The Democrat Thread

[bmags]

I find it hysterical that the GOp keeps pushing Tax cuts and deregulation as a way to make the economy better. HELLO!!!

 

Well, I understand that's their philosophy in general, but like, to act like, Oh, we got this, I know how to solve this economic collapse...extend Bush's tax cuts!

[HuskyCaucasian]

Well, I understand that's their philosophy in general, but like, to act like, Oh, we got this, I know how to solve this economic collapse...extend Bush's tax cuts!

Here's an interesting graphic...

Since 1950, unemployment has gone down during Dem rule and up during Rep rule.

 

And to help finish off the chart, The day Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.2%. The highest since Bill Clinton took office.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[lostfan]

I don't think there is any meaningful correlation there.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I don't think there is any meaningful correlation there.

well, if employment is a driving force behind the wellness of our economy, it would be logical to suggest that high unemployment is bad, while low unemployment is good. And the party in power has great ability to move unemployment rates with the correct fiscal policies. And since 1950, only one republican president has lowered unemployment and only one Dem has raised it (and that was only by a small margin, but shot up shortly after he left office). And yes, there are an infinite amount of outside sources that have an effect on our economy.

 

So, if we are talking about the best policies to govern a countries economic well being... it's been the democrats... with the exception of the GOP golden boy Regan.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think there is any meaningful correlation there.

Agreed. Economic factors are so all over the place with their cycles, and disconnected from government action over time, that you can't really get much out of that.

 

[StrangeSox]

well, if employment is a driving force behind the wellness of our economy, it would be logical to suggest that high unemployment is bad, while low unemployment is good. And the party in power has great ability to move unemployment rates with the correct fiscal policies. And since 1950, only one republican president has lowered unemployment and only one Dem has raised it (and that was only by a small margin, but shot up shortly after he left office). And yes, there are an infinite amount of outside sources that have an effect on our economy.

 

So, if we are talking about the best policies to govern a countries economic well being... it's been the democrats... with the exception of the GOP golden boy Regan.

 

Correlation =/= causation

[bmags]

I don't think there is any meaningful correlation there.

 

I do, and here's why. The culture wars that the Republicans have made meaningful gains on have been based on being especially down to earth, encapsulating everything down to a catch phrase. Basically, many of them have been stupid. And now, the party of ideas is now the party of guhhh. I'm not saying there are no dumb democrats, boy howdy, there are, but when it comes to picking a Pres. candidates, they pick people with pretty sane minds and good practical decision making.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I do, and here's why. The culture wars that the Republicans have made meaningful gains on have been based on being especially down to earth, encapsulating everything down to a catch phrase. Basically, many of them have been stupid. And now, the party of ideas is now the party of guhhh. I'm not saying there are no dumb democrats, boy howdy, there are, but when it comes to picking a Pres. candidates, they pick people with pretty sane minds and good practical decision making.

 

That doesnt really explain why you think there is a correlation.

 

And about the bolded...really? Remember John Kerry?

 

[bmags]

John Kerry didn't win, but nonetheless is a pretty smart guy - just had no idea how to run a campaign especially against Rove, or in the new century. He would have been a bad president - probably. But the correlation didn't have to do candidates anyways. My point is, there really hasn't been a brilliant Republican president, or one that really knew the economic theory that well besides Reagan and before that Nixon-but he was his own downfall and his strategies destroyed this country.

[lostfan]

I do, and here's why. The culture wars that the Republicans have made meaningful gains on have been based on being especially down to earth, encapsulating everything down to a catch phrase. Basically, many of them have been stupid. And now, the party of ideas is now the party of guhhh. I'm not saying there are no dumb democrats, boy howdy, there are, but when it comes to picking a Pres. candidates, they pick people with pretty sane minds and good practical decision making.

This is a more recent phenomenon though. You go back to the 60s, the 70s, those guys were pretty competent. Today's GOP is the one where a significant chunk of them still think Sarah Palin is a brilliant leader and will argue that with you all day, and embraces stupid ass catchphrases and concepts like Joe the Plumber, like you said. And is still trying to emulate Ronald Reagan.

 

Anyway my point is that for the graph AHB posted, there's far too many other variables for it to give you any meaningful data. Plus you can throw in other stupid arguments to counter it too e.g. the one we heard about Clinton "it takes several years for a president's policies to take effect so Clinton was riding off Bush's policies and now we're dealing with all his crap."

[longshot7]

I would like to take issue with the above premise that Reagan was a good president. If creating unprecedented deficits, wrecking the economic structure of the country, spending like a drunken sailor, and expanding the federal government, all while contributing to high unemployment is a good President, then I agree. If not, then sorry - he was pretty bad.

[bmags]

I would like to take issue with the above premise that Reagan was a good president. If creating unprecedented deficits, wrecking the economic structure of the country, spending like a drunken sailor, and expanding the federal government, all while contributing to high unemployment is a good President, then I agree. If not, then sorry - he was pretty bad.

 

That's fine, but at least he didn't appear stupid, and I think the idea to manipulate the economy through the fed was better strategy than just "TAX CUTS!"

[NorthSideSox72]

Sarah Palin will now have to pay back taxes on her home-use per diems.

 

[lostfan]

I would like to take issue with the above premise that Reagan was a good president. If creating unprecedented deficits, wrecking the economic structure of the country, spending like a drunken sailor, and expanding the federal government, all while contributing to high unemployment is a good President, then I agree. If not, then sorry - he was pretty bad.

Fiscally, he was pretty awful, and that's pretty much the Republican model of spending these days as evidenced by the Bush administration. They get indignant about government spending and massive deficits, but that's really what they're about, it's been proven. Yet they cling to the "fiscally responsible" label. That really is annoying to me. Lower taxes, fine, smaller government, fine. Lying about the latter but pushing the former = disaster.

[bmags]

Sarah Palin will now have to pay back taxes on her home-use per diems.

 

Is she being vetted for an Obama post or something?

[Balta1701]

Fiscally, he was pretty awful, and that's pretty much the Republican model of spending these days as evidenced by the Bush administration. They get indignant about government spending and massive deficits, but that's really what they're about, it's been proven. Yet they cling to the "fiscally responsible" label. That really is annoying to me. Lower taxes, fine, smaller government, fine. Lying about the latter but pushing the former = disaster.

Spending only counts if it's spending on social programs. Defense spending doesn't count.

[KipWellsFan]

This may be nothing more than a passing interest kind of things but here's Obama's first interview with Canadian media since becoming Prez. It seems that it was pretty well received up here, but there's wasn't anything particularly mindblowing, and the CBC isn't exactly al-Arabiyah.

 

 

[longshot7]

That's fine, but at least he didn't appear stupid,

 

OH REALLY?

[mr_genius]

I would like to take issue with the above premise that Reagan was a good president. If creating unprecedented deficits, wrecking the economic structure of the country, spending like a drunken sailor, and expanding the federal government, all while contributing to high unemployment is a good President, then I agree. If not, then sorry - he was pretty bad.

 

if this is coming from an Obama supporter...

 

I must remind you that the current administration is telling us deficit spending is good. Obama will likely destroy any deficit spending record.

 

The economy had major gains during Reagans years, even though he was history's greatest monster. Now were these economic gains due to deficit spending? unlikely.

Edited February 19, 2009 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

The economy had major gains during Reagans years, even though he was history's greatest monster.

That's Jimmy Carter and everyone knows it.

[mr_genius]

That's Jimmy Carter and everyone knows it.

 

nope. nope.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Um, Hey, um, yeah, New York Post, yeah...um, you might wanna rethink some of your editorial cartoons.

 

Link.

 

Yow.

[mr_genius]

the cartoon goes along with the news story of a TV chimp that went crazy and attacked some lady. it didn't even register to me as that was supposed to be Obama. more of a hilarious cartoon making fun of congress.

 

Obama didn't write the stimulus plan. talk about a overreaction.

 

wow

[KipWellsFan]

I'm not one to be easily offended and kind of doubt that the cartoon was meant to be offensive. But I just don't understand the link between the ramagin' chimpanzee and the stimulus bill. The cartoon doesn't make any sense.

[Balta1701]

I'm not one to be easily offended and kind of doubt that the cartoon was meant to be offensive. But I just don't understand the link between the ramagin' chimpanzee and the stimulus bill. The cartoon doesn't make any sense.

Supposedly the NY Post's phones have been ringing off the hook today with complaints.