Impeachment

[Kirkland Laing]

Ya Kirk the Carter doctrine worked out real well all these years didn’t it. I don’t think you even believe most of the shit you write. After the trump Russia spy thing with you I think you lost a step. Oh yeah you said you still think trump is a Russian asset right. Carter is a seriously cool human being but he was not anything special as a president. Unions you say, damn.

I will always say I look at Carter as a truly decent human being. You can go back and find NYT articles and other shit defending him saying “oh it wasn’t his fault” he did quite a number on the deficit and tied us in with the Saudis threatening war in a state of the union but he was a poor president no matter how you wish to attempt to rewrite history. I wish Kirk could come here and talk to some people who lived through Carter so he could hear what they have to say but alas I brought Carter up as one small example of divisiveness but apparently the definition is wrong and trump wants blacks and whites to hate each other or something now.

Carter did say something very interesting in a call he had with Trump. Carter pointed out China never wasted a dime on war. Sure they are at war with their own people to a degree but Carter was right about that. China uses loans like some countries use bombs. They invade with financial incentive. Anyone ever read that book about China landing ships in the US before Columbus, it was interesting.

What became known as the Carter Doctrine was basically a threat to the Soviet Union, who had just invaded Afghanistan and were desperate for some control over Arabian oil, to stay out of the Middle East or they'd face military action. It wasn't intended to be an open ended policy. In the half century since then things have changed a little bit, the Soviet Union fell apart and America's interests in the region have changed somewhat and so have her Middle East policy. Can you understand how things might change over fifty years? Interestingly Jimmy Carter was dead against invading Iraq and was very prescient as to what might happen if America did invade.

I don't need to talk to people who lived under Carter. As I've laid out in the post above, they have no idea what they're talking about. It would be like trying to explain basic economic concepts to you. It's just not going to work, is it. And where did you get "he did quite a number on the deficit" from? You either pulled this out of your arse or got bullshitted from some garbage internet source. The deficit actually fell under Carter from four percent of GDP at the start of his term to just over two percent when he left office. And I didn’t confuse anything somebody decided to change the game in mid play





Have you had a look at the states that voted for Carter in 1976?





Divisive has already been explained to you. You confused unpopular with divisive and are refusing to admit you're not very good with the English language. Idiot.



And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

You probably don’t know this since you don’t live here but unions are one of the biggest reasons individual states have the deficits they do.

I don't know this because it isn't true. I've forgotten more about this than you know though which is unsurprising seeing as you know nothing, this incorrect claim you're making is the result of a google search you made where some right wing website fed you this bullshit. Long story short, there's an ongoing concerted effort with right wing media to denigrate unions with the general public and bullshit claims like this are part of it. There's no link at all between unions and state deficits. Some states have funding shortfalls in their employee pension plans but this is due to state Governors using the pension funds as a piggy bank to allow tax cuts or cover budget shortfalls and then they blame the shortfalls in pension funds on unions.

It would be interesting if people knew how much more money they'd currently be earning if the percentage of national income going to labour had remained the same as during the Carter era. The answer is about $20 000 for the median worker. That means the median household would be about $400 000 better off every ten years had the percentage of income going to labour versus the percentage going to capital remained the same over the last forty years. That's one point six million for the median household since Reagan took office. Those fucking unions, eh?

The Las Vegas branch of the culinary union are currently making headlines by being upset with Bernie Sanders because he's threatening their high quality private health insurance. Imagine, a bunch of waitresses and kitchen staff all having top notch employer provided health insurance and their employers are still managing to turn a profit. If one in three American workers was still in a union as was the case during the Carter era and the other two in three could unionise instantly if their employers didn't keep wages and benefits at union levels every American would be massively better off, in secure jobs with excellent healthcare and the economy would be growing much faster with broadly shared prosperity. Instead we have the current mess.