5 ms·

> and hurt the United States in a lot of ways During the 8 years that Reagan was president the US economy grew by over 30%. This is an amazing feat. > while J

by catz 17y ago

> and hurt the United States in a lot of ways During the 8 years that Reagan was president the US economy grew by over 30%. This is an amazing feat. > while Jimmy Carter went on to do a lot of good Really? Do you think Carter was a good president? I wonder who created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Rela...) which had a pretty big hand in the sub-prime meltdown.

unalone 17y ago
Yeah, Reagan did some good things. He also created the atmosphere in which presidents are judged more by clever quips than by experience and plans, he turned the US political scene into a scene of nonstop drama, and there was that Contra thingie that he outright lied about. Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things. And he always, always, took what he did seriously.
- catz 17y ago
  > more by clever quips than by I dislike superficial things such as that. The whole smooth talking and celebrity thing is not for me. But in all fairness, the president that is the most like that is Barrack Obama. One thing that was good about Bush was that he was not very charismatic. This allowed people to judge him by his actions (and no cult of celebrity existed around him). The cult of personality that you build around a lot of politicians (esp. Obama) will be bad for you in the long run. > and there was that Contra thingie that he outright lied about Here is a quote from WP: > While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[4] there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that he authorized this plan. I would not be surprised if he did not know what was happening. The CIA did a lot of things that would fall into a “morally grey area” during the cold war. A lot of these things needed to be done. > Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things. Admittedly he did better than Al Gore, but what did he really accomplish? His habitat for Humanity project is for me stupid. Why would you get foreign volunteers to build a house in a country with high unemployment? The economic effects was not thought through well – it would disadvantage labourers in the country.
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    Perhaps you missed the word volunteers. Habitat for Humanity has helped a lot of people; nit picking the source of the volunteers is uncalled for.
  - Kyderdog 17y ago
    I would be surprise if Regan knew what was happening from day one. BIH Ron.
- MaysonL 17y ago
  And, just like Obama, he felt that getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world would be a good thing. See http://mediamatters.org/items/200812080009 http://mediamatters.org/items/200812080009
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    It would be a good thing. Whether or not it's achievable is entirely a different matter but if that genie could be put back in the bottle it'd be a wonderful thing.
kragen 17y ago
The excellent Wikipedia section you linked to makes it crystal clear that the CRA, which passed in 1977, had no causal role in the subprime meltdown that started in 2007. That should be immediately obvious to the most casual observer, since there were 30 years between the events in question, but in case you were doubting, the article draws on a wide variety of sources of evidence.
- catz 17y ago
  > The excellent Wikipedia section you linked to makes it crystal clear that the CRA, which passed in 1977, had no causal role in the subprime meltdown Where? Here are a few quotes: > Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA. > Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University, in an opinion piece for CNN, calls for “getting rid” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that “pressure banks into subprime lending.”[60] > asked if the CRA provided the “fuel” for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior > CRA, which passed in 1977, had no causal role in the subprime meltdown that started in 2007. Uhm... You know that it was "strengthened" (Expanded) by Clinton twice?

by catz 17y ago

unalone 17y ago

Yeah, Reagan did some good things. He also created the atmosphere in which presidents are judged more by clever quips than by experience and plans, he turned the US political scene into a scene of nonstop drama, and there was that Contra thingie that he outright lied about. Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things. And he always, always, took what he did seriously.

catz 17y ago
> more by clever quips than by I dislike superficial things such as that. The whole smooth talking and celebrity thing is not for me. But in all fairness, the president that is the most like that is Barrack Obama. One thing that was good about Bush was that he was not very charismatic. This allowed people to judge him by his actions (and no cult of celebrity existed around him). The cult of personality that you build around a lot of politicians (esp. Obama) will be bad for you in the long run. > and there was that Contra thingie that he outright lied about Here is a quote from WP: > While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause,[4] there has not been any evidence uncovered showing that he authorized this plan. I would not be surprised if he did not know what was happening. The CIA did a lot of things that would fall into a “morally grey area” during the cold war. A lot of these things needed to be done. > Carter wasn't good in office, but after leaving he did incredible things. Admittedly he did better than Al Gore, but what did he really accomplish? His habitat for Humanity project is for me stupid. Why would you get foreign volunteers to build a house in a country with high unemployment? The economic effects was not thought through well – it would disadvantage labourers in the country.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  Perhaps you missed the word volunteers. Habitat for Humanity has helped a lot of people; nit picking the source of the volunteers is uncalled for.
- Kyderdog 17y ago
  I would be surprise if Regan knew what was happening from day one. BIH Ron.
MaysonL 17y ago
And, just like Obama, he felt that getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world would be a good thing. See http://mediamatters.org/items/200812080009 http://mediamatters.org/items/200812080009
- gnaritas 17y ago
  It would be a good thing. Whether or not it's achievable is entirely a different matter but if that genie could be put back in the bottle it'd be a wonderful thing.

kragen 17y ago

The excellent Wikipedia section you linked to makes it crystal clear that the CRA, which passed in 1977, had no causal role in the subprime meltdown that started in 2007. That should be immediately obvious to the most casual observer, since there were 30 years between the events in question, but in case you were doubting, the article draws on a wide variety of sources of evidence.

catz 17y ago
> The excellent Wikipedia section you linked to makes it crystal clear that the CRA, which passed in 1977, had no causal role in the subprime meltdown Where? Here are a few quotes: > Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA. > Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University, in an opinion piece for CNN, calls for “getting rid” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that “pressure banks into subprime lending.”[60] > asked if the CRA provided the “fuel” for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior > CRA, which passed in 1977, had no causal role in the subprime meltdown that started in 2007. Uhm... You know that it was "strengthened" (Expanded) by Clinton twice?