UMD Libertarians

…yet when you point to Clinton’s success, they’re quick to remind you that the president can’t directly influence the economy, it’s highly cyclical, and he rode a tech boom.

If the first two are accurate, then Obama can’t “ruin” the economy. If he can, then clearly Obama has the opportunity to be just as successful.

Which story do you guys want to stick to…?

The President can do plenty of things to ruin an economy, but even the President can’t fix a broken economy.

Dumbass.

So you’re saying that the president DOES influence the economy and Clinton’s policies, didn’t inhibit the economy at worst, and made it thrive at best, correct?

No, dumbass. I’m saying that a President can have a negative effect on the economy (in other words, he can ruin it), but a President can’t make it thrive (in other words, fix a broken economy).

Does that make sense to your jibber-jabber liberal mind?
the president can do much to influence the economy in either direction but that doesn’t mean that economic success or failure necessarily stem from presidential action

So, you’re claiming that a president only has the power to harm the economy, but he can’t create policy to improve, benefit or assist the economy?

This makes perfect sense, but it doesn’t explain the contrary statements the GOP make.

You can either effect the economy, or you can’t. It’s completely stupid to claim that Clinton had no positive effect on the economy, and all benefits were solely part of the cycle or stemmed from the tech boom.

economics > you

no wonder you’re voting for barack hussein obama

I think he is saying the President has far more power to harm the economy than he does to help it along.

Carter certainly helped drag down the economy with his limits on gas. If the next President decided to double the federal tax rate, it would certainly harm the economy. etc….

But it’s fairly hard to boost the economy from a depression/recession, you can do a small amount though.

You’re right, this silly BS in Economics I’m getting has clouded my thought process.

Which is a valid claim. However, you can’t simply dismiss the longest period of sustained growth as being a fluke.

At the VERY least, Clinton’s policies obviously weren’t detrimental. That’s at the VERY least.

Why the ?

You said nothing that countered my point.

You can’t force your way out of a recession. You can set in place policies that will either further the problems, or create a climate for rebound.

Other then the very good example of a President doing heavy damage to the economy ?

yet people still claim the New deal pulled us out of the great depression

If the economy is growing…and you don’t do anything, but ride it. You are making a good decision, but would you say that your policies are helping the Economy?

Do you think what Obama is currently proposing will help the economy? You seem to disagree that it will destroy the economy (i tend to agree with you on that), but i’m pretty unsure how it will help it along.

That’s a fairly retarded claim….
if kerry would have won in 2004 and then the country went through this economic down turn would it be his fault ?
it’s amazing how much people like clash will talk out of their ass if it helps whatever they’re arguing at the current moment.

…..and surely you’ll show it had no contributory effect, now.

I’m not trying to make a point of when or if that happened. I’m simply pointing out contrary claims which is that the president only effects the economy in negative ways, but doesn’t do so in positive ways.

It depends if he ran a massive budget defecit which led to devaluation of the dollar and massive inflation.

I wouldn’t pin the mortgage crisis on him if he hadn’t done that, and it still happened.

It depends on the situation, but again, at the very least, your policies aren’t causing detriment. It’s clear that the last time a Democrat was in office, AT THE VERY LEAST, his policies did not harm the economy. That’s more than you can say now.

I think in the long term, Obama’s plan to raise taxes is a neccessary evil, and will help to stabilise the economy by stabilising the dollar. I think his use of the strategic reserve is so-so (it’s shortsighted, but at least it will help with current prices, unlike drilling), and I think his preference for alternative resources is brilliant and neccessary (which McCain favours a focus on drilling, which will only delay the inevitable, and put us RIGHT back in the same position).

real life experience > that ivory tower bullshit degree

Spoken like a true neanderthal. You can tell a lot about someone when they call you names from the get go, and dismiss EDUCATION as if it’s a negative attribute.

So the 8 years I’ve run a mortgage bank and worked within cyclical market cycles is worthless too, I bet…

do you have anything except an ad hominem, you stupid cockgoblin?

Isn’t that the cornerstone of your comments?

You’re just worthless. Like, all around. You have no worth. Try again, sir.
Clash: You’re stupid and wrong, but I can’t you why or how.

lol, see this diagram:

facts
__________

your head

Says the kid that has ZERO understanding of economics, and has yet to make a post with any foundation or substance.

When the only thing you can do is call me stupid, you’re going to come up short, each time.

He’s one of yours. Congratulations.
Here, let’s tag this thread so that we can get all of the Obama sackriders in here:

HOPE, CHANGE, PENIS, FREE SHIT, COMMUNISM, MARX, FAILURE, STILL LIVING IN MOMS BASEMENT, ENVIRONMENT, GAY, LENIN

You didn’t know that all of us in here have PHD’s in economics, poly-sci, foreign policy, etc, etc, etc.

You’re a liberal living in Texas, what the fuck could you POSSIBLY know?

He’s a liberal. He’s damn close to a socialist you fucking moron.

He’s trolling you and mocking conservative arguments.

Way to fucking ruin it, you douche bag.

I’m going to Subway

I had to ruin it.

He was claiming your dumb ass was on my side.

I couldn’t let him disrespect rational people like that.

Oh. I have no idea who clash is…

Fixed.

The economy is already ruined regardless of what Obama does while in office. His high-taxation policies will make things worse by antagonizing the changes that need to occur to restore a healthy economy.

Historically, when the budget is balanced, the economy performs well…

What do you consider high taxation?
Obama has already said he will not raise the taxes until the economy is recovering

So, moron …. do tell us about something that CAN fix the economy.

The economy Boomed during Clinton’s reign because of a lot of external factors such as a little thing we like to use called “the internet”.

My biggest problem with Clinton was when he fucked over the military and military families by doing things like:
shutting down a lot of their hospitals.

Also he kept doing a half assed job in Iraq.

Other than that, he wasn’t so bad.

His cap gains tax increase only worked because we were in a booming economy. When things are going good, a cap gains increase can work. When things are not going good, the cap gains tax can really hurt.

George Bush got in at a bad time. There were a few factors that really hurt us that he had no control over.
1. the internet bubble finally popped
2. September 11th (which we still havent fully recovered from yet)

GWB has done his fair share to hurt the economy too, but any president would have run into the same factors.

obviously

Pretty much the idiotic answer I expect from a mouth-breathing faggot that says the president can’t do anything but make an economy worse.

clinton lied, people died

Obama’s roadmap for success:

Clinton’s economic legacy is fairly centrist. One of his earliest priorities was pushing through NAFTA, which might be the best thing he did in his 8 years. Of course, the Newt-era Republicans did a lot to check whatever leftist tendencies he might have had, and it’s odd that they never get any credit for the balanced budget. But I digress.

As mentioned, too, the Clinton administration didn’t have to work too hard for a good economy, because we were riding the tech bubble strongly from the mid-90s right up until mid-late 2000. Bush inherited an economy with an imploding tech sector which was worsened by the attacks on the World Trade Center. It’s hard to say if it would have been better or worse under someone else with different policies, and it’s clearly not all Bush’s fault.
Its funny, Bush ruined the economy, but republicans go “Oh no, you don’t want a democrat, the economy will be ruined!”

Well considering that the extent to which Bush ruined the economy is the extent to which he governed like a Democrat… yeah.

We don’t LIKE retarded levels of spending. We DO like the way revenue grew when the economy picked up following the tax cuts (which aren’t solely responsibe but certainly helped).

2007 revenue - 2005 budget would = $96 billion surplus.
How many times do I have to say this before you people get it through your skulls?

lol … wat?
Man, it’s good that 2007’s revenue had absolutely nothing to do with a larger taxable population or inflation etc. CERTAINLY, we can support the country in 2007 on 2005’s budget with little to no tweaks at all!

The same economic policies that McCain has stated a clear intention to continue (and with no less than the architect of the Enron Loophole as his chief economic advisor)……?

Its funny that democrats are too stupid to know what is going on.

Related posts:

1. To the conservatives & pro-oil republicans: Why is it that you love oil so much and want to push so hard to bring in more oil?...
2. Obama’s Economic plan = income redistribution Obama's 'emergency' economic plan By: August 1, 2008 10:53 AM EST Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an...
3. As much as I dislike McCain, Obama is just going to turn us into a welfare state to w hich there is no return. Future generations are going to get lazier and lazier. More and more will live off...
4. Why do conservatives care so fucking deeply about gays? I'll never understand this. Who gives a fuck about gays? That's the way I look at it. Want to be...
5. Official U.S. Economy as a Presidential campaign issue thread While reading threads based upon the political theatre that is the U.S. presidential election on this forum, I keep stumbling...