If you are going to post Twitter links, make sure there’s no cussing in it please. I just removed the last post from yesterdays news thread for violating this rule. Normally I would just @#$% out the offensive word, but when it’s in a Tweet I can’t without deleting it. So I deleted it. Just be careful.
“During the election, observers marveled that this voting bloc was willing to rally around a man whose personal life was hardly a model of Christian virtue. But evangelical leaders said it was more important to them to ensure a Supreme Court pick they would like, for example, than to worry about how many times Trump was married or whether he spoke respectfully about other people.
A PRRI poll taken during the election found that “more than six in ten (61%) Americans say immoral personal behavior does not preclude public officials from carrying out their public or professional duties with honesty and integrity.” And researchers also noted that “no group has shifted their position more dramatically than white evangelical Protestants. More than seven in ten (72%) white evangelical Protestants say an elected official can behave ethically even if they have committed transgressions in their personal life — a 42-point jump from 2011.”
Some might say this is simply political expediency. And I wrote a piece during the election comparing what I saw as the more principled reaction of Mormons to the Trump candidacy compared to evangelicals. But it is odd that Trump’s liberal opponents would take evangelicals to task for the divide between their views on a person’s personal behavior and public life.
After all, this is what liberals have been advocating for generations — that evangelicals should be able to separate these things. From the moment it was decided that prayer no longer belonged in public classrooms, the liberal message to traditional Christians has been that they should keep their beliefs to themselves. That message extended to abortion, where Christians were told that “choice” was the name of the game. Sure, you have your beliefs, but you can’t impose them on others. The same was true for gay marriage and just about every other culture-war issue of the past several decades. Most recently, evangelicals have been told to put aside any personal objections they have to transgender rights and accommodate people of either sex into their bathrooms and locker rooms.
One would think the Left would be celebrating the fact that evangelicals are finally acknowledging that politicians shouldn’t be judged by their personal actions (as Democrats argued ad nauseam during President Bill Clinton’s years in the White House).”
———————–
@ 6:57 People have always made compromises with their votes.
I think Carter is arguably the most personally moral president since I came of age—a never divorced Baptist Sunday School teacher whose wife did not bring witchcraft into the White House, and who covertly and illegally encouraged and funded no rebellions abroad (all claims his successor could never make). Yet Reagan is the pretty face and voice that stole the heart of the Evangelical voter. Why? As best I can discover it’s because of his economic policy and personal charm. Like anyone else, Evangelicals overlook much if it is believed a stable or advantageous economic policy is being pursued. And I see some justification for that. As individuals, we acknowledge that we have very limited power to choose the economic policies we will all live under, nor are we immune to personal charm or charisma. These factors increase the likelihood of compromise in our calculations of who to vote for.
But we still have the choice to live moral lives to the best of our ability regardless of the personal choices of our leaders. In times like these, it’s even more important to shore up the Church as a beacon for those virtues which have been lacking in the public arena for so long.
The issue has never been about Christians choosing a man they believe to be flawed or the lesser of two evils. I have said many times that I would not fault anyone’s vote (or non-Vote) last November as there were no good or even decent choices.
The problem occurs when Christian leaders (see Jeffress and Falwell) actively support (in the primaries) a candidate with unprecedented character and knowledge flaws over many more decent and qualified candidates. The problem is made worse when these same “leaders” and others excuse or defend every type of dishonesty, stupidity and outrageously rude and inappropriate behavior committed by this same person.
This is not really a problem for secular liberals. However, this behavior makes Christians look hypocritical and/or stupid. This was always the point made by Russell Moore, Dreher, Matt Walsh and other intelligent Christian leaders.
It’s not true that there were many good alternatives to Trump. Huckabee was the only real alternative in terms of economic policies. And when you have groups like the Heritage Foundation preferring Trump (who has millions at his disposal) over someone like Mike Huckabee (who does miracles on a shoestring), the outcome is already assured.
That being said, no one should excuse the inexcusable. Sometimes silence says enough. Sometimes changing the subject is enough. Pence walks the thin line like a man who gets his marching orders daily on his knees.
I simply prayed God would give us the president we need. I didn’t specify why and how and this is what we got. I’ve been reading in the Old Testament all year. I can see handwriting on the page. 😦
Gen. Kelly has discovered that while some of Trump’s untrue statements are just outright lies, others are the result of Trump receiving bad information from sources such as Fox and Friends, Breitbart and other similar sources. Kelly is trying to deal with this second problem.
Oh look, more actual crimes ordered by the White House.
But since the press isn’t talking about it, that means it was the Obama White House, as usual. And the media wonders why nobody buys their narratives any more.
“Former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power is believed to have made “hundreds” of unmasking requests to identify individuals named in classified intelligence community reports related to Trump and his presidential transition team, according to multiple sources who said the behavior is unprecedented for an official in her position.
Power was first identified by the Washington Free Beacon last month as a central figure in a congressional investigation into efforts by senior Obama administration officials to obtain classified intelligence information in what many allege was an effort to undermine President Donald Trump and his incoming national security team.
Power is believed to be the anonymous official responsible for “hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama administration,” according to current and former U.S. officials who spoke to the Free Beacon about the ongoing investigation.
Efforts by the former Obama administration to obtain the names of Trump allies included in raw intelligence reports have fueled speculation that subsequent leaks to the press were orchestrated by the former administration and its allies in a bid to damage the current White House and smear Trump’s most senior confidantes.”
——————–
“”The [intelligence] committee also understands that Obama-era officials sought the identification of Trump transition officials within intelligence reports,” according to Nunes’s letter. “However, there was no meaningful explanations offered by these officials as to why they needed or how the would use this U.S. personal information, and thus, the committee is left with the impression that these officials may have used this information for improper purposes, including the possibility of leaking.”
“More pointedly,” the letter states, “some of the requests for unminimized U.S. person information were followed by anonymous leaks of those names to the media.”
——————–
It’s almost like they planned the whole thing. Because they did.
“We keep hearing from them about how society is such a mess, that we are besieged by problems, and that our society is a disaster. Of course, the solution is always to shift more and more power and money from the normals to the elite. But this raises a question the elite never seems to ask: Who the @#$% has been in charge while all these crises were percolating?
I know who it wasn’t. It wasn’t the truck drivers or the air-conditioner installers or the guys working in the factory whose jobs got shipped to Oaxaca who have been making all these decisions. Those guys from the red states who went off to Falluja and Kandahar didn’t invent the policies that had us fighting for nearly two decades without victory in sight. They just did the bleeding and dying while their puny betters wrote unread articles in Foreign Policy and moved them around like pieces on a chessboard.
Regular Americans didn’t give us Obamacare. They didn’t give us Wall Street’s pillaging of the middle class – we all have to give the money guys our retirement savings to play with because they made sure interest rates were a big .1 percent and it’s our only option if we don’t want to spend our golden years dining on Alpo.
You elitists think you’re elite? Start proving it.
Scratch that. You had your chance, and you failed. Yeah, legal immigration might get you gated community dwellers cheaper nannies and gardeners, but its regular people who get murdered by MS-13, whose daughters get raped by the dozen-times deported scumbag the sanctuary city sheriff set free, and whose children get run over by drunks who shouldn’t even be in this country. It’s the regular people who have to pay for the welfare these people take – and don’t tell me they don’t get government benefits. Even you elitists can’t really think we’re that stupid.
This is about whether all American citizens have an equal say in their own governance. That can only be true when we enforce the law. You either abide by the law, or there is no law. And if there is no law, then there’s only power. Since you elitists probably never stooped to serving in the military, and since you almost certainly are neither armed nor proficient in weapons like we are, which makes us extremely dangerous to aspiring oppressors, you may want to rethink the whole “rule of power” thing.
But of course you won’t – instead, you’re doubling down by trying to nullify the results of the election because you don’t like the fact that you’ve been rejected and that you’re out of power. Except we’re not going to simply shrug and go back to letting you dictate how we live.
Donald Trump is a warning. Trump is the best case scenario. If you somehow depose him via your smarmy shenanigans, what comes along next is really going to upset you. You need to understand something.
Trump is not our last chance. He’s your last chance.”
I wonder if he sees himself as a whistleblower. I guess he does not feel vindicated, even after prompting a special prosecutor. Still, he is unemployed, and a fellow has to make a living somehow…:–/
(Reuters) – Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by U.S. President Donald Trump, has signed a deal for a book on leadership and decision-making that will come out in spring 2018, the publisher said on Wednesday.
The book deal with Macmillan’s Flatiron Books comes three months after Comey’s firing raised questions about whether Trump tried to interfere with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into Russia’s alleged meddling with the U.S. presidential election.
Russia denies any interference, and Trump has denied collusion with Russia and interfering with the investigation.
The book, which has not yet been given a title, will discuss “what good, ethical leadership looks like and how it drives sound decisions,” Bob Miller, president of Macmillan’s Flatiron Books, said in a statement on Wednesday.
Debra@8:10 am: “Yet Reagan is the pretty face and voice that stole the heart of the Evangelical voter. Why? As best I can discover it’s because of his economic policy and personal charm.”
I think his standing up to the Soviets had something to do with it too.
Debra, It was Reagan who first brought in social conservatives (the Religious Right) as equal partners in the Republican Coalition (with advocates of free enterprise and opponents of International Communism).
Kevin, you are probably right. Communism and Russia was the perceived common enemy then as Socialism and Democrats are perceived as the economic enemy now. I guess I’m prone to forget Reagan’s accomplishments and positive contributions (and there were some) because I believe his economic legacy was so disastrous. But I can always count on finding a few Reagan supporters here to set me straight and keep me honest. :–)
I read that article this morning Ricky and almost commented on it. There will always be unintended consequences for any law or regulation. But as Mike Huckabee said last month, “The more moral the population, the fewer laws are required to govern it. And the less moral, the more laws are required.” We seem to fall in the first category. There’s no getting around the fact that without a spiritual renewal/revival/repentance we require more, not less.
The article you actually linked to was pretty good. I read a term I’ve never heard before “reformocons” !? This part was particularly interesting:
This is an argument that reform conservatives, or “reformocons,” have been making for several years now. They believe that the party’s reliance on across-the-board tax cuts is not sufficient to address the plight of the middle class today, and that Republican politicians’ overreliance on cuts has cost the party at the ballot box. “Cutting marginal tax rates is not . . . an effective tool for delivering tax relief to the middle class,” the economist Robert Stein writes in the reformocon manifesto Room to Grow. “It does very little to lower their tax bills or improve their work incentives.” Stein and other reformocons have pushed lawmakers to focus less on lowering top tax rates and more on introducing reforms, such as an increase in the child-tax credit, that would offer immediate relief to middle-class families.
Yuval Levin, a leading reformocon and the founder of the policy journal National Affairs, argues that Republicans need to scrap the policies on which they have been relying for the past three decades. “I think the idea that Republicans can approach the country with a reenactment of the Reagan agenda doesn’t make sense,” Levin says. “It’s as if Reagan in 1980 had proposed to reenact the Republican agenda of 1945. . . . Reaganism was conservatism applied to the challenges of the 1970s and 80s. Today’s conservatism needs to apply the same goals and principles to the somewhat different problems of our time.”
Debra, Reagan was also very strongly pro-life, the first president (I think) ever to pay attention to abortion. And he rescued us fro the serious financial issues under Carter–inflation and interest rates about 20% annually, very high inflation.
I don’t see Carter as a moral man, though. I see him as unscrupulous and a meddler. He was a very bad former president, meddling in other presidents’ international affairs.
Cheryl, I would say that abortion is the biggest blot on Carter–not that he was a great president, but I credit him with as at least as great a claim to morality as Reagan, particularly in the public eye.
We paid 12% (adjustable) for our mortgage in 1979. Inflation was very bad under Carter and Reagan too as I recall. In fact, inflation was a problem the whole time my children were babies–1978-1983, though by ’84 things were easing.
Employment prospects steadily declined after that time as well and it was particularly bad during the early Bush years. As far as I am concerned, Bush economics were an extension of the worst parts of Reagan’s, and could not have been accomplished without Reagan paving the way. And Clinton’s relied on Bush paving the way with the NAFTA negotiations.
I suspect it’s been downhill since Nixson, but I was not much attuned to politics then—except for the resignation speech. From what I have seen, the prosperity of the last 30+ years is a result of cheap goods (from outsourcing), easy credit, and draining our savings accounts— with a little Wall Street cowboy investment/gambling thrown in on the side. The ride’s over now, and I don’t see how Reaganism helps.
Debra is right — the last 40 years has been an illusion. The stagnation has been hidden by technology, easy credit and cheap foreign labour.
Economists have assigned blame in various areas — the decline of cheap energy, the breakdown of Bretton Woods, or the rise of neo-con ideology in reaction to the first two. The last one includes Reagan.
Scanning the headlines i see Jared Kushner’s sister is selling visas for 50, 000 and the Secret Service left Trump Tower since they were being overcharged. I don’t think this will help the stagnation.
Wandering Views 
Just a reminder…….
If you are going to post Twitter links, make sure there’s no cussing in it please. I just removed the last post from yesterdays news thread for violating this rule. Normally I would just @#$% out the offensive word, but when it’s in a Tweet I can’t without deleting it. So I deleted it. Just be careful.
Thanks
LikeLike
The Christian Right is finally taking liberals advice. So naturally the left is furious about it. 🙂
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450065/christian-right-personal-political-separation-liberals-unsatisfied
“During the election, observers marveled that this voting bloc was willing to rally around a man whose personal life was hardly a model of Christian virtue. But evangelical leaders said it was more important to them to ensure a Supreme Court pick they would like, for example, than to worry about how many times Trump was married or whether he spoke respectfully about other people.
A PRRI poll taken during the election found that “more than six in ten (61%) Americans say immoral personal behavior does not preclude public officials from carrying out their public or professional duties with honesty and integrity.” And researchers also noted that “no group has shifted their position more dramatically than white evangelical Protestants. More than seven in ten (72%) white evangelical Protestants say an elected official can behave ethically even if they have committed transgressions in their personal life — a 42-point jump from 2011.”
Some might say this is simply political expediency. And I wrote a piece during the election comparing what I saw as the more principled reaction of Mormons to the Trump candidacy compared to evangelicals. But it is odd that Trump’s liberal opponents would take evangelicals to task for the divide between their views on a person’s personal behavior and public life.
After all, this is what liberals have been advocating for generations — that evangelicals should be able to separate these things. From the moment it was decided that prayer no longer belonged in public classrooms, the liberal message to traditional Christians has been that they should keep their beliefs to themselves. That message extended to abortion, where Christians were told that “choice” was the name of the game. Sure, you have your beliefs, but you can’t impose them on others. The same was true for gay marriage and just about every other culture-war issue of the past several decades. Most recently, evangelicals have been told to put aside any personal objections they have to transgender rights and accommodate people of either sex into their bathrooms and locker rooms.
One would think the Left would be celebrating the fact that evangelicals are finally acknowledging that politicians shouldn’t be judged by their personal actions (as Democrats argued ad nauseam during President Bill Clinton’s years in the White House).”
———————–
LikeLike
@ 6:57 People have always made compromises with their votes.
I think Carter is arguably the most personally moral president since I came of age—a never divorced Baptist Sunday School teacher whose wife did not bring witchcraft into the White House, and who covertly and illegally encouraged and funded no rebellions abroad (all claims his successor could never make). Yet Reagan is the pretty face and voice that stole the heart of the Evangelical voter. Why? As best I can discover it’s because of his economic policy and personal charm. Like anyone else, Evangelicals overlook much if it is believed a stable or advantageous economic policy is being pursued. And I see some justification for that. As individuals, we acknowledge that we have very limited power to choose the economic policies we will all live under, nor are we immune to personal charm or charisma. These factors increase the likelihood of compromise in our calculations of who to vote for.
But we still have the choice to live moral lives to the best of our ability regardless of the personal choices of our leaders. In times like these, it’s even more important to shore up the Church as a beacon for those virtues which have been lacking in the public arena for so long.
LikeLike
The issue has never been about Christians choosing a man they believe to be flawed or the lesser of two evils. I have said many times that I would not fault anyone’s vote (or non-Vote) last November as there were no good or even decent choices.
The problem occurs when Christian leaders (see Jeffress and Falwell) actively support (in the primaries) a candidate with unprecedented character and knowledge flaws over many more decent and qualified candidates. The problem is made worse when these same “leaders” and others excuse or defend every type of dishonesty, stupidity and outrageously rude and inappropriate behavior committed by this same person.
This is not really a problem for secular liberals. However, this behavior makes Christians look hypocritical and/or stupid. This was always the point made by Russell Moore, Dreher, Matt Walsh and other intelligent Christian leaders.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s not true that there were many good alternatives to Trump. Huckabee was the only real alternative in terms of economic policies. And when you have groups like the Heritage Foundation preferring Trump (who has millions at his disposal) over someone like Mike Huckabee (who does miracles on a shoestring), the outcome is already assured.
That being said, no one should excuse the inexcusable. Sometimes silence says enough. Sometimes changing the subject is enough. Pence walks the thin line like a man who gets his marching orders daily on his knees.
LikeLike
I simply prayed God would give us the president we need. I didn’t specify why and how and this is what we got. I’ve been reading in the Old Testament all year. I can see handwriting on the page. 😦
LikeLiked by 3 people
Gen. Kelly has discovered that while some of Trump’s untrue statements are just outright lies, others are the result of Trump receiving bad information from sources such as Fox and Friends, Breitbart and other similar sources. Kelly is trying to deal with this second problem.
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/805460?section=Politics&keywords=john-kelly-information-trump-politico&year=2017&month=08&date=02&id=805460&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main&oref=www.google.com
LikeLike
Oh look, more actual crimes ordered by the White House.
But since the press isn’t talking about it, that means it was the Obama White House, as usual. And the media wonders why nobody buys their narratives any more.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/former-u-n-amb-power-unmasked-hundreds-last-year-obama-admin/
“Former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power is believed to have made “hundreds” of unmasking requests to identify individuals named in classified intelligence community reports related to Trump and his presidential transition team, according to multiple sources who said the behavior is unprecedented for an official in her position.
Power was first identified by the Washington Free Beacon last month as a central figure in a congressional investigation into efforts by senior Obama administration officials to obtain classified intelligence information in what many allege was an effort to undermine President Donald Trump and his incoming national security team.
Power is believed to be the anonymous official responsible for “hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama administration,” according to current and former U.S. officials who spoke to the Free Beacon about the ongoing investigation.
Efforts by the former Obama administration to obtain the names of Trump allies included in raw intelligence reports have fueled speculation that subsequent leaks to the press were orchestrated by the former administration and its allies in a bid to damage the current White House and smear Trump’s most senior confidantes.”
——————–
“”The [intelligence] committee also understands that Obama-era officials sought the identification of Trump transition officials within intelligence reports,” according to Nunes’s letter. “However, there was no meaningful explanations offered by these officials as to why they needed or how the would use this U.S. personal information, and thus, the committee is left with the impression that these officials may have used this information for improper purposes, including the possibility of leaking.”
“More pointedly,” the letter states, “some of the requests for unminimized U.S. person information were followed by anonymous leaks of those names to the media.”
——————–
It’s almost like they planned the whole thing. Because they did.
LikeLike
The rule of law matters to most everyone, except Democrats. They have other priorities.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/08/03/democrats-dont-actually-believe-in-democracy-n2363433
“We keep hearing from them about how society is such a mess, that we are besieged by problems, and that our society is a disaster. Of course, the solution is always to shift more and more power and money from the normals to the elite. But this raises a question the elite never seems to ask: Who the @#$% has been in charge while all these crises were percolating?
I know who it wasn’t. It wasn’t the truck drivers or the air-conditioner installers or the guys working in the factory whose jobs got shipped to Oaxaca who have been making all these decisions. Those guys from the red states who went off to Falluja and Kandahar didn’t invent the policies that had us fighting for nearly two decades without victory in sight. They just did the bleeding and dying while their puny betters wrote unread articles in Foreign Policy and moved them around like pieces on a chessboard.
Regular Americans didn’t give us Obamacare. They didn’t give us Wall Street’s pillaging of the middle class – we all have to give the money guys our retirement savings to play with because they made sure interest rates were a big .1 percent and it’s our only option if we don’t want to spend our golden years dining on Alpo.
You elitists think you’re elite? Start proving it.
Scratch that. You had your chance, and you failed. Yeah, legal immigration might get you gated community dwellers cheaper nannies and gardeners, but its regular people who get murdered by MS-13, whose daughters get raped by the dozen-times deported scumbag the sanctuary city sheriff set free, and whose children get run over by drunks who shouldn’t even be in this country. It’s the regular people who have to pay for the welfare these people take – and don’t tell me they don’t get government benefits. Even you elitists can’t really think we’re that stupid.
This is about whether all American citizens have an equal say in their own governance. That can only be true when we enforce the law. You either abide by the law, or there is no law. And if there is no law, then there’s only power. Since you elitists probably never stooped to serving in the military, and since you almost certainly are neither armed nor proficient in weapons like we are, which makes us extremely dangerous to aspiring oppressors, you may want to rethink the whole “rule of power” thing.
But of course you won’t – instead, you’re doubling down by trying to nullify the results of the election because you don’t like the fact that you’ve been rejected and that you’re out of power. Except we’re not going to simply shrug and go back to letting you dictate how we live.
Donald Trump is a warning. Trump is the best case scenario. If you somehow depose him via your smarmy shenanigans, what comes along next is really going to upset you. You need to understand something.
Trump is not our last chance. He’s your last chance.”
LikeLike
I wonder if he sees himself as a whistleblower. I guess he does not feel vindicated, even after prompting a special prosecutor. Still, he is unemployed, and a fellow has to make a living somehow…:–/
LikeLike
Debra@8:10 am: “Yet Reagan is the pretty face and voice that stole the heart of the Evangelical voter. Why? As best I can discover it’s because of his economic policy and personal charm.”
I think his standing up to the Soviets had something to do with it too.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Debra, It was Reagan who first brought in social conservatives (the Religious Right) as equal partners in the Republican Coalition (with advocates of free enterprise and opponents of International Communism).
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/432112/ronald-reagans-republican-party-it-dead
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kevin, you are probably right. Communism and Russia was the perceived common enemy then as Socialism and Democrats are perceived as the economic enemy now. I guess I’m prone to forget Reagan’s accomplishments and positive contributions (and there were some) because I believe his economic legacy was so disastrous. But I can always count on finding a few Reagan supporters here to set me straight and keep me honest. :–)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read that article this morning Ricky and almost commented on it. There will always be unintended consequences for any law or regulation. But as Mike Huckabee said last month, “The more moral the population, the fewer laws are required to govern it. And the less moral, the more laws are required.” We seem to fall in the first category. There’s no getting around the fact that without a spiritual renewal/revival/repentance we require more, not less.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, I clicked on the wrong article—it WAS the article I read this morning. I wondered what that had to do with Reagan. :–)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/08/economist-explains-2
LikeLike
The article you actually linked to was pretty good. I read a term I’ve never heard before “reformocons” !? This part was particularly interesting:
So how does Reaganism apply to the social and economic realities faced by American families today?
LikeLike
Debra, Reagan was also very strongly pro-life, the first president (I think) ever to pay attention to abortion. And he rescued us fro the serious financial issues under Carter–inflation and interest rates about 20% annually, very high inflation.
I don’t see Carter as a moral man, though. I see him as unscrupulous and a meddler. He was a very bad former president, meddling in other presidents’ international affairs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of Reagan and Russia…
LikeLike
Cheryl, I would say that abortion is the biggest blot on Carter–not that he was a great president, but I credit him with as at least as great a claim to morality as Reagan, particularly in the public eye.
We paid 12% (adjustable) for our mortgage in 1979. Inflation was very bad under Carter and Reagan too as I recall. In fact, inflation was a problem the whole time my children were babies–1978-1983, though by ’84 things were easing.
Employment prospects steadily declined after that time as well and it was particularly bad during the early Bush years. As far as I am concerned, Bush economics were an extension of the worst parts of Reagan’s, and could not have been accomplished without Reagan paving the way. And Clinton’s relied on Bush paving the way with the NAFTA negotiations.
I suspect it’s been downhill since Nixson, but I was not much attuned to politics then—except for the resignation speech. From what I have seen, the prosperity of the last 30+ years is a result of cheap goods (from outsourcing), easy credit, and draining our savings accounts— with a little Wall Street cowboy investment/gambling thrown in on the side. The ride’s over now, and I don’t see how Reaganism helps.
LikeLike
Cheryl, in what way do you find Carter unscrupulous?
I agree with the “meddler” part.
I’ve never understood his attitude toward Israel.
LikeLike
Debra is right — the last 40 years has been an illusion. The stagnation has been hidden by technology, easy credit and cheap foreign labour.
Economists have assigned blame in various areas — the decline of cheap energy, the breakdown of Bretton Woods, or the rise of neo-con ideology in reaction to the first two. The last one includes Reagan.
Scanning the headlines i see Jared Kushner’s sister is selling visas for 50, 000 and the Secret Service left Trump Tower since they were being overcharged. I don’t think this will help the stagnation.
LikeLike
The first Bush floated the currency–but I’m too tired to remember the details right now.
LikeLiked by 1 person