Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jimmy Carter has died

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 879 posts

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#391

Post by throw0101d »

oh_my_goodness wrote: post #289
CalChris wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blame John Anderson as well.

Maybe so. But Anderson also pulled votes from more-or-less Republicans who didn't believe Reagan's assertion that cutting taxes and increasing spending would narrow the deficit.

> But Anderson also pulled votes from more-or-less Republicans who didn't believe Reagan's assertion that cutting taxes and increasing spending would narrow the deficit.

When Reagan's own people said his economics were bullshit…

> Following Reagan's election, the "trickle-down" reached wide circulation with the publication of "The Education of David Stockman" a December 1981 interview of Reagan's incoming Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman, in the magazine Atlantic Monthly. In the interview, Stockman expressed doubts about supply side economics, telling journalist William Greider that the Kemp–Roth Tax Cut was a way to rebrand a tax cut for the top income bracket to make it easier to pass into law.[25] Stockman said that "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[25][26][27]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Reagan_...

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#392

Post by cmrdporcupine »

llm_trw wrote: post #202
xattt wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the US would be in a much better place This would have been the case with Gore (2000) and Clinton (2016) too.

Gore was a bigger warmonger than Bush in the 2000 election. I don't see how we would have had a better outcome with him in power. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6nW2Uow-zk&pp=ygUeQnVzaCBub... In case you don't believe that.

Bush played isolationist in the 2000 election, but the people he lined up in his actual gov't once he took power clearly were not. So it was always going to turn out the way it did, with him continuing the little quests his father and Reagan were on.

It's just the same internal power play within the GOP for decades. Explicitly imperialist adventurism, or a sad attempt isolationist foreign policy that never actually happens. See the way they're incoherent on Ukraine, now.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#393

Post by croissants »

Having not been born during his presidency, whenever I think of Jimmy Carter, I think of his appearance in Travels in Georgia [1], a John McPhee essay that's mostly about following a couple of workers for the Georgia Natural Areas council as they travel through and collect information about Natural Areas in the early 1970s. Jimmy Carter, then-governor, pops up at the end to be taken in a canoe down a river that the couple of workers want protected. Having basically nobody around to impress, Carter is nonetheless affable, open, curious, and generally good-hearted. The piece ends at the governor's mansion, like this:

A ball sat on the pavement. Before going in, we shot baskets for a while. "The river is just great," the Governor said, laying one in. "And it ought to be kept the way it is. It's almost heartbreaking to feel that the river is in danger of destruction. I guess I'll write a letter to all the landowners and say, 'If you'll use some self-restraint, it'll decrease the amount of legal restraint put on you in the future.' I don't think people want to incur the permanent wrath of the governor or the legislature."

"I've tried to talk to property owners," Carol said. "To get them to register their land with the Natural Areas Council. But they wouldn't even talk to me."

The Governor said, "To be blunt about it, Carol, why would they?"

The Governor had the ball and was dribbling in place, as if contemplating a property owner in front of him, one-on-one. He went to the basket, shot, and missed. Carol got the rebound and fed the ball to Sam. He shot. He missed, too.

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1973/04/28/travels-in-geo...

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#394

Post by haswell »

gunalx wrote: post #376

Why is this generic news article on hacker news. The guidelines clearly states anything you would probably find in regular National news probably shouldn't be on hacker news. I want to get a break from the regular newscycle when going here.

I think the key word in the guidelines is “generally”. Exceptions seem to be made for the deaths of major figures, massively consequential events, etc.

The “hide” button was made for this situation IMO.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#395

Post by bdangubic »

bluGill wrote: post #381
kortilla wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public likes the immediate access to healthcare, they just don’t like it when the bill comes due. That’s why you get complaints about healthcare wait times in Canada and the UK when people propose adopting fully nationalized systems like those. Those complaints come from people with decent to good insurance that have never been bitten by a denial, which unfortunately is the majority of the employed population. Pe…

For the majority who are not denied our system is better. Waits are rarely long and that costs money as well. i don't like the curret system but it isn't as bad as you would think if you read he comnents on the internet.

while your experience might be tolerable that in no way reflects the realities for people at large. I have several close friends that are SWEs with high 6-figure salaries and “great” insurance that went through health scares that can tell you absolute horror stories (Dr. says this is gravery serious matter, you neee this test, call to schedule (in October) no availability till March in 100 mile radius - we live in the capital of the free world).

I also have family in Canada that first-hand say that what we are reading here about Canada’s health care system is absolute garbage and lies… so there’s that…

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#396

Post by bdangubic »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #338
bdangubic wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is because in america a large majority of people’s entire identity is tied to one of the two political parties. there are no liberals who believe is small government and state’s rights, no conservatives who believe in woman’s rights or that america would collapse without immigrants… for majority of people every single opinion and thought they have just magically lines up with one political party - maaaagic… henc…

Categorizing in terms of absolutes, such as "there are no liberals who ..." and "no conservatives who ...", is to engage in reductionism for the purpose of supporting a preconceived notion: ... for majority of people every single opinion and thought they have just magically lines up with one political party ... This is simply not true.

it simply is :)

EDIT: I’ll elaborate quickly why… the country is so divided these days that you can hardly engage in any conversation regarding politics across the aisle. so your only option to discuss things is with like-minded people. now when you get into like-minded group there is a herd mentality happening and serious echo chamber. here’s a personal example - one of my dearest friends on this planet used to be as liberal as they come - 100% all the way… over the years, due to various reasons like the direction of the democratic party as well as deep-end social media she turned right. it did not happen overnight, it happened over several election cycles. I have watched her be swayed to the right on issue by issue … I am educated and wise and I understood this (she is not the only one either in my “circle”) and I looked at all the issues and was like “ok, sure but she will NEVER be against abortion…” well… you know how this story ends…

I do believe that majority (I was talking in absolutes before but of course there are no absolutes) of americans are simply not smart enough to realize that two-party system made them mental slaves to those parties… finding pro-abortion republican might be as interesting as trying to find waldo :)

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#397

Post by acdha »

trhway wrote: post #313
HaZeust wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter" People forget this, Reagan literally started the charter and expectations for the modern gun control movement just because of Black Panther advancements and protests in the street with firearms.

He got scared of their right to carry arms back then as a CA governor and started the gun control there.

Prior to the NRA’s big push in the late seventies, gun control as a concept was uncontroversial as the first gun control laws dated back to the earliest days of the country. Reagan expanding coverage due to the Black Panthers was in line with earlier precedent (after Kennedy was assassinated, during WWII, during the Mob / prohibition era, etc.).

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#398

Post by energy123 »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #210
insane_dreamer wrote: post #49

Didn't do everything right as president, but a good man who mostly tried to do the right thing for Americans. Particularly exemplary since leaving the presidency. The average U.S. person would be much better off today if he had won in 1980 instead of it being the beginning of deregulation and Reaganomics.

More deregulation passed under Carter than Reagan.

Deregulation isn't automatically bad or good. Some regulations need to be removed, and some shouldn't be removed or should be added.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#399

Post by CalChris »

rayrey wrote: post #353
oh_my_goodness wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe so. But Anderson also pulled votes from more-or-less Republicans who didn't believe Reagan's assertion that cutting taxes and increasing spending would narrow the deficit.

Describes my father who voted for Anderson. He didn’t trust Reagan at all

But he didn't vote for Carter either.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#400

Post by throw0101d »

chasil wrote: post #293
gerdesj wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"70s energy policy was a result of the oil crisis, not environment concerns." Quite - the environment was not much of a concern. Bear in mind that lead in petrol was your anti-knock agent and the catalytic convertor didn't exist. I remember really yellow coloured, sickly verges alongside roads and strawberry sellers in laybyes on the A303 ...

In the 1970s, the feared effect was global cooling. I doubt that Carter could have intervened in any case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

> In the 1970s, the feared effect was global cooling.

Not really. From your Wikipedia link:

> In the scientific papers which considered climate trends of the 21st century, fewer than 10% were inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[1] […] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.[4] In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that "a very significant warming of global climate" was probable.[5]

It was a small minority in the scientific community. The concern got blown out of proportion by some cover stories.

Post reply on HN