Skip to main content

View Diary: Which party is best for the economy? It's not even close (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmmm. Sounds like we really wish Bill Clinton were (0+ / 0-)

    running for President, or Ronald Reagan.

    The current administration seems to have taken an economy with nowhere to go but up, and turned in the second worst performance yet.

    An, honestly, maybe the absolute worst, when you consider that Bush inherited an economy that mostly had nowhere to go but down.  Hard to grow jobs when everybody's working.  

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 02:39:11 PM PDT

    •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffee cup

      "an economy with nowhere to go but up,"

      No, it could have kept going down. It didn't. Why?

      •  Actually, it did keep going down. (0+ / 0-)

        The worst numbers -- especially long term unemployment and labor force participation -- have ocurred in the Obama administration.

        Come to think of it -- so did the numbers for home foreclosures and inflation on essentials.

        Which calls up the real problem with choosing numbers and where to draw lines.  Who's sitting in the White House when the bills come due may not be the one who banged the card.

        At any rate, the current administration's economic performance can fairly be characterized as abysmal.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 03:22:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  wait ... (0+ / 0-)

          "it did keep going down" when you first said it had nowhere of go but up. ;)

          But I don't want to pull a "gotcha." I think we agree that you can't turn it around instantly.

          Obama did as much as Congress allowed to improve matters.

          •  Nope. A gotcha is a gotcha. (0+ / 0-)

            I'll admit it. At the time, nobody believed things could possibly get worse -- including this President's economic advisors.

            We were all proved wrong.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:41:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Also every jobs bill supported by Obama (0+ / 0-)

      Has been blocked by Republican filibuster -- yet there's still been job growth despite the Republicans' best efforts to obstruct anything that would be good for the American worker-- all because it would look good for the administration. Obviously the priority of the Republican party, as stated by Mitch McConnell, has been to defeat Obama regardless of how that effects the American people.

      •  That's because Democrats didn't think it important (0+ / 0-)

        to worry about jobs when they controlled the Congress.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 03:22:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not the myth that Obama controlled Congress again (0+ / 0-)

          The president had to push and compromise for everything. There were not 60 Dem Senators, and the threat of filibuster was used.

          Neither Obama nor Dems controlled Congress. Conservatives did, to a considerable extent. It is easier to block legislation than to pass it.

          •  The myth? (0+ / 0-)

            Last I looked, he was able to get a $900 billion "stimulus" bill through, as well as the ACA.

            His control of Congress was so complete that he had no filibuster worries until Scott Brown implausibly won the seat vacated by Edward Kennedy.

            I would put that myth up there with the myth that 75% of the planet's surface is covered by water or that the American Civil War took place back in the 19th century.

            I wonder what Bill Clinton could have done with that Congress?

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:40:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  also (0+ / 0-)

      "...Bush inherited an economy that mostly had nowhere to go but down.  Hard to grow jobs when everybody's working. "

      "Everyone" wasn't working, by some millions.

      It's hard to believe things couldn't have been better had we had President Gore, no Iraq war, no giant tax cuts for the wealthy, and been moving into surplus territory thus greatly reducing interest payments on the debt.

      An actual surplus would not be strictly necessary. Instead we might have built up our nation's infrastructure notably including energy infrastructure. More jobs -> more customers -> thriving economy.

      Sounds better to me.

      •  Those things you described do not represent (0+ / 0-)

        an improvement over Clinton (also no Iraq war, no tax cuts for the wealthy -- or middle class, and already at a surplus), but speculation on how things would have been better under President Gore, a speculation that seems to wish away the impact of 9/11.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 03:59:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  whoa (0+ / 0-)

          Tax cuts for the wealthy were cause by 9-11.
          Under a rational president the Iraq war would not be a response to 9-11.

          Under Gore, things could have been distinctly better for USA and the world.

          •  meant "were not caused by 9-11" (0+ / 0-)
            •  No, the tax custs for the wealthy and for the (0+ / 0-)

              middle class were not caused by 9-11, and I didn't say that they were.

              I will agree that things "could have been distinctly better", but that is not the same thing as knowing that they would have been distinctly better.

              For example... a rational President would still have to address the fact of 9/11.

              Would Gore have done better? Worse?
              We'll never know, but we do know that the economy would have taken a nose dive after 9/11.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 04:33:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A President Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq (0+ / 0-)

                in the name of 9/11. Let's face it- the Bush disaster is not just a natural consequence of "an economy that has nowhere to go but down". Everyone thought the chinese economy was overheated going back at least 10 years. Yet it keeps chugging along. The Bush disaster was the result of deliberate actions by the Bush administration- tax cuts, deregulations, wars.

                •  I agree that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq, (0+ / 0-)

                  but it's a leap of faith to assume that his action/inaction would have led to a better result.

                  The Bush-Pelosi disaster was the result of many things, exacerbated by a war that nobody wanted to pay for.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 05:47:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Nowhere to go but up? What about UK/ Ireland/ (0+ / 0-)

      Italy/ Greece/ France, etc? These countries were all in the same boat, and they prove that, if the government was dumb enough to pursue austerity measures, that a crashed economy can continue to go down. All these countries have done worse than the US post crash.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site