Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Sept 15, 2015 8:09:37 GMT -5
Meh. Clinton got credit for a great economy that he wasn't 100% responsible for, Bush Jr got blamed for a crappy economy he wasn't 100% responsible for. Presidents can't control the economy, especially not the global economy (witness the recent market tanking due to China's market hitting the skids). Politicians always take credit when credit isn't due, and always try to shift the blame when they can. It's just what they do. Just wait and see what happens if Trump gets elected. He will claim he causes the sun to rise every day.  China's economy stagnating (which was bound to happen because I don't think the kind of growth they were having is able to be sustained) will affect us on some level. I'm not sure how much yet, but it seems like when one country has a downturn, many of the others are connected enough to it that it affects them as well. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2015 8:09:43 GMT -5
this is precisely it. presidents want all of the credit and none of the blame. tough beans. you either get both, or neither. however, it should be noted that GOP presidents have a much worse economic track record than Democrats do. and because of that, they have a very strong incentive to suggest that NEITHER credit NOR blame should be part of the deal. and Democrats, by comparison, have an incentive to think that BOTH should. so, even the LOGIC of the decision is political, imo. ultimately, i think it comes down to how presidents campaign, particularly for re-election- and it is pretty much undeniable that presidents take credit for the economy and that their opponents blame them for it. so, rather than having this childish argument over whether they SHOULD OR NOT, let's just agree that it doesn't matter- THEY ARE GOING TO- and we WILL hold them to account for that. That's because they usually follow Democratic Presidents and their policies who screw up the economy and then leave office just in time before it comes tumbling down.  i don't view Truman, Johnson, Clinton or Obama that way. so, sure, Reagan followed Carter, and had a decent economy. 20% is crappy odds. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2015 8:10:39 GMT -5
Meh. Clinton got credit for a great economy that he wasn't 100% responsible for, Bush Jr got blamed for a crappy economy he wasn't 100% responsible for. Presidents can't control the economy, especially not the global economy (witness the recent market tanking due to China's market hitting the skids). Politicians always take credit when credit isn't due, and always try to shift the blame when they can. It's just what they do. Just wait and see what happens if Trump gets elected. He will claim he causes the sun to rise every day. China's economy stagnating (which was bound to happen because I don't think the kind of growth they were having is able to be sustained) will affect us on some level. I'm not sure how much yet, but it seems like when one country has a downturn, many of the others are connected enough to it that it affects them as well. this China stagnation meme cracks me up. omg! 7% growth!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING. if we had 7% growth, we would have a national orgasm. |
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Sept 15, 2015 8:30:34 GMT -5
That's because they usually follow Democratic Presidents and their policies who screw up the economy and then leave office just in time before it comes tumbling down. i don't view Truman, Johnson, Clinton or Obama that way. so, sure, Reagan followed Carter, and had a decent economy. 20% is crappy odds. The economy wasn't the greatest in the 1970's shortly after Johnson....as far as Clinton, are you serious? You don't think the economy was coming down when Clinton left office? I don't really think it was his fault (thus the "duh" emoticon), but to pretend everything was left all peachy when he left office is naive at best and purposefully deceitful at worst. As for Truman, it's easier to have an "up" economy when all of your main competition is trying to rebuild after have years of war destroy a lot of infrastructure. As for Obama, with China economy slowing down and having to deal with more government bonds coming due (along with what will most likely be a rise in the interest rate on future bonds) after he leaves office...I'm guessing the economy will take a hit. Again, not really blaming him for it...it is just kind of working out that way. You can't pretend that none of those things matter and act like the economy is in a bubble strictly adherent to the particular Presidential policies at that time. |
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Sept 15, 2015 8:32:59 GMT -5
China's economy stagnating (which was bound to happen because I don't think the kind of growth they were having is able to be sustained) will affect us on some level. I'm not sure how much yet, but it seems like when one country has a downturn, many of the others are connected enough to it that it affects them as well. this China stagnation meme cracks me up. omg! 7% growth!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING. if we had 7% growth, we would have a national orgasm. For now, and it will level out to lower levels...but when one major country has a boom, other countries benefit and when that country slows down (unless some other country takes its place), other countries slow down too. So yes, it will affect us on some level because their higher growth helped up on some level as well. So when it slows under a future President, that will have an effect. |
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Sept 15, 2015 10:44:53 GMT -5
What state did you give her credentials for? Why where else? Indiana of course!  Cool. It means another wasted socialist vote in the great state of Indiana. |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,743
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 15, 2015 10:58:20 GMT -5
Meh. Clinton got credit for a great economy that he wasn't 100% responsible for, Bush Jr got blamed for a crappy economy he wasn't 100% responsible for. Presidents can't control the economy, especially not the global economy (witness the recent market tanking due to China's market hitting the skids). Politicians always take credit when credit isn't due, and always try to shift the blame when they can. It's just what they do. Just wait and see what happens if Trump gets elected. He will claim he causes the sun to rise every day. China's economy stagnating (which was bound to happen because I don't think the kind of growth they were having is able to be sustained) will affect us on some level. I'm not sure how much yet, but it seems like when one country has a downturn, many of the others are connected enough to it that it affects them as well. Exactly. American presidents cannot control the global economy. China's overheated economy will run off the rails, as will some European countries, and this will shake the global markets, including ours. Whoever is president at the time, though, will get blamed by the opposition for not being able to 'fix' it. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2015 23:48:14 GMT -5
this China stagnation meme cracks me up. omg! 7% growth!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING. if we had 7% growth, we would have a national orgasm. For now, and it will level out to lower levels...but when one major country has a boom, other countries benefit and when that country slows down (unless some other country takes its place), other countries slow down too. So yes, it will affect us on some level because their higher growth helped up on some level as well. So when it slows under a future President, that will have an effect. sure. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2015 23:50:47 GMT -5
i don't view Truman, Johnson, Clinton or Obama that way. so, sure, Reagan followed Carter, and had a decent economy. 20% is crappy odds. The economy wasn't the greatest in the 1970's shortly after Johnson....as far as Clinton, are you serious? You don't think the economy was coming down when Clinton left office? i don't regard it as a serious correction, no. particularly in light of how blazingly great the economy was under Clinton. if you add the 2001 recession to the 8 previous years, that still tops Bush by a significant factor. actually, here is something else: bitch about Carter all you like, but he balanced budgets far better than Reagan. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2015 23:52:49 GMT -5
As for Obama, with China economy slowing down and having to deal with more government bonds coming due (along with what will most likely be a rise in the interest rate on future bonds) after he leaves office...I'm guessing the economy will take a hit. nonsense. China will roll their bonds because we are the only nation on earth other than Japan that has enough liquidity. this concept is really hard for Americans to understand, but imagine if you were trying to bank a BILLION at your local credit union, and you get the idea.Again, not really blaming him for it...it is just kind of working out that way. You can't pretend that none of those things matter and act like the economy is in a bubble strictly adherent to the particular Presidential policies at that time. it is working out fine for him. much better than for Bush. |
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Sept 17, 2015 20:50:08 GMT -5
As for Obama, with China economy slowing down and having to deal with more government bonds coming due (along with what will most likely be a rise in the interest rate on future bonds) after he leaves office...I'm guessing the economy will take a hit. nonsense. China will roll their bonds because we are the only nation on earth other than Japan that has enough liquidity. this concept is really hard for Americans to understand, but imagine if you were trying to bank a BILLION at your local credit union, and you get the idea.Again, not really blaming him for it...it is just kind of working out that way. You can't pretend that none of those things matter and act like the economy is in a bubble strictly adherent to the particular Presidential policies at that time. it is working out fine for him. much better than for Bush. And if Bush and Obama had switched places...guess what, the economy would have still tanked and came back pretty much the same. It's crazy how many people actually blame and give so much credit to Presidents for the economy at the time, but then act like they have no affect on future economies. You can't have it both ways if you want to blame/credit Presidents for the economies while they are in office. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2015 23:23:05 GMT -5
it is working out fine for him. much better than for Bush. And if Bush and Obama had switched places...guess what, the economy would have still tanked and came back pretty much the same. It's crazy how many people actually blame and give so much credit to Presidents for the economy at the time, but then act like they have no affect on future economies. You can't have it both ways if you want to blame/credit Presidents for the economies while they are in office. you'll never get me to believe that anyone could mishandle things as badly as Bush did, but go ahead and try, if you like.  edit: for the record, i think all presidents are responsible for the economy to precisely the same degree. |
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Sept 18, 2015 4:36:51 GMT -5
And if Bush and Obama had switched places...guess what, the economy would have still tanked and came back pretty much the same. It's crazy how many people actually blame and give so much credit to Presidents for the economy at the time, but then act like they have no affect on future economies. You can't have it both ways if you want to blame/credit Presidents for the economies while they are in office. edit: for the record, i think all presidents are responsible for the economy to precisely the same degree. Some may have more affect than others, but for the most part I agree....just not sure if we agree to what degree that is though. |
|
