all (-.55 (from 87)). From there on out it's down every year except from 1990 (where it is 0% change from 1989).
All that 1984 was was a temporary decrease in the rate of increases - but even that year was still an increase.
This video says it all, I dont have a thing to add.
Well, why don't you put it in your own words. The GOP does not have a "legacy of failure" as you claim.
Explain, please.
But we do have complete failure with this current administration. This is Carter all over again, only hundreds of times worse.
Clinton was basically a flop. Johnson was no prize. So, where is the "legacy of failure with the GOP? We have always had to clean up the mess the Democrats left. And, someone is going to have to clean up the mess that Obama is making.
Carter was a terrible president yes. But he was arguably the best diplomat we ever had as a president. And we may need him again to negotiate treaties with all the new enemies acquired under the Bush administration.
Huh? New enemies? Who? We still have the same ones. Our allies, whom we have snubbed under Obama, are not "enemies" even though they are not happy with us at the current time. It's a lie that Bush made enemies. Obama is trying to "make nice" with our enemies. This will not work. They will only take advantage of him, He isn't going to make them "love" us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
