 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
JohnT

|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999 time: 00:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by uh Clem
John, sorry to hear that you were so down on yourself during the '70s. I wasn't. But even if I had been, it's highly unlikely I would have become more upbeat because of the words and actions of a politician. Sheeesh. |
Puh-leeze. Save the insults for somebody who gives a shite for your opinion about them.
If you do not think that there was any change in the overall mood of the country between 1979 and 1984, than that's your opinion. It's wrong, but you can still believe it.
Remember when the newspapers would run Above-the-Flap expose's on the ravages of inflation, and how everybody was going to be eating $8 Big Macs and paying $12 for a gallon of gas by 1990? Remember The Limits to Growth and the huge influence it had on American policy making from 1974-1979? Hell, remember the Iranian hostages and the inability of the US of A to fly some helicopters at night... the argument whether to mine the harbors of Nicaragua, where Carter just dithered and dithered... the "giving away" of the Panama Canal... a DJIA that went from 1,000 in 1972 to (iirc) 550 in 1979?
Was it just the "politician"? Of course not, but leadership exists and Reagan had that quality in spades, whereas second-term Nixon, Ford and Carter did not.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999 time: 23:31
|
|
Okay John, you personally weren't beaten and depressed then. I always forget how touchy Republicans are; love to dish it out, etc...
But if you remember the inflation of the '70s, then remember the guy who killed it. No, not Carter, and certainly not Reagan (with those deficits, are you kidding?).
It was Paul Voelker, Carter appointee to the Fed, who strangled inflation and damn near killed the US economy in the process. Stagflation was endemic throughout the decade (it started under Nixon). In the late 70s, Voelker decided to deal with it once and for all by raising interest rates as high as they'd go. The result was the worst slump in the economy since the 30s, but it worked. Sort of how Russians clear minefields, by marching through them...
quote: a DJIA that went from 1,000 in 1972 to (iirc) 550 in 1979? |
Well, in this instance, you don't remember correctly. The Dow basically went sideways under Carter: up-down-up-down, etc. The big drop was under Ford, hitting the low point in 1974. Nothing since has been anywhere near that bad.
But it's interesting that you take the DJIA as an indicator of Presidential performance. I wouldn't have taken you as being such a fervent admirer of Bill Clinton.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002 time: 05:31
|
|
I have a friend who just found out that I am a republican. I don't come off as one, my mom says I am somewhat "granola" in appearances and in social tastes (music, parties, etc). So, a lot of people think I am a democrat or green. Yet, she was super shocked that I was a republican.
She went on a tirade on how I could be republican. I wasn't in the mood for arguing, so I just kept my mouth shut. I did, however, say that I am republican mainly for fiscal reasons, and she said "Yeah, Bush has done such wonders for the economy" alluding to the economic disparity we are in. I didn't respond, but
quote: But it's interesting that you take the DJIA as an indicator of Presidential performance. I wouldn't have taken you as being such a fervent admirer of Bill Clinton. |
would of been a good response
I won't say that Bush has done anything to help the economy, but to say he ruined it is absurd. Terrorist attacks, natural disasters, war, tech. collapse (energy deregulations), etc... were not ALL in his control, and these things cost money...
Economic policy is not entirely up to the president. Though certain legislation can lead to how an investor invests (i.e. no taxes on dividends we have right now). Still, to rate a president on current states of the economy is silly since economies change slower than presidents ussually do, and thus presidents don't ussually get credit for their efforts, secsessors usually do.
Anyway. I though Reagan was a good pres. probably an 8. I remember the 80s, and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of domestic concerns... At least not like we have now (thanks Clinton )...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000 time: 23:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by rah
I willing to bet you weren't very old the decade before Reagan. There were so many negative feelings after VietNam. The economy sucked. Worldwide, the US was seen as weak and ineffective. Ford and Carter were portrayed as wimps. "killer rabbit" still makes me laugh. People weren't feeling good about their country. The same can't be said for when Reagan left office. While a president can only do so much, and should only be credited for so much, he was quite responsible for a lot of the change in attitude. He was quite the charismatic speaker. Previous posters have said that they thought they feared worldwide destruction while he was in office. Guess what, our enemies did too and that had some positive outcomes. The US regained it's strut. Whether that was good or bad, optimism and good feeling returned to a lot of people. Perception becomes reality. As said before, his presidency was defined by "leadership". |
Raegan was ignorant on environmental issues (thought that trees caused pollution), he worshipped the upper class at expense of middle class America, he neglected to take action against the early AIDS crisis, IN SPITE of the information that the Cancer Development Center had compiled, and Raegan has taken credit for overthrowing the USSR, when it was economic factors, and the Russians themselves that overthrew communism.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed
well, if you wish to believe that.
the fact is that by the time gorby came into power, the soviet system had already suffered from at least twenty years of dry rot from within. unable to match the growing technological and economic might of the west, gorby tried to modernize soviet russia to compete. it was a bold gamble, trying to allow some free reforms in order to help breed a new generation of scientists and thinkers to create the same miracle in the eastern bloc. what he failed to realize was that democracy is a contagious thing: glasnost and perestroika, once they gave a voice to the people, brought down the soviet empire from within.
it wasn't reagan, ned. it was the people who put the final blow to communism. it was the freedom-loving citizens of the democratic west using their drive to outpace their stalinist and communist eastern brothers. reagan was just one man in it, who just happened to be in charge of america at the time. |
Well, why not ask Gorbachev? Of course the USSR was being bled dry by Afghanistan and by the arms race with the US. Then came the Solidarity phenomenon in Poland that was reinforced by the Pope. This lead to democracy in Poland and then to democracy in Russia. The USSR then collapsed in the face of great pro-democracy leaders from within, like Walesa and Yeltsin.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|