Jimmy Carter was right...

Craig said:

Volcker...was of course, enplaced by Carter.

Click to expand...

Craig said:

Geez...talk about Burying The Lede...

You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests.

It "begins" by getting the massive money out of the game.

As to Reagan "leading us out of" the funk? That's simply hysterical.

Click to expand...

Boltlady said:

"enplaced"????

Click to expand...

Craig said:

sorry...

m

emplaced...

That is, nominated to the position.

Click to expand...

Boltlady said:

You must have a bigger dictionary than I do because mine doesn't have that one either.

Click to expand...

Craig said:

Volcker...was of course, enplaced by Carter.

Click to expand...

Craig said:

Language is fun...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emplace

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/emplaced

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emplaced

Click to expand...

Lukey said:

I have no problem with giving Carter credit for that as well. Carter was perhaps the most brilliant President we ever had. Unfortunately he was insufficiently enamored of market based solutions and unable to adequately sell his correct policy recommendations.

Click to expand...

Lukey said:

Not exactly. There was real economic progress under Reagan. Median income rose markedly, and there was robust REAL economic growth (i.e. private economy breadwinner type jobs, entrepreneurial activity, increasing standard of living with decreasing poverty). I do agree with you that, to an extent, he hid somewhat the problems Carter identified with his optimistic rhetoric. But the economic progress was real (unlike now). He would have been a much better leader if he had addressed the energy problem, but he did to some extent attack the societal decline problem with some success. Of course, by now I'm used to progressives conflating Reagan's success with Bush 41's abject (big government) failures.

Click to expand...

Sunset Rose said:

It seems like I remember a phase called "Reagonomics" that had a bad connotation to it. Are you sure he was good for the economy?

Click to expand...

Lukey said:

Reaganomics is basically Clintonomics, so yeah, it was good for the economy. Restraint on the growth and (regulatory) over reach of government, restructuring (curtailing) entitlements, and support for a strong currency. "Reganomics" has a bad connotation for lefties the way "Clintonomics" has a bad connotation for for righties - both hate the other side's successful use of essentially the same recipe for economic success.

Click to expand...