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

Statement on President Carter’s Health

cartercenter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 190 posts

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#181

Post by Maursault »

starkd wrote: post #105
Maursault wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

President Carter solved inflation, and it cost him the election, and President Reagan got the credit. Carter appointed Paul Volcker, an inflation hawk, as Fed chair in 1979. Volcker solved inflation by raising interest rates, causing two recessions, one of which was during Carter's re-election year. Reagan kept Volcker on for a short time before firing him, but Volcker got the job done, so it was President Carter tha…

This is not accurate. When Carter appointed Volcker, inflation was a dire problem, having reached upwards of 20%. He hiked the fed fund rates in full point increments, provoking howls of protest because it sent the economy into a full recession. But it took over a decade for inflation to come down to near zero range. (That's where the term stagflation comes from. There was zero GDP but high inflation.) Volcker could…

> President Carter did not solve inflation. He appointed Vocker towards the end of his term, and it was not the priority it should have been throughout his term.

This statement is self-contradictory. President Carter solved inflation by appointing Volcker. Period. He sacrificed the his presidency to do it, thus he took it seriously. No president gets anything done in during their first term, but President Carter's decisions not only solved inflation, it turned the economy around.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#182

Post by Maursault »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #89
Maursault wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

President Carter solved inflation, and it cost him the election, and President Reagan got the credit. Carter appointed Paul Volcker, an inflation hawk, as Fed chair in 1979. Volcker solved inflation by raising interest rates, causing two recessions, one of which was during Carter's re-election year. Reagan kept Volcker on for a short time before firing him, but Volcker got the job done, so it was President Carter tha…

FDR first (and the first lady) then Carter re: canonization.

I can't think of any miracles performed by FDR. Carter got Israel to return land to Egypt with the Camp David Accords, which is nuts when you think about it, created the Department of Education, and solved inflation. Running a successful Presidential campaign on peanuts with the Religious Right behind him could be one also, and I'm sure there are more with his nuclear military career, but three will suffice. And not for nothing, his initials are JC, so maybe canonization isn't quite good enough. If Gabriel ever retires, then perhaps Left Hand of God if it becomes available. Actually there may be some room, as both Jesus and Michael sit on the Right.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#183

Post by michaelscott »

syzarian wrote: post #166
michaelscott wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reagan played the political game far better than both Carter and Nixon (Watergate notwithstanding). He was a master at couching effective foreign policy tactics, which often relied on detente (eg negotiating with Iran), within the augur of American values and exceptionalism that spoke to the people of the time ("we don't negotiate with hostage takers"). The former was critical to actually get things done, but a presi…

But Reagan got things done by blatantly violating the law with impunity. Lovers of democratic forms of governance ought to look with disdain at such shenanigans.

I'm not really making a comment about his morality, only his skill. If you have an issue with his methods and what they mean morally, I'd suggest you not look too deeply at any of the people who've sat in the Oval Office. Every president since at least Truman, in a more ideal world, would be tried for war crimes for a start. In the real world things are a little more grey though.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#184

Post by michaelscott »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #95
michaelscott wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this a great summary. Carter is someone who, when looking back, seems very ahead of his time in his views. It's just that presidents are not assessed in a vacuum, and unfortunately he was not perceived as the president America needed at that point in its history.

> he was not perceived as the president America needed at that point in its history. Or maybe he was. After Nixon/Ford people were tired of corrupt career positions. Carter was folksy, one of us.

You're right, I think this was probably a major factor in why he was voted in (I wasn't alive at the time so this would just be a guess from my side). I think the big problem with Carter is that he was what you could call a "peace-time president" in a period where America was basically still very much at war. What America needed was something closer to a Churchill, and they essentially got it in the form of Reagan later.

I think Carter would've been assessed very differently if he'd been president in the 90s or early 2000s.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#185

Post by ubermonkey »

starkd wrote: post #151
croutonwagon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but feel Obama may not be an apt comparison. He spearheaded or allowed and covered for a lot of shady progression of the MIC in his time, from domestic surveillance and big bumps in prosecutions of whistleblowers to the prevelance of drone strikes on non combatants, including known extra judicial strikes of Americans overseas. That said I’m not sure a modern president can really go through a tenure without ha…

Obama was also quick to use the office of president to cash in. Something I find truly disasteful and only wrecks his credibility, in my view. Carter still lives in a relatively modest home in Georgia where he grew up. This shows a great deal of discipline against temptation. It truly is a mark of great character.

In what ways was Obama "quick to cash in," and how does doing so (assuming the options he took are legal) impact an assessment of his kindness and character?

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#186

Post by ubermonkey »

DennisP wrote: post #32

Until covid hit, he taught Sunday school in Atlanta. Anyone could come sit in on his class, but there was limited space. You had to get in line by 4 am or so to get in. I found out about this in 2019 or so, and I'm within a day's drive. Thought about doing it, hadn't yet, and then it was too late.

My mother and stepfather actually attended that class on one of their road trips. It was a highlight of their retirement travels!

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#187

Post by starkd »

Maursault wrote: post #181
starkd wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not accurate. When Carter appointed Volcker, inflation was a dire problem, having reached upwards of 20%. He hiked the fed fund rates in full point increments, provoking howls of protest because it sent the economy into a full recession. But it took over a decade for inflation to come down to near zero range. (That's where the term stagflation comes from. There was zero GDP but high inflation.) Volcker could…

> President Carter did not solve inflation. He appointed Vocker towards the end of his term, and it was not the priority it should have been throughout his term. This statement is self-contradictory. President Carter solved inflation by appointing Volcker. Period. He sacrificed the his presidency to do it, thus he took it seriously. No president gets anything done in during their first term, but President Carter's de…

Way to pull out one sentence while ignoring the rest of the comment. Inflation had been a problem long before Carter. Neither Nixon (with his disastrous price controls) nor Ford (with his WIN campaign) was able to solve it. Volcker was appointed in 1979 to the end of Carter's term. He encountered fierce resistance when he jacked up rates the way he did (in full point incremenents), because the economy tanked. He would not have been able to hold the coarse had he not been given the room to do so. It took a good decade before inflation reached anywhere near zero. It was not easy, because the fed fund rates is a coarse instrement to use to bring inflation. It's not a dial that can be dialed up and down. You are merely waving a tribalistic flag while ignoring the details.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#188

Post by Maursault »

starkd wrote: post #187
Maursault wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> President Carter did not solve inflation. He appointed Vocker towards the end of his term, and it was not the priority it should have been throughout his term. This statement is self-contradictory. President Carter solved inflation by appointing Volcker. Period. He sacrificed the his presidency to do it, thus he took it seriously. No president gets anything done in during their first term, but President Carter's de…

Way to pull out one sentence while ignoring the rest of the comment. Inflation had been a problem long before Carter. Neither Nixon (with his disastrous price controls) nor Ford (with his WIN campaign) was able to solve it. Volcker was appointed in 1979 to the end of Carter's term. He encountered fierce resistance when he jacked up rates the way he did (in full point incremenents), because the economy tanked. He woul…

And what if President Carter had not appointed Volcker Fed chair? President Carter appointed Paul Volcker specifically to end inflation. That was the entire reason for his appointment. You're suggesting it is just a happy coincidence that Volcker completed the task? What you are obsessing about, the timeline, is entirely irrelevant, except for the fact that Carter likely knew very well it would cost him the White House, and yet he appointed Volcker anyway. So your insistence on fallacy that the timing is paramount only speaks against your argument.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#189

Post by syzarian »

michaelscott wrote: post #183
syzarian wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Reagan got things done by blatantly violating the law with impunity. Lovers of democratic forms of governance ought to look with disdain at such shenanigans.

I'm not really making a comment about his morality, only his skill. If you have an issue with his methods and what they mean morally, I'd suggest you not look too deeply at any of the people who've sat in the Oval Office. Every president since at least Truman, in a more ideal world, would be tried for war crimes for a start. In the real world things are a little more grey though.

I overall agree with your point. There are many crimes the U.S. government has committed with impunity.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#190

Post by starkd »

ubermonkey wrote: post #185
starkd wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama was also quick to use the office of president to cash in. Something I find truly disasteful and only wrecks his credibility, in my view. Carter still lives in a relatively modest home in Georgia where he grew up. This shows a great deal of discipline against temptation. It truly is a mark of great character.

In what ways was Obama "quick to cash in," and how does doing so (assuming the options he took are legal) impact an assessment of his kindness and character?

So, you think those enormous speaking fees are because of his "kindness and character" ? Sure, they are legal. But let's not pretend they were for anything other than what he did for them while in office and the influence he currently carries to influence government policies. This is why, at one time, it was considered sacrilege to do so. I think Carter and Reagan (and maybe Bush Sr.) were the last presidents to observe this rule.
Post reply on HN