Looking for an Honest Answer

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it's all cyclic.

Are you saying that the economy under the Clinton administration was just lust luck? What about "it's the economy stupid". No longer relavant?

I'll take this one for the win, peace dividend > massive cuts to defense ( read two divisions, no major weapon systems procured) > attack on our soil for our complacency. Thanks Bill.

Oh and let's not forgot the dot com bubble and 2001 recession.

Two divisions wouldn't have stopped 9/11. As for complacency, I think being handed a report titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" and telling your briefer, "All right. You've covered your ass, now" as Bush did is real complacency.

In almost every political thread someone complains that Obama blames Bush for things. Here you are trying to blame Clinton for the failures of Bush. You need to make up your mind whether or not Presidents are responsible for what happens on their watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it's all cyclic.

Are you saying that the economy under the Clinton administration was just lust luck? What about "it's the economy stupid". No longer relavant?

No I didn't say that presidents don't matter. I said that economies are cyclic. Presidents can have a great effect for good or bad but the economy is its own force. This is such a Republican notion that it is kind of shocking that you need it explained to you.

[Anonymous]

Economist here. Yes, economies are cyclical, but things happen to cause each cycle; hence, business cycles don't just happen predicatably every x years.

In general governments can do two things to alter the trajectory of the economy and stimulate an increase in GDP (which is usually synonymous with job creation)
1) Monetary policy, controlled by the Federal Reserve. This involves lowering the interest rate, which stimulates investment by firms and consumption of durables goods by consumers.

2) Fiscal policy, which involves government spending or cutting taxes to either inject money into (or pull less out of ) the economy. In general, you get more bang for your stimulus buck if you give money/cut taxes to lower income people, since they spend it right away.

The above is in every freshman economic textbook used in every university in the industrialized world.

In 1993, Clinton engaged in some deficit reduction. This is usually contractionary (i.e. it reduces GDP), but the Fed lowered interest rates and this kept the economy growing. Deficit reduction is usually NOT what you want to do in a recession, because it reduces GDP. You do want to reduce deficits in a boom/expansion to stay solvent and keep government borrowing from raising interest rates, which reduces growth. Reagan/Bush II, for example, should have been reducing deficits.

Now, we have fewer options. Interest rates are already at zero. Fiscal stimulus is one of our only options. Unfortunately, the 2009 package was full of delayed measures (backloaded to 2010), and it was full of tax cuts, when direct spending is usually faster. The stimulus probably needed to be bigger. Deficit reduction (cutting spending and raising taxes) now would just make things worse. The countries that have gone that route (UK, Ireland, Spain, Greece) are experiencing double dip recessions. We also need some financial regulation, so that the risky financial excesses are reigned in and so that businesses have a strong signal about what to do moving forward.

[Anonymous]

As previously stated Europe may have a problematic impact on the U.S. economy, but the place to be REALLY of is China -- as in, "Who has been buying all the U.S. debt that the Fed has been issuing." If their economy starts to slow, we are all in for a bumpy ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course! Obama is god. He came in on the Change horse and changed everything for the worse. THe best way to grow an economy is to increase taxes, increase regulation, and have everyone work for the government.

You are lying obama did not come on a horse..










It was a unicorn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course! Obama is god. He came in on the Change horse and changed everything for the worse. THe best way to grow an economy is to increase taxes, increase regulation, and have everyone work for the government.

You are lying obama did not come on a horse..

It was a unicorn

Giggle giggle. Hey, have some respect !

[Anonymous]

Obama doesn't want it to come back. He wants to diminish the united states both the economic and military power. He hates the uk as well that's why he sent back the churchill bust.

[Anonymous]

I believe that's Rafalca he's riding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama doesn't want it to come back. He wants to diminish the united states both the economic and military power. He hates the uk as well that's why he sent back the churchill bust.

Would this be the secret plot hatched while his parents were giving birth to him in Kenya? Seriously, where do people get this stuff?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Obama doesn't want it to come back. He wants to diminish the united states both the economic and military power. He hates the uk as well that's why he sent back the churchill bust.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/is-the-churchill-bust-controversy-a-total-bust/

Says James Barbour, press secretary and head of communications for the British Embassy, "The bust of Sir Winston Churchill, by Sir Jacob Epstein, was lent to the George W. Bush administration from the U.K.’s government art collection, for the duration of the presidency. When that administration came to an end so did the loan; the bust now resides in the British Ambassador’s Residence in Washington D.C. The White House collection has its own Epstein bust of Churchill, which President Obama showed to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House in March."

In the finest tradition of Republican politicians, "Oops."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama doesn't want it to come back. He wants to diminish the united states both the economic and military power. He hates the uk as well that's why he sent back the churchill bust.

You REALLY want to bring up th UK? His approval rating in Britain is 80%!

#Romneyshambles, not so much!

[Anonymous]

The discussion of the bust reminds me the tendency for partisan blogs to act as an echo chamber to fulfill the Lenin-Goebbels maxim that a lie repeated often enough is eventually accepted as true (actually, they said it becomes true, but I can't bring myself to say that). A more recent example was the claim that Obama tried to stop the late comic Steve Bridges from doing his rather benign Obama imitation. It was even implied that Obama might have been implicated in the untimely death of Bridges.

I wonder whether there is a neutral website that has compared the occurrence of this phenomenon on the left and the right. Anyone know of such an analysis?

[Anonymous]

I think it's questionable whether the economy will improve regardless of the administration. Congress is so hopelessly deadlocked it feels like nothing constructive will happen.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama doesn't want it to come back. He wants to diminish the united states both the economic and military power. He hates the uk as well that's why he sent back the churchill bust.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/is-the-churchill-bust-controversy-a-total-bust/

Says James Barbour, press secretary and head of communications for the British Embassy, "The bust of Sir Winston Churchill, by Sir Jacob Epstein, was lent to the George W. Bush administration from the U.K.’s government art collection, for the duration of the presidency. When that administration came to an end so did the loan; the bust now resides in the British Ambassador’s Residence in Washington D.C. The White House collection has its own Epstein bust of Churchill, which President Obama showed to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House in March."

In the finest tradition of Republican politicians, "Oops."

As good a S T R E T C H as any.

[Anonymous]

Obama wants the united states to diminish in power. He doesn't care about our economic engine. He will not try to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons . If he is forced to cut the budget... It will come by reducing the military. He will continue to unilaterally reduce our nuclear capability. He will put NASA in charge of muslim outreach. He will reduce our friendship with allies and make no progress with our enemies. He will accelerate our deficits to stifle any dream of an American comeback . Fortunately he is about to get his ass kicked by a better looking and smarter Romney and Ryan.