The Carter Administration. Were you Alive?

Entirely possible.

I remember talking to my friend, I told her, yeah I remember the bicentenial, 1976.... fireworks, hoo-haw... all that. Was it fun? she asked, yeah I guess... for a six year old.

The spending remark I made wsa going to go off on a tangent concerning how Bush has recently tried to get poeple to spend to help the war, as opposed to WWII... it's two totally different types of wars, but it hadn't gone unnoticed in the media. I think (and this is happening in Japan now too, to a massive scale), that we need to clamp down on youth expenditures, and by expenditures I mean high intrest loans and credit. Of course you're going to see an increase in spending when you dole out credit cards to that demographic, but it leaves a gap of unpaid bills in the end.

You're right about those two things not being equinimitous, certainly, the climate was different then. Before Pearl Harbour, the US remained largely neutral, specifically as concerns public opinion. I still find it naieve, yet quaint to think that someone would proprose personal fiscal responsibility, but it was just a cary over from the previous presidency. As concerns economists, I need to brush up on my Adam Smith.

The interesting thing is that, eve when Bush urged spending, nobody really wanted to spend. Peoepl were still skittish about 9/11. People didn't know if they would need the money... If you look at that, effectively an act of terrorism temporarily worked to stall out the economy...

The 50s were pretty creepy, not inclusive as you said the civil rights movement, the rest of America sort of went on its own way, Bakelight ovens and all... 5 years into being a superpower it was the age of the 'american dream'.

You also had however, McCarthy & (more to blame), Roy Cohn, the creepiest man alive, Herbert Hoover.... The red menance. People, the film community especially, being brought up on charges of communism. The best thing to come out of the 50s was the beat generation, which coincidentally, was all but dispersed by the time the word 'beatnick' came out...

I remember the 70's as the Al Franken decade.... Who knew I would still love him years later. The 60's I would say, were comparable to the 80's, in that it was morally and relativisitcly void.... There was this great sense of altruism... this personal attention to self. Abbie hoffman, had allready broken off from the Hippies, and formed the Yippies... youth international party something something... they wrote pamphlets on how to make free fone calls, how to get free electricity... that was interesting, but certainly not a huge stratum of the population. There were the Chicago riots in '68 w/ Jerry Rubin, so there were some specific people that I remember. The gist of it was though, that most of the people who didn't just waste away bought into capitalism anyways and just assimilated themselves into the system.... You couldn't blame them. The revolution persay had peaked, and nothing had ever happened or changed.

The 70's to ME, seemed very decadant... not so decadant as the 80s but decadant enough... You couldn't conveniently wrap yourself around a cause like the 60s, you certainly couldn't say you were discoing for peace. That was the last decade we ever let the media go berzerk about any war... Previously especially in WWII we had an effective propaganda aparatus through motion pictures, and music (the US wouldn't of course submit to an overt system of propaganda.)(1). But seemingly the media coverage of the Tet Offensive (2), all but put a stop to the support for that war in the US, and has led a number of people in government to blame the media coverage on the turning of the tide in favour of the Viet Nam Cong San....

(1) - Rhodes, Anthony "Propaganda, the art of persuasion: World War II"
(2) - Chomsky, Noam "Manufacturing Consent" section 5.5.2

Actually, I was talking about the Civil Rights movement of the 60's. In the 50's, it was still gaining momentum, it didn't make a difference until the Birmingham Bus Boycott (pardon the alliteration.) As for the media in response to war, well, FDR had to sell it to the people, but it was also a different culture at the time and a much different war. It is not possible to compare WWII w/Viet Nam, you'd have better luck matching the Boer War w/the Battle of Prestonpans.




Oops, seemed to have buggered up the quotes and got them backwards. Sorry.

[Edited on May 19, 2004 by Jabberwok]

"Bully" for you!

Such long-winded speeches, I’ll keep it short. I remember (Sept 76) my 7 th grade US history teacher showing us why Ford didn’t have a real chance. On the black board he made a list of pros and cons on each, Ford’s side sucked.

Richard M. Nixon, here.

Now thats what I was thinking. I think all these kids are on crack.
Carter is still a fool today. He looked like an idiot when he went to Cuba a few years ago. He should stick to habitat and peanut farming - thats all he is good at.


[Edited on May 20, 2004 by Mike]

It's all about the "Legacy". Carter is still trying to repair his after getting his ass whooped in 1980.

Personally, I'm torn on the role of an ex-president in politics. On one hand, they have the experience to act as semi-official ambassadors and could carry some serious clout in that arena. I don't recommend sending Bush Sr to Japan, but you get the idea.

On the other hand, they have the ability to really muck things up for the current administration, especially if their party doesn't hold the Oval Office.

If I remember correctly, Carter went to N.Korea without the blessing of Clinton, on a 'humanitarian peace mission'. Not his swiftest bit of diplomacy.

But, with Clinton's record, I think he might have a positive effect on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Not that Bush would send him, but Kerry might.

Seeing as how I am a geezer... I voted for Carter in his reelection bid. Oddly, I did not, and do not, think he was a 'horrible' president. I do think his unwillingness to play the low down dirty games required in Washington lead to his demise. There have been far worse presidents... look into James Buchanan... Grant was awful... there are many more.

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have held the Oval Office in my life.

I second that motion.

didn't carter end the vietnam war... or at least get U.S. outta there?

i should have paid attention in school.

[Edited on May 20, 2004 by Quadrod]

no, i was not alive.

aren't you dead?

He may be dead, but he isn't a crook!

You guys are funny.

No. That actually happenned under Nixon.

and i think "end" should be used in only the loosest of terms...

The only thing Carter ended was our ownership of the Panama Canal.

It may have ended, but not by Nixon's choice, we kept bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail, long after the war had officially ending, neither he, nor Kisenger wanted, nor tried to end anything. We dropped so much oridnance on Viet Nam and Cambodia they are still cleaning it up. <---


[Edited on May 21, 2004 by thefuckingdaddy]

Carter didn't up and invent the crappy economy he inherited from Johnson, Nixon and Ford. The crappy 70s economy started with the huge deficit spending caused by Johnson's "guns and butter" policies. Nixon tried putting price controls (SOCIALIST!) in, and exempted hamburgers when someone at McDonalds bribed him to do so. Ford tried to beat inflation with the aforementioned WIN buttons, to little effect.