We had a leader in office who was trying to put us on the right path and we abandoned him for someone who told us how wonderful everything was and threw us right back into the path of self destruction.
Could people stop yelling and arguing and please, just act civilly and watch the speech? This is an internet website used for watching videos, not a public forum for you to express your political views, whether they are to the left, right, or center of the political spectrum.
He was warning us then and its coming true now.People forgot about the great depression and FDR bringing us out of it by taxing the rich 90%. Yes 90% tax. That's where all those roads highways and state parks came FROM. GOVERNMENT JOBS PAID FOR BY THE RICH MANS TAX DOLLARS.And the rich did just fine because everyone had a job to earn money and buy things with. Most homes only had one parent working. The mom got to stay home. Dads retired at 60 with full pensions.WE ARE ALL READY SCREWED!
@will99313 Besides as Nelson Rockefeller said "It is a big country, it needs a big govt." The only reason govt is big and wasteful is because the private sector keeps sucking funds out of it. So you need more regulation in all areas, higher minimum wage, option to buy Medicare and Medicaid, instead of priv care and giving Feds more power and more pay. You could even have a smaller govt in the bargain.
@will99313 Govt is not addicted to money, I mean it is just trying to perform its functions and a lot of the new spending is QE. QEs have not worked because they have been direct handouts to the banks which leave them recapitalized but people still in debt. FDR was right, you recapitalize the banks by bailing out borrowers. Taxing the rich to 50% and letting the Obama tax cuts expire will fill the deficit hole, and by cutting out contractors and Afghanistan, generating surplus.
FDR was a CFR ass puppet like the rest of the two party dictatorship, that is why i'm a libertarian, i'm sorry but federal government does not work and never does.
@jmjfanss That has never worked and never will. Libertarianism does not work and is antithetical to our traditions. We were founded with Govt subsidies and our Constitution was written to ensure a strong national government that was present in the economy.
@will99313 Yeah but he also started inflation to try and offset the oil shock so he failed. He also introduced HMOs, also a failure. Besides we have committees on oversight and waste. If you want less of it, hand more power to Federal officials. It is also unfair, congressman rarely waste public money on vacations, they hand govt money to contractors to get vacations. So get rid of the contractors and have it go back to being the FEDERAL govt.
@will99313 I think all of this hate thrown my way started by my post about solar power. Scroll back and check it out. I think solar and wind is a good thing but you don't so you go into republican attack mode. Drill baby drill!! So will99313 shine your petroleum fed flashlight on my liberal cock and blow me!!!! Often...repeatedly...and frequently!!!!!!!! I will leave this topic about Carter and move on. It's 2012 get a live.
@will99313 Will you seem to be very unhappy with yourself. Are you gay and in the closet? It's 2012 you can come out now. Your pissed at everybody and everything. I'm sorry your republican party says they hate gays but it seems like half of them are closet gays. You probably take a wide stance in public restrooms like that gay republican senator out your way. So you have a great Memorial Day and try to have a little respect for others even the troops that died while Carter was President.
@will99313 In the depression it made sense. Raise food prices so that farmers have more money, can pay mortgages, the banks get recapitalized without a massive bailout. I never said that wind and solar would meet our needs, fusion could. That is a project that is worth investing mega-billions in.
@will99313 I think this was a policy he had right, there simply was and is no alternative. As a result of a refusal to change the way we live in some way, and even demanding that it become cheaper for us, we now have to pay $400 billion just servicing our debt. If we had done what Carter done, trade deficits would still be large but not into the hundreds of billions
@will99313 Unfortunately in this day and age that makes you a DFH according to both parties. American conservatism, as it exists now, is a radical movement that aims to fundamentally change the nature of the US. No more protection from abusive bosses, no more safe and regulated drinking water. Any proposal for tax cuts for the rich or even any resistance to a tax raise for them like to 45% is a scheme to defund the govt and leave Americans unprotected.
@will99313 Will get your Sarah Palin swimsuit pic a jar of vasaline and your republican bumper sticker and go into your bathroom if you have one drink your kool-aid and talk with the idiot in the mirror. I'm finished talking to a brainless retard like YOU who's still pissed at Carter! Get a life, grow a pair, stand up and walk on your hind legs. Quit smoking crack!
@will99313 I know that is what I am saying, so I think people should have the CHOICE to buy into Medicare and Medicaid, instead of private health insurance, and market forces will see who wins. BTW if business complains that this would wipe them out and moves against it, they are manipulating the market and trying to dstry competition, which is far worse than subsidies. Subsidies are more like encouragement, that sort of lobbying destroys innovation
@will99313 Farm subsidies can help farmers, and in the United States at least, until the recent global food crisis, depresses the price of food. I for one like cheap food. Chinese goods are subsidized by their Government and that is why they do well. Besides business manipulates the market is far worse ways. It is easier for the market to absorb the subsidies that government gives as government is more transparent. Business often, like with the crash, exagerrates the value of things.
@will99313 I must thank you for continuing this discourse, most conservatives immediately fold in and refuse to talk the moment they encounter any resistance. Your willingness to keep talking indicates your commitment to freedom. So I thank you again for it. I too enjoy the back and forth.
@will99313 What we had before Reagan was not overegulated. We were unquestionably top of the world, taxes were high but lower than in most other western countries, and our national debt was a lot smaller. Don't see why, with the right legislation and political action, it is possible to return to that. Of course a lot of right wing christian fundamentalists will oppose it.
@will99313 Part 3: What this means is that in order to get by all we really need to do is have shelter, food, and clothing, nothing else really. So the only "true" economy in that sense is a farm, and since no farm can exist by itself if there exist no profit motive as everyone works in agriculture in a "true" economy, then the result of calling Government a "false" economy is that you have just ended up putting everyone on a collective farm. The only "true" economy is a giant collective farm.
@will99313 Part 2: So when you think about it either way, according to you it is a false economy because you have to pay them money to conduct services, fees are not so different from taxes in this sense. No taxes no services, no fees no services. Therefore both require money to function, that they themselves cannot raise, so both are, according to you, false economies.
@will99313 I would also wish to add that Government is as much a false economy as any private company. If you think about it Government offers services, but not for profit. Companies offer services, but for profit. Either way you have pay them money. Usually less to Government. However that means if you have to pay taxes for Government or fees to companies they would not exist without the demand for services.
@will99313 Well I apologize, but if you go around attempting to describe yourself as you do above and complain of discrimination, you need to elaborate more on why you think you are beig discriminated against, otherwise you will risk being misinterpreted so you must be accurate and precise. BTW I am a WASP and you bet I would spit on the American flag if it were burning just as I would bleed on those stripes so they stay red.
@will99313 Eventually but that is because Socialism without private enterprise does not work, and Capitalism, without heavy state regulation does not work. So you have to balance the positive of both, to avoid as much of the negative as you can. I.E. the industrialisation Tsarist Russia experienced in the 1890s 1900s was due to heavy State investment and protectionist measures. Same as everywhere else. I support neither Party, they are practically the same.
@will99313 Big Government has given me Police, a first class Military, a NatSec setup 2nd to none. It has passed laws and regulations that have kept me safe, it tries (with morons always seeking to subvert it) to regulate the water I drink and the food I eat ensuring quality. So I worry not about the Government. Because I AM AMERICAN. IT IS MY GOVERNMENT. I pay taxes and would be willing to pay more so that it stays there. Government tries harder everyday to help us. So let's help it
@will99313 Actually it is not. The Government recovered the economy with the NewDeal and boomed it with WWII. I never said I liked a free market, free markets do make free human beings. Government is a company. The best insurance, investment, whatever you may wish, company in existence. We pay it money for insurance coverage, and it has given us this protection at minimal cost and we never have to worry if we qualify or not, no hesitation, just concern for the well being of people.
@will99313 I am detecting someone who is more than a bit of a white supremacist, I suppose "The Turner Diaries" are a classic for you. I do believe in Darwinism but not SocDarwinism as that erodes trust and trust is the true foundation of a successful economy. Have you read Stiglitz? You should. He and I are hardly fringe, it is you who is fringe. If you consider yourself Christian you are none. God will not cast all of those who are non-Christian into the pit of fire. Virtue not faith is key.
@will99313 Statism is not socialism. Statist policies are people policies. I do want ignorance and unreasonable hatred, which you espouse expunged. Quite frankly you are an embarassment to the United States. Some parts of socialism work. The USSR provided education, homes, central heating, and running water to all its citizens. The Soviet Union made Russia from a backward country more like Africa, into a true European country.
@will99313 He worked for the World Bank, not the IMF, and DSK is innocent until proven guilty. Someone who calls hotel security to ask them to go to his room because he left a phone there, and someone, having checked out of his hotel after having ostensibly committed a crime, to have lunch with his daughter is not someone who is acting very guilty.
@will99313 Hardly oil is finite and expensive and is usually only a small component in the manufacture of tires, natural rubber and carbon black playing a much greater role. I don't hate capitalism I hate the Free Market, because it is like a loose carnivorous beast. It needs to be controlled for companies to continue to make serious profits and not engage in predatory, idiotic practices, like steroid banking.
@will99313 What on earth are you yammering on about? Carter was trying to protect our way of life and keep us safe and a bunch of idiots said "Nah, we'd rather live on debt and put ourselves at the mercy of foreigners." And how am I anti-male? you have no evidence, and your insistent chauvinism to me indicates someone has some deficiency to compensate for.
@will99313 See Joseph Stiglitz "Freefall" the book tells all about the failure of the current system and Thomas Frank's "The Wrecking Crew" In 1965 GNP grew by 6.5% Federal salaries were only 10% less than that of the private sector and on a GS-18 salary a man could afford to send his 4 kids to college without taking out loans, and his wife could stay at home. The share of national wealth the top 1% had was shrinking. Liberalism was succeeding. As to your figure, what do you mean exactly?
@will99313 Hyperbolic would work, but hyperbole, as a noun, not an adverb as you have said, works just as well. Since I was born in the United States and hope to die here, I do speak English, a lot of your crude comments indicate you seem to be trying to speak "Amurikan."
@will99313 That is an easy ine to respond to. For a start I drink at most half a quart of beer a week. Second considering the extra expense the Government (which is being savagely defunded by a bunch of morons) undetook to make documents fancier and more intricate, thus harder to forge, it would be extremely expensive to get convincing forgeries, at the very least $500 if not more, which I think is beyond the means of most illegals. For drug traders maybe, for motel maids? Hardly
@will99313 Well that is a failing of the private sector if they can only manufacture a tire from oil instead of rubber. I am not on medication but given your incoherent slurred, strained, english. I am wondering if you are not on some sort of hallucinogenic drug and an illegal at the same time. Because you seem to exist in a fantasy world where credit and oil are limitless. No I had never heard of synthetic rubber, but thank you, you provided me with anoter case of private sector incompetence.
@will99313 That I find hard to believe and if people are hiring people without proper documentation and Federal field officers have been removed from inspecting roles it is not the Government's fault. Anyway I doubt that farmers respect the minimum wage for hands when they can exploit them. What are illegals going to do? Complain to the Government? Hardly, they would be thrown out.
@will99313 I am Anglican and probably more Christian than you. Vietnam and the Great Society had nothing to do with the oil crisis. You are speaking utter nonsense. The economy in the late 70s was in a better position than it was years after that, or in '99 or '08. Median income for American males in their thirties has declined since that period. My system succeeded, yours has failed.
@will99313 Its true it sets standards, like water cannot be toxic, thus it makes it superior. So companies have to devise products that meet these standards and can still generate profit. Regulation on price gouging and standards means that they cannot cheat, so the water has to be clean, cheap and generate profit. So it is a better product. And government has done great things for me. It has provided me police, education, and transportation. Besides, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. WE THE PEOPLE.
@will99313 Listen to yourself. You said "If it weren't for you dumbass libs...suing to stop oil drilling off California, just so some stupid fish can survive, while HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS STARVE IN OUR STREETS." If you're starving in the street Will try eating some STUPID FISH and quit drinking the kool-aid!!! If we drilled off of california and the east coast and the hole in your head supply still wouldn't meet demand. I'm out of here it's all yours.
@will99313 I find those comments offensive and entirely unnecessary. You are crude and if you are private schooled it shows what a rip off it is. Fork it over or there is no more police, CIA, Military, FBI, none of it, if you are an anarchist, say so. But don't you ever dare lecture me on values when your very views aim to undermine society.
@will99313 I find your comments erroneous, ignorant and ultimately unpatriotic. I know nothing of SF, and I suspect what I hear is hyperbole, espec since one of my friends is SF liberal, has short hair, does not do drugs and wears a suit all the time. Left wingers are committed to continued renewal, investment and public order? Do you oppose, employment, improvement, and safety?
@will99313 Illegals do pay taxes as they know it is a way of not having the authorities on their backs. You want greater enforcement, pay more taxes for more police, otherwise it just ain't happening.
@will99313 Hey Will. Still burning oil over there in California? Still not interested in wind or solar? You call me a BIGOT. You told me to look it up. I did, it says "A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Sounds like you doesen't it? Still pissed at Carter after all these years. Your stuck on the corner on off oil and insanity trying to catch a ride on the conservative bus so you can run over the first pot smokin hippie you can.
@will99313 Will you're a idiot. A plain and simple idiot with a big blow hole that spews hate. I don't need to reply how stupid you are you seem to be doing a fine job of that on your on. Time will even prove to you that there's a idiot in your mirror looking back at you. All you do is complain. What would you do? Attack Iraq again? Build some Japan style nuclear power plants on a fault line? I say put a windmill in front of your mouth and our energy problem will be solved! Drink your Kool-Aid!
@will99313 Let me tell you a secret, you are shortsighted and ultimately, stupid. So maybe if you want to go live in the Middle Ages AQ wants to help you with that. You two would get along just fine.
@will99313 We have not gone solar because no one was willing to spend the money, and both nuclear and oil are finite, you want to protect the American way of life? Fork it over to the Federal Government or you're going back to the Stoneage!
@Meade556 We have not gone solar because solar cells are still too inefficient and cost too much. They do not yet make economic sense. Not to mention that you'd have to pave over a middle sized state to begin to meet the energy requirements of the nation (think the environmentalists might have something to say about that?). Solar energy as it stands today only exists because of government subsidies, it is not currently economically viable, unless you'd like to pay 50 cents to $1 per kilowatt hr.
@cartman1492 Solar cells are imperfect yes, I see wind, water and fusion as the main power sources of the future. As for cost, I don't care, I want when I am 60 to be able to switch on the light and for there to be light and there is nothing wrong with Government subsidies for things.
@Meade556 Unless you are an engineer or a scientist (I am btw) it doesn't much matter what you "see" as the power source of the future. With respect to cost, you need to understand that government subsidies don't appear out of thin air, they are derived from tax dollars. So, if solar or wind energy cost $1/kW*hr you will pay $1/kW*hr one way or the other. I will either come from you directly on your power bill or some of it will come out of your taxes (which will go up).
@cartman1492 That's where your wrong buddy, unless you have a plan that does not involve going back to the Middle Ages 50 years from now you better keep quiet about what is and is not the correct energy policy. I am perfectly happy to pay more tax to secure my future and I never said a vast solar cell project was the way forward. What exactly do you people have against taxes? When I find a man who does not want to pay tax, or more of it, I find a man who is unworthy of being an American.
@Meade556 Unless you understand the physics and the economics behind these various alternate energy sources I suggest you keep quite. If we converted to the alternate energy sources you propose tomorrow we would be a lot closer to the Middle Ages than today. You must understand the underlying energy equations for these sources and economic return on investment. It seems obvious to pretty much everyone but I must explain it to you - it does matter what the energy produced from these sources cost.
@cartman1492 I do understand that oil, as it is now, produces more energy. It's finite nature is the problem. We need to have heavy invest in alternate energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal, enough to keep things ticking over if worst comes to worst, and fusion research as a serious alternative. You are wrong, if we do not invest in these projects we will go back to the Middle Ages, and if I were to spread this message, you would find that people would agree with it.
@Meade556 The government is no magic fairy able to grant wishes. Any money that it spends on your behalf must come from you or your fellow citizens. So, if you want to pay $1/kW*hr I suggest you buy your own solar cells and install them on your roof and not panhandle from your fellow Americans. You certainly do care what energy costs, you just believe that you can get someone else to pay for it. Let be dissuade you from this notion. This has never and will never work in the long term.
@cartman1492 We should all contribute. What the one cannot do the many can. The Government is the many, we as the many give it money so that it may have the capital for projects that individually we could never undertake. And if taxes go up, then I am paying for it, so don't you dare lecture me on what I do and do not think. Again I refer you to the New Deal, the Soviet Union, and even the economic miracle of South Korea.
@Meade556 We should all contribute to the extent we desire as free citizens in a free country. No one should be compelled to "contribute" against their will for spending beyond the basic functions of government as outlined in the Constitution.
The Soviet Union? Really? The Soviet Union was an economic basket case for most of it's existence. As for the miracle of South Korea, that was capitalism not collectivism.
@cartman1492 Yes the USSR. It did a damn sight better than Tsarist Russia and gave people a standard of development that most 3rd world countries would have and still would welcome. Moscow, St. Petersburg, all those railroads, Kiev, are Soviet cities, they would not be as they are without the Soviet Union. South Kora was State Capitalism, read Jasper Becker and Ha Joon Chang. And since the Constitution has the Government to ensure the General welfare SocSec, DoL, DoEdu, are all constitutional.
@Meade556 I will lecture you because you don't just want to contribute your money (which I would have no issue with), but mine and my fellow citizens as well. How dare you. You lack the honor of the everyday thief. The thief at least risk life and limb when he breaks into a home. You want to get the government to take money from "other people" for your benefit. How gutless. If you want to pick my pocket at least do it honestly and do it in person.
@cartman1492 I have every right to demand it. I demand that everyone pay more tax so that we can invest in projects which will bring jobs, provide economic security and secure our future. This is the tired old Libertarian argument of Goverment as a racket. The truth is, Mr. I took this idea from Grover Norquist, is that Government is instituted because it is the most effective form of an insurance company ever conceived. Not surprisingly things are bad for you if you are not insured. I can go on
@cartman1492 Furthermore, even if you are a scientist you wish to defund your own interests so you are not very good at your job obviously, especially since as you say money grows on trees? So what is the next energy source? Without research money it will come to nothing.
God what a pussy. No wonder we kicked him to the curb as soon as possible.
Import quotas, yeah that will reduce waiting lines for gasoline. Has there ever been a President as economically illiterate as Jimmy Carter?
Jeeze, the way he's pumping that fist looks like he needs to be doing that in private. Probably the thought of establishing the command and control economy that he's proposing got him stimulated.
@777Atheist An honest man? A man that carried empty suitcases off of Air Force One in order to convince the American people that he was a "common man"? Carter was a horrible president. He had the leadership skill of a turnip.
@cartman1492 You are a disgrace to the character of Cartman. He was asking us to sacrifice. He was saying that if we accepted, for a time, some inconveniences, we would not be dependent on foreigners. He knew it would cause discomfort. Btw command economies sometimes work. China today, the United States during WWII. I suppose you like having foreigners lord it over the US, do you? That's what ignoring Jimmy Carter brought us, an incompetent and overpaid economic elite and foreigners sponging.
@Meade556 Actually he was blaming the American people for inflation when it was the government's fault. Jimmy's grasp of economics was so poor he thought that inflation was caused by "too much consumption" when is always and in every case the result of fiscal and monetary policy. No amount of "sacrifice" will undo inflation when it is the result of the Fed putting too much liquidity into the market and the Federal government spending too much. You guys need to read up on economics.
@cartman1492 He was not saying that. He was saying the oil crisis and its grave effects were part of the American penchant for making the world accomodate America, and America not being self sufficient. Inflation was started under a Republican, continued under a Republican, and liquidity from the Fed is not a problem. Would Steel manufacturers ever complain that iron ore is too cheap? Federal Government spending, is also not a problem. It is you who needs to study economics and Cartman.
@Meade556 The oil crisis was a fiction. America imported almost exactly the same amount of foreign oil during the Arab Oil embargoes as the preceding years. Oil is a fungible commodity. Arab oil not sold to the U.S. went to Europe and oil that had previously gone to Europe went to the U.S.. It was nothing but a shuffling of the cards. The "energy crisis" was purely the product of price controls imposed by the government, which promptly evaporated when those price controls were removed.
@cartman1492 70% of oil consumed in the US is foreign. If we import the same amount, the dependance has only increased. You demonstrate consistent ignorance of history and economics. The oil shock was a result of the Yom Kippur war and Arab countries restricting oil flow as a result of the war. The energy crisis was a reflection of American dependance on foreign oil. Carter hated this, genuinely as it restricted the ability for unilateral action. How do you like being tugged about by Riyadh?
@Meade556 Once again your data is wrong. You need to get a better source or stop making it up. About 62% of oil used in this country is imported. 20% of that comes from Canada and about 10% from Mexico.
If Carter really hated imported oil, he should have removed price controls on crude oil. The only way to convince U.S. producers to drill for oil in the U.S. is to allow them to charge more for it, since production costs are higher here. Secondly, you need to relax the more ridiculous EPA rules.
@Meade556 You really do demonstrate a complete lack of economic understanding. Inflation started under Nixon, accelerated under Cater, and was brought under control under Reagan.
Federal overspending certainly is a problem as invariably it leads to "quantitative easing" which is nothing more that the creation of new dollars out of thin air. This leads to inflation which is in essence an undeclared tax, and a flat tax at that. Something that a proponent of a progressive tax should abhor.
@cartman1492 Okay now let's start from this proposition shall we. Quantitative easing would not be a problem if the Fed raised those funds by taxing the rich. Deficit spending I should add is something that Republicans and right wingers are masters at. They do it because they want to force the Government into a crisis. Well done you got what you wanted. Because of ideological stupidity, the dollar could lose its status as a reserve currency.
@Meade556 Ah, the redistributionist raises his ugly head. Fine, *double* the tax on the rich tomorrow, you will only make about a $400B dent in our current $1.6T annual deficit. The problem is spending, not revenue. Also, keep in mind that if some of those "rich" you raise taxes on are corporations, they will simply pass on these taxes as operating costs to consumers. You are looking for a free lunch. It does not exist. You want government benefits but you want someone else to pay.
@cartman1492 No if Federal income tax, is 10% for the bottom 99% and I know even then that there are a lot more increments, but lets keep it simple, that is easily $1.05 trillion and if income tax were 50% for the top 1% that is $1.75 trillion, already you have near $0.7 more than expected receipts for this year. Also you could just put all those contractors on GS and be rid of the Afghan war, there I just saved you more than $400 billion. And I have not even taxed corporate profits.
@Meade556 Funny, you lament that the dollar is loosing it's status as a reserve currency, and yet the quantitative easing which you applaud is exactly the thing responsible for it. It's easy to understand. If you create new dollars out of thin air, all dollars become worth less (simple supply and demand). You can not get around this by taxing the rich. So the fiscal policy of this administration is responsible for that which you deplore. You keep looking for free lunches. They are not there.
@cartman1492 I never said I supported QE, and you can get it by taxing the rich. In 1965 Fed income tax for the top 1% was more than 70%, the GNP grew by 6.5% that year. It's the rich who don't want to fund the free lunches when they are the ones who caused the recession (read depression). Besides why should QE, go to the Banks instead of to those who are in debt? Bailouts should have gone to Main Street, not Wall Street.
@Meade556 Yes, indeed the top marginal rate in 1965 was north of 70%, but because of a byzantine tax code with many deductions no one was paying that rate. What matters is effective tax rate (after deductions), not top marginal rate. When Congress and Reagan simplified the tax code in the 80's and lowered the marginal rates but removed most deductions, the wealthy on average pay more in taxes than under the prior system, this was more than offset however by increased economic activity.
@cartman1492 You'd better provide sources for that. I do not believe it, from the simple fact that loopholes have been opend and tax cuts given. Also an economist, David Stockman, did the math and found it to be untrue. So cutting taxes is just upward redistribution of wealth it does nothing for the Government and the country other than create problems. Government will invest, not the private sector.
@Meade556 The thing you need to face is that the wealthy are not some piggy bank you can raid without cost. We already have a very progressive income tax. The top 5% of incomes pay 58.72% of income taxes. The bottom 50% of incomes pay 2.7% of income taxes. Also, there is a maximum about the Federal government can tax from the economy without causing widespread damage. In times of peace, the government had never been able to extract more than 18~19% of GDP. We're at 15~16% now.
@cartman1492 You're wrong. The top 1% have 25% of the GDP and only have a 34.1% income tax rate. Besides they put a lot of money in their savings so more taxation, especially for people like Glenn Beck would make very little difference. The money, as well as the cost cutting I described can be used to finance Infrastructure and Science projects. Another thing everyone should be able to buy into Medicare and Medicaid.
@JackSheet69 He admitted in this, he had been unsuccesful, but for a time here he was a prophet, a man with vision. What he did took courage, and events have proved him right. He realized dependence on foreigners was unacceptable if the USA was to be free from interference and be master of its own destiny.
@rklight33 He was a good man, an unsuccessful president, but events have proved him right. Had we listened we would have greater economic security and more people would have jobs. Basic economics.
@scottpcook I refer you to the fact that Reagan was ultimately a disaster, precipitated two recessions and left America with a legacy of debt, involvement in the Middle East and an intolerable dependance on foreign creditors with interests adverse to our own.
@eheino99 Only as a temporary expedient, and another thing, we can burn oil we need it for other things, like medical uses, plastics, and other functions. It is too precious to be wasted feeding our energy needs.
@will99313 Will you sound like Glen Beck. HE LIKES TO SHOUT TOO! THE ONE WHO TALKS THE LOUDEST IS RIGHT, RIGHT? To answer your question about why haven't we gone solar is because BIG OIL HAS BOUGHT OUT OUR GOVERNMENT! WE HAVE A BUNCH OF BOUGHT OUT WHORE'S IN WASHINGTON! Look around the world FOOL. Even the middle east who's floating on oil is going SOLAR, WIND POWER and NATURAL GAS you FAILED PROPAGANDA SPEWING FOOL!
Carter put up solar cells on the White House. He wanted 20% of our power to be solar by 2000. When Regan took office one of his first acts was to take them down! We send a billion a day to the terrorist in the middle east for oil.
Imagine where we would be if reagan wasnt such a dumbass or better yet if we had a second term. We would have sugar ethanol like the brazillians right now.
Wow! In parts 1-2, he spews a lot of empty rhetoric, and then in part 3, and I'll guess the next part, too, out comes the Statist. I'll have government tell the businesses of private citizens what they will do. I'll raise taxes, although people are in huge gas lines right now and jobs are at an all-time low as they will be until the 2000's...
@DarthVil Yeah, but Government money spent on the projects he describes, would put people into jobs and get them out of long gas lines. The New Deal and economic expansion during WWII were successful, and they were Statist spates of Government spending.
@Meade556 The New Deal was not successful. The Great Depression raged on for almost a decade after Roosevelt took office. It was only ended by the beginning of WWII. Government money spent on projects can give people jobs. Indeed the government could hire 100,000 people to dig holes and hire another 100,000 to fill them up, but it would not increase prosperity. And if you're arguing for another World War as a means of economic expansion feel free, but do keep in mind all that was destroyed.
@cartman1492 The years 1933-1937 were years of recovery, there was a recession in 1938-39, but employment then stood at 92.5%, versus 75% when Roosevelt had gotten into office. The Government built things in those years, brining hydroelectric power to Tennessee, with the TVA, it built new rail lines, it gave tractors to farmers and prevented foreclosures and all the destruction in WWII happened in Europe. All growth in that period was due to the Government, as it, not industry spent the money.
@Meade556 Roosevelt took office in 1932. Unemployment in 1932 was roughly 15%. Unemployment peaked five years later in 1937 at 28%. By 1940, unemployment had come back down to where it was when Roosevelt took office in 1932 at 15%, but due to the New Deal the Federal debt had ballooned from 20% of GDP to 40% of GDP. So, after 8 years of Roosevelt unemployment was where it started but the Federal debt had doubled. Do you call that a success?
@cartman1492 Moron, that is clearly not true and the study you refer to is bogus and misses out facts whicha re inconvenient to it. 28% unemployment discounts people employed as a result of New Deal projects or the New Deal and assumes a grossly overoptimistic growth rate. Laissez faire wiped out more than 30% of the National wealth. The New Deal restored that lost wealth. Yes, yes I do call that a success.
@Meade556 Ah, name calling. Quaint. Actually I misread data off the graph. 1937 unemployment was 19% counting New Deal projects as employment. Apologies for the error.
Laissez faire did not cause the depression, the Fed did by contracting the money supply early on. Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize in econ for his paper "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960" which proved the Feds fault in the matter. It's a great though long paper, I suggest you give it a read.
@cartman1492 Quaint it may be, but it is true and your figures are simply wrong. NRA created 2 million jobs alone. Government employment also created jobs, teachers salaries were restored. Next thing I know you'll be saying this recession was caused by the Fed making money too cheap. I do not like Andrew Mellon and LF caused the Depression as it created a bubble, that due to LF was not regulated. So I suggest you do some serious soul searching. P.S. Read William E. Leuchtenburg.
@Meade556 If, by largely successful, you mean that he extended the depression by 7 years, then yes, he was very successful. The New Deal did nothing to help us in the long term and has made people dependent upon government. Where it has been successful is in removing the spirit of independence from Americans and in turning us into a people dependent upon the "generosity" of government.
Government is not necessary for putting people to work, nor is government interference compatible with freedom.
@DarthVil He did not extend the Depression, he shortened it. You are speaking utter nonsene. The Government stepped in because it was clear business lacked competence and people were put back into work building roads, residences, town halls, and railroads. Corporations are far more dependent on the "welfare" of Uncle than anyone on SocSec, $150 a week, vs multi-billion contracts? Are you talking about regulation? DoD had fewer problems with equipment during WWII, when regulators were everywhere.
@Meade556 You cannot end a period of economic mass-debt and ruin by spending money. The government stepped in, but the things that they did to help actually caused more harm. The expense of New Deal programmes was such that without them, unemployment would have been around 6.7%, instead of 17.2%. Implementation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 led to the widespread destruction of farm animals and the leaving of food to rot. It is WW2, not the New Deal, that got us out of the Depression
@DarthVil Yeah you can. This is an economic philosophy which assumes that any growth resulting from Government spending it is false and bogus. This is utter nonsense. Growth is growth. Government induced or otherwise. The study you base your figures does not count people employed by New Deal projects or as a result of the growth the New Deal generated. AAA was done to raise farming prices so farmers could pay off their debts, and since this recapitalized banks it worked. WW2 boomed ND recovered.
@Meade556 You can ignore basic math all that you want, but spending when one is in debt does not foster prosperity. Government runs nothing efficiently, nor without creating a needless amount of bureaucracy, going well beyond necessary, minimal oversight, and into obscene proportions. The result is less efficient than can be provided by the private sector, and with the added "benefit" of making people dependent upon future government aid, rather than just being the hand up that is intended.
@DarthVil This is a tired Libertarian argument. Outsourcing has made things more expensive and less efficient, Government runs plenty of things efficiently when the Civil Service is given great autonomy, and has more oversight than contractors. Regulation encourages innovation by its very nature. 2 million Civil Servants vs 7.2 million contractors. Who needs a pay cut? Who needs to be streamlined?
@Meade556 When did I suggest outsourcing? There are a lot of practices that businesses do, with which I disagree. The fact of the matter, and as a business owner several times over, I certainly know what I'm talking about, a HUGE part of why there is so much outsourcing is because of government interference.
Neither have I said, or have most Libertarians said, that there should be NO regulation. What we believe in is MINIMAL regulation. Too much regulation is problematic.
@DarthVil That's not true. Government operations are outsourced because unimaginative businessman want to loot the Treasury. Government employees are more competent, do not cut corners, and still cost less than private buffoons. As for regulation, minimal regulation can be qualified. I would say there is too little regulation. I refer you to 1945-1975, lots of regulation but lots of growth, because regulation sets high standards and encourages the production of superior products.
@DarthVil No problem. Just please read this book, I guarantee it will stop you being Libertarian Thomas Frank's "The Wrecking Crew" it is very well footnoted, and well written. If you are interested in efficiency, you will realize that next to nothing that has been done was about efficiency, it was about looting the national budget. The New Deal had problems but it put millions back into work and the Government suceeded where business failed. Just look at the GDP in 1932, then 1939.
@Meade556 Right, it was such a good speech that it was widely attributed at the time as being one of the main reasons Carter lost in a landslide. Great speech.
@cartman1492 Um 50.8% of the vote for Reagan vs 49.2% for Carter, no victory, but not a landslide. The speech actually increased his approval ratings to 45%, again not to more than 50%, but for many it struck the right chord. He told us we can learn to live within our means and be free from dependance, or we can try and make the world accomodate us, we chose the latter and we have failed utterly.
@Meade556 I refer you to the 1980 electoral map. Check daytodaypolitics for the picture. Carter won Georgia, West Virgina, Maryland, Minnesota, and Hawaii. Reagan won the other 45 states. Popular vote breakdown was as follows: Reagan 50.7%, Carter 41%, and John Anderson 6.6%. Reagan garnered 90.9% of the electoral college and beat Carter by almost 10 points in the popular vote. By the standards of a Presidential election, that is a landslide. Your data is wrong.
@Meade556 I gave you the numbers for electoral and popular vote. You don't like the electoral college then look at the popular vote. Reagan beat Cater by almost 10 points. The results were: Reagan 50.7%, Carter 41%, and John Anderson 6.6%. That's a landslide by anyone's definition. Reagan beat Carter worse than Obama beat McCain, much worse than Clinton beat Bush, and even a little worse than Clinton beat Dole. Of course, it wasn't quite the 18 point tsunami that Reagan beat Mondale by in 1984.
@cartman1492 Well, as I said, the speech made him more popular, he lost, we know that, and Libertarianism was a fad. Anyway Reagan was a disaster. Read Andrew Bacevich. Btw Bacevich says that we consume 60% and rising foreign oil, so you were right. Read "Limits of Power" I used to be like you, but this book shook my faith decisively. Bacevich, who also used to be like you, is sympathetic to Carter. Read him, he is no left winger and neither am I.
@Lysy2 You guys gotta come up with some new nicknames, it's really sad - It's getting to the point I can't even understand who you're talking about now.
Wow I didn't think world leaders actually talked like this outside of post-apocalyptic utopian fantasy novels. Unfortunately, Americans seem to have short memories...
Germany and Japan both use less than half the oil per person that the USA uses. Getting the USA to those levels would be a pretty good first step and hardly involves the kind of sacrifice you describe. Let's face it, this is about attitudes and willpower and American self-gratification, not issues of true trade-offs and sacrifice. That's what Carter was talking about - "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption".
@1995e34 Although Carter seemed to be recanting at the end of his term, he and Reagan are indirectly responsible for 9-11. They initiated and placed US bases in the Middle East that led to the first Iraq War. Carter set up "Rapid Deployment Force" to ensure that Arab dictators supported by Washington would have American military backup in the event a democratic movement overthrew them. This led to much American violence in the region (Lebanon War and first gulf war)--reasons B.Laden attacked
@caisediab true, but BL was a psychopath and might have done it with or without provocation, but considering the amount of money we spend catching him have brought high speed rail to the Entire East Coast, I wish we had spent it on that.
Everything he said here we ignored. We preferred a warm smiling grandpa a year later who said, "It's morning in America!" and "We're a shining city on a hill!" So we swept our problems under the rug and borrowed our way to high living. And now the grandpa's dead (after a long bout with senility) and we're stuck with his bill. Enjoy writing the checks, kids!
these are the same issues we are facing today, what a joke honestly 30 years of conservative control has brought us nowhere thanks a lot Reagan, we need to stop ignoring problems and face them
@itpduder It was much better than Reagan of course who told American's that they were "energy rich" (forgetting to tell then that this wealth would only last for another 30 years). But the sacrifices that would have been required to make America truly energy sustainable - vaster than can be imagined.
@ChristophInns Well, I don't think you conserve your way out of scarcity. You explore other options to overcome the problem of scarcity. The trouble is, we stuck with fossil fuels. While we still have a lot of coal, we didn't develop nuclear power, particularly thorium-based nuclear energy. We didn't have a major push for solar. It's put us over a barrel.
Germany and Japan both use less than half the oil per person that the USA uses. Getting the USA to those levels would be a pretty good first step and hardly involves the kind of sacrifice you describe. Let's face it, this is about attitudes and willpower and American self-gratification, not issues of true trade-offs and sacrifice. That's what Carter was talking about - "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption".
Germany and Japan both use less than half the oil per person that the USA uses. Getting the USA to those levels would be a pretty good first step and hardly involves the kind of sacrifice you describe. Let's face it, this is about attitudes and willpower and American self-gratification, not issues of true trade-offs and sacrifice. That's what Carter was talking about - "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption".
This video makes me really sad.
We had a leader in office who was trying to put us on the right path and we abandoned him for someone who told us how wonderful everything was and threw us right back into the path of self destruction.
penumbrae9 1 month ago in playlist Jimmy Carter Malaise Speech
Could people stop yelling and arguing and please, just act civilly and watch the speech? This is an internet website used for watching videos, not a public forum for you to express your political views, whether they are to the left, right, or center of the political spectrum.
Fenrisulfr77 5 months ago 3
@Fenrisulfr77 I concur, this is a bipartisan speech!
compaq905 4 months ago
Japan didn't have gaslines, and they import all their oil. What's up with that?
dmowings 6 months ago
He was warning us then and its coming true now.People forgot about the great depression and FDR bringing us out of it by taxing the rich 90%. Yes 90% tax. That's where all those roads highways and state parks came FROM. GOVERNMENT JOBS PAID FOR BY THE RICH MANS TAX DOLLARS.And the rich did just fine because everyone had a job to earn money and buy things with. Most homes only had one parent working. The mom got to stay home. Dads retired at 60 with full pensions.WE ARE ALL READY SCREWED!
zacharykelway 6 months ago
@zacharykelway
Carter was a puppet just like FDR was a puppet, Tax the Rich is not the answer
cut wasteful spending is the answer.
jmjfanss 3 months ago
@zacharykelway
Sorry But JFK did it better.
jmjfanss 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why do republicans hate Jimmy Carter? Because he didn't have or show one scrap of greed! And that is what Republicans want! PURE UNADULTERATED GREED!
zacharykelway 6 months ago
Too bad this never happened...Where would the world be today, if the world had listened to Jimmy Carter.
Bawbster1 7 months ago 6
@will99313 Besides as Nelson Rockefeller said "It is a big country, it needs a big govt." The only reason govt is big and wasteful is because the private sector keeps sucking funds out of it. So you need more regulation in all areas, higher minimum wage, option to buy Medicare and Medicaid, instead of priv care and giving Feds more power and more pay. You could even have a smaller govt in the bargain.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Govt is not addicted to money, I mean it is just trying to perform its functions and a lot of the new spending is QE. QEs have not worked because they have been direct handouts to the banks which leave them recapitalized but people still in debt. FDR was right, you recapitalize the banks by bailing out borrowers. Taxing the rich to 50% and letting the Obama tax cuts expire will fill the deficit hole, and by cutting out contractors and Afghanistan, generating surplus.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556
STOP SPENDING and reduce government by 60%
FDR was a CFR ass puppet like the rest of the two party dictatorship, that is why i'm a libertarian, i'm sorry but federal government does not work and never does.
jmjfanss 3 months ago
@jmjfanss That has never worked and never will. Libertarianism does not work and is antithetical to our traditions. We were founded with Govt subsidies and our Constitution was written to ensure a strong national government that was present in the economy.
Meade556 3 months ago
@Meade556
and neither is radical leftism and big government, it doesn't work then and doesn't work now
and we can have a strong national government by getting it out of the way and stop telling people what to do.
jmjfanss 3 months ago
@will99313 Yeah but he also started inflation to try and offset the oil shock so he failed. He also introduced HMOs, also a failure. Besides we have committees on oversight and waste. If you want less of it, hand more power to Federal officials. It is also unfair, congressman rarely waste public money on vacations, they hand govt money to contractors to get vacations. So get rid of the contractors and have it go back to being the FEDERAL govt.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Ha ha! Good question. We are the most incompetent exploitative imperialists ever!
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 I think all of this hate thrown my way started by my post about solar power. Scroll back and check it out. I think solar and wind is a good thing but you don't so you go into republican attack mode. Drill baby drill!! So will99313 shine your petroleum fed flashlight on my liberal cock and blow me!!!! Often...repeatedly...and frequently!!!!!!!! I will leave this topic about Carter and move on. It's 2012 get a live.
radarlove007 9 months ago
@will99313 Will you seem to be very unhappy with yourself. Are you gay and in the closet? It's 2012 you can come out now. Your pissed at everybody and everything. I'm sorry your republican party says they hate gays but it seems like half of them are closet gays. You probably take a wide stance in public restrooms like that gay republican senator out your way. So you have a great Memorial Day and try to have a little respect for others even the troops that died while Carter was President.
radarlove007 9 months ago
@will99313 In the depression it made sense. Raise food prices so that farmers have more money, can pay mortgages, the banks get recapitalized without a massive bailout. I never said that wind and solar would meet our needs, fusion could. That is a project that is worth investing mega-billions in.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 I think this was a policy he had right, there simply was and is no alternative. As a result of a refusal to change the way we live in some way, and even demanding that it become cheaper for us, we now have to pay $400 billion just servicing our debt. If we had done what Carter done, trade deficits would still be large but not into the hundreds of billions
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Unfortunately in this day and age that makes you a DFH according to both parties. American conservatism, as it exists now, is a radical movement that aims to fundamentally change the nature of the US. No more protection from abusive bosses, no more safe and regulated drinking water. Any proposal for tax cuts for the rich or even any resistance to a tax raise for them like to 45% is a scheme to defund the govt and leave Americans unprotected.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Will get your Sarah Palin swimsuit pic a jar of vasaline and your republican bumper sticker and go into your bathroom if you have one drink your kool-aid and talk with the idiot in the mirror. I'm finished talking to a brainless retard like YOU who's still pissed at Carter! Get a life, grow a pair, stand up and walk on your hind legs. Quit smoking crack!
radarlove007 9 months ago
@will99313 I know that is what I am saying, so I think people should have the CHOICE to buy into Medicare and Medicaid, instead of private health insurance, and market forces will see who wins. BTW if business complains that this would wipe them out and moves against it, they are manipulating the market and trying to dstry competition, which is far worse than subsidies. Subsidies are more like encouragement, that sort of lobbying destroys innovation
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Farm subsidies can help farmers, and in the United States at least, until the recent global food crisis, depresses the price of food. I for one like cheap food. Chinese goods are subsidized by their Government and that is why they do well. Besides business manipulates the market is far worse ways. It is easier for the market to absorb the subsidies that government gives as government is more transparent. Business often, like with the crash, exagerrates the value of things.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 I must thank you for continuing this discourse, most conservatives immediately fold in and refuse to talk the moment they encounter any resistance. Your willingness to keep talking indicates your commitment to freedom. So I thank you again for it. I too enjoy the back and forth.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 What we had before Reagan was not overegulated. We were unquestionably top of the world, taxes were high but lower than in most other western countries, and our national debt was a lot smaller. Don't see why, with the right legislation and political action, it is possible to return to that. Of course a lot of right wing christian fundamentalists will oppose it.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Part 3: What this means is that in order to get by all we really need to do is have shelter, food, and clothing, nothing else really. So the only "true" economy in that sense is a farm, and since no farm can exist by itself if there exist no profit motive as everyone works in agriculture in a "true" economy, then the result of calling Government a "false" economy is that you have just ended up putting everyone on a collective farm. The only "true" economy is a giant collective farm.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Part 2: So when you think about it either way, according to you it is a false economy because you have to pay them money to conduct services, fees are not so different from taxes in this sense. No taxes no services, no fees no services. Therefore both require money to function, that they themselves cannot raise, so both are, according to you, false economies.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 I would also wish to add that Government is as much a false economy as any private company. If you think about it Government offers services, but not for profit. Companies offer services, but for profit. Either way you have pay them money. Usually less to Government. However that means if you have to pay taxes for Government or fees to companies they would not exist without the demand for services.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Well I apologize, but if you go around attempting to describe yourself as you do above and complain of discrimination, you need to elaborate more on why you think you are beig discriminated against, otherwise you will risk being misinterpreted so you must be accurate and precise. BTW I am a WASP and you bet I would spit on the American flag if it were burning just as I would bleed on those stripes so they stay red.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Eventually but that is because Socialism without private enterprise does not work, and Capitalism, without heavy state regulation does not work. So you have to balance the positive of both, to avoid as much of the negative as you can. I.E. the industrialisation Tsarist Russia experienced in the 1890s 1900s was due to heavy State investment and protectionist measures. Same as everywhere else. I support neither Party, they are practically the same.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Big Government has given me Police, a first class Military, a NatSec setup 2nd to none. It has passed laws and regulations that have kept me safe, it tries (with morons always seeking to subvert it) to regulate the water I drink and the food I eat ensuring quality. So I worry not about the Government. Because I AM AMERICAN. IT IS MY GOVERNMENT. I pay taxes and would be willing to pay more so that it stays there. Government tries harder everyday to help us. So let's help it
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Actually it is not. The Government recovered the economy with the NewDeal and boomed it with WWII. I never said I liked a free market, free markets do make free human beings. Government is a company. The best insurance, investment, whatever you may wish, company in existence. We pay it money for insurance coverage, and it has given us this protection at minimal cost and we never have to worry if we qualify or not, no hesitation, just concern for the well being of people.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 I am detecting someone who is more than a bit of a white supremacist, I suppose "The Turner Diaries" are a classic for you. I do believe in Darwinism but not SocDarwinism as that erodes trust and trust is the true foundation of a successful economy. Have you read Stiglitz? You should. He and I are hardly fringe, it is you who is fringe. If you consider yourself Christian you are none. God will not cast all of those who are non-Christian into the pit of fire. Virtue not faith is key.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Statism is not socialism. Statist policies are people policies. I do want ignorance and unreasonable hatred, which you espouse expunged. Quite frankly you are an embarassment to the United States. Some parts of socialism work. The USSR provided education, homes, central heating, and running water to all its citizens. The Soviet Union made Russia from a backward country more like Africa, into a true European country.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 He worked for the World Bank, not the IMF, and DSK is innocent until proven guilty. Someone who calls hotel security to ask them to go to his room because he left a phone there, and someone, having checked out of his hotel after having ostensibly committed a crime, to have lunch with his daughter is not someone who is acting very guilty.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Washington D.C.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Hardly oil is finite and expensive and is usually only a small component in the manufacture of tires, natural rubber and carbon black playing a much greater role. I don't hate capitalism I hate the Free Market, because it is like a loose carnivorous beast. It needs to be controlled for companies to continue to make serious profits and not engage in predatory, idiotic practices, like steroid banking.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 What on earth are you yammering on about? Carter was trying to protect our way of life and keep us safe and a bunch of idiots said "Nah, we'd rather live on debt and put ourselves at the mercy of foreigners." And how am I anti-male? you have no evidence, and your insistent chauvinism to me indicates someone has some deficiency to compensate for.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 See Joseph Stiglitz "Freefall" the book tells all about the failure of the current system and Thomas Frank's "The Wrecking Crew" In 1965 GNP grew by 6.5% Federal salaries were only 10% less than that of the private sector and on a GS-18 salary a man could afford to send his 4 kids to college without taking out loans, and his wife could stay at home. The share of national wealth the top 1% had was shrinking. Liberalism was succeeding. As to your figure, what do you mean exactly?
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Hyperbolic would work, but hyperbole, as a noun, not an adverb as you have said, works just as well. Since I was born in the United States and hope to die here, I do speak English, a lot of your crude comments indicate you seem to be trying to speak "Amurikan."
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 That is an easy ine to respond to. For a start I drink at most half a quart of beer a week. Second considering the extra expense the Government (which is being savagely defunded by a bunch of morons) undetook to make documents fancier and more intricate, thus harder to forge, it would be extremely expensive to get convincing forgeries, at the very least $500 if not more, which I think is beyond the means of most illegals. For drug traders maybe, for motel maids? Hardly
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Well that is a failing of the private sector if they can only manufacture a tire from oil instead of rubber. I am not on medication but given your incoherent slurred, strained, english. I am wondering if you are not on some sort of hallucinogenic drug and an illegal at the same time. Because you seem to exist in a fantasy world where credit and oil are limitless. No I had never heard of synthetic rubber, but thank you, you provided me with anoter case of private sector incompetence.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 That I find hard to believe and if people are hiring people without proper documentation and Federal field officers have been removed from inspecting roles it is not the Government's fault. Anyway I doubt that farmers respect the minimum wage for hands when they can exploit them. What are illegals going to do? Complain to the Government? Hardly, they would be thrown out.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 I am Anglican and probably more Christian than you. Vietnam and the Great Society had nothing to do with the oil crisis. You are speaking utter nonsense. The economy in the late 70s was in a better position than it was years after that, or in '99 or '08. Median income for American males in their thirties has declined since that period. My system succeeded, yours has failed.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Its true it sets standards, like water cannot be toxic, thus it makes it superior. So companies have to devise products that meet these standards and can still generate profit. Regulation on price gouging and standards means that they cannot cheat, so the water has to be clean, cheap and generate profit. So it is a better product. And government has done great things for me. It has provided me police, education, and transportation. Besides, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. WE THE PEOPLE.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Listen to yourself. You said "If it weren't for you dumbass libs...suing to stop oil drilling off California, just so some stupid fish can survive, while HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS STARVE IN OUR STREETS." If you're starving in the street Will try eating some STUPID FISH and quit drinking the kool-aid!!! If we drilled off of california and the east coast and the hole in your head supply still wouldn't meet demand. I'm out of here it's all yours.
radarlove007 9 months ago
@will99313 Rubber, not plastic you ignoramus! Tires are rubber! Rubber! Which is not an oil product.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 I find those comments offensive and entirely unnecessary. You are crude and if you are private schooled it shows what a rip off it is. Fork it over or there is no more police, CIA, Military, FBI, none of it, if you are an anarchist, say so. But don't you ever dare lecture me on values when your very views aim to undermine society.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 I find your comments erroneous, ignorant and ultimately unpatriotic. I know nothing of SF, and I suspect what I hear is hyperbole, espec since one of my friends is SF liberal, has short hair, does not do drugs and wears a suit all the time. Left wingers are committed to continued renewal, investment and public order? Do you oppose, employment, improvement, and safety?
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Illegals do pay taxes as they know it is a way of not having the authorities on their backs. You want greater enforcement, pay more taxes for more police, otherwise it just ain't happening.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Hey Will. Still burning oil over there in California? Still not interested in wind or solar? You call me a BIGOT. You told me to look it up. I did, it says "A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Sounds like you doesen't it? Still pissed at Carter after all these years. Your stuck on the corner on off oil and insanity trying to catch a ride on the conservative bus so you can run over the first pot smokin hippie you can.
radarlove007 9 months ago
@will99313 Will you're a idiot. A plain and simple idiot with a big blow hole that spews hate. I don't need to reply how stupid you are you seem to be doing a fine job of that on your on. Time will even prove to you that there's a idiot in your mirror looking back at you. All you do is complain. What would you do? Attack Iraq again? Build some Japan style nuclear power plants on a fault line? I say put a windmill in front of your mouth and our energy problem will be solved! Drink your Kool-Aid!
radarlove007 9 months ago
@will99313 Let me tell you a secret, you are shortsighted and ultimately, stupid. So maybe if you want to go live in the Middle Ages AQ wants to help you with that. You two would get along just fine.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 We have not gone solar because no one was willing to spend the money, and both nuclear and oil are finite, you want to protect the American way of life? Fork it over to the Federal Government or you're going back to the Stoneage!
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 We have not gone solar because solar cells are still too inefficient and cost too much. They do not yet make economic sense. Not to mention that you'd have to pave over a middle sized state to begin to meet the energy requirements of the nation (think the environmentalists might have something to say about that?). Solar energy as it stands today only exists because of government subsidies, it is not currently economically viable, unless you'd like to pay 50 cents to $1 per kilowatt hr.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 Solar cells are imperfect yes, I see wind, water and fusion as the main power sources of the future. As for cost, I don't care, I want when I am 60 to be able to switch on the light and for there to be light and there is nothing wrong with Government subsidies for things.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 Unless you are an engineer or a scientist (I am btw) it doesn't much matter what you "see" as the power source of the future. With respect to cost, you need to understand that government subsidies don't appear out of thin air, they are derived from tax dollars. So, if solar or wind energy cost $1/kW*hr you will pay $1/kW*hr one way or the other. I will either come from you directly on your power bill or some of it will come out of your taxes (which will go up).
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 That's where your wrong buddy, unless you have a plan that does not involve going back to the Middle Ages 50 years from now you better keep quiet about what is and is not the correct energy policy. I am perfectly happy to pay more tax to secure my future and I never said a vast solar cell project was the way forward. What exactly do you people have against taxes? When I find a man who does not want to pay tax, or more of it, I find a man who is unworthy of being an American.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 Unless you understand the physics and the economics behind these various alternate energy sources I suggest you keep quite. If we converted to the alternate energy sources you propose tomorrow we would be a lot closer to the Middle Ages than today. You must understand the underlying energy equations for these sources and economic return on investment. It seems obvious to pretty much everyone but I must explain it to you - it does matter what the energy produced from these sources cost.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 I do understand that oil, as it is now, produces more energy. It's finite nature is the problem. We need to have heavy invest in alternate energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal, enough to keep things ticking over if worst comes to worst, and fusion research as a serious alternative. You are wrong, if we do not invest in these projects we will go back to the Middle Ages, and if I were to spread this message, you would find that people would agree with it.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 The government is no magic fairy able to grant wishes. Any money that it spends on your behalf must come from you or your fellow citizens. So, if you want to pay $1/kW*hr I suggest you buy your own solar cells and install them on your roof and not panhandle from your fellow Americans. You certainly do care what energy costs, you just believe that you can get someone else to pay for it. Let be dissuade you from this notion. This has never and will never work in the long term.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 We should all contribute. What the one cannot do the many can. The Government is the many, we as the many give it money so that it may have the capital for projects that individually we could never undertake. And if taxes go up, then I am paying for it, so don't you dare lecture me on what I do and do not think. Again I refer you to the New Deal, the Soviet Union, and even the economic miracle of South Korea.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 We should all contribute to the extent we desire as free citizens in a free country. No one should be compelled to "contribute" against their will for spending beyond the basic functions of government as outlined in the Constitution.
The Soviet Union? Really? The Soviet Union was an economic basket case for most of it's existence. As for the miracle of South Korea, that was capitalism not collectivism.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 Yes the USSR. It did a damn sight better than Tsarist Russia and gave people a standard of development that most 3rd world countries would have and still would welcome. Moscow, St. Petersburg, all those railroads, Kiev, are Soviet cities, they would not be as they are without the Soviet Union. South Kora was State Capitalism, read Jasper Becker and Ha Joon Chang. And since the Constitution has the Government to ensure the General welfare SocSec, DoL, DoEdu, are all constitutional.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 I will lecture you because you don't just want to contribute your money (which I would have no issue with), but mine and my fellow citizens as well. How dare you. You lack the honor of the everyday thief. The thief at least risk life and limb when he breaks into a home. You want to get the government to take money from "other people" for your benefit. How gutless. If you want to pick my pocket at least do it honestly and do it in person.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 I have every right to demand it. I demand that everyone pay more tax so that we can invest in projects which will bring jobs, provide economic security and secure our future. This is the tired old Libertarian argument of Goverment as a racket. The truth is, Mr. I took this idea from Grover Norquist, is that Government is instituted because it is the most effective form of an insurance company ever conceived. Not surprisingly things are bad for you if you are not insured. I can go on
Meade556 9 months ago
@cartman1492 Furthermore, even if you are a scientist you wish to defund your own interests so you are not very good at your job obviously, especially since as you say money grows on trees? So what is the next energy source? Without research money it will come to nothing.
Meade556 9 months ago
@will99313 Garish and unneccessary, besides our country got way more screwed up under the watch of the GOP.
Meade556 9 months ago
God what a pussy. No wonder we kicked him to the curb as soon as possible.
Import quotas, yeah that will reduce waiting lines for gasoline. Has there ever been a President as economically illiterate as Jimmy Carter?
Jeeze, the way he's pumping that fist looks like he needs to be doing that in private. Probably the thought of establishing the command and control economy that he's proposing got him stimulated.
cartman1492 11 months ago
@cartman1492 The Truth hearts doesnt it ? Jimmy Carter was an honest man unlike Ronald Reagan who was a Coporate Whore.
777Atheist 11 months ago 3
@777Atheist An honest man? A man that carried empty suitcases off of Air Force One in order to convince the American people that he was a "common man"? Carter was a horrible president. He had the leadership skill of a turnip.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 You are a disgrace to the character of Cartman. He was asking us to sacrifice. He was saying that if we accepted, for a time, some inconveniences, we would not be dependent on foreigners. He knew it would cause discomfort. Btw command economies sometimes work. China today, the United States during WWII. I suppose you like having foreigners lord it over the US, do you? That's what ignoring Jimmy Carter brought us, an incompetent and overpaid economic elite and foreigners sponging.
Meade556 10 months ago
@Meade556 Actually he was blaming the American people for inflation when it was the government's fault. Jimmy's grasp of economics was so poor he thought that inflation was caused by "too much consumption" when is always and in every case the result of fiscal and monetary policy. No amount of "sacrifice" will undo inflation when it is the result of the Fed putting too much liquidity into the market and the Federal government spending too much. You guys need to read up on economics.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 He was not saying that. He was saying the oil crisis and its grave effects were part of the American penchant for making the world accomodate America, and America not being self sufficient. Inflation was started under a Republican, continued under a Republican, and liquidity from the Fed is not a problem. Would Steel manufacturers ever complain that iron ore is too cheap? Federal Government spending, is also not a problem. It is you who needs to study economics and Cartman.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 The oil crisis was a fiction. America imported almost exactly the same amount of foreign oil during the Arab Oil embargoes as the preceding years. Oil is a fungible commodity. Arab oil not sold to the U.S. went to Europe and oil that had previously gone to Europe went to the U.S.. It was nothing but a shuffling of the cards. The "energy crisis" was purely the product of price controls imposed by the government, which promptly evaporated when those price controls were removed.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 70% of oil consumed in the US is foreign. If we import the same amount, the dependance has only increased. You demonstrate consistent ignorance of history and economics. The oil shock was a result of the Yom Kippur war and Arab countries restricting oil flow as a result of the war. The energy crisis was a reflection of American dependance on foreign oil. Carter hated this, genuinely as it restricted the ability for unilateral action. How do you like being tugged about by Riyadh?
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 Once again your data is wrong. You need to get a better source or stop making it up. About 62% of oil used in this country is imported. 20% of that comes from Canada and about 10% from Mexico.
If Carter really hated imported oil, he should have removed price controls on crude oil. The only way to convince U.S. producers to drill for oil in the U.S. is to allow them to charge more for it, since production costs are higher here. Secondly, you need to relax the more ridiculous EPA rules.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@Meade556 You really do demonstrate a complete lack of economic understanding. Inflation started under Nixon, accelerated under Cater, and was brought under control under Reagan.
Federal overspending certainly is a problem as invariably it leads to "quantitative easing" which is nothing more that the creation of new dollars out of thin air. This leads to inflation which is in essence an undeclared tax, and a flat tax at that. Something that a proponent of a progressive tax should abhor.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 Okay now let's start from this proposition shall we. Quantitative easing would not be a problem if the Fed raised those funds by taxing the rich. Deficit spending I should add is something that Republicans and right wingers are masters at. They do it because they want to force the Government into a crisis. Well done you got what you wanted. Because of ideological stupidity, the dollar could lose its status as a reserve currency.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 Ah, the redistributionist raises his ugly head. Fine, *double* the tax on the rich tomorrow, you will only make about a $400B dent in our current $1.6T annual deficit. The problem is spending, not revenue. Also, keep in mind that if some of those "rich" you raise taxes on are corporations, they will simply pass on these taxes as operating costs to consumers. You are looking for a free lunch. It does not exist. You want government benefits but you want someone else to pay.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 No if Federal income tax, is 10% for the bottom 99% and I know even then that there are a lot more increments, but lets keep it simple, that is easily $1.05 trillion and if income tax were 50% for the top 1% that is $1.75 trillion, already you have near $0.7 more than expected receipts for this year. Also you could just put all those contractors on GS and be rid of the Afghan war, there I just saved you more than $400 billion. And I have not even taxed corporate profits.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 Funny, you lament that the dollar is loosing it's status as a reserve currency, and yet the quantitative easing which you applaud is exactly the thing responsible for it. It's easy to understand. If you create new dollars out of thin air, all dollars become worth less (simple supply and demand). You can not get around this by taxing the rich. So the fiscal policy of this administration is responsible for that which you deplore. You keep looking for free lunches. They are not there.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 I never said I supported QE, and you can get it by taxing the rich. In 1965 Fed income tax for the top 1% was more than 70%, the GNP grew by 6.5% that year. It's the rich who don't want to fund the free lunches when they are the ones who caused the recession (read depression). Besides why should QE, go to the Banks instead of to those who are in debt? Bailouts should have gone to Main Street, not Wall Street.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 Yes, indeed the top marginal rate in 1965 was north of 70%, but because of a byzantine tax code with many deductions no one was paying that rate. What matters is effective tax rate (after deductions), not top marginal rate. When Congress and Reagan simplified the tax code in the 80's and lowered the marginal rates but removed most deductions, the wealthy on average pay more in taxes than under the prior system, this was more than offset however by increased economic activity.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 You'd better provide sources for that. I do not believe it, from the simple fact that loopholes have been opend and tax cuts given. Also an economist, David Stockman, did the math and found it to be untrue. So cutting taxes is just upward redistribution of wealth it does nothing for the Government and the country other than create problems. Government will invest, not the private sector.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 The thing you need to face is that the wealthy are not some piggy bank you can raid without cost. We already have a very progressive income tax. The top 5% of incomes pay 58.72% of income taxes. The bottom 50% of incomes pay 2.7% of income taxes. Also, there is a maximum about the Federal government can tax from the economy without causing widespread damage. In times of peace, the government had never been able to extract more than 18~19% of GDP. We're at 15~16% now.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 You're wrong. The top 1% have 25% of the GDP and only have a 34.1% income tax rate. Besides they put a lot of money in their savings so more taxation, especially for people like Glenn Beck would make very little difference. The money, as well as the cost cutting I described can be used to finance Infrastructure and Science projects. Another thing everyone should be able to buy into Medicare and Medicaid.
Meade556 9 months ago
Blather. Cliches and boilerplate. One of the three worst presidents.
gfrog2000 11 months ago 2
Now The.Second.Worst
JackSheet69 11 months ago 2
@JackSheet69 He admitted in this, he had been unsuccesful, but for a time here he was a prophet, a man with vision. What he did took courage, and events have proved him right. He realized dependence on foreigners was unacceptable if the USA was to be free from interference and be master of its own destiny.
Meade556 9 months ago
What a douchebag.
rklight33 11 months ago 2
@rklight33 He was a good man, an unsuccessful president, but events have proved him right. Had we listened we would have greater economic security and more people would have jobs. Basic economics.
Meade556 9 months ago
makes my skin crawl
MrRofeliak 11 months ago 2
The. Worst.
CaminoAjo 11 months ago 3
Must...make...convincing....hand gestures!
Marbleshade 11 months ago 8
Good Lord, I can't believe we actually elected this fucktard. Although, you'll notice, we unelected him as soon as we could. Whiny little redneck.
scottpcook 11 months ago
@scottpcook I refer you to the fact that Reagan was ultimately a disaster, precipitated two recessions and left America with a legacy of debt, involvement in the Middle East and an intolerable dependance on foreign creditors with interests adverse to our own.
Meade556 9 months ago
It feels weird to take jimmy carter out of the rubbish bin of history, and really examine how he got there.
1xirsx1 11 months ago
Use more coal! ... you heard it here, from a Leftie. I wonder if Gore might disagree with Carter.
eheino99 1 year ago
@eheino99 Only as a temporary expedient, and another thing, we can burn oil we need it for other things, like medical uses, plastics, and other functions. It is too precious to be wasted feeding our energy needs.
Meade556 9 months ago
Sometimes a liberal does have a decent idea and can tell the truth
daprez45 1 year ago
Bold Speech.
zrhump 1 year ago
@will99313 Will you sound like Glen Beck. HE LIKES TO SHOUT TOO! THE ONE WHO TALKS THE LOUDEST IS RIGHT, RIGHT? To answer your question about why haven't we gone solar is because BIG OIL HAS BOUGHT OUT OUR GOVERNMENT! WE HAVE A BUNCH OF BOUGHT OUT WHORE'S IN WASHINGTON! Look around the world FOOL. Even the middle east who's floating on oil is going SOLAR, WIND POWER and NATURAL GAS you FAILED PROPAGANDA SPEWING FOOL!
radarlove007 1 year ago
Carter put up solar cells on the White House. He wanted 20% of our power to be solar by 2000. When Regan took office one of his first acts was to take them down! We send a billion a day to the terrorist in the middle east for oil.
radarlove007 1 year ago
Imagine where we would be if reagan wasnt such a dumbass or better yet if we had a second term. We would have sugar ethanol like the brazillians right now.
Maxpound 1 year ago
@Maxpound reagan was a puppet just like every prez since jfk. bush ran the white house bro.
mcapps1 1 year ago
Wow! In parts 1-2, he spews a lot of empty rhetoric, and then in part 3, and I'll guess the next part, too, out comes the Statist. I'll have government tell the businesses of private citizens what they will do. I'll raise taxes, although people are in huge gas lines right now and jobs are at an all-time low as they will be until the 2000's...
DarthVil 1 year ago
@DarthVil Yeah, but Government money spent on the projects he describes, would put people into jobs and get them out of long gas lines. The New Deal and economic expansion during WWII were successful, and they were Statist spates of Government spending.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 The New Deal was not successful. The Great Depression raged on for almost a decade after Roosevelt took office. It was only ended by the beginning of WWII. Government money spent on projects can give people jobs. Indeed the government could hire 100,000 people to dig holes and hire another 100,000 to fill them up, but it would not increase prosperity. And if you're arguing for another World War as a means of economic expansion feel free, but do keep in mind all that was destroyed.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 The years 1933-1937 were years of recovery, there was a recession in 1938-39, but employment then stood at 92.5%, versus 75% when Roosevelt had gotten into office. The Government built things in those years, brining hydroelectric power to Tennessee, with the TVA, it built new rail lines, it gave tractors to farmers and prevented foreclosures and all the destruction in WWII happened in Europe. All growth in that period was due to the Government, as it, not industry spent the money.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 Roosevelt took office in 1932. Unemployment in 1932 was roughly 15%. Unemployment peaked five years later in 1937 at 28%. By 1940, unemployment had come back down to where it was when Roosevelt took office in 1932 at 15%, but due to the New Deal the Federal debt had ballooned from 20% of GDP to 40% of GDP. So, after 8 years of Roosevelt unemployment was where it started but the Federal debt had doubled. Do you call that a success?
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 Moron, that is clearly not true and the study you refer to is bogus and misses out facts whicha re inconvenient to it. 28% unemployment discounts people employed as a result of New Deal projects or the New Deal and assumes a grossly overoptimistic growth rate. Laissez faire wiped out more than 30% of the National wealth. The New Deal restored that lost wealth. Yes, yes I do call that a success.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 Ah, name calling. Quaint. Actually I misread data off the graph. 1937 unemployment was 19% counting New Deal projects as employment. Apologies for the error.
Laissez faire did not cause the depression, the Fed did by contracting the money supply early on. Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize in econ for his paper "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960" which proved the Feds fault in the matter. It's a great though long paper, I suggest you give it a read.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 Quaint it may be, but it is true and your figures are simply wrong. NRA created 2 million jobs alone. Government employment also created jobs, teachers salaries were restored. Next thing I know you'll be saying this recession was caused by the Fed making money too cheap. I do not like Andrew Mellon and LF caused the Depression as it created a bubble, that due to LF was not regulated. So I suggest you do some serious soul searching. P.S. Read William E. Leuchtenburg.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 If, by largely successful, you mean that he extended the depression by 7 years, then yes, he was very successful. The New Deal did nothing to help us in the long term and has made people dependent upon government. Where it has been successful is in removing the spirit of independence from Americans and in turning us into a people dependent upon the "generosity" of government.
Government is not necessary for putting people to work, nor is government interference compatible with freedom.
DarthVil 9 months ago
@DarthVil He did not extend the Depression, he shortened it. You are speaking utter nonsene. The Government stepped in because it was clear business lacked competence and people were put back into work building roads, residences, town halls, and railroads. Corporations are far more dependent on the "welfare" of Uncle than anyone on SocSec, $150 a week, vs multi-billion contracts? Are you talking about regulation? DoD had fewer problems with equipment during WWII, when regulators were everywhere.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 You cannot end a period of economic mass-debt and ruin by spending money. The government stepped in, but the things that they did to help actually caused more harm. The expense of New Deal programmes was such that without them, unemployment would have been around 6.7%, instead of 17.2%. Implementation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 led to the widespread destruction of farm animals and the leaving of food to rot. It is WW2, not the New Deal, that got us out of the Depression
DarthVil 9 months ago
@DarthVil Yeah you can. This is an economic philosophy which assumes that any growth resulting from Government spending it is false and bogus. This is utter nonsense. Growth is growth. Government induced or otherwise. The study you base your figures does not count people employed by New Deal projects or as a result of the growth the New Deal generated. AAA was done to raise farming prices so farmers could pay off their debts, and since this recapitalized banks it worked. WW2 boomed ND recovered.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 You can ignore basic math all that you want, but spending when one is in debt does not foster prosperity. Government runs nothing efficiently, nor without creating a needless amount of bureaucracy, going well beyond necessary, minimal oversight, and into obscene proportions. The result is less efficient than can be provided by the private sector, and with the added "benefit" of making people dependent upon future government aid, rather than just being the hand up that is intended.
DarthVil 9 months ago
@DarthVil This is a tired Libertarian argument. Outsourcing has made things more expensive and less efficient, Government runs plenty of things efficiently when the Civil Service is given great autonomy, and has more oversight than contractors. Regulation encourages innovation by its very nature. 2 million Civil Servants vs 7.2 million contractors. Who needs a pay cut? Who needs to be streamlined?
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 When did I suggest outsourcing? There are a lot of practices that businesses do, with which I disagree. The fact of the matter, and as a business owner several times over, I certainly know what I'm talking about, a HUGE part of why there is so much outsourcing is because of government interference.
Neither have I said, or have most Libertarians said, that there should be NO regulation. What we believe in is MINIMAL regulation. Too much regulation is problematic.
DarthVil 9 months ago
@DarthVil That's not true. Government operations are outsourced because unimaginative businessman want to loot the Treasury. Government employees are more competent, do not cut corners, and still cost less than private buffoons. As for regulation, minimal regulation can be qualified. I would say there is too little regulation. I refer you to 1945-1975, lots of regulation but lots of growth, because regulation sets high standards and encourages the production of superior products.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 - Also, pardon slow responses. I am about to go on a trip for work, for a couple of weeks.
DarthVil 9 months ago
@DarthVil No problem. Just please read this book, I guarantee it will stop you being Libertarian Thomas Frank's "The Wrecking Crew" it is very well footnoted, and well written. If you are interested in efficiency, you will realize that next to nothing that has been done was about efficiency, it was about looting the national budget. The New Deal had problems but it put millions back into work and the Government suceeded where business failed. Just look at the GDP in 1932, then 1939.
Meade556 9 months ago
One of the guys he fired must have been his speech writer..
XenovannHellwolf 1 year ago
@XenovannHellwolf This is a good speech
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 Right, it was such a good speech that it was widely attributed at the time as being one of the main reasons Carter lost in a landslide. Great speech.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 Um 50.8% of the vote for Reagan vs 49.2% for Carter, no victory, but not a landslide. The speech actually increased his approval ratings to 45%, again not to more than 50%, but for many it struck the right chord. He told us we can learn to live within our means and be free from dependance, or we can try and make the world accomodate us, we chose the latter and we have failed utterly.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 I refer you to the 1980 electoral map. Check daytodaypolitics for the picture. Carter won Georgia, West Virgina, Maryland, Minnesota, and Hawaii. Reagan won the other 45 states. Popular vote breakdown was as follows: Reagan 50.7%, Carter 41%, and John Anderson 6.6%. Reagan garnered 90.9% of the electoral college and beat Carter by almost 10 points in the popular vote. By the standards of a Presidential election, that is a landslide. Your data is wrong.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 Electoral college is bogus, I count how many people voted for him personally, not how many delegates he got. I am a democrat. small d.
Meade556 9 months ago
@Meade556 I gave you the numbers for electoral and popular vote. You don't like the electoral college then look at the popular vote. Reagan beat Cater by almost 10 points. The results were: Reagan 50.7%, Carter 41%, and John Anderson 6.6%. That's a landslide by anyone's definition. Reagan beat Carter worse than Obama beat McCain, much worse than Clinton beat Bush, and even a little worse than Clinton beat Dole. Of course, it wasn't quite the 18 point tsunami that Reagan beat Mondale by in 1984.
cartman1492 9 months ago
@cartman1492 Well, as I said, the speech made him more popular, he lost, we know that, and Libertarianism was a fad. Anyway Reagan was a disaster. Read Andrew Bacevich. Btw Bacevich says that we consume 60% and rising foreign oil, so you were right. Read "Limits of Power" I used to be like you, but this book shook my faith decisively. Bacevich, who also used to be like you, is sympathetic to Carter. Read him, he is no left winger and neither am I.
Meade556 9 months ago
"...by the year 2000."
HAHAHAHAHAHA
hmoob7 1 year ago
B Hussein O Senior.
What an f'n looser....till this day an f'n looser, national hemorhoid
Lysy2 1 year ago
@Lysy2 You guys gotta come up with some new nicknames, it's really sad - It's getting to the point I can't even understand who you're talking about now.
cindermaker 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Carter - the terorists' best friend. Today, Carter travels around the world and supports terrorists. It's a shame that this man was once a president.
youvalss 1 year ago
@youvalss It's a shame the american people elected an ACTOR who was a puppet for big business... aka REAGAN
mattd00d82 1 year ago 4
6.15 does someone knows about what he is talking about ????????
georgel19841 1 year ago
This speech truly marked a crossroads in modern history.
Findiglay 1 year ago 2
Everyone shits on Carter but he meant well.
ninaaddave 1 year ago 2
6:41 the year 2000
bigbeergutbillybob 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
he says "by the year 2000" 6:41
bigbeergutbillybob 1 year ago
Comment removed
bigbeergutbillybob 1 year ago
Wow I didn't think world leaders actually talked like this outside of post-apocalyptic utopian fantasy novels. Unfortunately, Americans seem to have short memories...
patuw 1 year ago 5
@patuw The truth hurts, that's why Reagan was elected.
elpoo 1 year ago
@ChristophInns
Germany and Japan both use less than half the oil per person that the USA uses. Getting the USA to those levels would be a pretty good first step and hardly involves the kind of sacrifice you describe. Let's face it, this is about attitudes and willpower and American self-gratification, not issues of true trade-offs and sacrifice. That's what Carter was talking about - "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption".
stax2020 1 year ago 3
if he wasn't ignored:
no iraq war (either)
no 9/11 attacks
energy independence
1995e34 1 year ago
@1995e34 Although Carter seemed to be recanting at the end of his term, he and Reagan are indirectly responsible for 9-11. They initiated and placed US bases in the Middle East that led to the first Iraq War. Carter set up "Rapid Deployment Force" to ensure that Arab dictators supported by Washington would have American military backup in the event a democratic movement overthrew them. This led to much American violence in the region (Lebanon War and first gulf war)--reasons B.Laden attacked
caisediab 1 year ago
@caisediab true, but BL was a psychopath and might have done it with or without provocation, but considering the amount of money we spend catching him have brought high speed rail to the Entire East Coast, I wish we had spent it on that.
Meade556 9 months ago
Everything he said here we ignored. We preferred a warm smiling grandpa a year later who said, "It's morning in America!" and "We're a shining city on a hill!" So we swept our problems under the rug and borrowed our way to high living. And now the grandpa's dead (after a long bout with senility) and we're stuck with his bill. Enjoy writing the checks, kids!
jgrab1 1 year ago 3
The last president without strings attached to him. The moment Reagan reached the office, America was sold to the oligarchs.
Bavanai 1 year ago 5
@Bavanai What? What oligarchs?
paulsviplist 1 year ago
these are the same issues we are facing today, what a joke honestly 30 years of conservative control has brought us nowhere thanks a lot Reagan, we need to stop ignoring problems and face them
TrueNegro 1 year ago 2
Can you imagine had we actually DONE what Carter said? Can you imagine what kind of economic security Carter is talking about here?
"20% of energy made from the sun by the year 2000." Did not happen.
itpduder 1 year ago
@itpduder It was much better than Reagan of course who told American's that they were "energy rich" (forgetting to tell then that this wealth would only last for another 30 years). But the sacrifices that would have been required to make America truly energy sustainable - vaster than can be imagined.
ChristophInns 1 year ago 2
@ChristophInns Well, I don't think you conserve your way out of scarcity. You explore other options to overcome the problem of scarcity. The trouble is, we stuck with fossil fuels. While we still have a lot of coal, we didn't develop nuclear power, particularly thorium-based nuclear energy. We didn't have a major push for solar. It's put us over a barrel.
itpduder 1 year ago
@itpduder Actually the changes I think that would have been necessary for energy sustainable would have involved:
* stopping economic growth
* stopping population growth
* pushing the standard of living back several decades and holding it there
Human beings simply aren't capable of that.
ChristophInns 1 year ago
@ChristophInns
Germany and Japan both use less than half the oil per person that the USA uses. Getting the USA to those levels would be a pretty good first step and hardly involves the kind of sacrifice you describe. Let's face it, this is about attitudes and willpower and American self-gratification, not issues of true trade-offs and sacrifice. That's what Carter was talking about - "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption".
stax2020 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristophInns
Germany and Japan both use less than half the oil per person that the USA uses. Getting the USA to those levels would be a pretty good first step and hardly involves the kind of sacrifice you describe. Let's face it, this is about attitudes and willpower and American self-gratification, not issues of true trade-offs and sacrifice. That's what Carter was talking about - "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption".
stax2020 1 year ago