[quote name='CaseyRyback']Carter inherited a shit economy that he couldn't fix. It isn't poetic justice, it was an accumulation of mitigating factors that couldn't tame stagflation. Decline in industrialization, the overthrow of the shah and its impact, and Russian in Afghanistan all negatively impacted his run as President. He could have done a better job, but he inherited shit and it kept piling up. He also didn't have anything to do with Bretton Woods which is a significant reason why the dollar dealt with such a high inflationary rate.
You whole argument about Bush is wrong, wrong, and more wrong. He didn't cut taxes to stimulate the economy, he cut taxes "because the government is taking in too much money," and instead of using that surplus to pay down the governments debts he decided to give a massive tax break to the wealthy. This tax break was also sold as being something that would expire. It can't be a tax increase if it was directly sold as having an end date. People were given a reduction in their taxes because the government projected surpluses for an extended period of time. Clearly this changed and the tax break should have changed along with it. The unemployment argument is bullshit as well. Prosperity went down during his administration. If you were making 75K and then get a full time job flipping burgers you are fully employed, but the decrease in your wages dropped dramatically.
As for your edit, I think you need to pay more attention to current events before you pass judgment (or pay more attention to the posts that you are directing your attention to). I clearly stated that he was willing to cut entitlement programs, which are the white elephants that you speak of. You know how big of a hit he is willing to take with his own base to try and ensure fiscal stability for the country. Dude has stuck his neck out big time and still no one has his back.[/QUOTE]
The second tax cut was to stimulate the economy after 9/11. As for the first round yeah, I shouldn't have grouped them together even though they were close together, but saying that surplus money could have been put away into Social Security for safe-keeping is also mistaken since it's added to the General Fund like everything else (Supreme Court, 1937, Helvering v. Davis) and therefore can't be allocated separately.
As for my edit, I recognized it was an argument that I was getting in over my head about so I removed and I'm currently doing more research on. I think about what I post, not just with politics, and I like to edit things after I post them (a lot, in fact). Is that fair enough?
And I never said the conditions Carter got were blissful, so please stop trying to stick words in my mouth. I'm saying how he handled them: Poorly. The economy sucked under him, just like the economy under Obama sucks now, and he didn't win re-election because he failed to turn the economic tides. That is why I say the line "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" is poetic justice because he used it against Ford and won. Reagan used it and Carter lost.
As for Obama's base, that base is going to vote for him anyway, even if a sensible Republican was up against him. Why on Earth should he care about their vote? No one's going to Primary him. The Democrats are stuck with him and everyone knows it.
Now, as for the current debate:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...ike-tenative-deal-to-raise-debt-ceiling-.html