The Winner Loses

[Arkaign]

I'm going to make a prediction here.

I think whomever wins the Presidency this year will not be re-elected.

The primary reason for this opinion is the economy. I don't see any short-term (1-4 year) solution to our economic problems. We're going into a long corrective period IMHO, coupled with many other aggravating factors such as energy costs / food costs / etc.

All three candidates have policies that historically equal high spending.

Obama/Hillary would/will probably support policies that would increase social spending. Hillary in particular doesn't seem to want to draw back on the Iraq situation all that much either, although probably more so than McCain.

McCain would quite obviously maintain or increase our foreign war spending on all fronts.

I seriously doubt any of the three would significantly support any serious reduction in government spending of any type.

I believe with confidence that our country hasn't seen the worst of it by a long shot, and it will most likely hit us hard during the next four years. A country with a wobbly economy will probably give the boot to the incumbent in '12, a la GHWB in '92, and Carter in '80, and Ford in '76.

 

[Carmen813]

If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

Well, they can influence it negatively. The war in Iraq has hurt.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

I think logically that's very true. I do think that national policy decisions and the tone set by the President has a certain impact though. The President tends to boss around his party pretty well, which gives them a certain direct influence on government spending.

 

[theeedude]

That is a good argument to me as well, which is why I don't think it's the end of the world if a Republican wins this year. Probably better for democrats long term.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That is a good argument to me as well, which is why I don't think it's the end of the world if a Republican wins this year. Probably better for democrats long term.

That's true for the Dems.

Whatever happens, I hope that we get a fiscal conservative in the White House in '12.

My dream Prez is a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Meaning the gov't stays the hell out of our pockets AND our private lives.

 

[theeedude]

Sounds like your dream president is Bill Clinton.

 

[Genx87]

I think the economy will be coming out of its slump by the next election cycle. Though I am sure the Media will try to tell us otherwise. Remember in 04 the Economy was tanking. 4 years later their dire predictions are finally starting to come true.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds like your dream president is Bill Clinton.

I'd not argue too terribly much on that one.

Though I do have several caveats :

(1)- The Republican congress actually did a pretty good job of cutting spending and such.

(2)- Clinton's appointments, while FAR better than Bush on average, had some real terrible ones. Reno as AG was awful, sort of set the stage for Ashcroft/Gonzales. Clinton's FEMA chief was a badass though. He actually was interviewed well before Katrina on the subject of FEMA being folded into DHS, and he accurately predicted the chaos and problems that would be encountered should there be a serious disaster such as a Hurricane.

(3)- The guy should have kept it in his pants for 8 years. I don't personally care about what he did in his private life, but he should know that he was being relied upon to steer this country in the right direction, and that the partisan right would use *any*thing to try to tear him apart at the seams. Giving them the ammo they needed was a really bad thing.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

You people should get a clue. Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson are the two single most important people in managing this economic crisis we have right now. Who appointed them? President may not have direct influence on the economy himself, but the people he brings in makes policy decisions that have great impact on the economy.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds like your dream president is Bill Clinton.

I'd not argue too terribly much on that one.

Though I do have several caveats :

(1)- The Republican congress actually did a pretty good job of cutting spending and such.

More like they just failed to grow gov't as fast as the economy grew at the time (which is why the surplus period was so very, very brief). This is why I give neither party much credit for the budget surpluses in the late 90's - they were more like a happy fiscal accident. I don't remember the GOP Congress cutting much of anything.

(2)- Clinton's appointments, while FAR better than Bush on average, had some real terrible ones. Reno as AG was awful, sort of set the stage for Ashcroft/Gonzales. Clinton's FEMA chief was a badass though. He actually was interviewed well before Katrina on the subject of FEMA being folded into DHS, and he accurately predicted the chaos and problems that would be encountered should there be a serious disaster such as a Hurricane.

I hated Clinton, but for the important posts (Fed Reserve, Treasury, a few others), his appointments were all pretty good. He got some solid adults in charge to run the store so he'd have more free time to chase tail.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

Not true. Bush is the reason we are in the situation we are in.
If any President had gone to the American people and warned them that huge deficits resulting from huge tax cuts would demand a price in an eventual catastrophic collapse, no Congress could have gotten away with what they did the last 7 years.
Unfortunately, Bush was the ringleader in the destruction of our economy.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

Well, they can influence it negatively. The war in Iraq has hurt.

That's incorrect. Wars always help the economy because the government spends money.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

Well, they can influence it negatively. The war in Iraq has hurt.

That's incorrect. Wars always help the economy because the government spends money.

Wars help certain people and industry but they are a drag on the economy. Even WWII which is credited with getting us out of the great depression stalled our economic growth for the most part at the expense of massive debt.

I think it comes down to people thinking the govt taking money from the people and spending it in the market will magically create wealth. The most common falacy are stadiums for rich billionaire sports teams. People claim it will generate x amount of money for the city and business. What they never account for is the money taken out of the market via taxation to pay for the thing.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

Not true. Bush is the reason we are in the situation we are in.
If any President had gone to the American people and warned them that huge deficits resulting from huge tax cuts would demand a price in an eventual catastrophic collapse, no Congress could have gotten away with what they did the last 7 years.
Unfortunately, Bush was the ringleader in the destruction of our economy.

Oh please, the people went into this whole mess with eyes wide open. With gov't, we've always prefered short-term gratification over long-term responsibile fiscal policy, and we got the gov't we wanted. The gov't's poor fiscal record is merely a mirror of the average American household's poor fiscal record (owning too much house, mountains of credit card debt, etc.). Perot tried to point all this stuff out back in '92, and he was essentially got the same treatment Ron Paul is getting now. People prefer liars.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

Not true. Bush is the reason we are in the situation we are in.
If any President had gone to the American people and warned them that huge deficits resulting from huge tax cuts would demand a price in an eventual catastrophic collapse, no Congress could have gotten away with what they did the last 7 years.
Unfortunately, Bush was the ringleader in the destruction of our economy.

Oh please, the people went into this whole mess with eyes wide open. With gov't, we've always prefered short-term gratification over long-term responsibile fiscal policy, and we got the gov't we wanted. The gov't's poor fiscal record is merely a mirror of the average American household's poor fiscal record (owning too much house, mountains of credit card debt, etc.). Perot tried to point all this stuff out back in '92, and he was essentially got the same treatment Ron Paul is getting now. People prefer liars.

Sadly, I think you're right.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

Well, they can influence it negatively. The war in Iraq has hurt.

That's incorrect. Wars always help the economy because the government spends money.

Wars help certain people and industry but they are a drag on the economy. Even WWII which is credited with getting us out of the great depression stalled our economic growth for the most part at the expense of massive debt.

I think it comes down to people thinking the govt taking money from the people and spending it in the market will magically create wealth. The most common falacy are stadiums for rich billionaire sports teams. People claim it will generate x amount of money for the city and business. What they never account for is the money taken out of the market via taxation to pay for the thing.

Add to that, WW2 employed millions of Americans, and kept a lot of the money turning gears in our economy from top to bottom. It was an industrial war that required huge output from all levels of American society.

Iraq war = MASSIVE money spent on relatively few companies, with relatively little impact on employment or economic stimulation at large. Instead of putting more $$$ in the pockets of average citizens and small/medium businesses, it pours into the coffers of politically connected corporations.

Big difference. I'm glad that we're not fighting a world war of proportions that require huge industrialization in this era, because obviously that would entail the deaths of millions (billions?) of people. That said, I think that Iraq is a hugely expensive mistake, and one that has cost us dearly on every front, including the crucial war in Afghanistan.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

Well, they can influence it negatively. The war in Iraq has hurt.

That's incorrect. Wars always help the economy because the government spends money.

Wars help certain people and industry but they are a drag on the economy. Even WWII which is credited with getting us out of the great depression stalled our economic growth for the most part at the expense of massive debt.

I think it comes down to people thinking the govt taking money from the people and spending it in the market will magically create wealth. The most common falacy are stadiums for rich billionaire sports teams. People claim it will generate x amount of money for the city and business. What they never account for is the money taken out of the market via taxation to pay for the thing.

During WWII, employment was around 99%. The economymay have stalled right after, but that was because of all the men returning from overseas with nothing to do. But it picked up after 1950 (I believe) and rose steadly until about 1970 or 1971.

And, haven't you heard, debt is the new savings As an economy advances, people will need to carry more debt to keep things moving along.

 

[Moonbeam]

Did I mention I don't know anything?

 

[StageLeft]

I seriously doubt any of the three would significantly support any serious reduction in government spending of any type.

If we can agree on anything, it's that.

If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

This is not so. One case in point is engaging in wars that cost a damn lot of coin.

The Republican congress actually did a pretty good job of cutting spending and such.

Whaaaaaat? You do know that the federal budget--before Nov /06 continued to explode under the republicans?

With gov't, we've always prefered short-term gratification over long-term responsibile fiscal policy

Absolutely correct. Your entire post is correct.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

Well, they can influence it negatively. The war in Iraq has hurt.

That's incorrect. Wars always help the economy because the government spends money.

Wars help certain people and industry but they are a drag on the economy. Even WWII which is credited with getting us out of the great depression stalled our economic growth for the most part at the expense of massive debt.

I think it comes down to people thinking the govt taking money from the people and spending it in the market will magically create wealth. The most common falacy are stadiums for rich billionaire sports teams. People claim it will generate x amount of money for the city and business. What they never account for is the money taken out of the market via taxation to pay for the thing.

During WWII, employment was around 99%. The economymay have stalled right after, but that was because of all the men returning from overseas with nothing to do. But it picked up after 1950 (I believe) and rose steadly until about 1970 or 1971.

And, haven't you heard, debt is the new savings As an economy advances, people will need to carry more debt to keep things moving along.

Ill have to look but pretty sure is stalled in 43 during the height of our building for the war. It was 99% because 16 million American men were taken into the armed services

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

Well, they can influence it negatively. The war in Iraq has hurt.

Unless you're one of the hundreds of thousands of American citzens employed by lockheed martin, boeing, nothrop, etc....

 

[piasabird]

Well if we pull soldiers out of Iraq we should have lots of money to spend on the poor. I just had to throw that out there. I am not for most social government programs. However, we give a lot of money away to corporations, so everyone has their hand in the pot.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

...

Add to that, WW2 employed millions of Americans, and kept a lot of the money turning gears in our economy from top to bottom. It was an industrial war that required huge output from all levels of American society.

Iraq war = MASSIVE money spent on relatively few companies, with relatively little impact on employment or economic stimulation at large. Instead of putting more $$$ in the pockets of average citizens and small/medium businesses, it pours into the coffers of politically connected corporations.

Big difference. I'm glad that we're not fighting a world war of proportions that require huge industrialization in this era, because obviously that would entail the deaths of millions (billions?) of people. That said, I think that Iraq is a hugely expensive mistake, and one that has cost us dearly on every front, including the crucial war in Afghanistan.

And who works for the corporations?

They are not just paper - they employ engineeers, technicians, office help.

They subcontract out work to your small/medium businesses - who guess what - also employ the same type of people.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Carmen813
If only people realized the president had so little influence on the economy...

Well, they can influence it negatively. The war in Iraq has hurt.

Unless you're one of the hundreds of thousands of American citzens employed by lockheed martin, boeing, nothrop, etc....

As mentioned in other threads though, money spent on defense is about the worst way the government can spend money from an economic standpoint. (assuming that we're not being invaded/conquered/etc... which is obviously not a threat right now). Money spent on bombs creates jobs and dead people. Money spent on say.. building new roads, schools, whatever creates jobs and gives society another benefit.