Originally posted by kwongandy
Democrats have presided better if you measure by GDP than the GOP over the last 60 years or so. About 1.5% better give or take each year.
Most people still don't realize that it takes at least 2 years (sometimes up to 4 or 5) to actually see the real effects of federal policy on the economy. Democrats always get to ride the coattails of Republican policies, and usually don't stay in office long enough to get blamed for what their own policies do (the only Democrat to get a second term since 1969 was Bill Clinton, and the economy tanked during his second term).
The economy didn't do much when Reagan was sworn in, but skyrocketed about 2 years later. Then when George H.W. Bush took office, it started to slow down a few years later (he was a Republican too, obviously, but nowhere near as good a president). The worst was right near the end of Clinton's term.
It's also not entirely fair to go 60 years back when making these comparisons, because the Democratic platform with respect to economics was very different back then. FDR and Harry Truman were wartime presidents, fiscal conservatives with a heavy emphasis on military spending. They were very much like Republicans today. The earliest Democrat who was truly representative of today's Democrats was Lyndon Johnson, who also managed to tank the economy in his second term with his idiotic "war on poverty", which over 40 years later has been even less successful than the "war on terror" or the "war on drugs".
If you actually look at the numbers, they're pretty consistent in showing that the economy is at its best after 2-4 Republican years, and worst after 2-4 Democrat years. There are exceptions of course, namely Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, but I think every Republican will agree that Nixon was the black sheep, and GW has not been fiscally conservative at all.
Actually, this is the only thing I worry about with McCain - he really isn't that much of a fiscal conservative. He's good on issues like defense, but when it comes to economics he's a bit of a RINO. Palin is fiscally conservative, at least from what I've been able to discern so far. So we'll have to see how well they do with the economy. I am at least pretty confident that they won't make things any worse than they already are, whereas I'm almost positive that it will tank again if Obama takes office, which of course won't happen.
quote:
Originally posted by KaiLee
Could you provide me with proof that it's only twelve more dollars in taxes?
Twelve bucks, that's hysterical. If your income is $250K then that puts you in the bracket above (roughly) $160K. That's $90K worth of income in that particular bracket, and even a 0.1% tax increase would come out to at least $90. A 1% tax increase, which is the smallest you would ever actually see, comes out to $900 or more.
Where the hell is anybody getting $12 from? Do they teach math in poli sci?
Abercrombie
quote:
Originally posted by Skipper
lol -
lol, I just saw that live last night, they didn't waste any time getting it on youtube, did they!
Dj Smitty20
quote:
Originally posted by KaiLee
Could you provide me with proof that it's only twelve more dollars in taxes?
By the way, I don't have a completely capitalist mind point. It would be great to see affordable health care for everyone in the US. My parents struggled to pay for doctors bills at one point like so many other Americans.
I just don't think Obama's drastic plans of change are the smartest idea for the economy right now. Even if only the big guys and corporations get taxed the little guys still pay for it with higher prices and cut wages for workers.
His idea may sound great when he says it but those corporations and big wigs still have to make money somehow, right?
I have seen Obama's tax plan vs McCain's tax plan broken down more than once on CNN, MSNBC and even FOX News. I'm sure you can do a search for it. Independent campaign agencies (factcheck.org or something like that) also have consistently reported that McCain's blathering about Obama raising taxes is untrue for the vast majority of Americans. The only bracket that gets hit "hard" are those who make over $600,000 a year.
Besides, Obama is only going to REVERSE the Bush tax cuts essentially to what they were when Clinton was in office. In most cases, it's going back to about 39% instead of 36%. It's only an increase insofar that it eliminates all the gains that the wealthier classes and corporations have made since 2001. Again, please tell me why this is a bad thing except SPECULATION that it will hurt jobs and wages. There is no evidence of that, especially when he will reward the corporations with tax breaks who actually keep jobs in the United States. The Republican Party has done absolutely nothing about the loss of blue collar and manufacturing jobs that have left North America for cheaper markets like Mexico and Asia.
Again, people said the same thing about Clinton's plans in 1992 and it worked then. The United States NEEDS drastic change right now because the system is failing way too many people. It just boggles my mind how so many people would rather trust the incumbent party to do a better job after their complete mishandling of almost every major issue over the last eight years.
In Canada, we don't stand for that but then again, we don't vote for the party leader who we would most likely "have a beer with" either.
Dj Smitty20
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
If you actually look at the numbers, they're pretty consistent in showing that the economy is at its best after 2-4 Republican years, and worst after 2-4 Democrat years.
Twelve bucks, that's hysterical. If your income is $250K then that puts you in the bracket above (roughly) $160K. That's $90K worth of income in that particular bracket, and even a 0.1% tax increase would come out to at least $90. A 1% tax increase, which is the smallest you would ever actually see, comes out to $900 or more.
Where the hell is anybody getting $12 from? Do they teach math in poli sci?
Where are you getting your numbers from? Obama's tax plan has been broken down by economists all over the American media. All you are doing is speculating, while I've actually seen people who know what they're talking about break it down on national TV.
So the economy is at its best after two years of Republican handling eh? Wow man, you are delusional. Tell that to everyone in North America who lived through a tough recession in the early 80s when Reagan was President or during Bush Senior's term. The economy was far superior even in Clinton's second term than it is today. The late 90s was a far more stable economic period compared to the last eight years. Do we really need to compare job losses?
and there you go again mocking the Canadian university education system. I guess people who actually go to school are all idiots right?:rolleyes:
Skipper
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
(the only Democrat to get a second term since 1969 was Bill Clinton, and the economy tanked during his second term).
To be fair, he was in office when the asian financial crisis hit.
Smitty, can you point us to wherever you are getting all this info? If you're going to make an argument, it's not particularly compelling when you just say "go search for it yourself"
DigiNut
quote:
Originally posted by Skipper
To be fair, he was in office when the asian financial crisis hit.
Sure - there are lots of causes for economic problems. That likely did factor into it. I was only addressing the point that "Democrats have done better for the American economy", which the evidence doesn't support except through a naïve and, well, wrong interpretation. In any discussion of economics it's important to distinguish between short-term fluctuations and long-term growth.
Clinton didn't do much for or against the U.S. economy. In fact he didn't really do much of anything, period. If Obama does somehow get himself elected, Americans will consider themselves lucky if he ends up doing so little.
Skipper
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
In fact he didn't really do much of anything, period.
He certainly did not have sex with that woman
KaiLee
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Twelve bucks, that's hysterical. If your income is $250K then that puts you in the bracket above (roughly) $160K. That's $90K worth of income in that particular bracket, and even a 0.1% tax increase would come out to at least $90. A 1% tax increase, which is the smallest you would ever actually see, comes out to $900 or more.
Where the hell is anybody getting $12 from? Do they teach math in poli sci?
I also don't see how $12 from every person who has an income above $250k will help hundreds of millions of people in a financial crisis.
KaiLee
quote:
Originally posted by Skipper
lol -
Holy smokes Tina is spot on
MarkT
quote:
Originally posted by KaiLee
I also don't see how $12 from every person who has an income above $250k will help hundreds of millions of people in a financial crisis.
it's ok...because there's also not "hundreds of millions" of people in a financial crisis anyway, given that the entire U.S. population is only slightly over 300 million ;)
DigiNut
quote:
Originally posted by KaiLee
I also don't see how $12 from every person who has an income above $250k will help hundreds of millions of people in a financial crisis.
Last census showed 1.7 million households making $250,000 or more, so that's about $20 million it'll raise. That could pay for, oh, let's say, 3 hours of interest on the national debt? Or almost a full day of welfare/social security payments for maybe 1/10th of the people on it? Or, oooh, I know, it could run one public hospital for as many as 7 minutes! Just think of all the babies we could save with that money! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
