Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Gotta love it
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, January 04, 2007

Even George McGovern couldn't find it in himself to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1976:
George McGovern, the liberal 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, dropped a little bombshell to Larry King the other night: He voted Republican in 1976, for Gerald Ford.

McGovern said he finally told his wife, Eleanor, that Thanksgiving. Her reply: "So did I."
Heh ... If only a few more Democrats had followed their conscience then.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
To be fair, he did vote for Carter in 1980....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Ford he could take. Regan, apparently, he couldn’t.

Heh ... not a particular surprise.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Carter was far better than many people give him credit for being.

If Carter did nothing else, he should get credit for the sustained economic growth of the 80’s that were the result of his appointment of Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Fed. That decision, though the right one, probably caused his election defeat.

Like Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon, Carter made a decision that was good in the long run, good for the country, and bad for himself politically.

As important, Carter, like Ford, was an intelligent, honest, decent, and fair minded individual. Attributes the current President seems to be lacking.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
First off, I wonder about the McGovern thing.

There are many reasons for not voting for someone.

Secondly, Cap, you’re kidding, I trust?

Carter made one choice.. an appointment.. that may have been the right one, sans Carter actually being in office. Unless of course you’re suggesting Carter wasn’t responsible for double digit unemployment, 22% inflation, and so on. It took Reagan being in office to make that one correct choice in the many thousands he made, to pay off.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
As important, Carter, like Ford, was an intelligent, honest, decent, and fair minded individual
HAHAHAHAHA......seriously? Because he seems to have changed a bit lately
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
If Carter did nothing else, he should get credit for the sustained economic growth of the 80’s that were the result of his appointment of Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Fed. That decision, though the right one, probably caused his election defeat.


But his decision to abandon the Shah, BUT allow his entry into the US, PLUS his decision to reflate the economy yielded STAGFLATION Captin... which produced the economy that got him unemployed. He was no great shakes, Captin.

As important, Carter, like Ford, was an intelligent, honest, decent, and fair minded individual. Attributes the current President seems to be lacking.
Code for I liked his policies, but not Dubya’s....Ford and Carter all oversaw ineffective economic policies and with Carter ineffectual foreign policies, BUT Captin suffers from BDS, so they must be good people. Yes, Captin I know you’re a "moderate" "exiled" Republican...get over it and move on....

We could go on and on about his "malaise" or his surprise at Russian actions in Afghanistan, but let’s just stick witht he short version for now.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Carter was far better than many people give him credit for being.
Uh, no, he wasn’t.
The result of his appointment of Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Fed ...
Blind pig. Acorn.

Economic upturn came from much more than Paul Volcker’s appointment, most of which Carter had zip to do with. What I remember of living through Carter’s term is tax increases, "malaise", hostages and 23% interest rates.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
If Carter was so smart about appointing Volcker, then why did he first appoint G. William Miller, who oversaw the Fed while seeing inflation go from about 6 or 7 percent to over 13%? And why did the real clamp-down on the money supply by Volcker have to wait until Reagan’s election?

No, the highest ranking useful idiot in American History deserves no strong credit for Volcker, especially considering some of his other blunders as outlined above.

But, to be fair, Carter did have a big role in deregulation of transportation (trucking and airlines), which was a very good thing to do and had quite a lot of impact on economic growth in the 1980s. I consider that to be his signature accomplishment. Other than that, though, he was a major failure as a president, and we’re still paying the price for his foolishness in foreign policy today. (Some give him more credit than I think he’s due for ending conflict between Israel and Egypt, but I think Egypt was too exhausted by it to continue in any event, and Carter’s interference ended up with Sadat killed.)

Worst of all, we need only compare his career after the presidency with that of Gerald Ford to see just what a bitter, nasty man Carter really is. He was unable to accept the fact of his own failure during the presidency, and has interposed himself onto world affairs in numerous negative ways for over 25 years now. His "signature accomplishments" there include inducing Bill Clinton to be snookered by the North Koreans, and being the best shill for the murderous Palestinians the world has ever seen. Outside of his role in getting Daniel Ortega to peacefully give up power after he lost an election, I can’t seen a single positive thing in Carter’s foreign policy meddling.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
"If Carter did nothing else, he should get credit for the sustained economic growth of the 80’s that were the result of his appointment of Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Fed."

And it only took him two and a half years to appoint someone like him(Aug. 1989).

"As important, Carter, like Ford, was an intelligent, honest, decent, and fair minded individual."

Honest? Not according to the guy who just resigned from the Carter center, accusing Carter of plagiarism and fabrication. Intelligent? According to himself, he had no clue as to the true nature of the Soviet Union until they invaded Afghanistan. Amusing, if frightening, for an Annapolis graduate and self-proclaimed Rickover protege who saw himself as a future CNO. And, after doing a little research on his naval career, I have some more doubts about his honesty.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
What I remember of living through Carter’s term is tax increases, "malaise", hostages and 23% interest rates.
Don’t forget the "wear sweaters" energy policy.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
If only a few more Democrats had followed their conscience then.
We’d have never had a President Reagan. Which would be a mixed bag of good and bad.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
We’d have never had a President Reagan. Which would be a mixed bag of good and bad.

But mostly GOOD, unless you don’t like economic growth, decreasing income inequality and the end of Communism.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
But mostly GOOD, unless you don’t like economic growth, decreasing income inequality and the end of Communism.
That stuff was ok, but it was his deft manuevering to single handedly end the Bee Gees career that I look back on fondly.

Of course, spending 116 days at sea of the coast of Iran in 1984?? Not so much.

As I said, a mixed bag.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Of course, spending 116 days at sea of the coast of Iran in 1984?? Not so much.
What’s the complaint you got at least 2 Beer Days and think of all the money you saved up for the Welcome Home at Naples or the West Coast when you got back! You’re just an ingrate, that’s all, obviously.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
OH and anything that helped end the Bee Gee’s career is a good thing....if only he had managed to cut short George Michael and WHAM or Boy George, too.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
the end of Communism.
Reagan did not end Communism, obviously, since it is still around. And he did not end Communism in the Soviet Union, the fax machine had more to do with that than Reagan did.

Reagan did restore national pride and by sheer force of will and his unrelenting optimism made people confident about their country again.

But his policies were mostly failures. Reaganomics was a huge failure, but since it had not been done before, I thought it was worth trying. What I don’t get is that after we learned that if you cut taxes and increase spending, you will end up with a massive deficit, why do it again?

Still in all, I consider him a very successful President simply for changing the mood of the nation.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Reaganomics was a huge failure, but since it had not been done before, I thought it was worth trying. What I don’t get is that after we learned that if you cut taxes and increase spending, you will end up with a massive deficit, why do it again?
That whole 1980’s economic boom thing was just a mirage then? And standing up to the USSR unlike the Tom Foley and the rest had nothing to do witht he failure of the USSR? By no means was he perfect, but it wasn’t just "feel good politics" that was his legacy.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Oh, and don’t forget Reagan’s role in creating the S&L disaster.
Reagan’s "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments made with this tax break as a premise. This with some other "deregulation" policies (ratified by a Democratic congress) ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history: The Savings and Loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$150 billion, about $125 billion of which was consequently and directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s.

An indication of this scandal’s size, Martin Mayer wrote, "The theft from the taxpayer by the community that fattened on the growth of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980’s is the worst public scandal in American history. Teapot Dome in the Harding administration and the Credit Mobilier in the times of Ulysses S. Grant have been taken as the ultimate horror stories of capitalist democracy gone to seed. Measuring by money, [or] by the misallocation of national resources...the S&L outrage makes Teapot Dome and Credit Mobilier seem minor episodes." [28]

John Kenneth Galbraith called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[
And then there’s Iran-Contra

No, Carter was President during a bad economic period, so he takes the blame, but his decisions prevented the bad economic times from continuing and Reagan got the credit for the upturn which, under Volcker’s management of the fed, would have come about if Mickey Mouse had been elected President.

Reagan’s legacy is his personal affect on the American people, not his policies.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Reaganomics was a huge failure, but since it had not been done before, I thought it was worth trying. What I don’t get is that after we learned that if you cut taxes and increase spending, you will end up with a massive deficit, why do it again?
I’m not sure whether you’re being disingenuous or whether you don’t remember what happened. Reaganomics called for a cut in tax rates and simultaneous cuts in spending. But Congress rejected Reagan’s spending cuts, and just kept increasing spending.

Pretty much every budget Reagan presented to Congress was greeted by Tip O’Neil saying it was DOA.

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
can always tell when there’s a full moon: today we have an individual clearly from the left side of the aisle claiming that, not *only* was carter - the worst president in history - was "far better than he’s given credit for", but as a matter of fact.....reagan didn’t end communism either! never mind the monolithic communist superpower that dropped dead in the dust at his feet; reagan neglected to wipe out china! and north korea! and the berkeley city council!

the mind boggles. every year, their disconnect from reality gets juuuuust a little more pronounced.
 
Written By: ed
URL: http://
Reaganomics called for a cut in tax rates and simultaneous cuts in spending. But Congress rejected Reagan’s spending cuts, and just kept increasing spending.
And now the same system is disguised as the Democrat’s PAYGO scheme.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
But Congress rejected Reagan’s spending cuts, and just kept increasing spending.

Pretty much every budget Reagan presented to Congress was greeted by Tip O’Neil saying it was DOA.
"[A] drastic reduction in the deficit...will take place in the fiscal year ’82."
—President Reagan, news conference, quoted in The New York Times, March 6, 1981. (In fiscal 1982, the first full year of Reagan’s presidency, the government ran up a record budget deficit of $128 billion.)

Early in his presidency, Reagan chose as his economic advisors a group that espoused a radical economic theory called "supply-side." The supply-siders told Reagan that if he gave tax cuts to the top brackets (the wealthiest individuals) the positive effects would "trickle down" to everyone else. Tax cuts, they argued, would produce so much growth in the economy that America could simply outgrow its deficits. Reagan bought into supply-side theory, which is why in 1981 he predicted that there would be a "drastic reduction in the deficit."

However, Reagan soon discovered that his supply-side advisors were wrong. Tax cuts, instead of reducing the deficit, had increased the deficit, drastically. After 1981, Reagan made no more rosy predictions regarding the deficit.

At this point, Reagan would change strategy. He would blame the U.S. Congress for the record deficits that accrued during his years in office. Reagan would say that Congress was responsible, because Congress had not slashed spending enough—meaning domestic spending, since Reagan always championed increased military spending.

Reagan chose to ignore the fact that his own Republican Party was in control of the Senate from January 1981 to January 1987, and that Congress actually spent less than what he originally had asked for.
Supply-siders dispute the claim that Reagan requested more spending than Congress actually passed. To show that Congress was actually the Big Spender, they commonly give the following chart, which shows that Congress outspent Reagan’s budget requests in 7 out of 8 years:

Federal Budget Outlays
Proposed (Reagan) and Actual (Congress) and
Cumulative Percent Difference
(billions of dollars)1

Outlays
Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 (12.1)
1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 (10.8)
1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 (11.6)
1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 (13.5)
1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 (14.6)
1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 (19.1)
1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 (24.5)
______________________________________
Totals $7,357.6 $7,554.9 Avg 2.8 (3.1) (averages for 82-9)
The problem with this chart is that the proposal numbers are phony. Reagan’s proposals were based on such optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to reality.

To understand how the ruse works, a brief review of the budget process is helpful. A budget passed by Congress is not written in stone; there are actually many flexible items in it. One example is unemployment. The budget says, "Pay each unemployed person XXXX amount in unemployment compensation." If the unemployment rate rises higher next year than anticipated, the budget automatically pays these extra individuals without requiring Congressional action.

Another example of a flexible budget item is interest on the debt. If interest rates soar or receipts drop more than expected, then interests costs are going to be greater. These are paid without Congressional action (unless the debt limit is reached).

In the president’s budget proposals, he must estimate next year’s unemployment rate, interest rates, and several other economic indicators. We have already seen that in Reagan’s first budget, David Stockman came up with a super-optimistic forecast that predicted 5 percent economic growth. (The higher the growth, the less government has to spend on unemployment, welfare, stimulus packages, etc.) Today, Stockman derisively refers to his first budget as the "Rosy Scenario." Although Reagan’s remaining budgets were not quite as far-fetched as the Rosy Scenario, they were indeed much too optimistic. In fact, the only reason why spending surpassed the requests in only 7 instead of all 8 years was because one year — 1984 — actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth.

What supply-siders are doing with the above chart, then, is comparing what was spent in the real world with what Reagan proposed in 8 Rosy Scenarios. They then blame the difference on Congressional action — despite the fact that Congress didn’t act on these increases.

The ruse is akin to a President proposing to spend one dollar on the budget next year, and blaming Congress for (inevitably) exceeding this proposal. Even if it turns out that Congress cuts the real budget, and the economy does better than normal!

As reported on the previous page [Budgets and Deficits], the House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan’s concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
""[A] drastic reduction in the deficit...will take place in the fiscal year ’82."
—President Reagan, news conference, quoted in The New York Times, March 6, 1981. (In fiscal 1982, the first full year of Reagan’s presidency, the government ran up a record budget deficit of $128 billion.)"

Since he had only been in office about two months when he said this, and had not yet had to contend with Tip ONeil and the Democrats trashing HIS budget and increasing spending, I do not think this remark is out of line. Overly optimistic, perhaps, but not dishonest.

"Tax cuts, instead of reducing the deficit, had increased the deficit, drastically."

Actually, tax receipts increased. The problem was that spending increased even faster, in spite of the Democratic rhetoric about slashing domestic spending.

"After 1981, Reagan made no more rosy predictions regarding the deficit."

Of course not. He now had experience dealing with the Democratic Congress.

"Reagan would say that Congress was responsible, because Congress had not slashed spending enough—meaning domestic spending"

As I mentioned, domestic spending increased during the Reagan administration.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
If you’re giving Jimmy Carter majority credit for the 80’s boom via Paul Volkler, then I guess we have to give Ronald Reagan majority credit for the 90’s boom via Greenspan.
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
"If you’re giving Jimmy Carter majority credit for the 80’s boom via Paul Volkler, then I guess we have to give Ronald Reagan majority credit for the 90’s boom via Greenspan"

No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!..................
How dare you mention *The Evil One*?
I can’t hear you! MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider