OBAMA: You can put lipstick on a pig . . .

[Steelman]

As to the above quote, the next President may appoint a new chairman of the fed. How long was Greenspan in charge? If it's Obama, he certainly will, but if McCain, we don't know.

They are limited to 14 years of service. I meant to say that the Pres can appoint a new Chair or keep the old one. Phrased that wrong.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

McCain had a very confusing day yesterday on his campaign trail...

He kept calling the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC)...

The (SPIC)?

He's a moron just like Bush.

God bless America.. we are going to need it.

No matter what the outcome of this election is... we are all screwed regardless.

It will ALWAYS be politics as usual in D.C. and nothing will truly ever change.

 

[Hoosier8]

It will ALWAYS be politics as usual in D.C. and nothing will truly ever change.

And it has always been like that from the first election on.

 

[finity]

Perhaps you don't know how this country operates, but the President nominatess judicial officers, directs foreign and military policy, and has veto power. He's not there just to send you a check each month.

It was a rhetorical question. I know the answer.

So does the President & Congress have an effect on the economy or not? You can't argue it both ways. I see posts here all the time about how if Obama gets elected he will ruin the country economically.

The truth is that the President and Congress do have a large impact on the economy. Its the way its been since the beginning.

I don't get a check each month from the gubmint. Not needed, thanks for caring though.

 

[finity]

Unemployment was low because we were at war.
World War II 1941-1945
Korean war 1950-1953
Vietnam war 1965-1973

The oil crisis could have been resolved much sooner, but it was Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party that failed to act.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Carter's Oil Crisis

You also neglect to mention the advent of welfare. It is easier to be unemployed now then it was 60 years ago.
Add to that a policy of excessive legal and illegal immigration and it would be easy to see why in times of peace unemployment rises.



if you read the charts you see it took Reagan less than 3 years to correct what Carter caused in 4 years. Clinton sailed through on the previous tax cuts and was held for the most part in check by a Republican Congress.


Your misery Index also leaves out some important data such as tax rates.
While you included them they are wrong. I posted before that 40% of Americans pay no income taxes. Yet your chart doesn't reflect that. The lowest bracket may reflect 10% but reality shows that some of these people have a negative tax bracket. They get money back they never paid in.

We are at war now (W says so) & the numbers aren't great. We weren't at war under Clinton & the numbers were better. Hmmm?

Why is it that no matter how long the Republicans are continuously in charge they never see the fruits of their labor until a Democrat is well into his term? A Democrat is in office for 4 years so the Republicans see the effect right away, but the Republicans are in office for 16 years & it takes that long for the Democrats to benefit. Why didn't the benefits start under Reagans second or HW's term? The argument is the same if the numbers are reversed. To you its always the Democrats who benefit from the policies of the Republicans (who don't really have an effect anyway)

I don't deny Carter sucked.

My tax brackets also don't reflect the tax breaks that many wealthy Americans receive also. Effective tax rates are usually less than the listed brackets unless you are middle-class with no kids & no major investments.

 

[finity]

And yes, GWB is considered very liberal in spending and social programs such as the drug giveaway. An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Bush has extended the Dept of Educations reach in ways no democrat ever imagined. He has had the most diverse cabinet ever where the liberals make claim to all things in diversity. Even his stated reasons for going to war were not conservative ideals; that is, to rid the world of a bad guy.

If W is so liberal then why did he get re-elected bby the majority of coinservatives who voted him back in? He couldn't have been to liberal. That and "some say" here that the President doesn't effect the economy. The Republican Congress must have been very liberal also to allow Bush to spend like a drunken sailor. Its getting harder to believe that both the Republican Congress (supposedly the same one that held Clinton in check?) & Executive pulled the wool over the eyes of conservative voting Americans for 8 years.

 

[finity]

Here's an interesting article

Republicans Aren’t Even Good for the Rich

Relates to the discussion at hand.

 

[JetGirl]

We weren't at war under Clinton

WHAT??!!! Dude!!

 

[JetGirl]

Actually, I guess "technically" that's true...since his war was never approved by the U.S. Congress, and in fact violated the War Powers Act...
But Clinton never was much for staying inside the guidelines for any protocol (even loosely).

 

[finity]

WHAT??!!! Dude!!

Doh!

I forgot about Kosovo. My bad!

But still the point remains, not every Democrat had a war & not every Republican didn't. Even so, why would Bush's numbers be lower than Clintons? W's war has gone on for alot longer & involved alot more troops & material. You'd think if we've had 100,000+/- troops there for 5+ years the "war effect" would have been realized. Not that I'm saying it doesn't happen, just that there could be other causes.

 

[Fletch]

W's war has gone on for alot longer & involved alot more troops & material. You'd think if we've had 100,000+/- troops there for 5+ years the "war effect" would have been realized. Not that I'm saying it doesn't happen, just that there could be other causes.

If by "war effect" you're referring to the old idea that "war is good for the economy", that idea is utterly false. It's an extreme expression of the broken window fallacy.

As for the other discussion, individual presidents or congressional classes don't have much effect on the economy. What does have an effect is the accumulated weight of government interference in the market, built up over the last century and a half. Republicans are mercantilists, and have been so since Lincoln. Democrats have been socialists since FDR. When it comes to economic matters, both sides are equally ignorant and dangerous.

No matter the policies, to the extent that the free market is allowed to operate, it will. Businesses will seek new ways to innovate and sell products and services. Customers will continue evaluating and voting with their dollars for those products and services which suit their wants and needs the best. The economy exists independently of the state, as much as is possible, and operates with or without the government's dubious "help". Thus it's fair to say that the economic boom of the 90's had more to do with Bill Gates than Bill Clinton.

 

[Hoosier8]

If W is so liberal then why did he get re-elected bby the majority of coinservatives who voted him back in? He couldn't have been to liberal. That and "some say" here that the President doesn't effect the economy. The Republican Congress must have been very liberal also to allow Bush to spend like a drunken sailor. Its getting harder to believe that both the Republican Congress (supposedly the same one that held Clinton in check?) & Executive pulled the wool over the eyes of conservative voting Americans for 8 years.

My friend. Liberal spending by both Republicans and Democrats give us the almost 2 trillion budget. Both spend like drunken sailors and I don't trust either for doing much about it. Bush is not considered a conservative in the base. Whether conservatives voted him back in is debatable, much as you cannot say all Democrats are liberal, just generally so. My concern with Obama is his already stated expansions and new program creations that have been tallied to add another 1/2 trillion to the budget. I don't think he can give his stated tax cut to 95% of the people and tax the rich and business more and not effect us since it is we the 95% of the taxpayers who end up shouldering any tax when it goes to the rich or business who just pass it on to us in higher prices and lost jobs. That 95% is actually about 71% of the population since about 25% don't pay taxes anyway. Things like this actually hurt the poor the most because they are always the first to feel any economic pinch.

By the way, the Congress is Democrat now and has the lowest rating ever.

Do you realize that the country is pretty much evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and the deciding vote comes from about 10% of the remaining voters? Do you realize that there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans?

Yes some say, including me, that the President has little to do with the economy and the glaring example is Clinton. Clinton and his staff had absolutely no clue about the impending internet bubble, it is something they obviously did not devise or create. It was all about rampant speculation in the market, regardless of the President or Congress. If anything, using the tactic Obama is using on McCain now, one would have to say that it was Clinton's fault for the runaway speculation that eventually failed. In other words, he did nothing about it and; thereby, eventually lead to the bubble bursting. Of course, Clinton took credit for the upswing and denied responsibility for the downswing, because that is what they do in politics. The only thing you can blame or credit Clinton and/or the Congress with would be for making plans for all of that non-existent future money. Of course it was Clinton claiming that he had balanced the budget (with money that never existed).

So politics aside, I still maintain that they have little to do with the economy itself with the exception of damaging it or getting out of it's way with taxation and spending policies.

 

[finity]

Fletch & Hoosier8,

Do you realize that the country is pretty much evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and the deciding vote comes from about 10% of the remaining voters? Do you realize that there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans?

When it comes to economic matters, both sides are equally ignorant...

Finally, some reasoned & measured replies from someone.

If you've read many of my posts in other threads I agree that both parties have good & bad going for them. Liberals are not "the devil" that most people here make them out to be. Conservatives are not the be-all-end-all in good ideas. Most people, US citizens or not, want the most freedom possible (economically or socially). Unfortunately (or not), we have to live in society together.

There is no libertarian utopia. Government does have legitimate functions. As such, we have to pay for those functions for the good of the most people. Sometimes individuals may not like it. I can't tell the government where to spend, or not, my specific tax dollars. Collectively, we can.

I agree that most of the time the market is self-regulating. Not always. The wealthy & privileged have more ways to coerce & control the masses to our detriment. Greed is inherent in our system. History has borne this out. This should be regulated to a degree, again, for the good of the most people.

 

[Justus]

Greed is inherent in our system. History has borne this out. This should be regulated to a degree, again, for the good of the most people.

Gov't oversight for the good of most people?
Isn't that socialism?

No thanks, government oversight just leads to more government
oversight i.e. Fannie Mae

Yes, greed is why the economy is in the current turmoil.
We already have a system in place that deals with damaging greed,
it's called the legal system.

How about prosecuting these idiots that made these home loans
instead of making another permanent burden on the taxpayers?

 

[Hoosier8]

Gov't oversight for the good of most people?
Isn't that socialism?

How about prosecuting these idiots that made these home loans
instead of making another permanent burden on the taxpayers?

I believe finity is right. You answered your own question, no it is not. The law is part of the Gov't. The Congress makes the law. Unbridled capitalism can be evil. The best thing that ever happened to my job was the Sarbanes Oxley act after Enron. I am sure it makes business a little more costly but the avoidance of financial fictions that hurt investors and retirements must be worth something. In my job, I can not be coersed to cook any books under the pressure of loosing my job if I don't. Now I can, along with anyone involved, be prosecuted if I do. We will be expecting something similar after this and that, my friend, is Government oversight.

 

[Justus]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that there were no laws broken in this particular situation.

In my little mind, it seems that this would qualify as some sort of fraud or predatory lending practice.

Johnny and Mary want to buy a house.
They find one that they like but don't qualify because
they don't have a down payment.
The mortgage broker says "No Problem, we use a great appraisor
that can find "extra value" in your home.
You'll have instant equity and you'll qualify for an ARM with PMI."