Tax cuts + spending != a healthy economy.

[Warriorbird]

Short run = yes

Long run = no

Grandpa taught me arbitrage.



The argument's a bit deeper than that, Parkbandit. You have the issue whether the Fed's influence is credited to the President or a skilled Fed chairman. You have the issue of whether the legislative gets credit or the executive. You also have the issue of whether if a President's influence extends that far you draw it to the conclusive point... it suggests that a lot of things that Republicans have claimed credit for are actually the results of Democratic presidents as much as the opposite.

Me, I never claimed that the economy of Clinton years was all his work... but I also didn't claim that it was clearly due to Reagan.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Warriorbird]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Yswithe
I think that what we're missing here is why certain segments of our society are living below the poverty line, and why certain are living above it.

The answers to these question go far beyond the scope of simply the economy, tax cuts, or even spending.

Hint: We can start with education and its qualities as well as inequalities for one. The answers are broad and numerous and another topic altogether.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

Short run = yes

Long run = no

Grandpa taught me arbitrage.



The argument's a bit deeper than that, Parkbandit. You have the issue whether the Fed's influence is credited to the President or a skilled Fed chairman. You have the issue of whether the legislative gets credit or the executive. You also have the issue of whether if a President's influence extends that far you draw it to the conclusive point... it suggests that a lot of things that Republicans have claimed credit for are actually the results of Democratic presidents as much as the opposite.

Me, I never claimed that the economy of Clinton years was all his work... but I also didn't claim that it was clearly due to Reagan.

I don't think Clinton did much in his term to create the environment for the economic prosperity that happened in his term. It has also been shown that Clinton actually hurt the economy for a little bit by his 1993 Tax hike (not sure if it was '93.. just off the top of my head).

I'm certain that it wasn't all Reagan as no one person can control the economy of a superpower like the US.. but I believe much of the groundwork that was laid during his administration paved the way for the boon of the Clinton years.

[Warriorbird]

To a certain degree, I can buy that. Clinton getting elected due to the recession under Bush 1 was also pretty clearly laid out during the Reagan years.

It's a double edged sword. It doesn't cut cleanly.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Anyone wanna guess how long it'll take before we get a President who see's the truth behind that statement?

Does it take take an economics major to realize that what our country is doing will shortly lead us to disaster, especially when combined with the travesty (read: conspiracy) of oil futures?

I wonder how long you or I might last running amock with our personal debt, before our credit is taken away, and our purcheses are similairly revoked.

Some economist is going to come up with smoe kind of obscure theory why its good. No doubt.

Guess who economists work for? Yep.

Nationalization of a countries resources is the way things should go, and people need to realize that.

Greenspan may be fiscally conservative, but he is the man appointed by the Dems to keep a finger on the economy.

OMG a TWOFER

[~Rocktar~]

Holy necro thread Batman!

[Methais]

OMG a TWOFER

wHy ArE yOu StAlKiNg OmG OmG OmG oMg?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿? ¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿?¿