The last fiscally responsible President. JC

How will our two impotent economic guru's (Waco, lusty) spin this?

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174326


Whatever else one may think about the man, it is no exaggeration to say that Jimmy Carter was among the last of the fiscally responsible presidents.



Although there is no single measure for evaluating a president’s economic performance, if we combine such standard measures as unemployment, productivity, interest rates, inflation, capital investment, and growth in output and employment, Carter’s numbers were higher than those of his near-contemporaries Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush. “What may be surprising,” notes the economist Ann Mari May, “is not only that the performance index for the Carter years is close behind the Eisenhower index of the booming 1950s, but that the Carter years outperformed the Nixon and Reagan years.” Average real GDP growth under Carter was 3.4%, a figure surpassed by only three postwar presidents: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton. Even though unemployment generally increased after the 1960s, the average number of jobs created per year was higher under Carter than under any postwar president.

I haven’t a clue who this writer is, but I lived through the Carter years. Inflation was double digits. Unemployment was approaching it.

Interest rates. In 1978 my late wife and bought our first house on a VA loan at 10.4 %!!!
We also bought a new Buick a year later, and I can remember the salesman coming back and saying……”wow, great news, I can get you 14.5%”

In short, the author can go sell this shit somewhere else.

Carter is the best example of how a very moral, upstanding human being can be a terrible President.

It was Jimmy Carter’s misfortune,” writes the economist W. Carl Biven, “to become president at a time when the country was faced with its most intractable economic policy problem since the Great Depression: unacceptable rates of both unemployment and inflation”—a one-two punch that came to be called “stagflation.”



In response, Carter chose austerity. Throughout the 1970s, Federal Reserve chairmen Arthur F. Burns and G. William Miller had been reluctant to raise interest rates for fear of touching off a recession, and Carter was left holding the bag. After Carter named Paul Volcker as Fed chairman in August 1979, the Fed restricted the money supply and interest rates rose accordingly—the prime rate reaching an all-time high of 21.5% at the end of 1980. All the while, Carter kept a tight grip on spending. “Our priority now is to balance the budget,” he declared in March 1980. “Through fiscal discipline today, we can free up resources tomorrow.”



Unfortunately for Carter, austerity paid few political dividends. As the economist Anthony S. Campagna has shown, Carter could not balance his low tolerance for Keynesian spending with other Democratic Party interests. His administration took up fiscal responsibility, but his constituents wanted expanded social programs. Meanwhile, his ambitious domestic agenda of industrial deregulation, energy conservation, and tax and welfare reform was hindered by his poor relationship with Congress.



The Carter administration might have shown more imagination in tackling these problems, but as many have noted, this was an “age of limits.” Carter’s successors seem to have taken one major lesson from his failings: The American public may blame the president for a sluggish economy, but when it comes to debt, the sky’s the limit.

We need Andrew Jackson back for a third term, he was only one who completely responsible he Ballance the budject and paid off the debt.

We need to bring back JC for the morally weak that infest us

Quick note:

I'm not a numbers guy, but I remember listening to public radio and the better choice for president should have been Carter over Reagan. Morally sound ("Lust is a sin" - Playboy) over the Hollywood B-movie actor. More fiscally sound as a Conservative over the deliberate creation of deficits. Carter was a farmer. As opposed to a mush-brain shit talking liar.

Just my $0.02.

Quick note:

I'm not a numbers guy, but I remember listening to public radio and the better choice for president should have been Carter over Reagan. Morally sound ("Lust is a sin" - Playboy) over the Hollywood B-movie actor. More fiscally sound as a Conservative over the deliberate creation of deficits. Carter was a farmer. As opposed to a mush-brain shit talking liar.

Just my $0.02. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

That's about all it's worth too.

The GOP lied about JC just like the Roman's lied about the original JC.

Both feared honor and honesty over selfishness and deceit! They nailed Jimmy to the cross using peanut shells. Their souls will burn in eternal damnation

How will our two impotent economic guru's (Waco, lusty) spin this?

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174326


Whatever else one may think about the man, it is no exaggeration to say that Jimmy Carter was among the last of the fiscally responsible presidents.



Although there is no single measure for evaluating a president’s economic performance, if we combine such standard measures as unemployment, productivity, interest rates, inflation, capital investment, and growth in output and employment, Carter’s numbers were higher than those of his near-contemporaries Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush. “What may be surprising,” notes the economist Ann Mari May, “is not only that the performance index for the Carter years is close behind the Eisenhower index of the booming 1950s, but that the Carter years outperformed the Nixon and Reagan years.” Average real GDP growth under Carter was 3.4%, a figure surpassed by only three postwar presidents: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton. Even though unemployment generally increased after the 1960s, the average number of jobs created per year was higher under Carter than under any postwar president. Originally Posted by WTF

“Impotent”? You should be the last guy on Eccie labeling anyone else as that. And I grew up in the Carter years. Gas lines a mile long, interest rates at 19%. How did you find a hack that portrays Carter in a favorable light? Especially when it comes to economics. He was a total failure. Foreign policy too.

I remember the inflation.
But I have to say, the bank paid very well for the $$$ I had deposited.

As my father said, "Nothing speaks louder than money in the bank."

How will our two impotent economic guru's (Waco, lusty) spin this?

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174326


Whatever else one may think about the man, it is no exaggeration to say that Jimmy Carter was among the last of the fiscally responsible presidents.



Although there is no single measure for evaluating a president’s economic performance, if we combine such standard measures as unemployment, productivity, interest rates, inflation, capital investment, and growth in output and employment, Carter’s numbers were higher than those of his near-contemporaries Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush. “What may be surprising,” notes the economist Ann Mari May, “is not only that the performance index for the Carter years is close behind the Eisenhower index of the booming 1950s, but that the Carter years outperformed the Nixon and Reagan years.” Average real GDP growth under Carter was 3.4%, a figure surpassed by only three postwar presidents: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton. Even though unemployment generally increased after the 1960s, the average number of jobs created per year was higher under Carter than under any postwar president. Originally Posted by WTF

spin this


by Joe Renouard


Joe Renouard teaches at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Nanjing, China.


BAAHHAAHAAA

The mortgage interest in 1970 was 8.5%.
In 1981 it hit 16.6.It stayed double digits until Bush's 3rd year.
Rate was @ mid 7s through Clinton's 2 terms.


US & WORLD ECONOMIES
ECONOMIC THEORY
President Jimmy Carter's Economic Policies and Accomplishments.

"Carter created jobs, fought stagflation, and brokered the Camp David Accords.

Accomplishments and Policies
Iran Hostage Crisis

President Jimmy Carter

James Earl Carter Jr. was the 39th president of the U.S., serving from 1977 to 1981. Upon entering office, he had to fight the stagflation that had occurred under the Nixon administration. His one-term presidency ended under the shadow of the Iran hostage crisis, but 9.3 million jobs were added, one of the largest increases under any president. In 2002, he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the 1978 Camp David Accords

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/pres...s-and-policies

The economic issues Carter faced came from Nixon. He was doing alright until his third year. The 12 years following his presidency didn't go real well.
Last 1981 deficit was 998 billion. Last Reagan deficit was 2.9 trillion.
Carter could have been better but he wasn't terrible.

I haven’t a clue who this writer is, but I lived through the Carter years. Inflation was double digits. Unemployment was approaching it.

Interest rates. In 1978 my late wife and bought our first house on a VA loan at 10.4 %!!!
We also bought a new Buick a year later, and I can remember the salesman coming back and saying……”wow, great news, I can get you 14.5%”

In short, the author can go sell this shit somewhere else.

Carter is the best example of how a very moral, upstanding human being can be a terrible President. Originally Posted by Jackie S

In other words,you have nothing to say about Carter's record except the author of the link included in the post currently teaches in China.
Typical swing and a miss for you.
You ignored the information included and proved you have nothing worthwhile to say.

spin this


by Joe Renouard


Joe Renouard teaches at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Nanjing, China.


BAAHHAAHAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I remember the inflation.
But I have to say, the bank paid very well for the $$$ I had deposited.

As my father said, "Nothing speaks louder than money in the bank." Originally Posted by Precious_b

But if inflation was running at 9% and the bank was paying 5$ interest, the value of your bank account was actually going down.


Facts matter.

Pretty much worthless when the President doesn't actually control spending.


Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House along with Bill Clinton actually signing the bills the only time we took more money in than the Federal Government spent in the last 50 years. I know the election was held in 1994 that Gingrich won and actually got a little bit of sane control over the federal government for a few years.