Former Prez Carter meddling in Israeli affairs.

[24champ]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080415/pl_nm/israel_carter_dc




By Mohammed Assadi 1 hour, 1 minute ago

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met an ex-minister in Hamas' government on Tuesday, defying Israeli leaders who shunned the Nobel Peace Prize laureate over his contacts with the Islamist group.
ADVERTISEMENT

Naser al-Shaer, who served as deputy prime minister in the Hamas-led government that the United States and other Western powers boycotted, was greeted by Carter with a hug and kisses to both cheeks, a member of Carter's delegation said.

"Mr. Carter wanted to listen to the positions of different Palestinian figures. The meeting was very good and he promised to continue such meetings," said Shaer, who was among several Palestinian political figures to meet with the former president.

Carter has angered the Israeli government over plans to meet Hamas' top leader, Khaled Meshaal, in Syria, and for describing Israeli policy in the occupied Palestinian territories as "a system of apartheid" in a 2006 book.

Carter, who brokered Israel's first peace treaty with an Arab neighbor, Egypt, signed in 1979, met Israel's ceremonial president Shimon Peres on Sunday but was shunned by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other policymakers.

Shaer told Reuters he met one-on-one with Carter and they discussed efforts to broker an unofficial truce between Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas seized the coastal territory by force in June after routing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' more secular Fatah faction. Abbas then sacked a Hamas-led unity government and appointed a Western-backed administration in the West Bank. Abbas's authority has been limited to the occupied West Bank.

Shaer said Carter told him he wanted to play a role in trying to end the enmity between Hamas and Fatah.

GAZA DENIED

Carter told reporters earlier he had wanted to visit Gaza, but his request was rejected. Carter did not say who turned down his request, but a member of his delegation said it was Israel.

"I haven't been able to get permission to go into Gaza. I would like to. I asked for permission. But I was turned down. But maybe we can find a way to circumvent that," Carter said.

All of the border crossings between Israel and Gaza are controlled by the Jewish state. Egyptian forces are stationed at Gaza's southern border, which is largely closed.

Carter said he would use his meeting with Meshaal to "get him to agree to a peaceful resolution of differences, both with the Israelis ... and also with Fatah."

"Since Syria and Hamas will have to be involved in the final peace agreement, they ought to be involved in the discussions leading up to ... peace," Carter said.

Carter, who stressed he was not acting as a negotiator or a mediator, said he hoped "just as a communicator" to relay to "leaders of the United States" what Hamas and Syria have to say.

Israel and Washington have sought to isolate Hamas and bolster Abbas, who launched U.S.-backed peace talks with Olmert.

Like Israel, the Bush administration opposes Carter's meeting with Meshaal, whose Islamist group won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 but was boycotted by the West for refusing to renounce violence and recognize Israel.

During his visit to Ramallah, Carter placed a wreath at the mausoleum of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

U.S. President George W. Bush pointedly chose not to do so during his recent visit. The Bush administration shunned Arafat, who died in 2004, accusing him of fomenting violence.

[Rohirrim]

Well, if Bush is opposed to it, it must be the right thing to do. ;D

[24champ]

Well, if Bush is opposed to it, it must be the right thing to do. ;D

It's Bi-Partisan opposition actually, some dems and reps publicly opposed it. Most notably Hillary.

This is just another attempt by Carter to repair his crappy legacy in office.

[cutthemdown]

Carter shouldn't meet with Hamas IMO. I mean those dudes kill innocent people as a matter of policy.

[yavoon]

there doesn't exist a terrorist(freedom fighter) or communist dictator(progenitor of social progress) that carter didn't love. the funny part is he is being paraded around like a trophy by hamas right now. I bet they are laughing their asses off at the useful idiot.

[peacepipe]

It's Bi-Partisan opposition actually, some dems and reps publicly opposed it. Most notably Hillary.

This is just another attempt by Carter to repair his crappy legacy in office.But there is also bipartisan support for it.

[cutthemdown]

But there is also bipartisan support for it.

what republicans have said they are good with Carter meeting with Hamas?

[shakenbake]

Well, if Bush is opposed to it, it must be the right thing to do. ;D

It sounds like you are being sarcastic, but I would be interested to hear how you could justify meeting with Hamas as "the right thing to do" based on their actions, while saying we should boycott the olympics because of of the CCP's actions.

[Rohirrim]

It sounds like you are being sarcastic, but I would be interested to hear how you could justify meeting with Hamas as "the right thing to do" based on their actions, while saying we should boycott the olympics because of of the CCP's actions.

See the little smilie face? That means sarcasm.

[shakenbake]

See the little smilie face? That means sarcasm.

wow, so you agree with Bush it is the wrong thing for him to do?

[peacepipe]

There are no good choices to make if you want peace, you're gonna have to deal with them if you ever want peace their.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There are no good choices to make if you want peace, you're gonna have to deal with them if you ever want peace their.

This notion is totally foreign to the average rightard who believes all our enemies can be captured/sent to Gitmo or killed and that military force/pre-emptive war is the only solution.

[baja]

carter almost carved a peace treaty as pres. i would give him free reign on this one.

[Rohirrim]

wow, so you agree with Bush it is the wrong thing for him to do?

You mean the first president who didn't even know any problem existed until Condi hit him over the head with it?

[peacepipe]

what republicans have said they are good with Carter meeting with Hamas?
Gen. Collin Powell

[Dukes]

carter almost carved a peace treaty as pres. i would give him free reign on this one.

If you think there will ever be peace between Isreal and the rest of the middle east I want what you're smoking.:puff:

[baja]

I admit that it is not likely any time soon

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I admit that it is not likely any time soon

True that is. :yep:

Nevertheless, Carter tried to put out fires, and Bush has done nothing but pour gasoline on them.

[Rohirrim]

IMO, Carter's heart is in the right place, but this was the wrong move. It's another indicator of how disjointed and disorganized the Democratic Party is. Carter is a super delegate and an Obama supporter. McCain is asking Obama to disown Carter and the idea of "making deals with terrorists." Now, Obama will be put on the defensive for something Carter did. Politically, it was a stupid move. This has always been Carter's chief failing. He doesn't play well with others.

[Spider]

I dont know ..... Hammas is made of bad people no question , but Hammas also has feedtheir hungry , gave Medical to their poor , built hospitals , and on the other hand has committed terrorist attack against Israel , Israel has also committed horrendous deeds against the the Palistians also ....... I guess there has to be a starting point somewhere

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I dont know ..... Hammas is made of bad people no question , but Hammas also has feedtheir hungry , gave Medical to their poor , built hospitals , and on the other hand has committed terrorist attack against Israel , Israel has also committed horrendous deeds against the the Palistians also ....... I guess there has to be a starting point somewhere

Funny - the same Bush shills who are attacking Carter here don't utter a word of protest when the Bush administration makes deals with Iraqi insurgents who have American blood on their hands.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yes, we must NEVER talk with our enemies or theirs, only destroy and kill, this will teach the rest of the world a lesson.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes, we must NEVER talk with our enemies....

Unless, of course, we are the CEO of Halliburton and there's $ to be made doing 'bidness' (legally or otherwise) with those enemies, of course. ;)

[gunns]

Yes, we must NEVER talk with our enemies or theirs, only destroy and kill, this will teach the rest of the world a lesson.

Heaven forbid we talk with our enemies. We should always carry a big stick and speak like an idiot......that's worked so well for the past 7 years.

[Dudeskey]

It's Bi-Partisan opposition actually, some dems and reps publicly opposed it. Most notably Hillary.



More like a bipartisan movement to do the bidding of AIPAC

[24champ]

IMO, Carter's heart is in the right place, but this was the wrong move. It's another indicator of how disjointed and disorganized the Democratic Party is. Carter is a super delegate and an Obama supporter. McCain is asking Obama to disown Carter and the idea of "making deals with terrorists." Now, Obama will be put on the defensive for something Carter did. Politically, it was a stupid move. This has always been Carter's chief failing. He doesn't play well with others.

You sound bitter...

[mhgaffney]

The real isuse is NOT that Carter talked with a Hamas leader -- but that Israeli PM Olmert snubbed Carter.

Why do the Israelis hate Carter? (Be assured -- they do.)

The excuse given for Olmert's snubbing Carter -- is that Carter talked with Hamas. But this is a smoke screen. The real raeson is simply that they hate Carter for speaking the truth about Zionism. Carter did this when he referred to Israel as an Apartheid state. Zionists hate him for this.

In truth, Hamas supports a two state settlement -- and could easily be brought into a peace process.

But of course Israel does not want a peace process. Instead, they want to complete the Jewish settlement of the W Bank -- and after that -- who knows? They may decide to expand into Jordan -- or Syria.

Israel has never declared its final borders.

In fact, this is the simple reason why Hamas refuses to recognize Israel. A nation, after all, must have boundaries -- yet Israel refuses to declare them. For this reason the Palestinians do not trust Israel's leaders -- and they are right not to.

Apparently none of the posters on this pathetic board understands this simple concept. There can be no peace without borders.

MHG

[Rohirrim]

You sound bitter...

That's why I'm hanging on to my guns. Ha!

[mhgaffney]

You think guns will save you when the nukes start to fly?

You might as well put your head between your legs and kiss your as good bye.

[24champ]

Clearly Gaff, that one flew by your head, as usual.

It was a political joke, you moron.

[baja]

The real isuse is NOT that Carter talked with a Hamas leader -- but that Israeli PM Olmert snubbed Carter.

Why do the Israelis hate Carter? (Be assured -- they do.)

The excuse given for Olmert's snubbing Carter -- is that Carter talked with Hamas. But this is a smoke screen. The real raeson is simply that they hate Carter for speaking the truth about Zionism. Carter did this when he referred to Israel as an Apartheid state. Zionists hate him for this.

In truth, Hamas supports a two state settlement -- and could easily be brought into a peace process.

But of course Israel does not want a peace process. Instead, they want to complete the Jewish settlement of the W Bank -- and after that -- who knows? They may decide to expand into Jordan -- or Syria.

Israel has never declared its final borders.

In fact, this is the simple reason why Hamas refuses to recognize Israel. A nation, after all, must have boundaries -- yet Israel refuses to declare them. For this reason the Palestinians do not trust Israel's leaders -- and they are right not to.

<b>Apparently none of the posters on this pathetic board understands this simple concept. There can be no peace without borders.

MHG

That is not a fair statement Mark.

[mhgaffney]

Baja,

You are truly an exception. Please excuse my sweeping - generalization.

Peace. Love. Joy. Bliss.

[baja]

Baja,

You are truly an exception. Please excuse my sweeping - generalization.

Peace. Love. Joy. Bliss.

thanks I'll take all four.

Here's a gift Mark;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1131942400352901009

[cutthemdown]

Heaven forbid we talk with our enemies. We should always carry a big stick and speak like an idiot......that's worked so well for the past 7 years.

how about Bin Laden? Should we be willing to meet with him also?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

how about Bin Laden? Should we be willing to meet with him also?That would be infinitely preferable to waiting on Bush to catch him.

[REB]

The real isuse is NOT that Carter talked with a Hamas leader -- but that Israeli PM Olmert snubbed Carter.

Why do the Israelis hate Carter? (Be assured -- they do.)

The excuse given for Olmert's snubbing Carter -- is that Carter talked with Hamas. But this is a smoke screen. The real raeson is simply that they hate Carter for speaking the truth about Zionism. Carter did this when he referred to Israel as an Apartheid state. Zionists hate him for this.

In truth, Hamas supports a two state settlement -- and could easily be brought into a peace process.

But of course Israel does not want a peace process. Instead, they want to complete the Jewish settlement of the W Bank -- and after that -- who knows? They may decide to expand into Jordan -- or Syria.

Israel has never declared its final borders.

In fact, this is the simple reason why Hamas refuses to recognize Israel. A nation, after all, must have boundaries -- yet Israel refuses to declare them. For this reason the Palestinians do not trust Israel's leaders -- and they are right not to.

Apparently none of the posters on this pathetic board understands this simple concept. There can be no peace without borders.

MHG


You really believe that? Honestly.


Hamas's founding covenant, issued in 1988, is a chilling document, as twisted as anything from Al Qaeda. "Israel will...continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it," begins the covenant. Palestine, it continues, is an Islamic holy possession, to be recovered by force. "Initiatives and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction" to Hamas's mission. "There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by jihad."

[Dudeskey]

how about Bin Laden? Should we be willing to meet with him also?

How can you meet with a guy who's dead?

[24champ]

How can you meet with a guy who's dead?

Link?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You really believe that? Honestly.
Hamas's founding covenant, issued in 1988, is a chilling document, as twisted as anything from Al Qaeda. "Israel will...continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it," begins the covenant. Palestine, it continues, is an Islamic holy possession, to be recovered by force. "Initiatives and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction" to Hamas's mission. "There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by jihad." Looks as though that's not quite all they are now...

---------------------------------------------------------
Hamas has further gained popularity by establishing hospitals, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) education systems, libraries and social services<sup id="cite_ref-18" class="reference">[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-18)</sup> throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.<sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference">[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-19)</sup> The Palestinian territories have experienced internal conflicts for many years; since Hamas's election victory, particularly sharp infighting has occurred between Hamas and Fatah, leading to many Palestinian deaths.<sup id="cite_ref-Newsweek1_20-0" class="reference">[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-Newsweek1-20)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-21" class="reference">[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-21)

</sup> After coming to power, Some of Hamas leaders have announced Hamas was giving up suicide attacks and "offered a 10-year truce [with Israel] in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem."<sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference">[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-22)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference">[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-23)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-24" class="reference">[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-24)</sup> Hamas also declared a unilateral ceasefire with Israel which, after Israeli air strikes in response to Hamas smuggling weapons into Gaza, was formally renounced.<sup id="cite_ref-25" class="reference">[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#cite_note-25)</sup> On March 2008 the Hamas Gaza leadership called on Arab summit to drop peace plan[1] (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3524777,00.html)

[Dukes]

Some of Hamas leaders have announced Hamas was giving up suicide attacks and "offered a 10-year truce [with Israel] in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem

Pure propaganda. They know Isreal would not do that, so it makes no difference what Hamas offers.

[mhgaffney]

No it is not propaganda.

Hamas has maintained several different truces in recent years -- meaning -- a moratorium on attacks against Israel. Israel responded with targeted killings of Hamas leaders.

In fact, Israel targetted the Hamas leaders who were most moderate --those who advocated negotiations with Israel. What kind of signal does this send?

If you had studied the origins of Hamas -- you would also know that back in the 1980s Israel did everything possible to help Hamas. Why? As a way of weakening Arafat's Fatah movement, which was secular and constantly at war with the Moslem Brotherhood (i.e. Hamas).

Israel's strategy has always been: divide and conquer. Eventually Israel was successful. They did undermine Arafat. Fatah lost a lot of its support. Now Israel gets to deal with the Hamas monster they helped create.

If Israel had sat down and negotiated the compromise political settlement that was possible for more than 20 years -- with Arafat -- they would not have the Hamas problem today. The US is also responsible for the current mess -- by using its UN veto to block the international community from imposing a peace settlement.

Hamas is a radical Islamic movement -- but even so it could be brought into negotiations. Of course, this fact is irrelevant since neither Israel nor the US wants a just political settlement. Neither the US or Israel is willing to negotiate. Since Sharon was elected in 2001 the policy of Israel has been no talks and no peace process. Olmert has merely continued Sharon's policy.

[W*GS]

Thanks for the anti-Israel pro-Hamas spin, gaffney.

Meanwhile, back in reality...

[baja]

If it walks like a duck... Mark is right on this one. Why will Israel not set it's borders?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That would be infinitely preferable to waiting on Bush to catch him.

Ha! ^5

[Bronco Bob]

If you think there will ever be peace between Isreal and the rest of the middle east I want what you're smoking.:puff:

There is peace between Egypt and Israel. At one time Egypt was Israel's
most powerful enemy of all the countries in that region. And guess who
brokered the peace between Egypt and Israel?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Pure propaganda. They know Isreal would not do that, so it makes no difference what Hamas offers.Ah, you know this 100% true because you live there or...?

[Dukes]

Ah, you know this 100% true because you live there or...?

I don't but some of my distant family does.

Of course it's not 100% correct, nothing rarely is. But everyone knows it's a longshot. I'd be willing to bet a meteor hits the earth and kills millions before that happens.

[Spider]

I don't but some of my distant family does.

Of course it's not 100% correct, nothing rarely is. But everyone knows it's a longshot. I'd be willing to bet a meteor hits the earth and kills millions before that happens.

LOL I had a funny conversation at the TA in Amarillo Texas with an Idiot that drove for FFE ,We was talking about Obama and he said God and Guns is what keeps him free ...I told him no , your ass working and paying taxes is what keeps you free .... He said no one invades us cause we have guns , I said the mother ****ers in the west bank have guns also, really isnt helping them now is it ? ...I asked Do you really think your 30-30 or 12 gauge shot gun will bring down a fighter jet ? stop a tank ? No , the military is what stops the jets and tanks , so if you love your freedom , stop being stupid , pay your taxes that support our military ....Then He had the nerve to call me a rude asshole and walked off ......

[baja]

But Spider , you are a rude a hole. ;D

That's what I love about ya...

[Spider]

But Spider , you are a rude a hole. ;D

That's what I love about ya...

;D I just hope he thinks about what I said ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

;D I just hope he thinks about what I said ........

Not likely to happen (see 2004 election.)

http://www.bartcop.com/god-inspired-w.jpg

[baja]

Not likely to happen (see 2004 election.)

http://www.bartcop.com/god-inspired-w.jpg


That's not true, He has been screaming for Iran to be shown the light.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's not true, He has been screaming for Iran to be shown the light.

True that.

http://www.bartcop.com/cant-fix-stupid.jpg

[REB]

LOL I had a funny conversation at the TA in Amarillo Texas with an Idiot that drove for FFE ,We was talking about Obama and he said God and Guns is what keeps him free ...I told him no , your ass working and paying taxes is what keeps you free .... He said no one invades us cause we have guns , I said the mother ****ers in the west bank have guns also, really isnt helping them now is it ? ...I asked Do you really think your 30-30 or 12 gauge shot gun will bring down a fighter jet ? stop a tank ? No , the military is what stops the jets and tanks , so if you love your freedom , stop being stupid , pay your taxes that support our military ....Then He had the nerve to call me a rude a-hole and walked off ......



Why that's preposterous

You're not a rude a-hole,

http://www.areyougame.com/images/items/BG1382.jpg


;)

[Spider]

Why that's preposterous

You're not a rude a-hole,

http://www.areyougame.com/images/items/BG1382.jpg


;)

;D he didnt see my mad people skills thats for sure

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Myth: Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it.

Fact: The Federal Reserve Board was responsible for the events of the late 70s and 80s.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/2clorbar.JPG

Summary

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/2clorbar.JPG

Argument

In 1980, the "misery index" -- unemployment plus inflation -- crested 20 percent for the first time since World War II. Ronald Reagan blamed this on Jimmy Carter, and went on to win the White House. Reagan then caught the business cycle on an upswing, for what conservatives call "the Seven Fat Years" or "the longest economic expansion in peacetime history."

Were either of these presidents responsible for their fortune with the economy? No. Carter battled the peak of an inflationary trend that began in 1965. In the following chart, take special notice of the long, slow climb in the inflation column:

Year Inflation Unemployment (1)
-------------------------------
1961 1.0% 6.7%
1962 1.0 5.6
1963 1.3 5.6
1964 1.3 5.2
1965 1.6 4.5 < Vietnam war spending increases
1966 2.9 3.8
1967 3.1 3.8
1968 4.2 3.5
1969 5.5 3.5
1970 5.7 5.0
1971 4.4 6.0
1972 3.2 5.6
1973 6.2 4.9
1974 11.0 5.6 < First oil crisis
1975 9.1 8.5
1976 5.8 7.7
1977 6.5 7.1
1978 7.6 6.1
1979 11.3 5.9 < Second oil crisis
1980 13.5 7.2
1981 10.3 7.6
1982 6.2 9.7
1983 3.2 9.6
1984 4.3 7.5</pre> In 1965, President Johnson started increasing deficit spending to fund the Vietnam war. This fiscal policy (as predicted by Keynesian theory) increased inflation and reduced unemployment.

Unfortunately, inflation is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If business owners expect it, and raise their prices by the anticipated amount to compensate for it, then they have created the very inflation they fear. This process forms a vicious circle -- inflationary expectations and price increases feed off each other, with the potential of creating hyper-inflation. Unfortunately, economic theory at the time was such that economists didn't know how to stop it, at least safely.

Growing inflation in the 70s received two huge boosts: the first comprised the late-1973 and 1979 oil shocks from OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). Soaring oil prices compelled most American businesses to raise their prices as well, with inflationary results. The second boost to inflation came in the form of food harvest failures around the world, which created soaring prices on the world food market. Again, U.S. companies that imported food responded with an inflationary rise in their prices.

All this was accompanied by a growing crisis in monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. Traditionally, the Fed has fought inflation by contracting the money supply, and fought unemployment by expanding it. In the 60s, the Fed conducted an expansionary policy, accepting higher inflation in return for lower unemployment. It soon became clear, however, that this strategy was flawed. Expanding the money supply created jobs because it put more money in the hands of employers and consumers, who spent it. But eventually businesses learned to expect these monetary increases, and they simply raised their prices by the anticipated amount (instead of hiring more workers). The result was that the Fed gradually lost its ability to keep down unemployment; the more money it pumped into the economy, the more businesses raised their prices. As a result, both inflation and unemployment started growing together, forming a twin monster that economist Paul Samuelson dubbed "stagflation."

Stagflation happened to reach its peak on Carter's watch, spurred on by the 1979 oil shock. How Carter can be blamed for a trend that began a decade and a half earlier is a mystery -- and a testimony as to how presidential candidates often exploit the public's economic ignorance for their own political gain.

However, Carter did in fact take a tremendously important step in ending stagflation. He nominated Paul Volcker for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker was committed to eradicating stagflation by giving the nation some bitter medicine: an intentional recession. In 1980, Volcker tightened the money supply, which stopped job growth in the economy. In response to hard times, businesses began cutting their prices, and workers their wage demands, to stay in business. Volcker argued that eventually this would wring inflationary expectations out of the system.

The recovery of 1981 was unintentional, and with inflation still high, Volcker tightened the money supply even more severely in 1982. This resulted in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment in the final quarter of 1982 soared to over 10 percent, and Volcker was accused of the "cold-blooded murder of millions of jobs." Even high-ranking members of Reagan's staff were vehemently opposed to his actions. Congress actually considered bringing the independent Fed under the government's direct control, to avoid such economic pain in the future. Today, economists calculate that the cost of Volcker's anti-inflation medicine was $1 trillion -- an astounding sum. But Wall Street demanded that Volcker stay the course, and that may have been the only thing that saved him.

In the late summer of 1982, inflation looked defeated, so Volcker sharply expanded the money supply. Once as high as 14 percent in 1981, the Fed's discount rate fell from 11 to 8.5 percent between August and December 1982. Within months, the economy roared to life, and took off on an expansion that would last seven years. Because the recession had been so deep, and the number of available workers so large (with not only laid-off workers waiting to return to work, but also a record number of women seeking to join the workforce), the recovery was guaranteed to be long and healthy.

Interestingly, Volcker was transformed from villain to hero after the victory over inflation. His reputation and integrity were so unquestioned that when his term as Chairman came up for renewal, Reagan renominated him with overwhelming popular approval. Another interesting tidbit is that although Volcker's intentional recession was a classically Keynesian approach to combating inflation, he did so under the name of "monetarism". (The policies recommended by the two theories converged at this point.) Milton Friedman, the creator of monetarist theory, and other conservatives were pleased that the Fed had finally converted to monetarism. However, they were outraged in late 1982 when Volcker threw off the cloak of monetarism and openly returned to Keynesian policies for expanding the economy. Most economists now accept that the Fed was not monetarist at all during this period, and that the label was merely political cover for drastic but necessary action.

Of course, conservatives have a far different interpretation of these events. Let's review their arguments:

THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW

According to conservatives, increasing taxation and regulation under Carter stifled the economy. Reagan's 1981 budget (the only one not to be declared "Dead on Arrival" by House Democrats) contained across-the-board, supply-side tax cuts that allowed entrepreneurs to invest and increase productivity. Reagan also slashed regulations, unshackling the entrepreneurial spirit of American business.

There are several problems with this historical spin. First, total federal taxation under Carter rose by an insignificant 1.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product:

Federal tax receipts and spending (percent of GDP) (2)

Year Receipts Spending
-------------------------
Carter
1978 18.5% 21.3%
1979 19.1 20.7
1980 19.6 22.3
1981 20.2 22.9
Reagan
1982 19.8 23.9
1983 18.1 24.4
1984 18.0 23.1
1985 18.5 23.9
1986 18.2 23.5
1987 19.2 22.5
1988 18.9 22.1
1989 19.2 22.1</pre> To claim that such a minor increase could produce crippling stagflation is to ascribe to the economy an extraordinary sensitivity to taxation. Although many conservative laymen would gladly accept such a notion, it is not one entertained by serious economists. West Germany in the 1980s, for example, had a total taxation rate of 39 percent of its GDP (compared to 29 percent of combined government taxes for the U.S.), and during that decade Germany was an economic powerhouse. If even a few percentage points are the difference between Carter's stagflation and Reagan's boom years, then by all rights West Germany should have been dead.

But that's only the general level of taxation -- what about the top rate? Although the top rate for income taxes was 70 percent under Carter (where it had always been, since Kennedy), Carter gave the rich the most sacred tax cut they hold dear: a capital gains tax cut in 1978, from 39 to 28 percent. Thus, Carter gave the rich their first tax cut in 15 years. According to conservative theory, this should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Conservatives also criticize Carter's promotion of expanded government regulations. But Carter actually began deregulating during his term; in 1978, he deregulated airlines; by 1980, he was deregulating trucking, railroads interest rates and oil. All are fundamental to the economy's operations. Carter also set up the deregulatory machinery that Reagan would later use to slash regulations almost in half by the end of his second term. Again, Carter's actions should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And yet, there is no evidence that regulation was even the cause of the period's stagflation. The economies of Western Europe are far more regulated than the U.S., and their productivity has been growing faster than ours:

Percent of U.S. individual worker productivity (U.S. = 100%) (3)

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990
------------------------------------------------
United States 100% 100 100 100 100
Canada 77.1 80.1 84.2 92.8 95.5
Italy 30.8 43.9 66.4 80.9 85.5
France 36.8 46.0 61.7 80.1 85.3
Germany 32.4 49.1 61.8 77.4 81.1
United Kingdom 53.9 54.3 58.0 65.9 71.9
Japan 15.2 23.2 45.7 62.6 70.7</pre> Furthermore, Reagan systematically slashed and burned government regulations, but individual worker productivity grew no faster in the 80s than it had during the late 70s (about 1 percent for both periods).

As for the claim that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were responsible for "the greatest peacetime expansion in U.S. history," a few grains of salt are in order here. The timeline better fits the liberal explanation than the conservative one. Volcker expanded the money supply in late 1982, and a few months later the economy took off. However, Reagan's tax cuts were passed in 1981, and were already in effect by 1982 -- but, as we have seen, 1982 was the year of the horrific recession.

Tax cuts were supposed to have spurred economic recovery by liberating the tax dollars of entrepreneurs and allowing them to invest them in greater productivity and jobs. However, such greater investment never occurred. It appears that the rich simply pocketed the savings, because investment fell during the 80s:

Private investment (4)

1970 - 1979 18.6%
1980 - 1992 17.4</pre> So there is no evidence that the conservative revisionism is true.

[W*GS]

I get LABF's dogma...

When the economy does well under a Republican president, it's not to his credit - other factors are more important. When it does well under a Democratic president, it's entirely due to his efforts.

LABF has never let facts get in the way of his partisanship. It's ****ing hilarious.

[24champ]

I get LABF's dogma...

When the economy does well under a Republican president, it's not to his credit - other factors are more important. When it does well under a Democratic president, it's entirely due to his efforts.

LABF has never let facts get in the way of his partisanship. It's ****ing hilarious.

Otherwise called History revisionism.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Another "brilliant" rebuttal of the factual assertions by W*GS.

Maybe Spider is right - W*GS should stick to predicting the weather.

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Otherwise called History revisionism.

Actually, if you read the piece I posted, it proves that it's the right that's guilty of revisionism in this case.

Instead of disputing any of the facts in the piece, W*GS just goes straight for the ad hominems and cheap shots.

Go figure.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Myth: The recession of 1982 was Carter's fault.

Fact: That recession occurred in the second year of Reagan's term, following tax cuts and deregulation.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/2clorbar.JPG

Summary

The recession of 1982 hit during Reagan's second year in office. Double-digit inflation was well on its way to being defeated by this time, and Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation policies were already in effect. Blaming Carter's tax and regulation policies for this recession is therefore difficult.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/2clorbar.JPG

Argument

Many conservatives and libertarians take it as an article of faith that the unusually severe recession of 1982 should be blamed on Carter's mishandling of the economy, even though it happened in the second year of Reagan's term. But why should that be? Was the 82 recession really the fault of Carter? Let's take a look:

Reagan came into office in January 1981, and within 108 days passed a budget that contained his famous supply-side tax cuts. Of course, a budget passed in 1981 would be enacted in 1982, so business owners had plenty of advance notice of their impending good fortune. It is true the tax cuts were supposed to be phased in over three years, 10 percent a year. But David Stockman had produced computer simulations "proving" that the tax cuts would result in 5 percent growth in 1982 alone. Optimism was so high that today Stockman derisively refers to the 5-percent growth calculation as the "Rosy Scenario."

Furthermore, Reagan imposed a moratorium on all new federal regulation enforcement the moment he took office. In fact, the Reagan administration began slashing and burning existing federal regulation; it cut the Federal Register nearly in half by 1986.

Yet 1982 was the worst year since the Great Depression, with -2.2 percent growth. Why should that be? The private sector knew about the tax cuts well in advance. Many conservatives argue that impending changes in tax rates affect corporate behavior; for example, when the rich learned in 1986 that capital gains would be raised in 1987, they took all the appropriate counter-measures in 1986. Then why did this not occur in 1981, with news of massive tax cuts on the horizon?

Furthermore, by 1982 there had already been enormous cuts in the capital gains tax, the most sacred tax cut that conservatives hold dear. Between 1978 and 1982, the top rate on capital gains was cut from 39 to 20 percent. And the top rate on unearned income fell from 70 to 50 percent (mirroring a similar rate cut in earned income).

As for deregulation, that actually began under Carter, not Reagan. Carter deregulated airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates, and set up much of the deregulation machinery that Reagan would later use.

The supply-sider's dream was largely realized by 1982 -- and yet that year turned out to be the worst year since the Great Depression. So the question is: why is Carter still to blame for the that recession, when Reagan had a full year to install a radical supply-side agenda?

Carter's double-digit inflation? But double-digit inflation was already tumbling by 1982! Consider the inflation rates for those years:
Inflation (1)

1979 11.3%
1980 13.5
1981 10.3
1982 6.2
1983 3.2</pre> Actually, the above chart leads to the real reason for the 1982 recession. Students of the Federal Reserve know that in late 1979, Chairman Paul Volcker sought to defeat rising inflation by tightening the money supply -- that is, he put the U.S. economy through an intentional recession. There was a brief and unintentional recovery in 1981, so, with inflation still high, he tightened the money supply yet again, resulting in the unusually severe 1982 recession. By the end of that year, inflation looked beaten, so Volcker flooded the economy with money and fueled the subsequent recovery.

If Carter deserves "blame" for this recession -- which Wall Street heavily supported, because soaring inflation had to be defeated -- then his responsibility is limited to his nomination of Paul Volcker to the Fed. As you can see, attempts to pin the blame on tax and regulation policies fail, because Carter actually began reigning in the federal government. Furthermore, Reagan dramatically accelerated this trend for an entire year before the recession hit. Therefore, this myth is complete nonsense.

[24champ]

Actually, if you read the piece I posted, it proves that it's the right that's guilty of revisionism in this case.


I skimmed over what you posted, as usual though LABF. What you posted has nothing to do with the thread. The thread is about Carter trying to salvage some type of credibility on Foreign Policy while he is an ex-president.

[24champ]

Upstarts and Downstarts
By Alan Reynolds

The Economic policies presided over by Ronald Reagan were stunningly successful — except to informed opinion, as represented by the academy and the major media. The principal charge against Reagan has become almost a chant: The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and the middle class was squeezed out of existence.

A key player in the campaign to popularize this view has been Sylvia Nasar of the New York Times, who relied on statistics concocted by Paul Krugman of MIT, who, in turn, garbled some already disreputable estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The purpose of the crusade was obvious. Mr. Krugman has been advocating that we somehow double tax collections from those earning over $200,000, so as to greatly increase federal spending. Miss Nasar openly boasted about "supplying fresh ammunition for those . . . searching for new ways to raise government revenue." Governor Clinton immediately seized upon the Krugman-Nasar statistics as the rationale for his economic plan to tax us into prosperity.

Since the question is what happened in the 1980s, after the Carter Administration, it makes no sense to begin with 1977, as Mr. Krugman and Miss Nasar do, or with 1973, as the Children's Defense Fund does. Real incomes fell sharply during the runaway inflations of 1974-75 and 1979-80. Median real income among black families, for example, fell 15 per cent from 1973 to 1980, then rose 16 per cent from 1982 to 1990.

The table shows the actual real income of households by fifths of the income distribution, for the most commonly cited years. There is no question that all income groups experienced significant income gains from 1980 to 1989, despite the 1981-82 recession, and were still well ahead of 1980 even in the 1990 slump. For all U.S. households, the mean average of real income rose b 15.2 per cent from 1980 to 1989 (from $33,409 to $38,493, in 1990 dollars), compared with a 0.8 per cent decline from 1970 to 1980.

This table shows that the "income gap" did not widen merely between the bottom fifth and any "top" group, but also between the bottom fifth and the next highest fifth, the middle fifth, and so on.

A common complaint about these figures is that they exclude capital gains, and therefore understate income at the top. However, the figures also exclude taxes. Average income taxes and payroll taxes among the top fifth of households amounted to $24,322 in 1990, according to the Census Bureau, but capital gains among the top fifth were only $14,972. To add the capital gains and not subtract the taxes, as some CBO figures do, is indefensible. Indeed, all CBO estimates of income gains are useless, because they include an estimate of capital gains based on a sample of tax returns. Since lower tax rates on capital gains after 1977 induced more people to sell assets more often, the CBO wrongly records this as increased income. It also ignores all capital losses above the deductible $3,000, and fails to adjust capital gains for inflation.

The Middle-Class Boom
One thing that we know with 100 per cent certainty is that most Americans - far more than half - did very well during the long and strong economic expansion from 1982 to 1989. In those fat years, real after-tax income per person rose by 15.5 per cent, and real median income of families, before taxes, went up 12.5 per cent. That means half of all families had gains larger than 12.5 per cent, while many below the median also had income gains, though not as large. Many families had to have gained even more than 12.5 per cent, since the more familiar mean average rose 16.8 per cent from 1982 to 1989. Even if we begin with 1980, rather than 1982, median income was up 8 per cent by 1989, and mean income by 14.9 per cent. And even if we end this comparison with the slump of 1990, median family income was still up 5.9 per cent from 1980, and mean income was up 12 per cent.

In U.S. News & World Report (March 23, 1992), Paul Krugman claimed that "the income of a few very well-off families soared. This raised average family income - but most families didn't share in the good times" (emphasis added). Mr. Krugman apparently does not understand what a rising median income means.

The whole idea of dividing people into arbitrary fifths by income ignores the enormous mobility of people in and out of these categories. What was most unusual about the Eighties, though, was that the number moving up far exceeded the number moving down. A Treasury Department study of 14,351 taxpayers shows that 86 per cent of those in the lowest fifth in 1979, and 60 per cent in the second fifth, had moved up into a higher income category by 1988. Among those in the middle income group, 47 per cent moved up, while fewer than 20 per cent moved down. Indeed, many more families moved up than down in every income group except the top 1 per cent, where 53 per cent fell into a lower category. Similar research by Isabel Sawhill and Mark Condon of the Urban Institute found that real incomes of those who started out in the bottom fifth in 1977 had risen 77 per cent by 1986 - more than 15 times as fast as those who started in the top fifth. Miss Sawhill and Mr. Condon concluded that "the rich got a little richer and the poor got much richer."

This remarkable upward mobility is the sole cause of "The Incredible Shrinking Middle Class," featured in the May 1992 issue of American Demographics. Measured in constant 1990 dollars, the percentage of families earning between $15,000 and $50,000 fell by 5 points, from about 58 per cent to 53 per cent. This is what is meant by a "shrinking" middle class. We know they didn't disappear into poverty, because the percentage of families earning less than $15,000 (in 1990 dollars), dropped a bit, from 17.5 per cent in 1980 to 16.9 per cent in 1990. What instead happened is that the percentage earning more than $50,000, in constant dollars, rose by 5 points - from less than 25 per cent to nearly 31 per cent. Several million families "vanished" from the middle class by earning much more money!

It is not possible to reconcile the increase in median incomes with the often-repeated claim that low-wage service jobs ("McJobs") expanded at the expense of high-wage manufacturing jobs. Actually, there were millions more jobs in sectors where wages were rising most briskly, which meant competitive export industries but also services. From 1980 to 1991, average hourly earnings rose by 6.8 per cent a year in services, compared with only 4.8 per cent in manufacturing. The percentage of working-age Americans with jobs, which had never before the 1980s been nearly as high as 60 per cent, rose to 63 per cent by 1989.

The Myth of Low-Wage Jobs
An Editorial in Business Week (May 25) claimed that, "according to a just-released Census Bureau study, the number of working poor rose dramatically from 1979 to 1990." This is completely false. In fact, the report shows that the percentage of low-income workers who are in poverty fell dramatically. Among husbands with such low-income jobs, for example, 35.7 per cent were members of poor families in 1979, but only 21.4 per cent in 1990.

Low incomes, in this report, were defined as "less than the poverty level for a four-person family" ($12,195 a year in 1990). Yet very few people with entry-level or part-time jobs are trying to support a family of four. Husbands now account for only a fifth of such low-income jobs, which are instead increasingly held by young singles and by dependent children living with their parents. Wives had 34 per cent of such jobs in 1979, but fewer than 28 per cent in 1990. That reflects the impressive fact that the median income of women rose by 31 per cent in real terms from 1979 to 1990.

It is true that the absolute number of low-income jobs increased in all categories, but that increase was not nearly as large as the increase in medium- and high-income jobs. All that the rise in low-income jobs really shows is that students living with their parents and young singles found it much easier to find acceptable work. The only reason fewer young people had low-income jobs back in the glorious Seventies is a large percentage of them had no jobs at all! Only 51.4 per cent of single males had full-time jobs in 1974, but 61.8 per cent did by 1989. Young people always start out with low earnings, if they get a chance to start out at all.

In his new book, Head to Head, Lester Thurow writes that "between 1973 and 1990, real hourly wages for non-supervisory workers . . . fell 12 per cent, and real weekly wages fell 18 per cent." Yet these averages include part-time workers, which his why average wages appeared to be only $355 a week in 1991, even though half of all full-time workers (the median) earned more than $430 a week. Because many more students and young mothers were able to find part-time jobs in the Eighties, that diluted both the weekly and the hourly "average" wage. It most definitely did not mean that the wages of the "average worker" went down, but rather that otherwise unemployed part-time and entry-level workers were able to raise their wages above zero. The increase in part-time jobs also does not mean that families are poorer; rather, they are richer. Out of 19.3 million part-time workers in 1991, only 1.2 million were family heads, and only 10 per cent said they were unable to find full-time work.

[24champ]

The Rich Work Harder

Although the vast majority clearly had large income gains in the Eighties, Mr. Krugman and Miss Nasar nonetheless assert that those at the top had even larger gains, and that this is something that ought to provoke resentment or envy. Yet the figures they offer to make this point are grossly misleading. Moreover, the whole static routine of slicing up income into fifths is bound to show the highest percentage increases in average (mean) incomes among the "top" 20 per cent or 1 per cent. That is because for top groups alone, any and all increases in income are included in the average, rather than in movement to a higher group.

In his U.S. News article, Krugman first claimed that CBO figures show that "Ronald Reagan's tax cuts" boosted after-tax income of the top 1 per cent "by a whopping 102 per cent." That figure, though, is based on a "tax simulation model" which estimates "adjusted" incomes as a multiple of the poverty level. The top 1 per cent supposedly earned less than 22 times the poverty level in 1980, but 44 times the poverty level in 1989 - hence the gain of 102 per cent. Yet this is a purely relative measure of affluence, not an absolute gain in real income. As more and more families rose further and further above the unchanged "poverty line" in the Eighties, thus lifting the income needed to be in the "top 1 per cent," the CBO technique had to show a "widening gap."

Furthermore, the share of federal income tax paid by the top 1 per cent soared from 18.2 per cent in 1981 to 28 per cent in 1988, though is slipped to 25.4 per cent in 1990. Indeed, this unexpected revenue from the rich was used to double personal exemptions and triple the earned-income tax credit, which was of enormous benefit to the working poor.

By the time Mr. Krugman's alleged 102 per cent gain at the top had reached the New York Times, it had shrunk to 60 per cent. However, the CBO wrote a memo disowning this estimate too, noting that "of the total rise in aggregate income . . . about one-fourth went to families in the top 1 per cent." By fiddling with "adjusted" data, the CBO managed to get that share of the top 1 per cent up to one-third. Whether a fourth or a third, these estimates still begin with 1977, not 1980. Between 1977 and 1980, the CBO shows real incomes falling by 6.6 per cent for the poorest fifth. The top 5 per cent fared relatively well before 1980, because everybody else suffered an outright drop in real income.

Even if the Krugman-Nasar figures had been remotely accurate, the whole exercise is conceptually flawed. In every income group except the top, many families can move up from one group to another with little or no effect on the average income of those remaining in the lower group. Above-average increases in income among those in the lower groups simply move them into a higher fifth, rather than raising the average income of the fifth they used to be in. Only the top income groups have no ceiling, as those in such a group cannot possibly move into any higher group. A rap star's first hit record may lift his income from the lowest fifth to the top 1 per cent, with no perceptible effect on the average income of the lowest fifth. But two hit records in the next year would raise the total amount of income counted in the top 1 per cent, and thus raise the average for that category.

Nobody knows exactly how much income is needed to be counted among the top 1 per cent, because the Census Bureau keeps track only of the top 5 per cent. Census officials argue that apparent changes in the small sample used to estimate a "top 1 per cent" may largely reflect differences in the degree of dishonest reporting. When marginal tax rates fell from 70 per cent to 28 per cent, for example, more people told the truth about what they earned, so "the rich" appeared to earn much more.

One thing we do know, though, is that the minimum amount of income needed to be included among the top 1 per cent has to have risen quite sharply since 1980, because of the huge increase in the percentage of families earning more than $50,000, or $100,000. This increased proportion of families with higher incomes pushed up the income ceilings on all middle and higher income groups, and thus raised the floor defining the highest income groups.

While $200,000 may have been enough to make the top 1 per cent in 1980, a family might need over $300,000 to be in that category a decade later. Clearly, any average of all the income above $300,000 is going to yield a much bigger number than an average of income above $200,000. The CBO thus estimates that average pre-tax income among the top 1 per cent rose from $343,610 in 1980 to $566,674 in 1992. But this 65 per cent increase in the average does not mean that those specific families that were in the top 1 per cent in 1980 typically experienced a 65 per cent increase in real income. It simply means that the standards for belonging to this exclusive club have gone way up. That is because millions more couples are earning higher incomes today than in 1980, not because only a tiny fraction are earning 65 per cent more.

Sylvia Nasar totally misreported the CBO's complaints with her first article, and audaciously quoted her own discredited assertions in a later New York Times piece (April 21). This front-page editorial changed the subject- from income to wealth. It claimed a "Federal Reserve" study had found that the wealthiest 1 per cent had 37 per cent of all net worth in 1989, up from 31 per cent in 1983. Paul Krugman, writing in the Wall Street Journal, likewise cited this "careful study by the Federal Reserve." Yet the cited figures are from a mere footnote in a rough "working paper" produced by one of hundreds of Fed economists Arthur Kennickell, along with a statistician from the IRS, Louise Woodburn. It comes with a clear warning that "opinions in this paper . . . in no way reflect the views of . . . the Federal Reserve System."

At that, all of the gain of the top 1 per cent was supposedly at the expense of others within the top 10 per cent, not the middle class or poor. In any case, the figures are little more than a guess. The authors acknowledge that they "cannot offer a formal statistical test of the significance of the change."

"The 1983 and 1989 sample designs and the weights developed are quite different," they write. "The effect of this difference is unknown." Their estimated range of error does not account for "error attributable to imputation or to other data problems." Yet it is nonetheless within that range of error for the share of net worth held by the top 1 per cent to have risen imperceptibly, from 34.5 to 34.6 per cent. This is why Kennickell and Woodburn say their estimates merely "suggest that there may have been an increase in the share of wealth held by this top group in 1989." Or maybe not.

The actual, official Federal Reserve study tells a quite different story. It shows that real net worth rose by 28 per cent among 40 per cent of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000, but by only 6.6 per cent for the top 20 per cent, earning more than $50,000. Since this huge increase in net worth among those with modest incomes means their assets grew much faster than their debts, this also puts to rest the myth that the Eighties was build upon "a mountain of debt." It was, instead, built upon a mountain of assets, particularly small businesses.

Children without Fathers

What about the poor? There is no question that there has been a stubbornly large increase of people with very low incomes. However, annual "money income" turns out to be a surprisingly bad measure of ability to buy goods and services. In 1988, average consumer spending among the lowest fifth of the population was $10,893 a year - more than double their apparent income of $4,942. That huge gap occurs partly because annual incomes are highly variable in many occupations, and many people have temporary spells of low income, due to illness or job loss. People can and do draw upon savings during periods when their income dips below normal.

Another reason why those in the bottom fifth are able to spend twice their earnings is that many in-kind government transfers (such as food stamps) are not counted as "money income". Census surveys also acknowledge that a fourth of the case income from welfare and pensions is unreported. And, of course, very little income from illegal activities is reported. In CBO figures, incomes of low-income families are further understated by counting singles as separate families, as though young people stopped getting checks from home the minute they get their first apartment.

Despite such flaws in measured income, nearly all of the income differences between the bottom fifth and the top fifth can nonetheless be explained by the number of people per family with full-time jobs, their age, and their schooling. Among household heads in the lowest fifth, for example, only 21 per cent worked full-time all year in 1990, and half had no job all year. In the top fifth, by contrast, the average number of full-time workers was more than two.

The May 25 Business Week editorial noted that "the percentage of Americans below the poverty line rose from 11.7 per cent in 1979 to 13.5 per cent in 1990." Yet this poverty rate is exaggerated, because it is based on an obsolete consumer price index that mis-measured housing inflation before 1983. Using the corrected inflation measure, the poverty rate was 11.5 per cent in 1980 and 11.4 in 1989, before rising to 12.1 per cent in 1990. That 12.1 per cent figure, though, is only one of 14 different Census Bureau measures of poverty, and not the most credible. Like income for the "Bottom fifth," the usual measure of poverty excludes many in-kind transfer payments, as well as cash from the earned-income tax credit. By instead including such benefits, and also subtracting taxes, the Census Bureau brings the actual poverty rate down to 9.5 per cent for 1990, or to 8.5 per cent if homeownership is considered (those who own homes need less cash because they don't pay rent).

Even by the conventional measure, the poverty rate among married-couple families dropped slightly, from 5.2 per cent in 1980 to 4.9 per cent in 1990, and poverty rates among those above age 65 have fallen quite substantially. On the other hand, among female household heads with children under the age of 18 and "no husband present," poverty rose from 37.1 per cent in 1979 to 39.9 per cent in 1980, and then to 41.6 per cent by 1990.

The poverty rate among fatherless families, then, is slightly higher now than it was in the previous decade, and is lower if these young women work. (Among female householders with children under the age of 6, the poverty rate among those with jobs dropped from 20.2 per cent in 1979 to 17.9 per cent in 1989, and the percentage of such mothers who worked full-time rose from 24.9 to 30.6 per cent.) But there are so many more female-headed households, and so few of these women work, that the net effect is nonetheless to keep the overall poverty rate from falling. The number of female-headed households with children under age 18 rose from 5.8 million in 1979 to 7.2 million in 1989. In too many cases, these mothers are so young that child-labor laws would not allow them to work in any case.

[24champ]

In March 1991, the average money income of female-headed families with children was only $17,500, and most of that money (plus food stamps, housing allowance, and Medicaid) came from taxpayers. For married couples who both worked full-time, average income was $55,700 before taxes - about enough to put the average two-earner family in the top fifth. Taxing hardworking two-earner families to subsidize broken, no-earner families can only discourage the former, encourage the latter, and thus exacerbate the problems it pretends to solve.

To summarize what actually happened in the 1980s, the "middle class," and the vast majority by any measure, unquestionably experienced substantial gains in real income and wealth. With millions more families earning much higher incomes, it required much higher incomes to make it into the top 5 per cent or top 1 per cent, which largely accounts for the illusion that such "top" groups experienced disproportionate gains. The rising tide lifted at least 90 per cent of all boats. About 9 to 12 per cent continued to be poor, but this group increasingly consisted of female-headed households with young children. More and better jobs cannot help those who do not work, improved investment opportunities cannot help those who do not save, and increased incomes cannot help families whose fathers refuse to support their own children.

— Mr. Reynolds is Director of Economic Research at the Hudson Institute in Indianapolis.

* * *

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I skimmed over what you posted, as usual though LABF. What you posted has nothing to do with the thread. The thread is about Carter trying to salvage some type of credibility on Foreign Policy while he is an ex-president.

The thread was about Carter. The original topic of discussion had run its course. Better post about Carter here than start a new thread, IMO.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Upstarts and Downstarts
By Alan Reynolds


Now that's revisionism.

[W*GS]

Another "brilliant" rebuttal of the factual assertions by W*GS.

Cherry-picked factoids in isolation do not an argument make.

[W*GS]

Now that's revisionism.

Instead of disputing any of the facts in the piece, LABF simply ignores them and goes for the cheap shot.

Just another case of LABF's stinking hypocrisy.

[mhgaffney]

I've learned the best response to W*gs is to ignore him.

This infuriates him. He NEEDS to get a response. He LIVES for a response.

[W*GS]

No-one, especially you, gaffney, "infuriates" me. Indeed - I find you more amusing than anything else...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I've learned the best response to W*gs is to ignore him.

This infuriates him. He NEEDS to get a response. He LIVES for a response.

Ha! :yep:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Upstarts and Downstarts
By Alan Reynolds
No link or reference for all these pages?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria," Carter said Monday. "The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved."

Carter: Hamas is willing to accept Israel as its neighbor (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080421/ap_on_re_mi_ea/carter_israel_9)

By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday that Hamas — the Islamic militant group that has called for the destruction of Israel — is prepared to accept the right of the Jewish state to "live as a neighbor next door in peace."

Carter relayed the message in a speech in Jerusalem after meeting last week with top Hamas leaders in Syria. It capped a nine-day visit to the Mideast aimed at breaking the deadlock between Israel and Hamas militants who rule the Gaza Strip.

Hamas leaders "said that they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders" and they would "accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace," Carter said.

The borders he referred to were the frontiers that existed before Israel captured large swaths of Arab lands in the 1967 Mideast war — including the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza.

In the past, Hamas officials have said they would establish a "peace in stages" if Israel were to withdraw to the borders it held before 1967. But it has been evasive about how it sees the final borders of a Palestinian state and has not abandoned its official call for Israel's destruction.

Israel, which evacuated Gaza in 2005, has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state there and in the West Bank. But it has resisted Palestinian demands that it return to its 1967 frontiers.

Carter urged Israel to engage in direct negotiations with Hamas, saying failure to do so was hampering peace efforts.

"We do not believe that peace is likely and certainly that peace is not sustainable unless a way is found to bring Hamas into the discussions in some way," he said. "The present strategy of excluding Hamas and excluding Syria is just not working."

Israel considers Hamas to be a terrorist group and has shunned Carter because of his meetings with Hamas' supreme chief, Khaled Mashaal, and other Hamas figures. Syria harbors Hamas' exiled leadership in its capital, Damascus, and supports the Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas who warred with Israel in the summer of 2006.

Carter said Hamas promised it wouldn't undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri in Gaza said Hamas' readiness to put a peace deal to a referendum "does not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum."

Such a referendum, he said, would have to be voted on by Palestinians living all over the world. They number about 9.3 million, including some 4 million living in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.

The only senior Israeli official to meet with Carter during the former president's latest Mideast mission was Israeli President Shimon Peres. During their meeting, Peres scolded Carter for meeting with the Islamic militant group.

Israel says Carter's talks embolden Palestinian extremists and hurt Palestinian moderates as they try to make peace with the Jewish state. Abbas, who rules only the West Bank, is in a bitter rivalry with Hamas.

CONT.

[cutthemdown]

Carter let the military fall into disrepair.

[Spider]

Carter let the military fall into disrepair.

Not true .... you know what Carter did that was bad ? He deregulated trucking . you wonder why Swift and JB Hunt have Idiots for Drivers ? Thats on Carter ,I cant tell you how many times I see some Idiot in a swift truck getting as close as he can to a car ..... Though Wal Mart still has strict standards and guide lines for Drivers to qualify

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Carter let the military fall into disrepair.Complete BS! I lived through that era, did you?

[24champ]

It's all BS, Hamas clearly used Carter as a prop and for legitimacy.

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- After talks with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Hamas' exiled leader Khalid Meshaal said Monday the militant group has no plans to recognize Israel.

Former President Jimmy Carter, above, held meetings with exiled militant Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal.

"We agree on the [Palestinian] state with the borders of June 4, 1967, Jerusalem as its capital, fully sovereign without settlements, the right of return, but without the recognition of Israel," Meshaal said at a news conference in Damascus, Syria.

Earlier in the day, Carter said that Hamas is prepared to accept peace with Israel if the Palestinian people approve any agreement that may be negotiated with the Jewish state.

Carter's comments came after controversial meetings Friday and Saturday in Damascus, Syria, with exiled militant Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal.

"If President [Mahmoud] Abbas of the Palestinians and Prime Minister [Ehud] Olmert reach an agreement for peace, and if it is submitted to the Palestinians and the Palestinians approve it... Hamas will accept it," Carter said in a Monday interview with CNN.

Carter's series of meetings with top Hamas officials this past week have drawn condemnation from the U.S. and Israeli governments for engaging in diplomacy with a group they consider a terrorist organization.

Carter's tour of the Middle East has also included a meeting in Cairo, Egypt, with two senior Hamas politicians before his meetings with Meshaal.

"I'm not a negotiator, I'm just trying to understand different opinions and communicate, provide communications between people that won't communicate with each other," Carter said Tuesday at the beginning of his trip.

Most Israeli officials have refused to meet Carter during his trip, angry over his insistence that Israel should talk to Hamas. Many Israelis disagree with Carter's observations about Israeli policies toward Palestinians in his recent book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

U.S. and Israeli officials believe Carter's meetings with Hamas will achieve little, and could actually harm the Middle East peace process.
Don't Miss

* Hamas claims second Carter meeting
* Carter meets with exiled Hamas leader
* Carter talks with Hamas officials in Egypt
* Blog: Carter in the Middle East

"Regrettably, Hamas will try to take political advantage of this," Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch told CNN on Friday. However, he added, "I think President Carter's sincere -- this man worked hard on peace."

Later Friday, at a State Department briefing in Washington, spokesman Sean McCormack said, "I don't think people are going to confuse the efforts of a private citizen ... with the very clear policies of the United States government."

"We think it is not useful for people to be running to Hamas at this point and having meetings with Hamas," said U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

For the Israelis, a military solution is an elusive one -- but reaching out to Hamas, Israel insists, will not bring peace.

"Hamas is conducting war against the citizens of Israel," said Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador to Britain. "What do you say to people who say: 'Why don't you talk, try and talk, and not to shoot?' ? It sounds very good but the question is, at what stage do you do that?"

And McCormack said Friday: "We find it very odd that one would encourage to have a conversation between the Israeli government and Hamas, which doesn't even recognize the right of the Israeli government to exist. So how can you have -- is that really the basis of a conversation?"
advertisement

Carter, the man who helped broker the historic peace agreement between Egypt and Israel in the late 1970s, has said he's simply on a "study mission" to support peace, democracy, and human rights in the region.

"It's my dream and my hope, that someday in my lifetime, hopefully this year, we'll see a major breakthrough," Carter said

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/21/carter.hamas/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's all BS, Hamas clearly used Carter as a prop and for legitimacy. What's BS, it's exactly what Carter said it was...

-------------------------------------------------
Hamas says would conditionally accept peace plan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080421/pl_nm/palestinians_israel_carter_dc_9;_ylt=AruCJeX2WvOLV k9fRVXpqhgE1vAI)
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis Mon Apr 21, 4:58 PM ET

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - The Islamist Hamas group said on Monday it would accept the establishment of a Palestinian state on land occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war, but it was not prepared to recognize the Jewish state.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, in an apparent softening of the group's position, was confirming an account of his remarks given by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter after two meetings in Damascus over the weekend.

"We accept a state on the June 4 line with Jerusalem as capital, real sovereignty and full right of return for refugees but without recognizing Israel," Meshaal told reporters, referring to the borders as they stood before the 1967 war.

Meshaal, whom Carter seeks to draw into peace talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israel, said his Islamist group would "respect Palestinian national will even if it was against our convictions."

Washington, which refuses to deal with Hamas and has not backed Carter's mission, said it saw no change in the group's positions.

"I think you can take it with a grain of salt. We have to look at the public comments and we also have to look at actions, and actions speak louder than words," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

An Israeli government spokesman also said the Jewish state was unimpressed by Meshaal's statement.

"Israel is targeted on a daily basis by rocket barrages from Hamas controlled territory in the Gaza Strip. Israel sees no change in Hamas's extremist positions," said David Baker, a spokesman in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office.

In a speech in Jerusalem, Carter said Hamas leaders had told him they would "accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians." He was referring to the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and a referendum on a deal Washington hopes to clinch this year.

"It means that Hamas will not undermine Abbas's efforts to negotiate an agreement and Hamas will accept an agreement if the Palestinians support it in a free vote," he said.

But Carter said Meshaal, whom he met on Friday and Saturday and telephoned on Monday over U.S. and Israeli objections, turned down his appeal for a unilateral ceasefire with Israel to end violence threatening peace efforts.

"I did the best I could on that," Carter said of his failure to persuade Hamas to halt rocket fire from the Gaza Strip it has controlled since it ousted Abbas's secular Fatah movement.

Carter said his understandings with Hamas called for a referendum to be preceded by reconciliation between the group and Abbas's Fatah faction. Hamas seized the Gaza Strip from Fatah in June and Abbas has demanded the territory's return.

Gaza-based Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said Palestinian refugees living in exile must take part in a referendum -- a condition that could dim the chances of approval since Israel opposes their mass return to what is now the Jewish state.
CONT.

[24champ]

What's BS, it's exactly what Carter said it was...


It's BS because Hamas will never recognize Israel, until then there will be no peace agreement.

[mhgaffney]

Cutthemdown repeats the familiar line that "Carter let the military get run down."

The truth, however, is rather different. The truth is that Carter was set up to fail in the 1980 election. Cut apparently has never heard of the "October Surprise..." ??

This was a secret deal between certain repukes and the government of Iran - - who agreed not to release the US embassy hostages until AFTER the 1980 election. (They came home in January 2001) This insured Carter's defeat in November 1980 -- - by Ronnie Ray Gun.

We can wonder why the Iranians would negotiate with the likes of Cheney - Rumsfeld or whoever was at the table. We call them neocons today.

But the fact is that Carter was set up to fail.

Such a deal -- was in fact treason. But of course the US press never reported it -- nor have they to this day.

Treason is only treason for ordinary folks like you and me. For the ultra right it is perfectly normal and "acceptable." So -- what does this tell us about our political culture?

Ans: If America were a horse - you would have to shoot us.

[24champ]

But the fact is that Carter was set up to fail.


Carter set himself up for Failure. Period.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Carter set himself up for Failure. Period.Explain...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's BS because Hamas will never recognize Israel, until then there will be no peace agreement.

There definitely will NEVER be a peace agreement if all waring parties are not involved in negotiations.

[Spider]

Carter set himself up for Failure. Period.

How is that ?

[24champ]

Explain...

His failures as President is well documented. It is really is no wonder he is over there in the Middle East trying to restore some type of Credibility to his name or Presidency. Let's take a look...


-Carter lets a 20 year Middle East Ally get overthrown by Radicals.

- Interest Rates, inflation, and unemployment.

-Fed deficit boomed from 40 Billion to 73 Billion.

-Following the toppling of the Shah, Jimmy Carter proceeded to fumble at attempts to resolve the ransackage of our embassy in Tehran and the year-long hostage situation in which eight Americans died.

-During his first 24 hours in office, he ordered a unilateral pullout of all nuclear weapons in South Korea. Carter’s decision was made without consultation with the Joint Chiefs, Congress or any American allies including the South Koreans.

-Carter slashed the military budget by $6 billion, and cancelled the production of both the B-1 bomber and the Trident submarine. Overall, Carter indicated that he intended to cut $56 billion from the seven-year military budget he had inherited from President Ford, without similar reductions being sought from the USSR.


- Carter scolded Americans for "a lack of confidence in the future". The result was that his APR ratings went to crap @ 25%.


Americans were fed up by his incompetence and his gloom and doom. Consequently they kicked him out of office for someone that has balls and has a can-do attitude. Carter was too busy appeasing to Commies, Islamo-facists instead of looking out for the American people. We are still cleaning up Carter's mess today and here we see Carter spending his time defending the Hamas, Saddams, Kim Jong Ils, Fidel Castros, Huego Chavez's etc.


This has NOTHING to do with Republicans conspiring or setting Carter up for failure. He set himself up by his own ineptitude and lack of action on just about everything a president is responsible for.


Personally as an American his record is embarrassing to read, I truly feel sorry for the American People that had to live through that.

[Spider]

His failures as President is well documented. It is really is no wonder he is over there in the Middle East trying to restore some type of Credibility to his name or Presidency. Let's take a look...


-Carter lets a 20 year Middle East Ally get overthrown by Radicals.

- Interest Rates, inflation, and unemployment.

-Fed deficit boomed from 40 Billion to 73 Billion.

-Following the toppling of the Shah, Jimmy Carter proceeded to fumble at attempts to resolve the ransackage of our embassy in Tehran and the year-long hostage situation in which eight Americans died.

-During his first 24 hours in office, he ordered a unilateral pullout of all nuclear weapons in South Korea. Carter’s decision was made without consultation with the Joint Chiefs, Congress or any American allies including the South Koreans.

-Carter slashed the military budget by $6 billion, and cancelled the production of both the B-1 bomber and the Trident submarine. Overall, Carter indicated that he intended to cut $56 billion from the seven-year military budget he had inherited from President Ford, without similar reductions being sought from the USSR.


- Carter scolded Americans for "a lack of confidence in the future". The result was that his APR ratings went to crap @ 25%.


Americans were fed up by his incompetence and his gloom and doom. Consequently they kicked him out of office for someone that has balls and has a can-do attitude. Carter was too busy appeasing to Commies, Islamo-facists instead of looking out for the American people. We are still cleaning up Carter's mess today and here we see Carter spending his time defending the Hamas, Saddams, Kim Jong Ils, Fidel Castros, Huego Chavez's etc.


This has NOTHING to do with Republicans conspiring or setting Carter up for failure. He set himself up by his own ineptitude and lack of action on just about everything a president is responsible for.


Personally as an American his record is embarrassing to read, I truly feel sorry for the American People that had to live through that.

Let me use my people skills here ...........where in the **** did you find this Bull**** ?
if anything Carter had troubles at home , but he got peace between Israel and Egypt

[Spider]

More of my People skills here .. you really need to get your head out of your ass ,and look what Carter did in the R&D area , you will **** your pants .......
I didnt like Carter , He had an ape **** brother named Billy , that came out with Billy Beer , but no need to go and ****ing lie Bronx

[Spider]

I got to seperate fact from Bull**** here

His failures as President is well documented. It is really is no wonder he is over there in the Middle East trying to restore some type of Credibility to his name or Presidency. Let's take a look... Lets do just that .......


-Carter lets a 20 year Middle East Ally get overthrown by Radicals.
we just came out of a bad ass war , should we have started another ?

- Interest Rates, inflation, and unemployment. those were huge problems Carter fired damn near everyone , but Carter was very fiscally conservative , he did too much , made things worse .....

-Fed deficit boomed from 40 Billion to 73 Billion. the energy crisis was bad

-Following the toppling of the Shah, Jimmy Carter proceeded to fumble at attempts to resolve the ransackage of our embassy in Tehran and the year-long hostage situation in which eight Americans died. that wasnt on Carter , that was on the CIA .. pay attention

-During his first 24 hours in office, he ordered a unilateral pullout of all nuclear weapons in South Korea. Carter’s decision was made without consultation with the Joint Chiefs, Congress or any American allies including the South Koreans. Bald face ****ing lie , Carters first 24 hours , he gave amnesty to all the draft dodgers , look up the Salt II talks

-Carter slashed the military budget by $6 billion, and cancelled the production of both the B-1 bomber and the Trident submarine. Overall, Carter indicated that he intended to cut $56 billion from the seven-year military budget he had inherited from President Ford, without similar reductions being sought from the USSR. Jimmy Carter also gave us the Stealth Bomber and the Patriot missile defense


- Carter scolded Americans for "a lack of confidence in the future". The result was that his APR ratings went to crap @ 25%. this part is true , we as Americans were in no mood to hear bull****


Americans were fed up by his incompetence and his gloom and doom. Consequently they kicked him out of office for someone that has balls and has a can-do attitude. Carter was too busy appeasing to Commies, Islamo-facists instead of looking out for the American people. We are still cleaning up Carter's mess today and here we see Carter spending his time defending the Hamas, Saddams, Kim Jong Ils, Fidel Castros, Huego Chavez's etc.


This has NOTHING to do with Republicans conspiring or setting Carter up for failure. He set himself up by his own ineptitude and lack of action on just about everything a president is responsible for.


Personally as an American his record is embarrassing to read, I truly feel sorry for the American People that had to live through that.
the rest of this is just bull****

[24champ]

I didnt like Carter

I'm sure you didn't. That must be why your defending this loser.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let me use my people skills here ...........where in the **** did you find this Bull**** ?

http://www.bartcop.com/rush-oxycontin2.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Complete BS! I lived through that era, did you?

It's downright creepy listening to all this right-wing revisionist history from the Bush Youth about an era they're not even old enough to remember, isn't it?

Positively Orwellian. :crazy:

[Spider]

I'm sure you didn't. That must be why your defending this loser.

LOL you just dont get it do you ?
I didnt like Carter , but that doesnt mean I have to let smearing him with bull**** go on ......
Do you really like believing lies ? or do you really want to know facts ?
All you do when you post bull**** is make yourself look like an idiot ......
you know I cant stand Bush , but I challenge you to find one thing I have posted about him to be untrue ... go ahead try it

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Do you really like believing lies ? or do you really want to know facts ?


Dude - you're talking to a guy who voted for Bush. :D

[24champ]

LOL you just dont get it do you ?
I didnt like Carter , but that doesnt mean I have to let smearing him with bull**** go on ......
Do you really like believing lies ? or do you really want to know facts ?
All you do when you post bull**** is make yourself look like an idiot ......
you know I cant stand Bush , but I challenge you to find one thing I have posted about him to be untrue ... go ahead try it

Fact is, he unofficially got ousted from Office with an embarrassing defeat because his record as President sucks.

I am not the one trying to revise or sugarcoat the "Jimmuh" era. You say you didn't like him as President but I don't really believe you since you defend this gutless puke.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I am not the one trying to revise or sugarcoat the "Jimmuh" era.

:bs:

Everyone who actually remembers that era and lived through it is shaking his head in disbelief at the revisionism and disinfo you're trying to peddle here.

It is absolutely Orwellian.

[Spider]

Fact is, he unofficially got ousted from Office with an embarrassing defeat because his record as President sucks.

I am not the one trying to revise or sugarcoat the "Jimmuh" era. You say you didn't like him as President but I don't really believe you since you defend this gutless puke.

LOL you are full of **** , Carter was guilty of 1 thing though Volker ( google the name ) I dont give a damn if your punk ass believes me or not , But dont sit there and tell me how it was when i lived through the **** , and if you dont like it **** you ....... Simple as that , I wont have some snot nose kid telling me how it was ......

[24champ]

Yeah it must have been good times sittting in line for a few hours waiting for Gas.


Good Times indeed...in fact the times were so good Jimmuh got re-elected.


Errrrr...wait.

[Spider]

Yeah it must have been good times sittting in line for a few hours waiting for Gas.


Good Times indeed...in fact the times were so good Jimmuh got re-elected.


Errrrr...wait.

what are you stupid ? I mentioned the energy crisis , but you know what punk , I sat in those long lines like everyone else , and we survived ....... we made do ... your punk ass would need medication

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah it must have been good times sittting in line for a few hours waiting for Gas.


Almost as good a time as getting anally raped at the gas pump over the eight years of Bush's watch.

[24champ]

Almost as good a time as getting anally raped at the gas pump over the eight years of Bush's watch.

Least I don't have to check my lic. plates to see if it is my turn to get gas that day...

[Spider]

Almost as good a time as getting anally raped at the gas pump over the eight years of Bush's watch.

anyone who bashes carter and doesnt bring up the name Volek , you know they are full of **** , but instead of asking or researching , he goes into Drama queen ,dumb ass mode ..must be a self defense thing

[baja]

<b>"Yeah it must have been good times sittting in line for a few hours waiting for Gas.


Good Times indeed...in fact the times were so good Jimmuh got re-elected.


Errrrr...wait. " </b>


The kid sneers as he slinks out of the room.......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Speaking of energy crises - if Carter's successors had listened to him then we might not be in the mess we're in today.

Carter predicted 30 years ago exactly where we would be today if we didn't transition off mid east oil.

Red Ink Reagan's first act as president was to round-file all of Carter's energy programs (starting with removal of the solar panels Carter installed in the WH.)

Go figure.

[baja]

Almost as good a time as getting anally raped at the gas pump over the eight years of Bush's watch.

Damn that ain't a pleasant thought.

http://oboerista.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/gas-pump.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Least I don't have to check my lic. plates to see if it is my turn to get gas that day...

With each post you keep digging yourself in deeper.

Odds are you don't even know what caused the gas shortage, how long it lasted, etc.

Eight years of getting horse f*cked at the pump by Bush's oil buddies makes the Carter years seem like a picnic by comparison.

[Spider]

Eight years of getting horse ****ed at the pump by Bush's oil buddies makes the Carter years seem like a picnic by comparison.
that it sure does
we didnt have to check our plates ,we could only buy 1 gallon at a time

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

anyone who bashes carter and doesnt bring up the name Volek , you know they are full of **** , but instead of asking or researching , he goes into Drama queen ,dumb ass mode ..must be a self defense thing

He's a paradigm example of this whole new Fox News paradigm we're living in:

The truth is whatever you want it to be. :oyvey:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

that it sure does
we didnt have to check our plates ,we could only buy 1 gallon at a time

It's obvious that 24Champ puts "brand loyalty" (GOP) ahead of truth, facts, etc.

[24champ]

Eight years of getting horse ****ed at the pump by Bush's oil buddies makes the Carter years seem like a picnic by comparison.

It was a picnic eh?

I'm laughing my ass off at you lefties trying to revise the Carter era into some great presidency.


Funny indeed.

[Spider]

It was a picnic eh?

I'm laughing my ass off at you lefties trying to revise the Carter era into some great presidency.


Funny indeed.

See there you go ,being stupid you got busted in a lie ,we never claimed he was good ,just claimed you was bull****ting

[baja]

It was a picnic eh?

I'm laughing my ass off at you lefties trying to revise the Carter era into some great presidency.


Funny indeed.

Dude it was a picnic compared to what is ahead of us it will seen like a Four Seasons catered picnic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It was a picnic eh?

I'm laughing my ass off at you lefties trying to revise the Carter era into some great presidency.


Funny indeed.

We're laughing our asses off at a guy who wasn't even alive during the Carter years trying to tell us what they were like. :rofl:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

See there you go ,being stupid you got busted in a lie ,we never claimed he was good ,just claimed you was bull****ting

Yep.

But I will go so far as to say that Carter was a good president compared to the republican crooks who came immediately before and after him.

That much we can say in hindsight.

[Taco John]

For my part, I think it's a bad idea NOT to talk to Hamas. We don't have to like them. But they ARE the democratically elected government of the Palastinians. So if we want to put on the charade of being an honest broker of peace, we don't have much choice BUT to talk to Hamas.

For what it's worth, the thread title here is amusing to me in it's imbalance. "Former Prez Carter meddling in Israeli affairs." First of all, as a matter of policy, The United States meddles in Israeli affairs -- though largely unsuccessfully. In fact, there's only been one president who has ever been able to broker a lasting peace for Israel: Jimmy Carter in 1979, when he brokered the Isreal-Egypt peace agreement that stands firm 30 years later. There are plenty of Israeli's who appreciate Israel's debt to Jimmy Carter (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974893.html)... even if the robotic knee jerk "Rush Limbaugh is attacking Jimmy Carter so I must too" politics of today that ignores history in favor of creating as much division as possible doesn't.

For my part, I wish we'd just let Israel take care of herself -- she's more than capable -- and have *ALL* of our politicians stop meddling in Israeli affairs. But if we *MUST* meddle in their affairs, why not let the guy who's actually had measurable success in the region take his shot. If we are honest about wanting to see peace in the middle east, the first step is going to come by talking to people we don't necessarily agree with.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

His failures as President is well documented. It is really is no wonder he is over there in the Middle East trying to restore some type of Credibility to his name or Presidency. Let's take a look...
Ah, the Republican talking points when it comes to Reagan and Carter. Where did you get these, off Rush's site? I really wish people who know nothing about the history they speak of would actually research it before trying to create it.

[Spider]

I think why Rush and Insanity and the rest of the goof troop give Paul Volek a pass , is Reagan had Volek also .......

[jhat01]

Slug, All I've ever heard was that Carter was useless. I haven't studied his term so i don't know. Are you saying he wasn't a failure as Pres? Or are you letting the turd that is in office now skew your judgement? Why don't you get out of good guy Dem/bad guy Rep mode for one ****ing second.

[kappys]

For my part, I think it's a bad idea NOT to talk to Hamas. We don't have to like them. But they ARE the democratically elected government of the Palastinians. So if we want to put on the charade of being an honest broker of peace, we don't have much choice BUT to talk to Hamas.

For what it's worth, the thread title here is amusing to me in it's imbalance. "Former Prez Carter meddling in Israeli affairs." First of all, as a matter of policy, The United States meddles in Israeli affairs -- though largely unsuccessfully. In fact, there's only been one president who has ever been able to broker a lasting peace for Israel: Jimmy Carter in 1979, when he brokered the Isreal-Egypt peace agreement that stands firm 30 years later. There are plenty of Israeli's who appreciate Israel's debt to Jimmy Carter (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974893.html)... even if the robotic knee jerk "Rush Limbaugh is attacking Jimmy Carter so I must too" politics of today that ignores history in favor of creating as much division as possible doesn't.

For my part, I wish we'd just let Israel take care of herself -- she's more than capable -- and have *ALL* of our politicians stop meddling in Israeli affairs. But if we *MUST* meddle in their affairs, why not let the guy who's actually had measurable success in the region take his shot. If we are honest about wanting to see peace in the middle east, the first step is going to come by talking to people we don't necessarily agree with.

Isreal isn't going to engage in real peace talks until the wall is finished. The borders are being drawn currently and reinforced with concrete. Engaging in talks now wouldn't go anywhere since anyone looking at a map of the wall couldn't possibly justify the crap that Palestine is going to be left with once its all over.

[baja]

since anyone looking at a map of the wall couldn't possibly justify the crap that Palestine is going to be left with once its all over.

How Jewish of them. ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ah, the Republican talking points when it comes to Reagan and Carter. Where did you get these, off Rush's site? I really wish people who know nothing about the history they speak of would actually research it before trying to create it.

This kind of thing makes it a lot easier to see how Bush got elected, huh?

[mhgaffney]

For my part, I think it's a bad idea NOT to talk to Hamas. We don't have to like them. But they ARE the democratically elected government of the Palastinians. So if we want to put on the charade of being an honest broker of peace, we don't have much choice BUT to talk to Hamas.

For what it's worth, the thread title here is amusing to me in it's imbalance. "Former Prez Carter meddling in Israeli affairs." First of all, as a matter of policy, The United States meddles in Israeli affairs -- though largely unsuccessfully. In fact, there's only been one president who has ever been able to broker a lasting peace for Israel: Jimmy Carter in 1979, when he brokered the Isreal-Egypt peace agreement that stands firm 30 years later. There are plenty of Israeli's who appreciate Israel's debt to Jimmy Carter (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974893.html)... even if the robotic knee jerk "Rush Limbaugh is attacking Jimmy Carter so I must too" politics of today that ignores history in favor of creating as much division as possible doesn't.

For my part, I wish we'd just let Israel take care of herself -- she's more than capable -- and have *ALL* of our politicians stop meddling in Israeli affairs. But if we *MUST* meddle in their affairs, why not let the guy who's actually had measurable success in the region take his shot. If we are honest about wanting to see peace in the middle east, the first step is going to come by talking to people we don't necessarily agree with.

The Zionists have always feared to go it alone. They have always had a larger and more powerful partner state as a sponsor. Before 1945 it was Britain -- which sponsored the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestine in the 1920s and 1930s as a result of the Balfour Declaration. The Brits also armed and trained the Haganah to help in WW II. After the war the Zionists bit the hand that had fed them: They turned on their British sponsors -- bombing and killing British soldiers.

Later - in the 1950s-- after the BRits pulled out -- the Israelis turned to the French for help. France provide Israel with weapons and also helped with nuclear technology The French turned over their nuclear testing data from their own tests in Algeria and even built the Dimona reactor -- with its plutonium separation plant hidden 80 feet under the desert.

After the 1967 war De Gaulle broke off French support -- Israel then turned to the USA. We have sponsored Israel ever since.

Of course it is a very bad idea not to talk with Hamas. Taking is better than fighting. Since 2001 however when Sharon entered office Israel has refused to talk -- and instead uses the iron fist. I believe the Zionists now think that with the US in their pocket they can complete the settlement of the W Bank unopposed -- and to heck with world opinion.

[Bronco Bob]

Carter let the military fall into disrepair.

When Carter became president the Vietnam war had just ended,
so the military was already in pretty bad shape, worn out equipment,
bad moral. I was in the military from 1973 to 1981, and I noticed
a definite improvement in both moral and equipment during the
Carter years. Was it perfect? No. But it was a better by the
end of Carter's term than it was when he started.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When Carter became president the Vietnam war had just ended,
so the military was already in pretty bad shape, worn out equipment,
bad moral. I was in the military from 1973 to 1981, and I noticed
a definite improvement in both moral and equipment during the
Carter years. Was it perfect? No. But it was a better by the
end of Carter's term than it was when he started.

I served during that same era, so I can vouch for that.

Veterans benefits and care were WAY better under Carter than the crook who succeeded him also.

[baja]

I got a collage education from my GI bill. When I finished school I did not owe one red cent. Imagine that you students of today.

[24champ]

y VERENA DOBNIK, Associated Press Writer 58 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Israel's ambassador to the United Nations on Thursday called former President Jimmy Carter "a bigot" for meeting with the leader of the militant Hamas movement in Syria.
ADVERTISEMENT

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, "went to the region with soiled hands and came back with bloody hands after shaking the hand of Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas," Ambassador Dan Gillerman told a luncheon briefing for reporters.

The diplomat was questioned about problems facing his country during a wide-ranging discussion with reporters lasting more than an hour. The briefing was sponsored by The Israel Project, a Washington-based, media-oriented advocacy group.

The ambassador's harsh words for Carter came days after the ex-president met with Mashaal for seven hours in Damascus to negotiate a cease-fire with Gaza's Hamas rulers. Carter then called Mashaal on Monday to try to get him to agree to a one-month truce without conditions, but the Hamas leader rejected the idea.

The ambassador called last weekend's encounter "a very sad episode in American history."

He said it was "a shame" to see Carter, who had done "good things" as a former president, "turn into what I believe to be a bigot."

Telephone calls by The Associated Press to two Atlanta numbers for Carter were not immediately returned Thursday.

Gillerman said Hamas is armed and trained by Iran, whose president once called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

"The real danger, the real problem is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the real threat is Iran," he said.

Gillerman spoke with reporters from around the world at the Times Square offices of a New York law firm on the day Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was in Washington meeting with President Bush.

The ambassador said he was "quite optimistic" about the chances for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement because Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have met more times than any previous leaders of the two sides.

"I believe they've gone deeper and further than any other Israeli or Palestinian leader, and I believe that there is a very good chance (for a settlement)," he said.

Gillerman also was asked about another topic involving the U.S. government and Israel: the arrest last week in New Jersey of an 84-year-old man accused of passing U.S. weapons program secrets to an Israeli agent a quarter-century ago.

Retired U.S. military engineer Ben-ami Kadish faces charges linking him to the same now-defunct Israeli intelligence agency that used Jonathan Pollard, who is serving a life sentence for spying for Israel.

Gillerman called it "a very old matter."

"It pertains to something that may or may not have happened 25 years ago" and would be decided when Kadish goes to trial, he said.

In the wake of the Pollard case, the ambassador said Israel had made a pledge not to spy on the United States, "and that is something which I know that we have honored completely."

The ambassador declined to comment on U.S. government reports that Syria was building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance before it was bombed by Israeli planes last year.

Gillerman called Syria a "destabilizing influence" in the Middle East.

"You see Syria's hosting, very hospitably and warmly, over 10 terror organizations in Damascus," the ambassador said, adding that the country also supports Hezbollah, an anti-Israeli Shiite group in Lebanon with close ties to Iran and Syria.

"Basically, Syria and Iran, together with Hamas and Hezbollah, are the main axes of terror and evil in the world," the Israeli ambassador said.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_us/un_israeli_ambassador

[Spider]

meh!!!!!!!!!**** the ambassador and the white horse he rode in on ........