Almost all economists agree that economic booms and busts are independent of what presidents do during their tenure.I agree that there is "long term" effect on countries growth due to economic policies/wars but nobody can show even one example of short term economic growth in recent years due to white house.
Why do we then keep banging our head on the economy during presidential elections ?
The only org which can remotely effect economy is the FED and even that is not under govt control. I looked back at all recessions and could not find even one recession which was caused by the "ruling" president at that time.Almost all were the result of excess money, speculation and lax regulations.
should we not focus on long term economic policies during elections rather than whats going on today.
Watch
Follow
Befriend (5)
74 threads
1,400 comments
Premium
What?? How about congress and the prez get the wheels in motion to strip the FED of all their powers AKA printing press and put them behind bars for counterfeiting? That's how govt could "effect" the economy for the better and put the country back on track by starting to reduce the deficit (the principal that is, not just its growth).
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
chanakya4773 says
well.. yes.. "was" is the operative word here...
but it turned out more about contraceptives, you tube videos, someones tax return, and big bird.. things that sell well over TV.
Follow
Befriend (5)
74 threads
1,400 comments
Premium
chanakya4773 says
True, so we should start taking that power back and abolish any forms of counterfeiting, such as printing money/injecting credit and fractional reserve lending.
Follow
Befriend (5)
74 threads
1,400 comments
Premium
chanakya4773 says
Yeah, doesn't have to be the gold standard for the reasons you mentioned although I am not sure how real that threat is if anybody is free to amass gold. But how about every dollar lent must be backed by 1 dollar of asset capital, no (further) leverage allowed?
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
why should asset values "collapse" in a well-regulated system.
Part of that regulation has to be eliminating speculation on borrowed money, especially in land.
I don't particularly care how this would be accomplished, but I think the land value tax would be pretty good at that, since theoretically it pushes (tax-burdened) land values to zero, LOL.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
chanakya4773 says
I don't agree with this. FDR turned the economy around on a dime and created a V shaped recovery with an inflection point at the exact moment of his inauguration. (unemployment recovery always lags) It's fed policy that is almost always overrated.
Obama can have a positive effect on the economy by insisting on a return to progressive taxes.
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
iwog says
by holding his breath until Boehner caves?
Pelosi needs ~20 defectors from the Republican caucus to break the majority, plus all of her minority too.
ARTICLE I SECTION 7.
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Bellingham Bill says
Clinton won all his budget battles and the government was even 'shut down' to force the issue. People blamed Republicans.
I don't know how likely it is, but having Obama there is better than the alternative.
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
iwog says
yes, I was happy to see Obama say he has to take the case to US.
I guess I get overly afraid that the right's domination of mass media -- Fox, talk radio, all the conservative webpoints -- and the dozen or so full-time propaganda mills that feed this messaging infrastructure will dominate the process, unlike the mid-1990s.
I see Fox was launched October 7, 1996. . .
And the battle is very different now compared to then. Clinton was just trying to force the Republicans to stick to the status quo. Now Obama is trying to force the Republicans to return to the status quo ante of the 1990s, at least for the top 5% of earners.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
I'm not saying he'll be successful, and you're right that the country is saturated with right-wing propaganda, however I think the political climate is about as good as it's going to get for a showdown.
Obama has a mandate. He can earn his legacy and do the country a world of good by playing this correctly and showing the Republicans as the anti-government vandals they really are.
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
Also, there's this:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cEN
showing the deficit is 10% of personal income.
Taxes have to be doubled in this country, and the current House majority remembers what happened to the House majority in 1994 after they raised taxes again in 1993 . . .
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
chanakya4773 says
?
gold standard and fractional-reserve lending are two different things
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Bellingham Bill says
That's the beauty of the current situation.
1. Polls show most Americans agree with raising taxes on top wage earners.
2. Republicans are in firm control of the House and gaining a few more seats in 2014 will have no effect on government.
3. Democrats aren't nearly as vulnerable in the Senate in 2014.
4. If played correctly, Democrats can champion tax cuts for the lower tax brackets while Republicans were the ones trying to keep them high.
2014 campaign ad:
"Mr. Pube voted repeatedly to block tax cuts while Mr. Dem fought tirelessly to keep them low."
By their own doing, Republicans are now in the position of blocking tax cuts. This needs to be amplified.
Follow
Befriend (9)
434 threads
4,247 comments
Baltimore, MD
Umm, if the election were really all about the economy, then Obama would have gotten a grand total of 3 electoral votes, from DC and nothing else.
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
chanakya4773 says
plus the import boom . . .
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cF7
and the oil glut . . .
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cF8
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
iwog says
Democrats had them over the same barrel in 2010, but the Republicans linked extension of the unemployment tiers to their top-bracket tax cuts.
The conventional wisdom was that the worse things get here, the more the electorate will punish the Dems. Getting back into control of the Executive, as McConnell himself idiotically said, was Priority One for the Republicans, so kicking millions of Americans in the nuts by stopping their EUC checks would have been good politics for the Republicans I guess.
People don't understand yet the central role of the House in our system. Hell, I didn't -- the Reagan/Tip O'Neil comity growing up confused things for me, and I was out of the country for all that Gingrich bullshit. I remember seeing somewhere that customs stuff might be impacted and thinking 'that's nice, good thing I'm not going back this month'