Dems vs. Repub

#51
#51
BigPapaVol said:
again, I have overwhelming evidence in my favor and it proves that when I'm there, the stadium is packed. I know that at some games when I choose not to attend, there are empties. What happened before is immaterial.
Click to expand...
No what happens before is relevant......Good god, I'm glad I started this forum... This is awesome
 
#53
#53
BigPapaVol said:
but it destroys your argument.
Click to expand...
It doesn't destroy it.... It adds to it... When a democractic president and republican congress is in place, the U.S. economy does better.... How does that destroy my argument of the country being better off with a democratic president???
 
#56
#56
thekicker33 said:
It doesn't destroy it.... It adds to it... When a democractic president and republican congress is in place, the U.S. economy does better.... How does that destroy my argument of the country being better off with a democratic president???
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
#58
#58
thekicker33 said:
It doesn't destroy it.... It adds to it... When a democractic president and republican congress is in place, the U.S. economy does better.... How does that destroy my argument of the country being better off with a democratic president???
Click to expand...

It could be a Repub Pres and Dem congress too though.
 
#59
#59
thekicker33 said:
It doesn't destroy it.... It adds to it... When a democractic president and republican congress is in place, the U.S. economy does better.... How does that destroy my argument of the country being better off with a democratic president???
Click to expand...

how do you know the republican congress isn't the reason why the economy was doing better? the last time we had a democratic president and democratic congress we had inflation over 10% and record unemployment within a year of him leaving office.
 
#60
#60
thekicker33 said:
It doesn't destroy it.... It adds to it... When a democractic president and republican congress is in place, the U.S. economy does better.... How does that destroy my argument of the country being better off with a democratic president???
Click to expand...

what does the congress have to do with your argument? how does his comment do anything but refute your causality?
 
#61
#61
droski said:
how do you know the republican congress isn't the reason why the economy was doing better? the last time we had a democratic president and democratic congress we had inflation over 10% and massive unemployment.
Click to expand...

oops. Another weird coincidence.
 
#64
#64
thekicker33 said:
I think this is telling....

All of this came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject
When Bill Clinton took over in 1993 unemployment was at 7.3 percent. It went down to a low of 3.9 percent in December of 2000. He left office at 4.2 percent.

Obviously, Bush took over at 4.2 (the lowest of his tenure) and jumped to a high of 6.3 in June of '03. In July '08 unemployment was at 5.7.

Without percentages, this means when Clinton left office 5.692,000 people were unemployed during the course of 2000. At the end of 2007 when unemployment was at 5.0, 7,078,000 didn't have a job at one point in 2007.

More historically though, the numbers still favor democrats. Since 1948 there have been five democratic presidents. When Truman (D) left office in 53, unemployment was at 2.9.
By the time another democrat took over again in 61 (Kennedy) unemployment was at 6.6. He died and Lyndon Johnson (D) took over. When his tenure was over in 69, the rate was at 3.4.

When Carter (D) took over in 77, unemployment was at 7.5. He left office in 81 with the same rate. Then Reagan (R) took over and unemployment went to at least a 40-year high to 10.8 percent in Nov. and Dec. of 82. Most of if not all the blame can be put on Carter for that one.

From there, though, the rate did go down and when Reagan left office in '89, unemployment was at 5.4.
Four years later Clinton (D) took over at a rate of 7.3.
In conclusion, since 1948, 80 percent of the time when a democrat has been president the unemployment rate has gone down. Meanwhile, only one republican saw it go down.

Time will tell on Obama
Click to expand...

Aside from the nonrecognition that unemployment is a lagging indicator as well as the fact that - due to checks and balances - our presidents do not have unfettered control of the government, I am utterly shocked that someone could suggest with a straight face that the only factor that should be viewed when evaluating presidential macroeconomic policy is the unemployment rate. Even the most rudimentary economics education teaches that there is generally a trade-off between unemployment and inflation rate. Our government could reduce unemployment to almost nothing, by a short-run boost in aggregate demand resulting from increased spending or decreasing taxes. This approach, however, has an inverse effect on the inflation rate - which could make all the jobs in the world meaningless if inflation is out-pacing real wages. There is a trade-off here and, even if the president could make policy at will, one would be damaging our economy more than anything by trying to reduce one to zero at the expense of the other (those being inflation for unemployment and visa-versa). Those economists studying the history of past presidencies have noted the different preferences regarding unemployment and inflation. Republicans for the most part pursue contractionary policies soon after coming into office in order to reduce inflation (typically from incumbent policies of the opposing party). While democrats are more likely to pursue more expansionary policies to reduce unemployment and are willing to take the higher inflation that results (for the same reason). Examining growth in the money supply shows that monetary policy is, in fact, less inflationary during republican administrations. On the flip-side, as you have noted, unemployment rates support the other side of this analysis. I don't disagree with your facts, but you clearly have misrepresented the implications of them.
 
Last edited:
#65
#65
I never said unemployment is the only factor when analyzing a president. But to me, it's the most important. If unemployment is low, the economy will be strong due to more people having more money. With the economy strong more businesses pop up, more millionaires are made and less is spent on social programs trying to help the unemployed. The dominos simply fall into place.

I'd rather have high inflation than low unemployment due to reasons stated above. Inflation has never been so high in this country to make a job worthless, and I doubt it's gonna all of a sudden happen now.

So again, I ask, how am I wrong with the fact that 80 percent of the time in the last 50 years unemployment has been lower under a democratic president?? That can't be disputed. The reasons, however, can be. Paul 1454 is the only one that gave a reasonable argument to refute it.

Neyland Stadium coming to see BigPapaVol is hilarious. How do I know that's not the case is due to a common variable. That common variable being UT football, before and after you are gone, fans will still watch them. And with my argument, the common variable is a democratic president, like it or not.
 
#66
#66
paul1454 said:
Aside from the nonrecognition that unemployment is a lagging indicator as well as the fact that - due to checks and balances - our presidents do not have unfettered control of the government, I am utterly shocked that someone could suggest with a straight face that the only factor that should be viewed when evaluating presidential macroeconomic policy is the unemployment rate. Even the most rudimentary economics education teaches that there is generally a trade-off between unemployment and inflation rate. Our government could reduce unemployment to almost nothing, by a short-run boost in aggregate demand resulting from increased spending or decreasing taxes. This approach, however, has an inverse effect on the inflation rate - which could make all the jobs in the world meaningless if inflation is out-pacing real wages. There is a trade-off here and, even if the president could make policy at will, one would be damaging our economy more than anything by trying to reduce one to zero at the expense of the other (those being inflation for unemployment and visa-versa). Those economists studying the history of past presidencies have noted the different preferences regarding unemployment and inflation. Republicans for the most part pursue contractionary policies soon after coming into office in order to reduce inflation (typically from incumbent policies of the opposing party). While democrats are more likely to pursue more expansionary policies to reduce unemployment and are willing to take the higher inflation that results (for the same reason). Examining growth in the money supply shows that monetary policy is, in fact, less inflationary during republican administrations. On the flip-side, as you have noted, unemployment rates support the other side of this analysis. I don't disagree with your facts, but you clearly have misrepresented the implications of them.
Click to expand...

Hold on a second, this happens in the politics forum? :blink:
 
#67
#67
To the OP...

The Tech Boom happened during Clinton's years, and was starting to level out at the end of his presidency. A sloth with horrible gas who was an independent could have been president at that time and things would have still be just fine.

Clinton helped us get into the issue we are in right now. In fact, I believe he had Bin Laden in his sights in 1996 and let him live. That sure hasn't helped our economy any.
 
#68
#68
I love how there's always a negative excuse when a democrat does well, and yet a positive excuse when a republican does bad.. It's truly amusing!!
 
#69
#69
thekicker33 said:
I love how there's always a negative excuse when a democrat does well, and yet a positive excuse when a republican does bad.. It's truly amusing!!
Click to expand...

Clinton didn't have to do very much to be successful during the time he was in office. The Tech Boom caused him to be one of the most popular president's in recent history. He did. however, cut our military almost in half.

BTW, both political parties are responsible for the shape we are in, Republicans and Democrats alike. That's why I won't vote for either party until they get their stuff straight and become fiscally responsible again. While Republicans are slamming Dems for spending, we soon forget that they help our debt rise as well and spent off the charts as well from 1998-2008. That's why the Dems took over, but little did the American people know the Dems were just as bad and worse than Republicans on being fiscally strong. Neither are working for the good of the country.
 
#70
#70
droski said:
how do you know the republican congress isn't the reason why the economy was doing better? the last time we had a democratic president and democratic congress we had inflation over 10% and record unemployment within a year of him leaving office.
Click to expand...

1993 Bill Clinton was president, Dems controlled both houses of Congress and unemployment was 6.9% and inflation rate was 2.96%

Presidents get entirely too much credit and too much blame for the economy
 
Last edited:
#71
#71
Chattaben said:
1993 Bill Clinton was president, Dems controlled both houses of Congress and unemployment was 6.9% and inflation rate was 2.96%

Presidents get entirely too much credit and too much blame for the economy
Click to expand...

Our entire government gets too much of everything for the economy. Forecasting drives it, not our politicians. They don't help either, that's for sure.
 
#73
#73
^^^ this ^^^


Yes, all government does to the economy is get in the way. We went from tax and spend, to some decent fiscal responsibility in the mid nineties, to just spend starting in the late nineties that was exasperated by the compassionate conservatism of W. While the Democrats are running away into crazy debt land, I am hoping the Republican party can be pulled from the brink (not a guarantee at all at this point) and start bringing the scope of this out of control government back into line.
 
#74
#74
Chattaben said:
1993 Bill Clinton was president, Dems controlled both houses of Congress and unemployment was 6.9% and inflation rate was 2.96%

Presidents get entirely too much credit and too much blame for the economy
Click to expand...

Is there a point there?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#75
#75
thekicker33 said:
I never said unemployment is the only factor when analyzing a president. But to me, it's the most important. If unemployment is low, the economy will be strong due to more people having more money. With the economy strong more businesses pop up, more millionaires are made and less is spent on social programs trying to help the unemployed. The dominos simply fall into place.

I'd rather have high inflation than low unemployment due to reasons stated above. Inflation has never been so high in this country to make a job worthless, and I doubt it's gonna all of a sudden happen now.

So again, I ask, how am I wrong with the fact that 80 percent of the time in the last 50 years unemployment has been lower under a democratic president?? That can't be disputed. The reasons, however, can be. Paul 1454 is the only one that gave a reasonable argument to refute it.

Neyland Stadium coming to see BigPapaVol is hilarious. How do I know that's not the case is due to a common variable. That common variable being UT football, before and after you are gone, fans will still watch them. And with my argument, the common variable is a democratic president, like it or not.
Click to expand...

wages don't matter?

inflation isn't relavant?

sweet jesus.

what's having low unemployment worth if you are either making less money than before or inflation is so high your cost of living is rising much faster than your salary? shouldn't wealth creation be the primary goal of a president?
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top