|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The great Jimmy Carter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Ah yes, the "military industrial complex". That is, companies that push the limits of technology for government contracts by making the US a safer place to live. Not to mention that we're giving some welder or technician or soldier a job with every dollar. How terribly un-American. Oh yes I'd rather see us dump lots of money into something more interesting than new toys for the military, like say, a manned Mars mission or more humanitarian like an AIDS vaccine (which may or may not be possible even theoretically) but the military needs those toys to keep enemy paratroopers out of my backyard. We live in a world where two superpowers can annihilate each other in half an hour. I think SDI, if it worked, and if we could afford it, wouldn't be a bad idea. [This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: No, Carter's trip there in 1994 seems to have only bought them time to advance their nuke program. Now, once again, they are getting ornery and making idle threats of war on the US ---- partly over a James Bond film no less!!! I see Carter has done us lots of good over there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Are Egypt and Israel at war, 25 years after Camp David? No. Do these two countries enjoy lasting peace between each other? Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RedVento Inactive Member |
Oh yea lasting peace with Egyption militants alive and active smuggling weapons to Palistine.
No at best all that happened is that they no longer openly attack each other, but I guess that is better than nothing... And what no comment about North Korea?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: After Egypt's crushing defeat it is unlikely they would believe that war is in their best interests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
[B] quote:Read this for a basic explination as to why tax cuts work : http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pdeco/aug97g.html
quote: The fact reamins that Reagan balooned the deficit through unrestrained military spending and tax cuts with no thought to a balanced budget. I am not saying that the Democratic way is better. I am saying that Reagan put the country into enormous debt which we are still recovering from.
quote: I don't care about how the rest of the world is doing. The fact that the richest country in the world has millions of citizens, many of whom are children, that do not have decent housing or enough food to eat or any health insurance is shameful.
quote: Source, please. The Income Gap "Although the benefits of overall economic growth should not be understated, broad indicators of prosperity obscure another, less encouraging economic trend of the past 25 years: a dramatic rise in income inequality. Indeed, by standard measures of real income and wages, the poorest and least educated Americans have experienced a falling standard of living since 1975. Meanwhile, the largest proportionate income gains have come to those in the top income and wealth brackets. One intuitive measure of inequality is to compare "high-income" and "low-income" families. Suppose we define a high income level as income at the 90th percentile: that is, the income level higher than that of 90 percent of all families but lower than that of the top 10 percent. Similarly, we can define a low income level as the income at the 10th percentile. During the early 1970s, a family at the 90th percentile had an income about six times that of a family at the 10th percentile. By the late 1980s, this ratio had risen to nearly 8-to-1, and it moved even a little higher during the early 1990s. Rising inequality in family incomes reflects rising inequality in wages, the most important source of income for most Americans. Wage inequality has increased dramatically for both men and women, especially between 1979 and 1987. In 1996, the hourly wage of a worker at the 10th percentile was $5.17, about 14 percent lower than it had been in 1973 after adjusting for inflation. Meanwhile, the worker at the 90th percentile earned $23.01 per hour, an increase of about 6 percent in real terms since 1973. Many of the lowest-paid workers are poorly educated. These workers have seen their real earnings fall dramatically over the past 25 years. A man without a high school diploma, for instance, now earns a wage that is worth about a third less than what he would have earned in 1973."
quote: No, because that penalizes poorer people. 15% of Bill Gates' income is much less of a loss to him than 15% of my income would be to me.
quote: We could try not paying CEO's obcene amounts of money, even when they do a bad job and leave the company. Those which benefit the most should contribute the most. He actively opposed labor unions and supported big business.
[/quote] quote: I grew up in Western Pennsylvania. I know the hisory of the steel workers and coal miners before there were labor unions. Unfettered corporate greed will always lead to oppression of the worker. Enron is a good example.
quote: quote: LEt's see, back during the Depression, I think.
quote: When everyone in the country has a good education, enough food to eat, good healthcare, equal opportunity, and equal pay for equal work, then you might have a point.
quote: Um, I'm glad that you were so fortunate, but why are you so against helping people who need it? Why do you hate poor people so much?
quote: I still think Reagan was the worst president of the century. I also never said that Carter was the best. I think he has done much greater things with his life post presidency. [This message has been edited by RedVento, 12-17-2002][/B][/QUOTE]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: I don't agree, but I don't think he was as great as the Right props him up to be.
quote: I will agree that Carter is better as an ex-President.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RedVento Inactive Member |
quote: It is the only way to continue to protect the nation and stimulate economic growth. Clinton came into office with a SURPLUS created by tax revenues made possible by the tax cuts and overspending of Reagan. I guess thats a bad thing.
quote:Unfortunatly we don't live in a socialist society where everyone is equal. Well fortunatly if you ask me. But its not my job to pay for someone else. I became educated and got a job, I didn't sit on my butt, collect welfare, have more kids I can't support and then expect the government to pay for it. So those who work hard are rewarded, and I am sure there are plenty of poor who worked hard, provided what they could for their children and then had children who did the same for their children. And now live comfortable lives without draining resources. I was way off on my estimates of tax contributions.. These are the actual numbers as taken from : http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/ An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes. The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes. Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes. The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes. Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977. The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.) quote: That's not the issue.. 15% of his 10 Billion would be 1.5 billion a year, while 15% of your 50k would be 7500.. That is what is more important.
quote:Those who benifit the most DO pay the most. quote: Please explain how enron "oppressed" its workers... Unions have caused untold good in the workplace, they have been nothing more than political tools for the last 20 years however.
quote: Too bad that would make us a socialist society. And socialism doesn't work. Or we can someone how change human nature, I'm not sure about you, but I want to be better off than my neihbor.
quote: I don't hate poor people at all, I hate poor people who take advantage of a system set up to let them wallow. I am for welfare reform. Get them educated and in the workplace to contribute something to society. NYC has had major Welfare Reform and the number of welfare recipients has been dropping for the first time in 30 years..
quote: I'm not seeing what greating things he has done since he was president, infact all I see is him spouting the same rhetoric he spouted as president. It didnt work then and still doesn't. {Fixed a quote box - AM} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-19-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
schrafinator writes: The fact reamins that Reagan balooned the deficit through unrestrained military spending and tax cuts with no thought to a balanced budget. I am not saying that the Democratic way is better. I am saying that Reagan put the country into enormous debt which we are still recovering from. You're stretching pretty far back in time to assign blame, and it's unclear that there is anything for which to blame anyone. After all, we just went through a decade of unprecedented prosperity, our debt-to-GNP ratio is not at historically high levels, and the current economic climate seems to be just another recession. While the political parties will always blame the other side for economic downterms and take credit for the good times, the actual truth is that we don't yet know how to smooth out the boom/recession economic cycles.
The fact that the richest country in the world has millions of citizens, many of whom are children, that do not have decent housing or enough food to eat or any health insurance is shameful. As countries become richer, what were once privileges gradually become entitlements, and individual responsibilty gives way to state responsibility. A richer country always sets a higher minimally acceptable living standard. Had you claimed lack of universal health insurance for the poor as a shameful lack a hundred years ago no one would have thought you sane, but today, because of our great wealth and because so many people already have it, it sounds reasonable to us that even the very poor should have it. But it is important to understand that this attitude is a function of our wealth and does not make health insurance an inherent entitlement of the poor. Now, I'm by no means against health insurance for the poor. In fact, I'm for it. But even after we provide this there will still be lines to be drawn. For example, why should only the relatively well-off have access to elective surgery for such things as Lasik eyesight correction, while the poor get only eyeglasses. Don't laugh - as we get richer (and we will) there will be those who bemoan this inequity. The truly big problem with helping the poor is understanding how to actually do things that provide help. It ain't as easy as it sounds.
During the early 1970s, a family at the 90th percentile had an income about six times that of a family at the 10th percentile. By the late 1980s, this ratio had risen to nearly 8-to-1, and it moved even a little higher during the early 1990s. This trend is inevitable and unavoidable in any economically growing country. The income level and wealth of the poor cannot drop very much below zero. Only the wealthy have the means to achieve spectacularly negative incomes and net worth - the poor have no such options. On the flip side, the wealth and income of the rich has no fixed upper limit. In any growing economy the ratio of the incomes and wealth of the top 10%, where no limits apply, to the bottom 10%, where 0 is about as low as you can go, will always increase. This is not to say we shouldn't help the poor, but the puzzle of how to help the poor is a difficult one. The legacy of the welfare era is that of ever increasing spending with ever increasing numbers of poor. Generous welfare programs gradually become victims of their own generosity because those who excel at taking advantage of the system are far more adept, and pro-active, at gaining benefits than the truly needy, plus there are the disincentive effects. Whenever discussions turn political there's always the tendency to look at situations you're unhappy with and assign blame to politicians you don't like. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Nixon in the sweepstakes for the 20th century's worst US president - wage/price controls, the first oil boycott and Watergate come to mind. How about Eisenhower and the rise of the military/industrial complex? Or Roosevelt and the initiation of permanent entitlements? Or Hoover, who raised taxes and imposed tariffs going into the deepest and longest depression of modern times. I guess my point is that while these are important issues, assigning blame for them seems pretty much beside the point, and demonizing those you believe villains does not turn those you like into saints. Carter's success or failure as president does not enhance or diminish his subsequent accomplishments, which are substantial and of long-standing. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I'm waiting for you to comment on the rest of my post regarding Reagan. You only addressed a couple of the dozen or so points I raised. How about commenting upon the 30 close Reagan aides which went to prison on various corruption charges? Or what about Iran-Contra? How about the gutting of environmental laws?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Ummm, can you please explain exactly how putting this country deep into debt, debt that took years and years to climb out of, was good?
quote: quote: The money we spend on individual welfare is miniscule compared to the ENORMOUS corporate welfare program in this country. People are dying from starvation and you don't want to help them? How very macchiavelian of you. I can't remember, are you supposed to be a Christian?
quote: What kind of fantasy, discrimination-free universe do you live in?
quote: And this is as it should be, when the top several percent of the people hold the vast majority of the wealth.
quote: Except that wealthy people paying a larger percentage of their income as taxes still leaves them with plenty of money. Like my Bill Gates example; 50% of his annual income is a HUGE amount of money, but he could still afford to live in a very luxurious manner. 15% of my annual income is not a large ammount of money, but it would impact my lifestyle very detrimantally.
quote: quote: No, the impact upon the individual is what is most important. Taking $7500 of my money is palpable to me. I notice that it is not there. It prevents me from doing certain things in my life. Taking a million dollars from Gates will not be felt by him at all. That's why the rich should pay more; they benefit the most, they should contribute the most.
quote: Replace "oppressed" with "abused". It hid information about the tanking company stock to allow the big bosses to sell everything off, then left all it's employees to loose their life savings.
quote: I disagree. My husband belongs to one of the strongest Graduate Student Unions in the country, and he gets very good health care coverage which I am govered under as his spouce. This is very uncommon, and the first two years of his attendence at another graduate school, we couldn't afford health insurance for me. Doctor and dentist bills were VERY expensive that year. It was very scary.
quote: quote: That is bullshit. Helping others become better educated and better fed and better paid reduces crime and violence and drug use. Living a completely self-centered life is sad and definitely goes against human nature.
quote: quote: ...and the food banks and soup kitchens have been overwhelmed ever since. I agree with you about the education part, but how do you expect them to get an education or job training if they don't have any food or a place to live or someone to watch their kids while they get trained? BTW, do you also advocate cutting all the corporate welfare that we spend on companies, which is many, many times what we spend on individual welfare?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RedVento Inactive Member |
quote:By stimulating the economy you create long term increases in revenue. That is why. The phrase it takes money to make money is very true. By decreasing spending, increases taxes all you do is stifle the economy and in the long term wind up spending much much more. quote:No I never said I didn't want to help them, I wholeheartily believe in some form of welfare program. Just not one that allows people to get something for nothing. Initial payments to cover food, health costs, and job training are what should be covered, then job placement. Not a system that rewards poor people who cant afford one child to have more. quote:I live in NYC where people who work hard get rewarded every day. The man who does my lawn for example. Lived in the slums with his wife and child. He works his ass off and now lives a better life than I do. I am proud for him and of the system that allows that to happen. So while its easier to say everyone who needs help can't get it, its more realistic to say some who need help can't get it, but many are more likely to feel "entitled" to it. When infact we are entitled to nothing. Working hard(you know the thing that made this country as great as it is) is the one way to dramatically increase your chances to bettering your life, and while people may need help(and I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards providing that help) many are content to live off the work of others. That is what I have a problem with. Btw I am not a christian. I have been educated in too many religions to be a part of any of them.
quote:So the people who work the hardest get hurt the hardest, no wonder there is such a poor problem in the country.. Why would anyone bother working hard when many people feel(yourself included it seems) that their hard work should reward those not willing to make any effort. quote:So what you are saying is that if you make a lot of money you are responsible for everyone else? How very liberal. Do you also feel that poor people, or disadvantaged have no responsibility for themselves? That the government needs to tell them what is best for them? That most things can be blamed on video games and movies? If I make a lot of money, I deserve that money, a small percantage going to help people is fine. But to be told that I am now responsible for those who feel entitled to the same lifestyle I gave myself is abhorrent. Again no one is entitled to anything. I have no problem helping people getting back on their feet, getting an education, getting food and medical coverage, but to pay for their existance is not my job, nor is it the governments job.
quote:And they do. Just not enough for you it seems. quote:Can't really argue with that, but that is just one company. What about the Microsofts of the world that created tons of millionaire secretaries? Cant just take the bad, must take the good with it. quote:Ok, I should have limited that to civil servant unions. Like the transit workers, teachers unions, garbage men. Those are the unions I am familiar with, and ones that regularly try to blackmail the city(MTU threatening strike, Teachers not coming to work) or demand raises during a period of economic recession. Those that pay very little towards health or pensions(unlike those of us in the private sector) who have untold of job security regardless of performance or productivity. My friend who works for the DEP (think Norton from honeymooners) were going to strike because they wanted to make as much as people from the private sector (18-32 an hour) yet they work on average 2-5 hours a day, get paid for 8, get 1 1/2 time on sundays for 6 hours even if they work 2. Tell me one private sector job that allows that kind of thing to take place? quote:You are 100% right, but that was not your point.. You made it seem that we should be equal. We aren't. Those that work harder are better rewarded. quote:Actually not in NYC they aren't, not until the last year anyway when the homeless population is growing again(many homeless in NYC are not NYC natives however) Welfare reform is working in NYC. No more something for nothing. While getting training you get food, and money to keep a roof over your head, you also do civil work around the city (cleaning trash and stuff like that) and many of the welfare recipients are making it off of welfare, to get jobs and give back to the system (taxes). I have no problem with that, I applaud it. quote:First, in NYC at any rate the food and money for a roof is taken care of by the city until the person is done with job training and is working again. Which I have no problem with. 2nd. Yes I do, there is no reason corporations should be able to collect any welfare at all. There is no reason to keep a company alive that can't make it on its own. That is the basic principle of a free economy. Don't mistake my pro corporation, pro-rich stance as an endorcement of all things corporate.. I have no patience for anyone not willing to work hard, OR for corporations looking for handouts. I think all the crooked CEOs should be doing hard time, but I feel no remorse for the sick kids who's mothers would rather have more kids than even TRY to better their situation. Now, I didnt touch on the other points about Regean cause I think you are right. He did do some really screwed up things regarding enviormental issues and education. But I wasn't trying to say he was a great president, just that he is not the "worst" president of the century. And while he was wrong about somethings, he was right about others, and like most Presidents he was adaquate given that no president really has full control to get what he wants done. [Fixed quoting. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 12-19-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I think welfare to a large extent is a sham. It's not people being social but it's people giving money to the government so that they don't have to be social themselves. Often this money that is given through state social systems is just printmoney. They just print some money to give to people, which just increases debt, in stead of giving a share of their earnings through work, which wouldn't increase debt.
I think a larger share of the huge sums of social money should go through families, in a more organized way. All this talk of government schemes to help the poor are just from people who don't care about their extended family. They probably have nephews and nieces, aunts and uncles, who are in dire need, but don't help them themselves, but ask the government to do it for them. They probably don't even know who their nephews and nieces, uncles and aunts are. A very interesting level of socio-economic activity, the extended family level, has been weakened by Carter and his counterparts in Europe. Family life used to be much richer (both in money and culture terms) in times past in Western countries. Lacking state social security, familylife is richer in Indonesia, then it is in the Netherlands. Obviously I can't say that social arrangements are good enough in Indonesia, because people in Indonesia are sometimes still starving, but to have a social-security system like in the West that weakens family structure is also unacceptable. I think the exsessive social programmes is what most defined the times of Carters administration. But of course that was a movement much bigger then Carter himself inspired, he just presided over it, doing nothing much about it, presided over the developing malaise. It was inspired by a great many selfish baby-boomers who wanted to burden their children with debt rather then burden themselves, and selling out family life in some other ways too. (sexual promiscuity) regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RedVento Inactive Member |
quote: I think a lot of it has to do with some people who feel they know what's best for all of us, and then take up the cause. I am taking a stab at this date, but pre-1960's I assume that most people had strong feelings of personal responsibility. Hardships were overcome through personal achievment more than by government handouts. There was not as much of a feeling of "I deserve this" as there seems to be today. Rather we have people who feel the government owes them a livelyhood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zipzip Inactive Member |
Generally don't like political stuff, but here is my personal impression of the last 20 years, different in some ways from others' for perspective only.
1) Agree Jimmy Carter was not an effective president, had some crappy policies. But also seems like a man with a good heart and a desire to change the world in a positive way, whether or not you happen to agree with all of his methods. I read his latest book and was impressed with him personally; all in all I think he is a decent, honourable man. 2) Liked Reagan. From all that I have heard and read about him, he was personally a genuine, honest, and caring man who took the responsibility of the presidency very seriously (like Carter). Obviously had different policies and ideas about what he thought was good for the country. I do think his economic policies made sense although with decreased rather than increased government spending. I think both men did what they did because they honestly thought it was in the best interest of the country. I respect them both a great deal and think they did their personal bests to serve their country through some very tough times.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024