Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email [email protected]

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

Jimmy Carter's ghost stalks Obama White House

Re: Jimmy Carter's ghost stalks Obama White House

  • DH and I have been saying this for awhile.  I believe our only hope is to reincarnate Reagan for 2016!  lol
  • And if the threats weren't taken seriously then who would be to blame.  Come on, go ahead.  Don't be afraid just shout it out.


  • And if the threats weren't taken seriously then who would be to blame.  Come on, go ahead.  Don't be afraid just shout it out.


    LOL - That's the only thing you took away from the article?
    Hell, a conspiracy theorist could argue there were no terrorist threats at all.  Simply a government plot to justify the NSA.
  • Reagan was a far worse president than Carter ever was.

    Repeating over and over again Reagan=good, Carter=bad doesn't make it any more true.
    image
    lasposa425LuckyDadmissymochelljqueen
  • CnonCnon member
    10 Comments
    Reagan was a far worse president than Carter ever was.


    How so?

    Cnon
    Take back the Senate in 2014
  • Cnon said:
    Reagan was a far worse president than Carter ever was.


    How so?

    Cnon
    Illegally selling arms to Iran and funneling that money to the Nicaraguan Contras, spending billions of dollars to fund Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban, not increasing, not doubling, but actually TRIPLING the national debt in 8 years, completely disregarding and ignoring AIDS - not even saying the WORD until his presidency was almost over, and in doing so, many years of research was lost and many people died, the totally failed amnesty to illegal immigrants, vetoing legislation that would have limited the amount of commercials in children's TV shows (opening the door to tons of ads for sugary cereals....not a coincidence that the obesity epidemic began not long thereafter), deregulating the financial industry and basically setting up the financial crisis we just had (not to mention the S&L fiasco), the completely ridiculous and wasteful invasion of Granada, the completely pointless invasion of Lebanon and the lives lost therein.

    That's just to start with. I can go on if you'd like.
    image
    bella&babylasposa425LexiLupinkyrgyzstan
  • CnonCnon member
    10 Comments
    edited August 2013
    But aside from the debt, he had some good economic ideas.


    Cnon
    Take back the Senate in 2014
  • Cnon said:
    Reagan was a far worse president than Carter ever was.


    How so?

    Cnon
    Illegally selling arms to Iran and funneling that money to the Nicaraguan Contras, spending billions of dollars to fund Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban, not increasing, not doubling, but actually TRIPLING the national debt in 8 years, completely disregarding and ignoring AIDS - not even saying the WORD until his presidency was almost over, and in doing so, many years of research was lost and many people died, the totally failed amnesty to illegal immigrants, vetoing legislation that would have limited the amount of commercials in children's TV shows (opening the door to tons of ads for sugary cereals....not a coincidence that the obesity epidemic began not long thereafter), deregulating the financial industry and basically setting up the financial crisis we just had (not to mention the S&L fiasco), the completely ridiculous and wasteful invasion of Granada, the completely pointless invasion of Lebanon and the lives lost therein.

    That's just to start with. I can go on if you'd like.
    President Reagan, rescued the United States from the inflation and economic recession of the Carter years. By bluffing the Soviet Union into believing we had a "Starwars" antimissile shield, we won the cold war which lead to the freedom of eastern Europe and Russia. Reagan restored pride in the country and through "Reaganomics" lead this country in a period of unequalled economic growth.
    Carter, gave away the Panama Canal, allowed foreign immigrants who never paid into Social Security to receive benefits. (Leading to the near collapse of the system). Carter started the Community Reinvestment Act which essentially forced mortgage companies to loan money to people who could not afford nor qualify for a mortgage. (This partly why we have the problems we have today). Carter established the Department of Energy which costs us billions to get us off of foreign oil, a total failure. To improve schools he grew the government by establishing the Department of Education which costs us billions and once again a miserable failure.

    Also, I find it amusing you are all up in arms with Reagan increasing the national debt.  Where is your outrage about Obama's increase of the national debt?  Hell, at least 16 million jobs were created during the Reagan administration.
  • CnonCnon member
    10 Comments
    Cnon said:
    Reagan was a far worse president than Carter ever was.


    How so?

    Cnon
    Illegally selling arms to Iran and funneling that money to the Nicaraguan Contras, spending billions of dollars to fund Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban, not increasing, not doubling, but actually TRIPLING the national debt in 8 years, completely disregarding and ignoring AIDS - not even saying the WORD until his presidency was almost over, and in doing so, many years of research was lost and many people died, the totally failed amnesty to illegal immigrants, vetoing legislation that would have limited the amount of commercials in children's TV shows (opening the door to tons of ads for sugary cereals....not a coincidence that the obesity epidemic began not long thereafter), deregulating the financial industry and basically setting up the financial crisis we just had (not to mention the S&L fiasco), the completely ridiculous and wasteful invasion of Granada, the completely pointless invasion of Lebanon and the lives lost therein.

    That's just to start with. I can go on if you'd like.
    President Reagan, rescued the United States from the inflation and economic recession of the Carter years. By bluffing the Soviet Union into believing we had a "Starwars" antimissile shield, we won the cold war which lead to the freedom of eastern Europe and Russia. Reagan restored pride in the country and through "Reaganomics" lead this country in a period of unequalled economic growth.
    Carter, gave away the Panama Canal, allowed foreign immigrants who never paid into Social Security to receive benefits. (Leading to the near collapse of the system). Carter started the Community Reinvestment Act which essentially forced mortgage companies to loan money to people who could not afford nor qualify for a mortgage. (This partly why we have the problems we have today). Carter established the Department of Energy which costs us billions to get us off of foreign oil, a total failure. To improve schools he grew the government by establishing the Department of Education which costs us billions and once again a miserable failure.

    Also, I find it amusing you are all up in arms with Reagan increasing the national debt.  Where is your outrage about Obama's increase of the national debt?  Hell, at least 16 million jobs were created during the Reagan administration.


    ITA with everything above..................Long live cincychick35


    Cnon
    Take back the Senate in 2014
  • Jimmy Carter is still alive.

    Not that FOX News ever let facts get in the way of a headline.
    -My son was born in April 2012. He pretty much rules. -This might be the one place on the internet where it's feasible someone would pretend to be an Adult Man.
    lasposa425LexiLupin
  • This article pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/reagan_optimism_prevented_acti.html

    Carter was real about the energy crisis. Reagan refused to acknowledge there was such a crisis. In general, what irks me most about reaganomics is this notion that government is the enemy because it gets in the way. Government is not the enemy (it's also not the be all end all of solutions) but it is a necessary piece of the puzzle. Private enterprises only go so far. Just ask victims of Sandy or Katrina.
    Lilypie First Birthday tickers Lilypie Third Birthday tickers Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers
  • Ps Many have cited Reagan as a bloody president, with the pointless invasions and bloodshed he helmed. Nothing says laissez faire like invading another country for no real reason.
    Lilypie First Birthday tickers Lilypie Third Birthday tickers Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers
  • This article pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/reagan_optimism_prevented_acti.html Carter was real about the energy crisis. Reagan refused to acknowledge there was such a crisis. In general, what irks me most about reaganomics is this notion that government is the enemy because it gets in the way. Government is not the enemy (it's also not the be all end all of solutions) but it is a necessary piece of the puzzle. Private enterprises only go so far. Just ask victims of Sandy or Katrina.
    I agree with you about the Oil Crisis. Jimmy Carter began a phased deregulation of oil prices (instituted by Nixon). Deregulating domestic oil price controls allowed domestic U.S. oil output to rise.  Only wish domestic oil production could rise again!
  • Cnon said:
    Reagan was a far worse president than Carter ever was.


    How so?

    Cnon
    Illegally selling arms to Iran and funneling that money to the Nicaraguan Contras, spending billions of dollars to fund Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban, not increasing, not doubling, but actually TRIPLING the national debt in 8 years, completely disregarding and ignoring AIDS - not even saying the WORD until his presidency was almost over, and in doing so, many years of research was lost and many people died, the totally failed amnesty to illegal immigrants, vetoing legislation that would have limited the amount of commercials in children's TV shows (opening the door to tons of ads for sugary cereals....not a coincidence that the obesity epidemic began not long thereafter), deregulating the financial industry and basically setting up the financial crisis we just had (not to mention the S&L fiasco), the completely ridiculous and wasteful invasion of Granada, the completely pointless invasion of Lebanon and the lives lost therein.

    That's just to start with. I can go on if you'd like.
    President Reagan, rescued the United States from the inflation and economic recession of the Carter years. By bluffing the Soviet Union into believing we had a "Starwars" antimissile shield, we won the cold war which lead to the freedom of eastern Europe and Russia. Reagan restored pride in the country and through "Reaganomics" lead this country in a period of unequalled economic growth.
    Carter, gave away the Panama Canal, allowed foreign immigrants who never paid into Social Security to receive benefits. (Leading to the near collapse of the system). Carter started the Community Reinvestment Act which essentially forced mortgage companies to loan money to people who could not afford nor qualify for a mortgage. (This partly why we have the problems we have today).

    Let me address the second bolded point first:  Bullshit.  I am so sick of this piece of crap talking point that Republicans love to regurgitate.  The CRA has no provisions whatsoever to force companies to loan money to anyone and it specifically DISCOURAGES lending practices that aren't safe or sound.

    You know why mortgage lenders like to lend to people who can't afford it?  Because they charge them a higher interest and make more money - and so did the Wall Street bond sellers who were begging for even more bundled junk mortgages because they paid higher interest..  NONE of this arose from the CRA, it arose from good old fashioned greed, and most of it came from companies like Countrywide, not CRA banks.

    The CRA mandates no penalties for non compliance.  So how is it forcing anyone to do anything?  Moreover, reviews have shown that a lot of sub prime loans should have never been subprime at all - they were written for people who qualified for conventional terms but minorities were more often automatically pushed to subprime products, so unfortunately the CRA wasn't completely successful in eliminating discrimination in lending although it went a long way towards ending redlining. 

    Yeah, I'm going to cite Wiki, but it's getting really late and it's just too darn convenient.  "In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][128] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[130] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[131] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[132]"

    As to Reagan "bluffing" about Star Wars, that's neat revisionism.  You were probably in diapers then, but I was in college.  Reagan wasn't bluffing, he really, really wanted and believed in SDI.  So much so, that he offered to give it to Gorbachev so that there wouldn't be an imbalance.  So how is that winning the Cold War?  What really sucks about the revisionism is that we lose the real lessons of how the Cold War was lost and it's really important to remember.  The Soviet Union spread itself too thin, with a long war in Afghanistan, trying to quell revolts in various places and spending billions they didn't have on arms while the bread shelves were empty and people got fed up.  So yeah, that lesson, I'm not sure whether Reagan understood it or not.  Maybe he did, because we never got in a war, but he sure seemed to be spoiling for one, and he sure believed no amount was too great to spend on defense - while vilifying the fictional welfare queen repeatedly in his speeches.  I never considered him a unifying force, it was always very much "us vs them" with him.  You simply cannot defend Iran Contra, probably the worst criminal act of any president ever, except the Gulf of Tonkin lie.  And quite honestly, he was quite senile for much of his second term.  Read Lou Cannon's book on Reagan; good Lord, either the man was a really good liar or he had no idea whatsoever what was going on all around him.

     

     

     


     

    lasposa425
  • Let me address the second bolded point first:  Bullshit.  I am so sick of this piece of crap talking point that Republicans love to regurgitate.  The CRA has no provisions whatsoever to force companies to loan money to anyone and it specifically DISCOURAGES lending practices that aren't safe or sound.

    You know why mortgage lenders like to lend to people who can't afford it?  Because they charge them a higher interest and make more money - and so did the Wall Street bond sellers who were begging for even more bundled junk mortgages because they paid higher interest..  NONE of this arose from the CRA, it arose from good old fashioned greed, and most of it came from companies like Countrywide, not CRA banks.

    The CRA mandates no penalties for non compliance.  So how is it forcing anyone to do anything?  Moreover, reviews have shown that a lot of sub prime loans should have never been subprime at all - they were written for people who qualified for conventional terms but minorities were more often automatically pushed to subprime products, so unfortunately the CRA wasn't completely successful in eliminating discrimination in lending although it went a long way towards ending redlining. 

    Yeah, I'm going to cite Wiki, but it's getting really late and it's just too darn convenient.  "In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][128] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[130] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[131] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[132]"

    As to Reagan "bluffing" about Star Wars, that's neat revisionism.  You were probably in diapers then, but I was in college.  Reagan wasn't bluffing, he really, really wanted and believed in SDI.  So much so, that he offered to give it to Gorbachev so that there wouldn't be an imbalance.  So how is that winning the Cold War?  What really sucks about the revisionism is that we lose the real lessons of how the Cold War was lost and it's really important to remember.  The Soviet Union spread itself too thin, with a long war in Afghanistan, trying to quell revolts in various places and spending billions they didn't have on arms while the bread shelves were empty and people got fed up.  So yeah, that lesson, I'm not sure whether Reagan understood it or not.  Maybe he did, because we never got in a war, but he sure seemed to be spoiling for one, and he sure believed no amount was too great to spend on defense - while vilifying the fictional welfare queen repeatedly in his speeches.  I never considered him a unifying force, it was always very much "us vs them" with him.  You simply cannot defend Iran Contra, probably the worst criminal act of any president ever, except the Gulf of Tonkin lie.  And quite honestly, he was quite senile for much of his second term.  Read Lou Cannon's book on Reagan; good Lord, either the man was a really good liar or he had no idea whatsoever what was going on all around him.

     

     

     


     

    Actually, I was way out of diapers during the Reagan Administration, thank you very much.  I watched the fall of the Berlin Wall on TV at the time.

    I suppose you are saying Reagan had nothing to do with the end of the cold war?  Please read the article below (written by a liberal no less).

    So, did Ronald Reagan bring on the end of the Cold War? Well, yes. Recently declassified documents leave no doubt about the matter. But how did he accomplish it? Through hostile rhetoric and a massive arms buildup, which the Soviets knew they couldn't match, as Reagan's conservative champions contend? Or through a second-term conversion to detente and disarmament, as some liberal historians, including Slate's David Greenberg, argue?

    This is an uncomfortable position for an opinion columnist (and occasional Cold War historian) to take, but it turns out that both views have their merits; neither position by itself gets at the truth. Reagan the well-known superhawk and Reagan the lesser-known nuclear abolitionist are both responsible for the end of that era—along with his vital collaborator Mikhail Gorbachev.


    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/06/ron_and_mikhails_excellent_adventure.single.html

  • ". But how did he accomplish it? Through hostile rhetoric and a massive arms buildup,"

     

    So the only forcing acting on the Soviet Union was the US?  Not Poland, not Czechoslovakia, or Yugoslavia to the Afghanistan war they were embroiled in?

    Typical of us to think the world revolves around us.

    BUT if the arms race did in the Soviet Union, why would any sane person want to follow their example?  Didn't they lay it out for us? You can't be involved in multiple wars and an arms race and expect to flourish.  I don't think we learned the lesson we supposedly taught them!

Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards