unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

Ganko_06 wrote:

Mostly the Iranian hostage crisis I believe.  That little debacle was trumped up to highlight his entire career.
He didn't help that opinion by offering 'advice' on Iran, recently. Land grabs in Alaska also didn't help. And I do recall something about heater/air conditioner restrictions that irked some people as well.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-18 14:10:05)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Interesting why everyone posting from outside the US like him, while the americans don't.  You guys like him, YOU elect him as your leader.  WE tried it and regretted it. 

Remember the Misery Index? http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbypresident.asp
This pretty much sums up this thread well.  Although....  by that measure, both Dubya and Clinton were better presidents than Reagan....
imortal
Member
+240|6635|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Interesting why everyone posting from outside the US like him, while the americans don't.  You guys like him, YOU elect him as your leader.  WE tried it and regretted it. 

Remember the Misery Index? http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbypresident.asp
This pretty much sums up this thread well.  Although....  by that measure, both Dubya and Clinton were better presidents than Reagan....
Hold on to your hat, Turq.  I actually agree that, by that scale, Clinton had a better misery index than Reagan.  But look what Reagan had to deal with, and how Clinton started.  Here: http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyyear.asp This is a breakdown by year.
I will even get scarier.
CARTER:
1977: 13.55  0.7% increase from the previous year.
1978: 13.69  0.01% increase from the previous year.
1979: 17.07  24.7% increase from the previous year.
1980: 20.76  21.2% increase from the previous year.
overall change during term: 53.2% increase during term.
average change per year in office: 11.65% increase per year (avg)

REAGAN:
1981: 17.97  13.4% decrease from the previous year.
1982: 15.87  11.7% decrease from the previous year.
1983: 12.82  19.2% decrease from the previous year.
1984: 11.81  7.9% decrease from the previous year.
1985: 10.74  9.1% decrease from the previous year.
1986:  8.91  17.0% decrease from the previous year.
1987:  9.84   10.4% increase from the previous year.
1988:  9.57  2.8% decrease from the previous year.
overall change during term: 46.7% decrease during term.
average change per year in office: 8.84% decrease per year (avg)

CLINTON:
1993: 9.87  6.2% decrease from the previous year.
1994: 8.71  11.8% decrease from the previous year.
1995: 8.40  3.6% decrease from the previous year.
1996: 8.34  0.7% decrease from the previous year.
1997: 7.28  12.7% decrease from the previous year.
1998: 6.05  16.9% decrease from the previous year.
1999: 6.41  5.9% increase from the previous year.
2000: 7.35  14.7% increase from the previous year.
overall change during term: 25.5% decrease during term.
average change per year in office: 3.91% decrease per year (avg)

There.  Way to much math for me.  Does it still look like Clinton did better?  And yes, I am always a critic of statistics myself, so just take these and do what you want with them.
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6692|Eastern PA
Carter is by far one the best ex-Pres-o-dents the US has had and probably one of the smartest, but a combination of factors (oil crisis, Islamic Revolution in Iran, Stagflation) explains much of the animus he faced from the US electorate.

A few points:
1) Now that Alan Greenspan has retired as fed chairman and people are going over his record, Carter's appointment to the chairmanship, Paul Volcker, is looking better and better in relation. He seems to have done a better job of dealing with financial crises than Greenspan.

2) Carter did NOT in fact impose price controls, Richard Nixon did. Carter began the process of decontrol (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33281).
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Interesting why everyone posting from outside the US like him, while the americans don't.  You guys like him, YOU elect him as your leader.  WE tried it and regretted it. 

Remember the Misery Index? http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbypresident.asp
This pretty much sums up this thread well.  Although....  by that measure, both Dubya and Clinton were better presidents than Reagan....
Hold on to your hat, Turq.  I actually agree that, by that scale, Clinton had a better misery index than Reagan.  But look what Reagan had to deal with, and how Clinton started.  Here: http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyyear.asp This is a breakdown by year.
I will even get scarier.
CARTER:
1977: 13.55  0.7% increase from the previous year.
1978: 13.69  0.01% increase from the previous year.
1979: 17.07  24.7% increase from the previous year.
1980: 20.76  21.2% increase from the previous year.
overall change during term: 53.2% increase during term.
average change per year in office: 11.65% increase per year (avg)

REAGAN:
1981: 17.97  13.4% decrease from the previous year.
1982: 15.87  11.7% decrease from the previous year.
1983: 12.82  19.2% decrease from the previous year.
1984: 11.81  7.9% decrease from the previous year.
1985: 10.74  9.1% decrease from the previous year.
1986:  8.91  17.0% decrease from the previous year.
1987:  9.84   10.4% increase from the previous year.
1988:  9.57  2.8% decrease from the previous year.
overall change during term: 46.7% decrease during term.
average change per year in office: 8.84% decrease per year (avg)

CLINTON:
1993: 9.87  6.2% decrease from the previous year.
1994: 8.71  11.8% decrease from the previous year.
1995: 8.40  3.6% decrease from the previous year.
1996: 8.34  0.7% decrease from the previous year.
1997: 7.28  12.7% decrease from the previous year.
1998: 6.05  16.9% decrease from the previous year.
1999: 6.41  5.9% increase from the previous year.
2000: 7.35  14.7% increase from the previous year.
overall change during term: 25.5% decrease during term.
average change per year in office: 3.91% decrease per year (avg)

There.  Way to much math for me.  Does it still look like Clinton did better?  And yes, I am always a critic of statistics myself, so just take these and do what you want with them.
Even taking a closer look reveals that Reagan did very well and Clinton did well too.

Both Bushes haven't done so well, but Dubya is actually doing a little better than his father.  Granted, I think his father was a better president overall.
imortal
Member
+240|6635|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


This pretty much sums up this thread well.  Although....  by that measure, both Dubya and Clinton were better presidents than Reagan....
Hold on to your hat, Turq.  I actually agree that, by that scale, Clinton had a better misery index than Reagan.  But look what Reagan had to deal with, and how Clinton started.  Here: http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyyear.asp This is a breakdown by year.
I will even get scarier.
CARTER:
1977: 13.55  0.7% increase from the previous year.
1978: 13.69  0.01% increase from the previous year.
1979: 17.07  24.7% increase from the previous year.
1980: 20.76  21.2% increase from the previous year.
overall change during term: 53.2% increase during term.
average change per year in office: 11.65% increase per year (avg)

REAGAN:
1981: 17.97  13.4% decrease from the previous year.
1982: 15.87  11.7% decrease from the previous year.
1983: 12.82  19.2% decrease from the previous year.
1984: 11.81  7.9% decrease from the previous year.
1985: 10.74  9.1% decrease from the previous year.
1986:  8.91  17.0% decrease from the previous year.
1987:  9.84   10.4% increase from the previous year.
1988:  9.57  2.8% decrease from the previous year.
overall change during term: 46.7% decrease during term.
average change per year in office: 8.84% decrease per year (avg)

CLINTON:
1993: 9.87  6.2% decrease from the previous year.
1994: 8.71  11.8% decrease from the previous year.
1995: 8.40  3.6% decrease from the previous year.
1996: 8.34  0.7% decrease from the previous year.
1997: 7.28  12.7% decrease from the previous year.
1998: 6.05  16.9% decrease from the previous year.
1999: 6.41  5.9% increase from the previous year.
2000: 7.35  14.7% increase from the previous year.
overall change during term: 25.5% decrease during term.
average change per year in office: 3.91% decrease per year (avg)

There.  Way to much math for me.  Does it still look like Clinton did better?  And yes, I am always a critic of statistics myself, so just take these and do what you want with them.
Even taking a closer look reveals that Reagan did very well and Clinton did well too.

Both Bushes haven't done so well, but Dubya is actually doing a little better than his father.  Granted, I think his father was a better president overall.
But those numbers do show how Carter fared as well, especially in comparison to both a Republican and a Democrat president.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
Hey, I agree that Carter sucked.

He's a good person (mostly philanthropy), but he was a terrible president.  He's kind of the opposite of Clinton in that way.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Even if you step away from his economic disaster. I attribute much of the rise of Islamofacism to Carter. His administration failed to see the seriousness in Iran (1978). He failed to support the Shah when it was needed. That would have bolstered confidence in the existing government of Iran. US stature worldwide fell under his administration as well (Most Bf2sers are too young to remember this). He completely alienated congress. Gave up control of the Panama Canal (To the Chinese). He also partnered up with Tito, Ceausescu, Ortega, and Kim il-sung. Carter showed his discontent when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan by boycotting the 1980 Olympics.. of course Carter was just following the crowd at that point. This was when Osama Bin Laden gained his fame and the fundamentalist really took root.

... oh no it's not just economic disaster..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire

Kmarion wrote:

This was when Osama Bin Laden gained his fame and the fundamentalist really took root.

... oh no it's not just economic disaster..lol
Wasn't this roughly when America started giving weapons to Osama and his gang?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Braddock wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

This was when Osama Bin Laden gained his fame and the fundamentalist really took root.

... oh no it's not just economic disaster..lol
Wasn't this roughly when America started giving weapons to Osama and his gang?
You bring up another valid point. How did I miss that..lol. (It wasn't just America Bud )
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Parker wrote:

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize also. the value of that award decreased to the worthiness of a paperweight.
Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939. ..
Xbone Stormsurgezz
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6294|New Haven, CT

Kmarion wrote:

Parker wrote:

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize also. the value of that award decreased to the worthiness of a paperweight.
Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939.
He was good at keeping peace.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

nukchebi0 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Parker wrote:

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize also. the value of that award decreased to the worthiness of a paperweight.
Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939.
He was good at keeping peace.
I'm pretty sure Joseph Stalin was nominated also.  He was only responsible for about 20 million or so deaths.. right?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6499|Global Command
I wonder the solution between runaway capitalism and government price controls.
How can the free market unchecked bring about anything but corruption and fraud ( after honest profit )?
How can government control costs without hurting the free market?


Carter made us feel sort of embarrassed that Iran was able to hold our people. When the helicopters crashed the Iranians desecrated the bodies of the crewmen.
We did nothing.



Difference: The U.S.S.R. was a big scary bear overtly and covertly egging on the Persians. I don't think Carter could have done much, tbh.


The Iranian hostage crisis was to America what Vietnam was to Russia; we could not escalate.

Many may not know mig fighters fought U.S. war planes in Vietnam, same as Chinese pilots fought in Korea.

College A-holes like to say that we lost the Vietnam war. It was a victory in that we stopped for a while communist expansion in the world and bled the  Russian military ( just as we are being bled in Iraq ).

The hostage crisis in Iran proved that we were unwilling to cross a certain line. Russia did not cross the line in Vietnam.

POINT:

Russia would not cross the line into open combat with the U.S. in S. E. Asia and their empire collapsed shortly there after.

The U.S. did not cross the line under Carter in the M.E. and look at us now...
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

When I say support the Shah I don't mean crossing the line. Instead of rubbing elbows with Ortega while he was bringing Marxism to Nicaragua he should have been vocalizing his support for and extending relations with the moderates in Iran.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Carter is a good man, but he was a terrible President (as has been shown by others here).

The thing that irks me (and I guess many others) is that he is a private citizen now, yet feels obliged to attempt to execute US foreign policy on his own. Regardless of whether his approach is better or worse, nobody outside the administration in office at the time sets US foreign policy.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

FEOS wrote:

Carter is a good man, but he was a terrible President (as has been shown by others here).

The thing that irks me (and I guess many others) is that he is a private citizen now, yet feels obliged to attempt to execute US foreign policy on his own. Regardless of whether his approach is better or worse, nobody outside the administration in office at the time sets US foreign policy.
Not to mention it's all on the tax payers dime.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6357

FEOS wrote:

The thing that irks me (and I guess many others) is that he is a private citizen now, yet feels obliged to attempt to execute US foreign policy on his own. Regardless of whether his approach is better or worse, nobody outside the administration in office at the time sets US foreign policy.
Thats what I was trying to say, but you said it coherently, thanks.
<BoTM>J_Aero
Qualified Expert
+62|6435|Melbourne - Home of Football

ATG wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

ATG wrote:

15% interest rates.
Gas lines.
Buffoonish response to Iran.
Mortgage crisis.
You are hilarious, look what happened to the rest of the world at the time, there was this thing called the oil shock, right. Oh but it was all Jimmy Carter's fault, that explains it.
I wasn't talking about the world wide oil shock. I was talking about what happened in Merica. You're not hilarious, rather ignorant tbh.

The governments responce under Carter was to impose price controls.

Whenever the government jumps in to solve a problem it gets worse.


Which is why they shouldn't be talking about health care.
Yes but you've laid the blame entirely at Carter's feet, as if the Oil Shock had nothing to do with the skyrocketing prices, without price controls, gas would've been so expensive that the average American couldn't have afforded it until the crisis was solved, how would the American economy have travelled with millions not being able to use their cars for months? Don't tell me i'm ignorant when you look at history in one dimension.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

I wonder the solution between runaway capitalism and government price controls.
How can the free market unchecked bring about anything but corruption and fraud ( after honest profit )?
How can government control costs without hurting the free market?..
Moderation is the key, but moderation is also rarely supported by American leadership.

Scandinavia is an area of the world that has shown you can have a welfare state while still having highly capitalistic economies.  If America followed their example, our personal income taxes would be much higher, but our social programs would be much better and our economy would be more competitive (because corporate taxes would actually be lower).
GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|6343|Kyiv, Ukraine

imortal wrote:

Hold on to your hat, Turq.  I actually agree that, by that scale, Clinton had a better misery index than Reagan.  But look what Reagan had to deal with, and how Clinton started.  Here: http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyyear.asp This is a breakdown by year.
I will even get scarier.
CARTER:
1977: 13.55  0.7% increase from the previous year.
1978: 13.69  0.01% increase from the previous year.

...1999: 6.41  5.9% increase from the previous year.
2000: 7.35  14.7% increase from the previous year.
overall change during term: 25.5% decrease during term.
average change per year in office: 3.91% decrease per year (avg)

There.  Way to much math for me.  Does it still look like Clinton did better?  And yes, I am always a critic of statistics myself, so just take these and do what you want with them.
The "misery index" calculations are grossly over-simplified.  I would be more satisfied with the model if it also included mean wage increases and average household debt as percentage of earnings.  Its not enough to be happy just having a job, you also need to be making money at that said job.  Its not enough to get ahead of inflation, you also have to cope with the inflation by not maxing out your credit card.

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2008-04-19 01:58:54)

sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6727|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

Hey, I agree that Carter sucked.

He's a good person (mostly philanthropy), but he was a terrible president.  He's kind of the opposite of Clinton in that way.
Why is Clinton a bad guy?
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire

Kmarion wrote:

When I say support the Shah I don't mean crossing the line. Instead of rubbing elbows with Ortega while he was bringing Marxism to Nicaragua he should have been vocalizing his support for and extending relations with the moderates in Iran.
Is it not the business of other countries to figure out what system of Government or leader they want for themselves?
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6585|do not disturb

I like the fact he appointed Paul Volcker to squeeze out inflation with the highest interest rates since the civil war, left behind from years of printing from Arthur Burns after Nixon closed the gold window in 1971. Paul Volcker saved the dollar back then.
imortal
Member
+240|6635|Austin, TX

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

imortal wrote:

Hold on to your hat, Turq.  I actually agree that, by that scale, Clinton had a better misery index than Reagan.  But look what Reagan had to deal with, and how Clinton started.  Here: http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyyear.asp This is a breakdown by year.
I will even get scarier.
CARTER:
1977: 13.55  0.7% increase from the previous year.
1978: 13.69  0.01% increase from the previous year.

...1999: 6.41  5.9% increase from the previous year.
2000: 7.35  14.7% increase from the previous year.
overall change during term: 25.5% decrease during term.
average change per year in office: 3.91% decrease per year (avg)

There.  Way to much math for me.  Does it still look like Clinton did better?  And yes, I am always a critic of statistics myself, so just take these and do what you want with them.
The "misery index" calculations are grossly over-simplified.  I would be more satisfied with the model if it also included mean wage increases and average household debt as percentage of earnings.  Its not enough to be happy just having a job, you also need to be making money at that said job.  Its not enough to get ahead of inflation, you also have to cope with the inflation by not maxing out your credit card.
I agree it is a bit simplistic.  It was coined in the late '70s, mainly as a way to bring attention to what the economy was like.  It had to be slimplistic for the majority of the population to easily understand it.  I did not make it up, I just found it and played with the numbers to get the percentages.

It may not be perfect, but it is a benchmark.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard