Citizen

In the 1980's I purchased a home (which I still live in) which had a prime rate of 12% (have since refinanced). Most of what you bought on credit at that time was at about that same rate. Gas had gone up to 1.50 per gallon from .99 per gallon. The job market was tight. Unemployment was high. I remember Carter getting on T.V. and telling the American people to spend less and save more. Well, that was one of the reasons that the Republicans had a field day with him. People were actually mad because they had to sacrifice some things. But one thing is for sure. Carter's administration slowed inflation through the pains of recession.

The Bush administration prints more money and throws it at it's ignorant citizens and tell them "this will make it all better". President George W. Bush tells us that we are going through a tough period but avoided talk of recession. He will not discuss the weak dollar and soaring oil prices. He won't tell you that every time the FED lowers interest rates that the dollar value weakens. He won't tell you that the rebate checks only increases inflation and is a temporary fix.

I know that many conservatives and libertarians think that the unusually severe recession of 1982 should be blamed on Carter's mishandling of the economy. But personally, looking back, I think he handled it very well. If it were not for him and the FED's Chairman Paul Volcker tightening the money supply to defeat rising inflation the U.S. economy would not have recovered in the 80's under Reagan. The recession was an intentional recession.

Bush's recession comes from ignorance and greed.

__________________
Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme

Lerxst

Well said.

__________________
I was so right. And you? Well you were so wrong. You lost. Ha. Ha.

Goldenboy219

Those rebate checks are really nothing more than a flash in the pan. For arguments sake, lets say we get back $300 billion. With an estimated M3 hovering in the $12 trillion range, your talking .25% monetary inflation. Thats negligible in effect of monetary inflation, yet does send a chilling message to future executives who might be more liberal, and wanting to get re-elected. So in that sense, i do understand your point. But from an inflation standpoint as is, its nothing more then another bailout in the form of anther recipient of funds.

Do be afraid if a future president attempts to inflate the currency in the single digits of a %. Not only does this money not directly = inflation,as a % of this stimulus package will inevitably lead to actual growth.

What that % is brings forth a valid argument...

__________________
Firing your head coach: -15 wins
Trading Ben Wallace: +5 wins
Youngest team in NBA: -6 wins
Drafting Derrick Rose no.1 overall: Priceless

Citizen

Your statements clearly lets me know that you have no clue as to how the economy works. Especially in the global market. This rebate is nothing more than printing more money that we do not have. We are adding to the already high deficit spending which in turn lowers the value of the dollar. The dollar value in the global realm affects the cost of oil and the cost of imports and exports.

This stimulus practice will only be a temporary fix to a complicated problem. It will not stabilize the economy. It order for our economy to become more stable, we must go through this recession naturally.

Summerwind

Citizen, I agree with you whole heartedly. With that in mind, I am waiting for the Fed to lower rates again this Tuesday, because then I will drain my remaining available balance from my equity line of credit that I got a couple of years ago and have only used about half of, then I'm gonna lock in that low inerest rate (my recent statement showed a 5.89% so with another drop it should be around 5.5% which is lower than my first mortgage which is at 5.89%) So for me, right now I can stand that aspect of it. Unfortunately the reason I am "having" to make these plans is because I am unemployed with little prospects in the local area and no chance of selling the home and moving. I'm not quite ready to abandon my home or my responsibilities therein, but I'm definitely having to borrow from Paul to pay Peter just to buy time while trying to find employment.

Iriemon

It wasn't the Carter administration so much that stopped inflation but his appointment of Vokler to Chair the Fed, who was appointed by Carter to put the clamps on the money supply. Vokler did, which sent interest rates sky high in the election year of 1980 (and again in 82). Eventually that licked
inflation.

Similarly the Bush Admin does not control the money supply either.

The money giveaways that the Bush Administration is doing now for the second time is of questionable effectiveness. The one time effort isn't necessarilary a bad idea, though you have to question when it becomes harmful in the context of the $3.5 trillion in additional debt the Bush administration has bequest to our nation.

It's a sad irony in retrospect. Reagan the leader of the so-called conservative movement ran on a plank bashing Carter for irresponsible deficits an an unfair debt that brought the promise of economic upheaval. I agree with Reagan. But Carter's defict was about $30 billion; by the time the Reagonomics era ended in 1993 with the election of Clinton, the deficit was at $340 billion, and the national debt had quadrupled from $1 trillion to $4 trillion.

"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" Ronald Reagan, 1981.

Phrases that defined a career - The Legacy of Ronald Reagan - MSNBC.com

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Goldenboy219

No, your mistaken my friend. The dollar's decline is primarily tied to the increased cost of unrefined crude, AKA the petro dollar.

Now i will admit that an abnormally high deficit is unattractive to potential world currency holders, and in turn might signal a slight decline in the dollars demand as a reserve currency. Yet high stakes holders such as Japan and China have a vested economic interest in the dollar being somewhat stable.

Weak investments derived from various debt based hedges have also declined the demand of the dollar. Being as though the US currently maintains nearly half of the worlds credit derivatives ($370 trillion), it only takes a loss of 100 basis points or so to cause great damage.

The majority of dollars are created in banks. The majority of credit is created in banks, Artificially low interest rates used as a measure to bluster the economy is what will inevitably lead to an inflationary/stagflation crisis. Only a free floating currency can avoid such crisis as we have. Yet a free floating currency is unforgiving, and bailouts would cease to exist if that were the case. It seems alot of people have become accustomed to the profits initiated by moral hazard...

aegyptos

Sorry but Volcker should 100% of the credit for killing stagflation and none to Carter who didn't understand the economy any better than he did the US foreign policy.

Iriemon

He had the wisdom and courage to appoint him, where others did not.

aegyptos

Stagflation became apparent under Ford's administration - some would say Nixon's but that's premature. It became a crisis under Carter who had appointed a non-entity named G. William Miller to head the Fed. Never heard of him? No one else did either. He lasted about a year. In his last months Carter appointed Paul Volcker, an experienced central banker to the post. Volcker's cure, which saw a drastic decline in the money supply, led to the highest unemployment rates and deepest recession since the Great Depression. The recession that Reagan inherited was thus engineered by the Fed under Carter's watch.