Face it, democratic presidents are good for the economy

Dis · August 1, 2003, 02:50

Bush is a moron at domestic matters. There I said it.

And here's another thing. I'm not a republican. I'm more of a Kennedy democrat (John Kennedy of course). I really miss when the democratic party was great. Oh wait, that was only 7 years ago

. Okay I admit I like Clinton- well up until he lied under oath. But the democratic party of today is too far left. I really dislike that ultra liberalism with a passion.

back to my point, Bush has no clue how to run the economy. Sure things picked up recently, but that is due to goverment spending for the war.

Democrats give more stability. While I dislike most goverment programs, they do give americans a sense of stability, and a feeling the goverment will take care of them if things go awry or when they get old. This allows people to spend money more freely and boost the economy. They save little money, but that isn't too much of a concern.

But with republicans there is so much uncertainty. People are holding onto their money and paying off debt right now. Because they know we are only inches away from a great depression.

Drake Tungsten · August 1, 2003, 02:56

I'm sorry to do this to you, but what about Carter?

Dis · August 1, 2003, 02:57

well Carter was honest.

That was his problem

He's a good man. But he just goes to show an honest man can't run the country.

Carter is an aberration. A fluke.

Giancarlo · August 1, 2003, 03:00

How many times did you say moron in that post?

Democrats were good for the economy? Do you know what the economic cycle is? I suggest you study it. Presidents have little to do with it, rather it is a market driven factor. Please study before you post something that will utterly embarass yourself.

Democrats don't give a sense of stability. If that were true explain every democrat president before Clinton. Starting with Truman, Kennedy, LBJ and Carter.

All started and continued wars, that republicans ended. Eisenhower and Nixon ended wars. So who exactly is better for the country? Republicans or Democrats? I would say Republicans anyday, anytime.

Dis · August 1, 2003, 03:07

I used to believe the BS about the economy cycle.

I used to believe that the tax cuts and other things republicans did took time to take effect.

But recently I realized that the tax cuts shouldn't take that long to take effect. These recent tax cuts are already putting money in people's pockets. People will be getting $400 checks real soon. we already got $300 checks 2 years ago.

The economy should pick up within 3 months of the tax cuts because the people should be spending this money they got. The economy shouldn't take more than 3 months to pick up after tax cuts.

So why hasn't the economy picked up after these tax cuts?

Giancarlo · August 1, 2003, 03:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I used to believe the BS about the economy cycle.

The economic cycle is not BS, it is a fact.

Quote:

I used to believe that the tax cuts and other things republicans did took time to take effect.

Look up the mid 1980s and the Reagan economic expansion for the facts.

Quote:

But the way I see it. These recent tax cuts are already taking effect. People will be getting $400 checks real soon. we already got $300 checks 2 years ago.

There are more additional ones on the way, especially for parents who are putting kids in school.

Quote:

The economy should pick up within 3 months of the tax cuts because the people should be spending this money they got. The economy shouldn't take more than 3 months to pick up after tax cuts.

Actually no. There are other factors effecting growth. Tax cuts work but only to an extent. They cannot turn around the economy.

Quote:

So why hasn't the economy picked up after these tax cuts?

Has to do with the downward point in the economic cycle. The US has just left this downward turn and is headed for better economic growth. All tax cuts did was off set more negative growth, thus leading to a more mild recession or era of slow growth.

Kidicious · August 1, 2003, 03:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
So why hasn't the economy picked up after these tax cuts?

Because the money that is pumped in is just sucked back out when they sell the bonds to fund the tax cuts. It's silly.

Lord Merciless · August 1, 2003, 03:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident

So why hasn't the economy picked up after these tax cuts?

Maybe you should ask: how far would the economy have fallen if there had not been a tax cut.

The current tax cut strongly benefits small businesses. Even I'm planning to start a home business with my wife together. We will be making both investments and offering services, things our economy exactly needs.

Berzerker · August 1, 2003, 03:41

Quote:

well Carter was honest.

I guess you never heard of Bert Lance or BCCI.

Btw Diss, the GOP controlled the House since 1994 and the Senate from 1998(?).

St Leo · August 1, 2003, 19:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Bush is a moron at domestic matters. There I said it.

Are you claiming that he's a genius when it comes to foreign affairs?

mrmitchell · August 1, 2003, 19:44

"Red Herring" (or one of those magazines) surveyed the economy over all the presidents since world war ii, and this is the best group:

Dem President - Rep Congress

then there is
Dem - Dem
Rep - Dem
Rep - Rep

If it says anything, it says that, unlike you'd like to believe Republicans suck on the economy too.

Agathon · August 1, 2003, 19:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless

Maybe you should ask: how far would the economy have fallen if there had not been a tax cut.

Not this tired old rubbish from Milton Friedman's Greatest Hits again.

If the economy picks up it was because of the tax cuts.

BUT

If the economy didn't pick up, it was because the tax cuts prevented it from getting worse.

A classic case of an untestable (and therefore irrational) hypothesis. Imagine if everyone reasoned like this.

More sophistry from the oafs on the right.....

Imran Siddiqui · August 1, 2003, 19:51

Face it, Diss, a mixed government is good for the economy

.

When you have Congress and the President at odds they can't **** anything up too badly. The late 80s were good, the late 90s were good, much of that is because Congress and the President were fighting so much they allowed things to run their course and when they messed with the economy both parties needed to get on board, so it was either really important or a really watered down bill

.

mrmitchell · August 1, 2003, 19:52

Imran's got the best point in this thread.

Kuciwalker · August 1, 2003, 19:54

Yeah, while some people think that some parties are good and others are evil, I just believe that all are universally incompetent

Imran Siddiqui · August 1, 2003, 19:54

I've also got the best point on my head

.

Giancarlo · August 1, 2003, 20:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Not this tired old rubbish from Milton Friedman's Greatest Hits again.

If the economy picks up it was because of the tax cuts.

BUT

If the economy didn't pick up, it was because the tax cuts prevented it from getting worse.

A classic case of an untestable (and therefore irrational) hypothesis. Imagine if everyone reasoned like this.

More sophistry from the oafs on the right.....

I am sure communism would be very helpful in screwing things up. Milton Friedman had much better ideas than Karl Marx.

Agathon · August 1, 2003, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez

I am sure communism would be very helpful in screwing things up. Milton Friedman had much better ideas than Karl Marx.

If you are a rich pink blob with a curly tail, he did.

Giancarlo · August 1, 2003, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

If you are a rich pink blob with a curly tail, he did.

Karl Marx had the wrong ideas and is long gone. As is communism.

Agathon · August 1, 2003, 20:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez

Karl Marx had the wrong ideas and is long gone. As is communism.

It's an ineluctable development of history. I shall look forward to sending you to the gulag.

Giancarlo · August 1, 2003, 20:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

It's an ineluctable development of history. I shall look forward to sending you to the gulag.

I am sorry but I am not booking any tickets to Cuba any time soon.

Sava · August 1, 2003, 21:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez

I am sorry but I am not booking any tickets to Cuba any time soon.

they don't have tickets for the moethod of travel you will be using

mrmitchell · August 1, 2003, 22:22

Helicoptor ejection?

Jaguar · August 2, 2003, 00:04

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Helicoptor ejection?

9/10. At least.

I was going to point out Carter as well, but Drake beat me to it.

Velociryx · August 2, 2003, 00:14

Well, Diss raises an interesting point....here's some data to toss into the mix for consideration:

When Carter (Dem) was elected, the Dow Jones slipped 4.4% over the next seven trading days (loss of 200% annually, had it continued)

Roosevelt's election in '32, the market dropped 13% (after it had already collapsed!)

Truman's election: Market loss of 10%

Kennedy: Largely unchanged

A brief look at immediate market reaction to the election of republican presidents:

Hoover ('28) +15%
Eisenhower ('52): +5%
Nixon ('68) +4%

However....

Before all you republicans out there start flag-waving, let's take a look at total market movements during the span of the administrations:

Net gains under Roosevelt: +165%
Under Truman: +71%
Under Kennedy/Johnson: +60%

and for the Rebublicans:
Hoover: -78%
Eisenhower: +120%
Nixon/Ford: +2%

Long term results, three big wins for the Dems, One win, one loss, and one push for the Repubs.

-=Vel=-

Lord Merciless · August 2, 2003, 00:20

How about markets under Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Coolidge, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II?

I would imagine that market gains were the biggest under Clinton: ~300%.

Velociryx · August 2, 2003, 00:23

Don't have the data in front of me, LM, and am too bleary-eyed to go a-hunting....perhaps a job for some other enterprising soul?

-=Vel=-

Imran Siddiqui · August 2, 2003, 00:24

There should also be a disclaimer that the sample size is too small to prove anything

.

Velociryx · August 2, 2003, 00:25

Well....the rest of the data is out there for the taking.....I'm just not the one to go get it....I'm off to bed!

-=Vel=-

Dis · August 2, 2003, 02:25

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo

Are you claiming that he's a genius when it comes to foreign affairs?

not a genius.

none of you peaceniks might not believe it. But if the U.S. is going to survive as a nation, we have to take a hard line against other nations. We don't appease bad guys.

But I do hate his policy against Saudi Arabia. It's time to do something about them. Apparantly the royal family was involved in the 9/11 funding

. And we treat them as allies? WTF!