Jimmy Carter perhaps hurt the economy more than anyone.
He rose taxes so high and the interest rates for bank loans, Certificate of Deposits, and bonds soared too far. Many people were out of a job. Credit cards could were not available merely because the interest was too high. The economy went to ****.

That is the reason Ronald Reagan got elected by such a landslide. He lowered taxes and interest rates. He prepared the economy. He brought the economy from devastation to an opportunity for profit.

He and George H. W. Bush helped benefit the economy greatly. Then Clinton came along.

This economy is based on spending money. If money is spent, companies are happy, stocks are up, economy is great. But when Clinton raised taxes to highly, people in the middle class became afraid. They would not spend much money. That's part of the reason why the economy went sour for George W. Bush.
Then, of course, was the attack that just killed the stock market.



I hope yallz didn't say i caused an uproar in the economy.

L. Zeved

Out of curiosity, why did you leave off George H.W. Bush?

OK, this is really of topic.

But how had Geoge H. W. Bush hurt the economy? he didn't!


Did you put Reagan on the poll? sigh, ignorance. Look up James Carter. He screwed up the economy.

L. Zeved

Depends, Zeved, on what exactly you mean by hurting the economy. If the confidence of investors or consumers is in any way related to the economy, George H.W. Bush could've had a great deal to do with "screwing it up". Does the BCCI scandal ring any bells? No? How about the Savings and Loan scandal? That was - ahem - the largest theft in the history of the world. And the S&L bail-out, largely to save the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** of another of Poppy's criminal offspring, has cost us, the American taxpayers, around $1.4 TRILLION dollars). How about Iran-Contra for instilling confidence in a government? Or Reagan's "voodoo economics" (Poppy's term) which Bush first ridiculed, then, proving his "read my lips" pronouncement a lie, enthusiastically embraced? Or the fact that he took little interest in economic policy (while presiding over a recession that was very slow to end) and avoided his economic advisers like the plague? Or - hey - what about his staggering budget deficit which took his successor over two years to reverse? Hello: who do you think "It's the economy, stupid" was about?

The scariest thing is that Dubya is following, almost exactly, in Poppy's footsteps. Maybe he should've topped your poll...

Because of Clinton people were afraid to spend?! Where have you been the last ten years? During Clinton thats all people did was spend and invest in dotcom companies. At least that's what I thought, I dont have that great of an understanding with economincs.

And of course economics effects politics, or vice versa.

President's get too much credit when the economy is good and too much blame when it goes bad. Jimmy Carter inherited a stagflationary economy. Inflation and recession can occur when the price of an important good, necessary for much of the economy, escalates. The stagflation that basically dominated the American economy from 1974 to 1982 was initially fueled by OPEC actions raising oil prices. This was followed by wage-push inflation as unions demanded wage increases to match past inflation and future inflation expections. Reagan's action on the air traffic controllers signaled corporations to resist union demands for higher wages and was important in getting inflation levels down. Carter should be credited for appointing Volker to head the fed in 1978. Volker's tight money policies also helped,ultimately, to get the economy on track.

I believe Reagonomics is the most dangerous persistent myth in our country. Lowering taxes does not raise income. Because of this I believe Ronald Reagan did the most damage to our economy of the above mentioned Presidents in both action and legacy. This comment does not deny the weak performance of the Carter economic team, in fact it makes the Reagan vote a stronger statement than it could have been.

The deficits run up in the name of tax cuts that disporportionately help the affluent of the country do not address the major problem of our economy since World War I (consumption)

They place an undo burden on future generations by spending tomorrow's money today. This deficits have been piled up while at the same time taking the Social Security surplus and spending it away.

Reagonomics is a dangerous replacement for fiscal conservatism. It does the easy part of cutting taxes, but it does not provide anything but a disproven theory to pay for the tax cuts.

Eeyore, before you claim that reaganomics or tax cuts are a disproven theory, I would suggest reading the articles by Thomas Sowell or any number of other well respected economists.

You're right, tax cuts do not increase income, it stimulates the economy by putting more money in peoples pockets to spend on consumer goods and services.

This goes back to the argument that the government thinks it can spend the peoples money more wisely than the people, which I find insulting. I am however, for fiscal conservation, there are plenty of unneeded, pork-filled programs that could be cut. But which politicians would be willing to risk political suicide by introducing the necessary bills?

Jesus, Buddha and Alexander Hamilton couldn't make the economy good under Carter. The economy is VERY VERY VERY VERY complex. Did Hoover cause the depression? The president can't control other countries which effect the economy, weather, the stock market, etc...

Z... you better watch calling people ignorant when it comes to their opinions. Especially when you're asking for opinions.

Check your history a little further kimpossible, Clinton was president during the dot-bombs, when all the glee and speculation about internet start-ups was revealed to be paper companies without viable business plans, no revenue, illogical p/e ratios(price to earnings ratios). The dot-com-dot bomb mess was indicative of the Clinton years, all fluff and splash on the surface while underneath, there was no foundation. Clinton was also president while all the misdeeds with Enron, WOrldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Adelphia were occurring. Liberals blame George Bush for some of that scandal, so Clinton is darn well going to take blame as well.

Okay, okay.

I'm Sorry Wertz, or whoever else may have put Reagan.

I'm sry.


HeatherRob:


You said it nicely. I would have been tossed off AmericasDebate if i replied my way. Thank You.

L. Zeved

Any thoughts on Bush's 6 billion economic stimulus strategy?

I'm just wondering if anybody here either gets stock dividends or know people who do. I don't and don't know of any, except maybe some big wigs at IBM.

And what about this notion that lifting the tax on stock dividends will loosen up money that corporations are just sitting on now? Gingrich argued this point last Sunday. Sounds like a bunch of malarkey to me, but then I'm not up on high corporate finance strategies.

What would you suggest he do?

Could you please elaborate?

It would be insulting to say that the government could manage my personal finances better than I could, but it is ireesponsible for one generation to run a continuous defecit (see 1977?-1997) and expect a future generation to pay the debt plus interest.

If a politicain wants to capitalize on tax cuts to gain popularity, the American public should hold that politician accountable for explaining has the revenue cut will be paid for in the short term or longer term. Reaganomics gurus said the tax cuts would pay for themselves after income would rise. More income at a lower tax rate would pay for the tax cuts. This didn't happen and the deficit skyrocketed.

At the same time Republicans called the Democratic party the party of tax and spend liberals.

Federal deficit information as reported in the Tennessean (NAshville's newspaper) recently. The source credited in the paper is the Treasury Department.
Federal Deficits through the years

President Carter
1980 $73.8 billion

President Reagan
1981 $78.9 billion
1982 $ 127.9 billion
1983 $ 207.8 billion
1984 $ 185.3 billion
1985 $ 212.3 billion
1986 $ 221.1 billion
1987 $ 149.7 billion
1988 $ 155.2 billion

President George H.W. Bush
1989 $ 153.3 billion
1990 $ 220.5 billion
1991 $ 269.5 billion
1992 $ 290.3 billion

President Clinton
1993 $ 255.3 billion
1994 $ 203.1 billion
1995 $ 163.0 billion
1996 $ 107.3 billion
1997 $ 22.0 billion
1998 $ 70 billion surplus
1999 $ 124.4 billion surplus
2000 $ 236.9 billion surplus

President George W. Bush
2001 $ 127.0 billion surplus
2002 $ 159.0 billion (return to deficit)

Who is paying the bills?
I believe that a good economic stimulus plan would be a return to responsible fiscal policy that showed the long term stability of the American economy.
How high of a percentage of our budget can we afford for interest?

What we've got to do is to insist the governmet stop spending our tax dollars on things like studying the mating habits of the mojave horned toad, or giving millions in grants to people who want to find out if poo smells worse after eating peppers
OK, those aren't actual programs (I think), but you get the idea.

So many people who argue against tax cuts wail, 'you must not want to fix roads, you must not want to fund the military etc..if you want to cut taxes.

NO, in my opinion, fiscal common sense instead of allowing politicians to funnel money back to their states as an investment for the next election. So much of our money goes to nonsense programs.

As the 'king of pork' Sen Robert Byrd, D-WV,


This has got to stop!

Clinton didn't bother to check out to see if CEO's were cooking the books

Worldcom admitted that it was cooking the books since 2000...under Clinton's nose!!!