OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by AdmiralZhao

Wow.

Yes, I too blame the Democrats for helping Europe rebuild after WWII. o_0

Lets make it simple:

1. The USA was the only world power to escape WWII with its economy intact.
2. The democrats retained power for significantly all of the 40 year period.
3. The democrats did a world class job of managing the economy.

One of those things has to be false. Because if it were true, the US would still have an equally dominant economy.

I believe the statistics show that after wwii, the gnp of the american economy exceeded all other powers involved in the war - combined. In fact, the GNP of the American economy is more than 50% of the GNP of the rest of the world combined.

It certainly wasn't true after 40 years of democratic rule.

So Jims assertion that the democrats do (did) an outstanding job of managing the economy fails on its face.

But if you need a link, here is a comparison of US growth rates to japanese growth rates post wwii:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5aE...esult#PPA45,M1

Here you see similiar statistics for france, italy and spain
ie., that they are narrowing the per person gdp all through the 1960s and 1970s... IE., that the the democrats did not do an outstanding job.. indeed - they did worse than the managers of four countries.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/181

In fact, if you examine the data further, they did worse than the managers of virtually *all* those world powers over the same period.

[JimMorrison]

I don't think that I stated anyone did an excellent (or stellar) job of anything. However, the statistics compiled by our own government show with clear numbers, that averaging out each year under a Democratic President there was a trend of better performance in every economic indicator, than there was under a Republican President.

Some of the statistics in the report (compiled by our government! I can't stress this enough) do start in the 40's, and some start in the 50's. I believe the reason to do the table of statistics as they were done in the article, was to only use data beginning in years when data in all areas was available


The Democrats have not "been in power" for the last 40 years, that is patently false. How can you even make such a claim, when the directly observable trends in areas of economy, society, and bureaucracy swing in VERY different directions when there is a Republican President in the White House (as there has been for 20 of the last 28 years, for example).

In fact, according to all indicators, as tracked by our own government, perhaps you could postulate that Democrats haven't done a "stellar" job with the economy, but it is also glaringly obvious from these figures that the Republicans did substantially, and reliably worse (f not horribly so).


I hardly see what deficit figures near 100% of the annual tax incomes for the last 3 years of WWII has to do with anything? The entire world was under rather unique economic stresses at the time, and we came through it the best that we could.

Let me give you an interesting bit of information, while we are on the subject of taxation, spending, deficit, and the relative performance of Presidents of different parties.....

This is the % increase in our national debt, over the period of a particular President's time in office (first 2 lumped because JFK wasn't around long enough, nor Ford....) -

JFK+LBJ = 28.24%
Nixon+Ford = 70.6%
Carter = 44.51% (I'll agree, this one is bad enough)
Reagan = 186.14% (makes Carter look like a financial GENIUS)
Bush Sr= 53.85% (worse in 4 years than even Carter as well)
Clinton = 40.65%
Bush Jr = 71.52%

So you see, according to our own internal bookkeeping, every Democrat has performed better in terms of the relative balance of revenue/spending than the Republican that followed them.


And yet, still, these numbers are embarassing. Neither party should consistently see debt growth on such a ridiculous scale. My argument the entire time was that what we truly need is a new paradigm altogether, and a new system whereby we can have a functioning economy, AND a functioning social infrastructure. While both are inarguably dysfunctional in American today (and have been for decades), there is a measurable difference, in all available benchmarking, that favors Democrats in nearly all statistical categories that we can look at.

So to reiterate - I do not think that any Democrat, Obama included, is the real answer we are looking for. But at the same time, it is ridiculous to claim that a Democrat will be worse than a Republican (in general terms), based on party affiliation, for any purpose other than your anger at having your income potential hampered, as one of those top 5% earners in the nation. If you're in the other 95%, and most of us are, then you are being completely deceived into your vote, and that is a statistically corroborated fact, because a Republican will do far more harm to you than a Democrat will.

<3

[Gregstrom]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Lets make it simple:

I believe the statistics show that after wwii, the gnp of the american economy exceeded all other powers involved in the war - combined. In fact, the GNP of the American economy is more than 50% of the GNP of the rest of the world combined.

It certainly wasn't true after 40 years of democratic rule.

So Jims assertion that the democrats do (did) an outstanding job of managing the economy fails on its face.

I don't believe that the two are related. I suspect that the statistics show that war-damaged economies recover faster than peace-time economies can grow. As a baseline comparison, why not use the pre-war economies?

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

But if you need a link, here is a comparison of US growth rates to japanese growth rates post wwii:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5aE...esult#PPA45,M1

Here you see similiar statistics for france, italy and spain
ie., that they are narrowing the per person gdp all through the 1960s and 1970s... IE., that the the democrats did not do an outstanding job.. indeed - they did worse than the managers of four countries.

...and of those 4 countries, 3 had strong genuinely socialist political parties between WWII and now. 2 had influential communist parties, in fact. Are you suggesting that having far-left socialist rulership is better for an economy than having a far-right and centre-right 2 party state?

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Gregstrom

I don't believe that the two are related. I suspect that the statistics show that war-damaged economies recover faster than peace-time economies can grow. As a baseline comparison, why not use the pre-war economies?

...and of those 4 countries, 3 had strong genuinely socialist political parties between WWII and now. 2 had influential communist parties, in fact. Are you suggesting that having far-left socialist rulership is better for an economy than having a far-right and centre-right 2 party state?

No, I am making two assertions:

1. Statistics can be used to prove anything.
2. The statistics Jim used to prove that Democrats are better stewards are a particular egregious example of #1.

I suppose I would also advance the argument that who we are as a country now is a product of democrats and republicans - good and bad. That who we are transcends democrat or republican - and that the trends of how our country does are longer range than the time of any one president. Who can doubt that clinton benefitted from the miraculous advent of the pc and the internet when the seeds of it were sown in the late 70's and early 80s.
Who can doubt that the first two years of Obama's presidency will be dealing with the problems of this financial mess.


I don't think any serious person can argue that Reagan wasn't a great president. I personally think FDR was a disaster during the great depression -but that he was absolutely *amazing* during ww2. Who can argue that Lincoln saved the union - and Rooseveldt Teddy was a great leader.

I think Woodrew Wilson was an amazing example of american optimism and idealism - even while he did the income tax and the treaty of versailles.

Jimmy Carter, W Bush, and Grant, Taft and Polk, will all go down as mediochre presidents. And while I may not agree with you as to the role of democratic presidents in the 50s-70's.. I believe that Martin Luther King (a democrat, yes?) played a larger and more constructive role than any of those presidents.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I am making two assertions:

1. Statistics can be used to prove anything.
2. The statistics Jim used to prove that Democrats are better stewards are a particular egregious example of #1.

I'm sorry if it was completely outrageous of me to draw a direct correlation between growth of debt, and a degrees of fiscal responsibility. Especially since you don't seem to care about the other economic indicators presented, either. But apparently my method of providing facts, offends yours right to just believe what you want to believe....?

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Who can doubt that clinton benefitted from the miraculous advent of the pc and the internet when the seeds of it were sown in the late 70's and early 80s.

Okay, at this point I should know better, but I will bite. The assertion that the rise of the internet just suddenly made more money appear, borders on the absurd. Yes, some people made a lot of money. In fact, if you look at our government's published figures, the budget surpluses had more to do with a slowdown in proportionate spending increases, rather than a disproportionate increase in revenues.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I don't think any serious person can argue that Reagan wasn't a great president.

Trickle down theory? Make the rich richer to benefit everyone?
Iran Contra? Have the CIA sell cocaine on American soil, to fund militant extremists?
The worst income/expenditure ratio of any President?

Reagan was a tool. The worst kind, really.

[Aezeal]

Somewhat more than 38% of people will get money, when they pay nothing.
Something like 50% will get a tax decrease.
And something like 5% will get a huge increase.

what can I say... sounds good?

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Somewhat more than 38% of people will get money, when they pay nothing.
Something like 50% will get a tax decrease.
And something like 5% will get a huge increase.

what can I say... sounds good?

Aezeal, it may surprise you to know that I believe we need to increase what the poor and middle class earn. And I believe that insofar as obama gives wealth to the lowest part of our economy, that he will actually help in pulling us out of the economic prolems we are in.

However, there are good ways, and bad ways to accomplish that.

I am *all* in favor of increasing aid and grants to education.
I am all in favor of giving micro loans so people can start businesses. I am in favor of increasing the minimum wage carefully so that it doesn't cause job loss.

However, using our tax code to do this is wrong.

First, at over 10,000 pages our tax code is already ridiculous. It takes an army of accountants and lawyers to figure it out - and if you can't figure it out - correctly - you're at risk.

Second, the cost of complying with the tax code is huge and non productive - and there are lots of both productive and non productive taxes in our system.

When the government taxes a sale, for example - the government gets some money. Theoretically we all benefit. The hidden kinds of taxes are when the government makes a regulation and the benefits are non existent.

Say for example you are driving - you come to a stop sign. You stop, wait your turn and then proceed. There is no traffic for miles around - you are in the middle of nebraska.

You had to stop - at risk of getting a ticket etc. It had a cost to you - it took 2 minutes out of your day, costs you gas to accelerate again. But the point is.. in this particular case - no one benefited.

In the same way, an inpenetrable tax code benefits no one - and is in fact a hidden tax on all of us.

Second:

Mixing missions is bad policy. The purpose of the IRS should be to collect taxes. Its performance can be measured. How well did it collect taxes. How many audits did it do.. etc

Once you give another role to our tax code - collecting funds AND redistributing wealth, and promoting education, and promoting home ownership, and promoting social equality - how do you measure the success of our tax code?

Every one decries tax loopholes - but here you are saying its a good thing because it benefits you personally.

Transparent politics is letting the tax code stand on its own - and then setting up a separate program - to increase home ownership - to increase education. And each of these programs can stand on its own feet - and be measured.

Im not saying this is 100% possible - but it is a goal that should be achieved as much as feasible.

Finally:

There is the old saying - give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Benjamin Franklin said something like - the poor should not be made comfortable in poverty - then should be lead, or if necessary, driven from it.

Look, welfare reform pushed by republicans and signed by clinton was an enormous success in getting people off the welfare roles and into jobs.

We need to make jobs and living wages *more* possible for everyone, not make it easier for more people to live in welfare, which is what just giving people money is.

[HoneyBadger]

And it looks like Obama for the win! YAY!

[Humakty]

Yay, Obama won, it's the democrat's turn to wreck occidental economy ! Just kidding guys, don't get the guns out.By the way, I really hope BO won't get shot out.
Giving my stranger 'point de vue' : I hope he really is the change motor USA needs today to stay world leaders, chinese scare me a bit. As he is from Yale, I'm afraid he'll be just as other USA politicians : lobby rules, poor gets poorer (I'm talking of USA poor !)...etc

[Edratman]

I am relieved that Obama won.

But it sad that I am merely relieved. I think that we have so many problems that I admit to great fears that many of them will/can not be overcome. But at least there is a modicum of hope.