Will Obama's presidency play out in a similar fashion to that of Jimmy Carter's?

[Community Organizer in Chief]

The parallels are noteworthy. He is trying the same things that Carter tried in the late 70s, and is taking the same "appeasement" approach to our enemies that Carter took during the Iran Contra affair, which ultimately embarrased the U.S. All I'm waiting for is the high interest rates and inflation that will occur as a result of the deficit that has been nearly tripled by Obama's spending. Once that happens, Obama, like Carter will see his high approval numbers plummet like water in a bucket with a hole in it. If you factor in another terrorist attack in the next few yers, look out.
Well of course GDP grew. I think you are confusing economic growth with simple growth in money supply. Of course when money supply grows as a result of deficit spending and printing money we don't have, it is going to appear that GDP grows in scale.
David H: My igonorance is astounding? If you had listed some reasoning behind your blind claim, I might consider your position, but I cannot consider just a blunt insult.
Ok then "Iran hostage crisis", I had the terminology wrong.

Still, that is just one example of Carter's foreign policy blunders. I'm not denying that Reagan had similar blunders at all, my point is that our enemies(especially the U.S.S.R) thought Reagan had backbone and might have actually done something whereas they thought Carter was a pushover. Look at what Reagan did for the U.S. and what he got done around the world.


Powered by Yahoo Answers

[zaphod73@att.net]

No...

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Moonbeam]

You obviously hope so. Won't it be a huge disappointment to you when it doesn't play out that way?

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[intelex]

Well, under Carter, the US had double digit increases in GDP, far exceeding Reagan who largely grew GDP by racking up massive deficits via military spending. Growing the economy so fast made every one so well off that inflation grew and interest rates were high because the middle class had so much money. So, it sounds like that may be a good idea - growth in the Domestic Product will help all Americans and hopefully will offset devaluation in the dollar that will occur over the next 3 years.

And it is soooo sad that you don't realize that the Iran Contra affair was during Reagan, where his Administration was illegally selling weapons via Israel to Iran in exchange for American hostages held in Lebanon and using a portion of the proceeds to fund right wing anti-government terrorists in Nicaragua (Contras). There is even more fun than that, with patsies, pardons, etc.... look it up.

But hey, I'm sure you're not interested in facts.

EDIT: Oh wow, this is like showing up to a knife fight with an Uzi. Take a little time and look at the actual, factual numbers.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Growth in GDP doesn't occur just because you print money. Otherwise Mexico would have one of the biggest economies in the world instead of lopping zeros off their currency from time to time.

GDP growth under Carter AVERAGED 11.9% and Federal Deficit/Debt ratios were between 2.1-3.2%. Reagan had one year with 11.7% GDP growth, but averaged 7.9%. Deficit/Debt ratios averaging 5.4%, with the best balanced budget handed to him by Carter.

Total Government Expenditures under Carter averaged 30.5% GDP. Reagan, 32.2%... and 1.7% higher spending in terms of the entire US economy ain't nothing to sneeze at, although you will probably dismiss it.

Average annual unemployment rate under Carter, 6.7%, with a maximum of 7.7%
Average annual unemployment rate under Reagan, 8.4% with two years at 9.6%+

Annual average deficit added to debt under Carter, about $66B.

Annual average deficit added to debt under Reagan, about $212B (yeah, that's over all 8 years).

Don't worry, I spend hours of my own time as an Independent calculating these things instead of hours listening to media slant and revisionist history. I just hope that Obama won't screw this up.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[FreshMoves91]

where were you in the 70's

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Lonnie P]

No; it will wind up more like Hitler's. At some point in the not-to-distant future, Barry is going to declare martial law so he can implement the Final Solution to the Christian/Conservative Question.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Tom]

It really is a shame that you were not an adult when Carter was president.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Regina (SOC)]

Carter was, and still is, a traitor to this nation. It very much looks like Obama is following in his footsteps. God, have mercy on the U.S.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[aj]

The only difference is BO's brother Sampson doesnt brew his own beer and raise peanuts. BOs brother Sampson did however rape a 13 year old child in Kenya...

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Lady B]

He already is and it didn't work then and it won't work now.

Obama and people like him can't get through their heads that the party and policy's they hold near and dear are failed ones.

Obama will give us our Ronald Regan. History repeats itself.

*** John Kerry lost because he was a LIBERAL. Liberal Politicians means Failed Expensive Policy's.

Somehow between his loss and now people forgot. Well President Obama is resurrecting that once again.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Nikki]

Yes. Just go to the supermarket. I remeber during Carter's presidency everything going up 10-15% every couple of weeks. It's happening now.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[David H]

"He is trying the same things that Carter tried in the late 70s, and is taking the same "appeasement" approach to our enemies that Carter took during the Iran Contra affair"

Your ignorance is ASTOUNDING. Look up the Iran Contra Affair.

"My igonorance is astounding? If you had listed some reasoning behind your blind claim"

Google "Iran-Contra affair" and do some reading and maybe you will figure it out for yourself.

How exactly did Carter "appease" the Iranians during the Iran hostage crisis? Also, study the Iran-Contra affair, and then tell us who actually appeased Iran.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Tellem]

No. And by way, Iran Contra was Reagan's doing. Carter was president when the Iran HOSTAGE crisis happened.

It has been proven that Reagan's people struck a deal with the terrorists to hold the hostages longer, to make Carter look bad. When Reagan was elected and inaugurated, they released the hostages (I think 45 seconds after his inauguration. Pretty convenient, no?). Then in return for getting him elected, he sold them weapons. He used the sales to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

REAGAN embarassed the U.S.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Onlooker]

Let's see. Carter helped bring peace between Israel and Egypt. Obama appears to be making progress in terms of peace. Carter made human rights a central tent of American foreign policy. Obama with his torture policy seems to be moving in that direction, returning the United States to the moral high ground. So, in some ways Obama is similar to Carter.

On the other hand, Carter was responsible for the deregulation of the trucking industry, but Obama is introducing more regulation. Carter did not address our economic problems aggressively, but Obama appears to be addressing them aggressively. So, in those ways he differs.

Now, as far as appeasement goes. Carter did not interfere with Iran after the fall of the Shah, just as Reagan did not interfere with South Africa when it had the racist Apartheid system. Carter did not attack Iran after Iran took US hostages, just as Reagan fled Lebanon after terrorists there murdered over 200 Marines. So, in some ways Carter seems more like Reagan than Obama.

So, in the ways Carter was successful, Obama may be too. In the ways that Carter, like Reagan were failures, Obama will not be a failure. If he fails, it will be for entirely different reasons than the reasons that Carter failed.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[oliver_a2002]

No yet but he sure is working on it.
I if ol' Jimmy is telling him how to do it.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Whteshark]

I think so. I don't know how you can dump all this money into circulation and not expect inflation. Throw in the small tid bit that we're borrowing almost 50 percent of every dollar we spend, which is unsustainable and criminal in my opinion.

The economy under Ronald Reagan doubled in size over his 8 years, thanks to tax cuts and scaling back the size of government. Plus, he brought down The Soviet Union by forcing them to try and match our arms build up (needless to say The Obama, oops, I mean, Soviet economy could not keep up).

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[revolution 9/12]

I think we will get nailed sooner then that. Hussein can gravel all he wants but that just makes him weaker. No one fears him and Osama respects power no flowers.

Powered by Yahoo Answers