@GaryO"And we are also familiar with the Republican policy of
obstructing if possible any and all legislation supported by the Obama
administration."But are you familiar with oppressive left-wing
passive/aggression intended to illigetimately gain power through phony
victimhood? I.E. Harry Reid refusing to allow a vote on anything he
doesn't like - then complaining that other people are the problem or Obama
refusing to work with Congress then claiming they are the obstructionists.Personally - I have more admiration for those who "obstruct" bad
policy than those who stage manage their phony martyrdom for a living.
Do Democrats do it perfect? Nope’better? Yes
As for the tone of the article, my belief is that most times Presidents inherit
the economy they get. It's true, Carter had a bad deal coming in with the
oil crisis. Ford would have had the same. Clinton inherited much of Reagan and
Bush 1. But of course gets a lot of credit for his 8 years of pretty good 1990s
economy, until the dot/com bust. And truth is, Bush got a bad deal timing wise
with the 911 attack, and the enevitable housing meltdown happening just before
the 2008 election. All that would have happened under a President Gore too.
Had it not happened for another year, then Obama would have been seen as the
culprit. Overall, even though Presidents always get the credit or blame for the
economy, it is usually circumstances beyond their control that determine the
economy. But, since politics says we play the blame game, then it is fair to
blame or credit whoever is in office for the economy, whether justified or not.
Gary OFor you to call yourself a centrist or moderate only proves
that you understand that liberalism is basically not a popular position in
America today. Polls show that many more people call themselves conservative
than they do liberal. And, when asked certain questions, many who would have
thought of themselves as liberal suddenly find themselves to be middle of the
road or even conservative. However, I've read most of your hundreds of
posts here, and believe me, you are a 95% liberal by what you SAY. Which, is
not a critisism, just an observation. And I would hope that from I've
posted I'd be considered a 95% conservative.
"Clinton - Good president with the economy BECAUSE he compromised with the
GOP congress with the Contract With America. "Well Patriot. By
that logic, GW Bush's first 6 years should have been stellar for the
country as he had a gop house and senate.Your Logic fails again.Do you realize that under Obama, there have been 3 times as many net
jobs created than under Bush? In fact, in Bush's first term, with a GOP
house and senate, there was a net job loss. Remember when Obama
started his presidency? The US economy was losing 750,000 jobs per month?I am not defending the dems, but your theme of "just elect
republicans" is clearly not the solution.
@GaryOWhat centrist or moderate belive that conservative are the
enemy (as you have stated)What centrist or moderate believe 33% to
42% of the country is the enemy.That kind of thking only comes from
the extreme left. and answers the question why there is no
compromising with the left.--As for the article...Republican presidents get us out of recessions and depressions, while
the Democats presidents enjoy the results.Now we know who is doing
the real work, and not getting the credit.
I remember taking an economics class prior to serving my mission, George H W
Bush was in office and the professor spent hours talking about how economic
policies take six months to four years to affect the economy. Upon
my return Bill Clinton was in office and the same professor in another economics
class began talking about how the economy turned around as soon as Clinton took
office. I could not resist and I asked him if, since policies have a delayed
affect on the economy wasn't it Bush's policies making the economy
better? He did not answer, I received a C on all assignments from
then on. He did end up giving me an A in the course (I think he feared any
retribution). Reality is that as long as the political parties keep
us fighting, they can do what ever they want to blunder the treasury. We all
need to learn to expect more from our representatives and be more critical
voters. Stop single party or single issue voting or we all get what
I am thinking about the democrats in my life time...JFK - good
president. Great leader. As far as the economy goes I see JFK as doing well but
the man was only president for 3 years so it is hard to tell.LBJ -
Vietnam dominated his presidency. The great society was a huge mistake creating
our current welfare state. Carter - Interest rates 22% and inflation
out of this world too. Terrible president with the economy. Clinton
- Good president with the economy BECAUSE he compromised with the GOP congress
with the Contract With America. OBama - we won't go here...
Democrats and Republicans both seem intent on driving the economy into the
ground, each in its own way. Neither believes in "pay as you go"
regarding the welfare state or wars. Supply-side and demand-side economics are
nothing more than two sides of the same coin. Both of them have resulted in
enormous debt and devaluation of the currency, and especially in magnifying the
great divide between the extremely wealthy and everyone else. This argument is
over how the deck chairs should be arranged on the Titanic.
DeForrest and others,I hate to break it to you but... Republicans
didn't invent supply-side economics. supply-side economics didn't
just start during the Reagan era. We have had supply-side economics in America
since the begining."Supply-side economics is a school of
macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created
by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well
as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then
benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices;
furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand
for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are
lower marginal tax rates and less regulation".On taxes... it
takes into account the Laffer curve."The Laffer curve embodies a
tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues from a specific tax
are the same (nil) at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates respectively. The tax
rate that achieves optimum, or highest government revenues is somewhere in
between these two values".Nothing new. It's not a
Republican conspiracy to ruin the world for Progressives.
The Republicans are elected after Democrats have destroyed the economy. They
spend the next 8 years repairing the damage done. But before the fruits of
their labor is shown, the voters whose attention span is of a little child
elects Democrats back. They then give the credit to Democrats, until the economy
starts to sour again. Electing Republicans back to fix the damage of hope and
change.That's the cycle.
Totally irrelevant study. Totally worthless analysis. One thing we can blame the
GOP for, though, is supply-side economics and the gross and growing inequality
that we now enjoy and that the Republicans must somehow spin into a positive.
It's their baby, so they have to own it. It makes for good political
theater.The statistics given in the article on recessionary years
were particularly irrelevant. To wit, even though we have not been officially in
recession since Q2 2009, it took about four years for most people to feel like
the country was out of recession. This also would have happened sooner, except
for the obstructionist anti-Obama sentiment in the Republican House.
@GaryO"I am NOT on the Left. I'm essentially a Moderate, a
Centrist..."Yeah, you might be a centrist...in North Vietnam.
I am constantly amazed at the audacity of ALL politicians! First, it is the
American people who do the work that makes the economy work, and it is the
political machinery that is what holds back the prosperity of America. Can
anyone say "tax and spend?" Can anyone say "over regulation?"
Can anyone say "excessive foreign aid?" Can anyone say "greed and
corruption?" Saying that one political party is any better than the other
is simply saying that one party may pose less of a drag on the economy.
Incidentally, it is because of politics that both the medical and oil industries
are doing well right now (political meddling at the expense of the rest of the
"Not surprisingly, one of the report's authors is a well-known
Democratic economist, Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal
Reserve now at Princeton;" When all else fails, poison the well.
Re "Do Democrats do it better"? That depends on what
you're talking about. As a blanket statement... I think the answer is no.
But there ARE some things they do better.Are they better at
Governing? MaybeAt protecting Civil Rights? ProbablyNot taking us to war... yes.As for the proper overall objective of
government... that of ensuring domestic tranquility... recent evidence says they
don't do it better.Providing for the common defense (they way
Democrats keep insisting on cutting military funding)... Probably not.Insuring individual, family and community rights and responsibilities in acts
of self-governance, as set forth by our Founders... probably notSo
IMO BOTH sides do some parts better...Maybe that's why people
who aren't total radical partisans acknowledge that America needs BOTH
wings to fly...
@Chris B"The current labor participation rate is the worst it's
been in over 30 years. "Conservatives want the rate to be even
lower. No seriously they do, because if all working age adults were heterosexual
married couples with a stay at home parent, then that'd be a labor
participation rate of 50%.
Ha, I have to laugh at GaryO calling himself a Moderate. Pray tell, Gary: If
you are a moderate, then name someone who you regard as too far left, and what
you disagree with them about as being too far left ideologically. Just about all of your posts show that you would criticize Mao for being a
died in the wool Conservative, who is a corporate lackey.
Irony Guy: I have to disagree that GW Bush, President Obama or any other
president has or had much to do with the "banking and cooling" effect
you're talking about. Those functions are pretty much determined by
"the bankers' bank", i.e. the Federal Reserve. If you
want to lay blame at anyone's feet, you should be naming Alan Greenspan,
Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen and their cohorts. The Federal Reserve prior to
and during the first part of Carter's administration can be blamed for the
inflation/stagflation periods we experienced as well. Presidents may
nominate some members of the Federal Reserve, but the decisions about the
economy are made by the board members (sometimes heavily influenced by
Hey Irony Guy -Can you got into a little more detail regarding the
"banking and cooling effect" of the public sector?I'm
not quite sure I know what you're talking about.I believe the
government can have a huge effect on the economy through fiscal policy and
monetary policy, unless external stimuli are too strong, or unless the expansion
or contraction has already gained too much inertia.The stagflation
due to soaring world oil prices during Carter's administration was pretty
much beyond control because the cost of energy had become too extreme.Generally speaking though, government spending and a wise tax policy together
with the Federal reserve's adjustment of interest rates can deflect the
course of the economy at least to some extent.But, I don't
know what you mean by the "banking and cooling effect" of the public
All these studies are massive exercises in logical fallacy. The economy is
complex enough that no administration can "control" it. But the
"banking and cooling" efforts of the public sector do have a moderating
influence on that otherwise out-of-control system called the economy. Wise
leaders use that sector wisely to steer a balanced course.GW Bush was not
a wise leader. He essentially removed the "banking and cooling"
influence of the gov't and watched as the economy was overwhelmed. He took
the same approach to Katrina, by the way.
Hey Joe Blow - "I have called out many on the right for their over-the-top
completely partisan assessments. You do the same from the left."WRONGI cite facts and rational conclusions drawn from those facts.
And I can defend EVERYTHING I say with evidence and reason.I am NOT
on the Left. I'm essentially a Moderate, a Centrist, and I abhor
unworkable extremes.But as it happens, Republicans as body, now
embrace unworkable extremism . . . And so I oppose them.The Modern
GOP, infested as it is with demagogues spouting nonsense, has little in common
with the late great Party of Lincoln.I'm glad I could help.
"Liberals may be unfamiliar with something called the labor participation
rate. "No, they're familiar with it. Moderates are familiar
with it too.And we are also familiar with the Republican policy of
obstructing if possible any and all legislation supported by the Obama
administration.We are familiar with the fact that Obama's
Jobs' Bill of 2011 would have put millions of Americans back to work
building infrastructure and in support industries. It made perfect sense.
Because of the law of supply and demand, building supplies were cheap, and we
the people would have gotten a great deal. But the Republicans shot down that
bill . . . Just to perpetuate unemployment in the vain hope that it would squash
Obama's reelection bid.Once again, Republicans harmed America
and Americans for the sake of some short-term political goal they failed to
achieve anyway.Harming this nation has become routine for
Republicans.Are you familiar with that?
"Most economists, they note, doubt presidents can control the
economy."I would agree with that. There are many factors
outside the control of the president.So, why is it that those on the
right attribute everything bad to Obama?Yes, the deficit has
ballooned under Obama. But if one is inclined to understand WHY, rather than
just to assign partisan blame, they would realize that the same thing would have
happened under McCain or Romney.But in todays partisan world, that
does not fit the narrative.Gary O. I have called out
many on the right for their over-the-top completely partisan assessments.You do the same from the left.Neither are useful or accurate.
Liberals may be unfamiliar with something called the labor participation rate.
It's infinitely more useful in evaluating the job market than
unemployment rate. The current labor participation rate is the worst
it's been in over 30 years. In other words, things are so bad
people have simply stopped liking for work, this not being included in the
"unemployment rate" and instead they just tell Barack to pay their bills
with our money.
“Democrats focus more on jobs; Republicans more on inflation.”Baloney.Since when has that been true? . . . Certainly not
since the Reagan administration set a precedent for irresponsibility that
later served as a template for the policies of GW Bush (although GHW was a
fairly competent President).Focusing on inflation requires caring
about the future. But that is something with which Reaganites DO NOT concern
themselves. They are all about exploiting a situation for as much as
it’s worth NOW to generate maximum profit to themselves and their cronies,
with NO CONCERN for future generations.“There's often a
long lag between the adoption of policies and their true effects.”
That’s true. GW’s horrendous policies initiated at the
beginning of his first term didn’t catch up to him until his second term.
But Clinton was able to accelerate the effects of his excellent policies
through the concerted effort of Al Gore to promote the internet as a business
forum, thereby launching the dot com boom and funneling much needed revenue
(from tax increases) into our nation’s coffers.The Clinton
administration made its own luck. And GW designed a lasting disaster.
Anybodys' mind changed here? Nope.