Don't choose the President based on economic policies

[ChinoCoug]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/bu...=1&oref=slogin

it's not gonna make much of a difference.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/bu...=1&oref=slogin

it's not gonna make much of a difference.

Yes, it will. The Dems have two socialists as their candidates. If they are elected, taxes will go through the roof.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Yes, it will. The Dems have two socialists as their candidates. If they are elected, taxes will go through the roof.

You don't even know what a socialist is. And if you did a little homework you would know that the direct line relationship that you and Arch are always asserting does not even reflect reality. Even the most cursory search will reflect that actual performance is considerably different from performance and lazy stereotype.

Consider the following-gleaned from:
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archiv...-spending.html



"In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.
The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.
During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.
All this must come as a shock to the overwhelming majority of Americans who believe that Democrats are spenders and Republicans want to cut government spending. The simple fact is that during the past 34 years, government spending has grown significantly faster when a Republican has sat in the White House.

But the old prejudice still seems to have some validity regarding Congress: Democratic-controlled congresses have increased spending at a rate more than twice the rate that Republican congresses have.

Government spending has grown fastest when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress. It has grown most slowly when a Democrat was president and Republicans controlled Congress."

Of course past performance is no assurance of future performance, but it can help dispel some notions perhaps.

[il Padrino Ute]

I know what a socialist is. I think you're worried I might lump you in with the Dem nominees. What part of their policies that they've talked about would not be considered socialism?

[ChinoCoug]

thanks for the info, DD. (2.12%-1.29%) isn't gonna make a big difference in our lives, but thank the Almighty for Bill Clinton. He got progressive goals accomplished without spending much.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

thanks for the info, DD. (2.12%-1.29%) isn't gonna make a big difference in our lives, but thank the Almighty for Bill Clinton. He got progressive goals accomplished without spending much.

Bill Clinton benefited from Reaganomics coming to fruition and conservatives in Congress. Clinton was a pure politician who deserves no credit because all he did was follow the polls. If he had today's Congress, he would have run the economy into the ground. Which is exactly what Obama or Mrs. Clinton will do.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I know what a socialist is. I think you're worried I might lump you in with the Dem nominees. What part of their policies that they've talked about would not be considered socialism?

Obama's plan is very socialist:

Plan to Strengthen the Economy

“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.”

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Obama's plan is very socialist:

I've never seen that. I appreciate you posting it.

Ok, one liberal democrat and one socialist as the Dem nominees.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Bill Clinton benefited from Reaganomics coming to fruition and conservatives in Congress. Clinton was a pure politician who deserves no credit because all he did was follow the polls. If he had today's Congress, he would have run the economy into the ground. Which is exactly what Obama or Mrs. Clinton will do.

where the hades do you get this information? there are plenty of CONSERVATIVE economists who believe Clinton did a great job in that regard.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I've never seen that. I appreciate you posting it.

Ok, one liberal democrat and one socialist as the Dem nominees.

Hillary is pretty close to being a socialist, I agree.