Coronavirus Outbreak...

[carpedm9587]

He led us into a recession.

"Led us" is a bit of a stretch. When Carter took office, we were already in a period that was being referred to as "stagflation." The oil crisis that followed was largely due to decreased oil output following the Iranian Revolution, which more than doubled the cost of crude. The recession in 1980 was not limited to the U.S. - it was a global recession, so it's hard to see how Carter could have "led us there." That being said, there is little doubt that the reactionary policy of the fed in that era contributed to the global problem. Unfortunately for your (brief) argument, the fed is apolitical and does not report to the executive branch. Finally, the U.S. and Japan were two of the countries that exited the recession most quickly, so I'm not sure a lot of blame can be laid at Carter's door for all of that.

In many other ways, however, he as a pretty ineffective president. He's been a much better ex-president.

[Sparko]

"Led us" is a bit of a stretch. When Carter took office, we were already in a period that was being referred to as "stagflation." The oil crisis that followed was largely due to decreased oil output following the Iranian Revolution, which more than doubled the cost of crude. The recession in 1980 was not limited to the U.S. - it was a global recession, so it's hard to see how Carter could have "led us there." That being said, there is little doubt that the reactionary policy of the fed in that era contributed to the global problem. Unfortunately for your (brief) argument, the fed is apolitical and does not report to the executive branch. Finally, the U.S. and Japan were two of the countries that exited the recession most quickly, so I'm not sure a lot of blame can be laid at Carter's door for all of that.

In many other ways, however, he as a pretty ineffective president. He's been a much better ex-president.

OK. He didn't "lead us out" of the recession. Happy?

But I think his in-actions did help the recession to happen in the first place.

[carpedm9587]

OK. He didn't "lead us out" of the recession. Happy?

But I think his in-actions did help the recession to happen in the first place.

Well... as I said, the U.S. and Japan were two of the first countries to exit the recession. So he couldn't have been THAT bad.

And I would be curious to know exactly which "inactions" you think contributed to the recession.

[Sparko]

Well... as I said, the U.S. and Japan were two of the first countries to exit the recession. So he couldn't have been THAT bad.

And I would be curious to know exactly which "inactions" you think contributed to the recession.

The Volcker shock for one.

[carpedm9587]

The Volcker shock for one.

Umm... I believe I already noted that the fed contributed to the problem. Unfortunately for your argument, the fed is independent and does not report to the executive - so it is not clear how this can be laid at Carter's feet, anymore than Powell's choices (along with the current fed) can be laid at Trump's feet. The fed is intentionally apolitical.

[Sparko]

Umm... I believe I already noted that the fed contributed to the problem. Unfortunately for your argument, the fed is independent and does not report to the executive - so it is not clear how this can be laid at Carter's feet, anymore than Powell's choices (along with the current fed) can be laid at Trump's feet. The fed is intentionally apolitical.

Carter appointed him.

[carpedm9587]

Carter appointed him.

And did so with perfect clairvoyance as to his future decisions? And remember that Carter can only nominate - the Senate confirms. And didn't Reagan re-appoint him to a second term in 1983?


I think you're making a very weak argument for the claim "Carter led us into a recession." So far you have "Carter appointed a chair that the Senate confirmed, who took steps that probably contributed to the depth of a global recession but was also instrumental in the U.S. being one of the first countries to exit that recession."

Again, the primary driver of the global recession was the oil crisis which was due to circumstances outside of Carter's control. At worst, the fed made it a bit worse with its choices.

[firstfloor]

If the flow stops, the oil wells get gummed up and cannot be reopened easily.

[Sparko]

And did so with perfect clairvoyance as to his future decisions? And remember that Carter can only nominate - the Senate confirms. And didn't Reagan re-appoint him to a second term in 1983?


I think you're making a very weak argument for the claim "Carter led us into a recession." So far you have "Carter appointed a chair that the Senate confirmed, who took steps that probably contributed to the depth of a global recession but was also instrumental in the U.S. being one of the first countries to exit that recession."

Again, the primary driver of the global recession was the oil crisis which was due to circumstances outside of Carter's control. At worst, the fed made it a bit worse with its choices.

I wasn't arguing. You asked why I thought he contributed to the recession and I gave you a reason. You are free to think differently.

[carpedm9587]

If the flow stops, the oil wells get gummed up and cannot be reopened easily.

Ummm...ok...I guess...



Not sure how that fits in...

[carpedm9587]

I wasn't arguing. You asked why I thought he contributed to the recession and I gave you a reason. You are free to think differently.

First, you didn't initially say "contributed to;" you said "led us into," which is what I responded to. I wouldn't argue against "contributed to" because I am sure there are choices Carter made that would have contributed to the situation - though to what degree is a serious question.

Second, it suddenly dawns on me that appointing Volcker is not an "inaction," which was your follow-om claim (that his in-action made things worse).

Third, out of curiosity, after looking at the facts and the argument offered from this end - do you still think Carter "led us into a recession?" If so, is it purely on the basis that he appointed Volcker?

[oxmixmudd]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...513#post729513


Which is to say that I have condemned him, I just haven't done it in a way that you apparently prefer, so I guess it doesn't count.

Would it be okay if I say that I condemn the things Trump has done in his personal life, but I support the things he has done as president? Is it all or nothing as far as you're concerned, or are we allowed to have a nuanced opinion? I wonder if you agree with every personal decision your employer has ever made, and if you take it upon yourself to condemn him in front of your fellow employees...

That is not what I'm talking about at all MM, and you know it, you just like playing these silly games.

First the statement above is purely hypothetical. You aren't actually condemning anything. Second, such a generic statement means nothing when on an event by event basis you have never reflected such a statement as having any truth whatsoever to it. You've defended him against the Stormy Daniels accusations, you defended his attack on a Freshman College student that challenged his misogyny to the point she received threats from his supporters, you defended him when he called the White Supremacists demonstrators 'good people', you defended him in his policies that have resulted in the sometimes permanent separation of children from their families at the border, you've defended him when he continually undermined and publicly shamed staunch supporter like Jeff Sessions, and you have defended him in his horrible handling of covid-19 and stood alongside the scientifically inaccurate misinformation he has promoted.

But - you will play the game and pretend you do not support trump '100%' regardless of the simple fact that in this forum, you are always at his defense. To the point I can pick any thread at random where you have posted in response to a critique of Trump and I can find you there posting in his defense.

[EvoUK]

Yes - they will - but if Trump does not get elected, it is because the majority of us reject what he stands for. I can live with that. No place is perfect. And I can live with it even better if he is shown the door with overwhelming numbers! Most importantly, the damage he is doing will come to an end (mostly) and we can begin the process of repair.

If he gets back in, however, the majority of this country is putting their vote behind immorality and corruption. That is not a country I want to live in. And the damage by the end of four more years will not be repairable in my lifetime.

So Trump is definitely a factor in this equation - but it is more about the people and the long term consequences of the decision. It is also about my not wanting to spend the next four years continuing to be embarrassed for my country. I would rather find a country I can be proud of.

But the majority of the country didn't vote for him last time, he lost the popular vote (though won the election via the electoral college, so fairly won the nomination, before I get jumped on)

[Mountain Man]

You've defended him against the Stormy Daniels accusations...

I've defended him against the false accusation that entering into a nondisclosure agreement was illegal. I have never defended the fact that he had an affair with her.

...you defended his attack on a Freshman College student that challenged his misogyny to the point she received threats from his supporters...

It would help if you provided a link to my post in question, because I do not recall any of this.

...you defended him when he called the White Supremacists demonstrators 'good people'...

I've defended him against the lie that he called White Supremacists "good people". Trump even clarified his remarks in the very same press conference that phrase was plucked from, saying, ""

...you defended him in his policies that have resulted in the sometimes permanent separation of children from their families at the border...

Yes, when people break the law, they are often separated from their families. It's unfortunate, but not enforcing the law because you feel sorry for them is simply not an option.

...you've defended him when he continually undermined and publicly shamed staunch supporter like Jeff Sessions...

Jeff Sessions was a surprisingly weak attorney general who stood idly by while Trump's political enemies spied on him and conducted a two-year sham investigation against him. We'll eventually find out just how deep that rabbit hole goes, and just how delinquent Sessions was in his duty (we already know, for instance, that the FISA warrants were bogus and obtained under false pretenses).

...you have defended him in his horrible handling of covid-19 and stood alongside the scientifically inaccurate misinformation he has promoted.

I do not agree with you that the China flu task force led by Mike Pence has done a horrible job handling the situation, nor do I agree with you that Trump's advisers like Doctors Fauci and Birx are promoting scientifically inaccurate misinformation.

But - you will play the game and pretend you do not support trump '100%' regardless of the simple fact that in this forum, you are always at his defense. To the point I can pick any thread at random where you have posted in response to a critique of Trump and I can find you there posting in his defense.

It's not so much defending Trump as it is condemning the lies told about him by hypocrites like you.

Now if you're done spreading your self-righteous manure around, I'd like to open a window and air the place out.

[carpedm9587]

But the majority of the country didn't vote for him last time, he lost the popular vote (though won the election via the electoral college, so fairly won the nomination, before I get jumped on)

Yes, I know - but the margins were razor thin. There was a vast block in this country, close to half the voters, that purposefully elected to pull the level for Trump. And then there was a huge block that just stayed home. The combination of those two is most of the country.

Now we have seen what this man is for four years. If the combination of those two blocks is still as massive as it was in 2016 - it says some pretty ugly things about this country of ours, IMO. Frankly, I am amazed anyone would pull a lever for him. It is basically communicating to our children that lying, bullying, name-calling, vindictiveness, refusing to call out evil as evil, and always placing oneself first is now an acceptable norm in our society. What kind of person wants that for our society? How can anyone look themselves in the mirror and continue to affirm this man?

I understand those who voted on principle for things like pro-life. That too is a moral issue. But Trump's base is not just grudgingly accepting the bad so they can achieve that policy end. They are enthusiastically affirming him, cheering at his outrages, defending his actions, and even demanding more (e.g., "send them back" and "lock her up" and so forth).

I have spent the last 3.5 years embarrassed for our country. I have no desire to spend the next 4.5 years feeling the same way.