Is it so damn hard to say “yes” or “no”?
Hmmm…Maybe it is.
Yes!!
I’m sorry I’m hijacking this thread, but it is a peeve of mine when people start talking about “the economy” without knowing what “the economy” is. TheRealist, please read my post above. The president has an indirect effect on the economy. I loved how you said Clinton did “specific things” to the economy as if we are talking about black magic or voodoo. As I said earlier, there is a lag time from when outside economic factors have a direct effect on the economy. Meaning that after 2 years, we are just barely even scratching the surface of the effects the Bush administration has had on the economy. So yes, we are feeling the effects of those “specific things” of the Clinton economy right now.
Again, most people view the economy as what the stock market is doing. Uh, this is wrong. The economy includes many things, rate of inflation, interest rates, employment, consumer confidence, and yes, the stock market.
You wouldn’t talk about weight lifting with such ignorance, “I uh, lift these heavy thingies and some how my muscles grow.” No, you read and research, hence this forum, and learn about nutrition, rep schemes, proper form etc.
This is not intended as a flame, or saying that one presidential candidate is better than another. Please learn something about economics before you base something as important as the presidential election on something you know nothing about, no matter who you vote for.
To Anderson:
Good post and it’s good that we have someone to set these people straight.
To Anderson,
First you are actually underestimating the “lag” time. It is actually much greater then 2-5yrs( please let me know where you got this estimate), I have taken economics courses and most economists will agree on an 8 yr lag.
Secondly the President does have a direct effect on the economy. Read my earlier post and you will see all the ways Bush(these are excerpts from his plan) is attempting to jumpstart the economy. It will be tough to grade him on these proposals since they will not effect things for roughly 8yrs. One must judge whether or not in your eyes the President is making steps in the right direction.
The economy is cyclic but a various number of factors effect it. Keep that in mind.
HELL NO!!!
During the 2000 Election, we had Gore vs. Bush…It was like choosing between Dumb and Dumber. You may say voting for a third party is wasting a vote…but if everyone truly votes their conscience, it wouldn’t be. 
Cheers to the guy who mentioned Ralph Nader!
Tyler Durdern, nice proverb. I need to remember that one.
My voting policy is easy,
Is the country better off now than it was four years ago. If yes vote in the incumbent, if not we need someone new. If we aren’t making progress then we are going backwards.
Now under Bush the economy sucks, this war isn’t going to get us out of it. I know there is more to it than the pres. The war is stupid. We are killing americans because someone might have chemical weapons. Right not with countries like N Korea around. It’s the war on terror, um wait most of the terrorists on 9/11 were saudi’s. Oh no, it’s to liberate the Iraqi people, wait they hate us as much as they hate saddam. There was a reason for the last gulf war, not for this one. People made fun of clinton’s stupid lying but that was about a BJ this is about a war. Just so you know Bush is cutting many military benefits too. So much for his building up a strong military. Why is civillian Rumsfeld running the war, a man with no military experience? Isn’t that what the pentagon is for.
All things being said we are far worse off with GW. It’s not about politics, in the end ask yourself that basic question, are you better off? Time for a change.
He is also planning the largest defecit spending in history, must run in the family.
Scall144 i do agree with some of your statements however still disagree that the president has a “direct” effect on the economy. My dad(he just got done teaching economics for 31 years and just happens to get every question right on jeopardy so i trust him a good bit) once explained it to me like this: The economy gets better and people start spending like crazy. During this time they accumulate debt. After a certain amount of time they say hey im in debt i need to back off of my spending. So they do. Then when their debt is down they start spending again. Yes this is very very very simplistic. Clinton was the worst President weve had since Jimmy Carter (Who does he think he is anyway?). He didnt do any of the things that he promised when he got elected. Ill be the first to admit that my degree of specialty is not in this area but i do have a college degree and am half way through a masters degree so im not completely unintelligent. :0) I am willing to be educated however.
Well now I’ve managed to take a whole thread on the election and turn it into an economic thread. I promise to keep this brief.
Lag time, yes 8 years is probably more correct, economist differ on this issue. I never said 2-5 years; I said after two we are barely even scratching the surface. There has been some direct effect on the stock market by the president; the biggest is the war. However, besides that, the other factors of the economy we are talking about (interest rate, employment rate, inflation, the tech crash), are lagged from the Clinton era.
Scall, you mentioned consumption, investment and employment as factors the president can make to directly affect the economy, yet these factors all stem from the money supply which is controlled by the fed.
You later allude to fiscal policy, but again, fiscal policy is ultimately decided by congress.
The president has a roll in the economy, please do not misunderstand my intentions, but the president does not control the money supply and congress ultimately decides on fiscal policy, no matter what the president proposes. Ultimately, fiscal and monetary policies are outside of the president’s direct control.
Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree and let these people get back to their election thread.
To scall144:
No matter what the president comes up with, he still needs the approval of the congress to implement it.
Anderson you must be a Econ major. I corgats u on a great posting. And insight on your economics knowledge. thanks for setting these guys straight. and is Anderson your real name or is nick from the MATRIX movie Kaunee (SP?) Reeves(SP?) Character from the MATRIX?
Skimming through this thread it seems every woman is voting NO. That just makes me more sure voting YES is the right thing.
To Goldberg,
Your father seems like a very intelligent person and I def. agree with his explanation.
To Anderson & Jason L,
I have read many articles detailing that the President has no control or very little control over the economy (freedommonkey, korias.com etc.) and they make logical arguments. However for reasons already stated I believe the President does have a direct effect on the economy, I never said control of it. Either way we may have to agree to disagree…
Poohbaya -
Glad I could be of some help!!!
Most women on whole I find out vote democatic. I think it has to do with the right to choose on abortion issues. Democrates seem swing the womens votes on that bases…
Let’s see what he does about american citizens being imprisoned without charges being filed against them, with no time limits, as so called ‘material witnesses.’
Then I’ll decide.
Yes, and I do believe a third party is a wasted vote. Nader helped elect Bush because his boys felt Gore wasn’t commie enough.
I’ve seen these debated for 30 years now. If you believe the govt. is the solution, vote democratic. If you believe in personal responsibility, vote republican. Anyone who owns a business knows just how efficient the govt is he says sarcastically.
Once I knew all the facts, but my head got filled up. Now I look to see how hollywood and the rest of the usual suspects think, and do the opposite. Is Ralph Nader for it, I’m against it. How about Jane Fonda, Martin Sheen, Ted “the whale” Kennedy, and the rest of the ilk. You get the picture. My dad never made a fortune bootlegging and shoved a silver spoon in my ass. He worked for a living. These so called concerned citizens don’t give a rats ass about the poor. They like the appearance of concern without actual getting the hands dirty kind of work.
My view has gotten simplistic as I got older. Certain ways are right, certain are wrong. For instance in my experience I see more immoral behavior in the poor as opposed to the middle class and upper class. Why, the better off can afford to be generous. Most of the welfare cases in my office play the lottery at a higher rate and smoke more often than the rich and middle class. Are lot in life is often habit driven. People that accept responsibility to direct their own life find success. People that feel like victims are helpless stay in a bad way . Then they vote democratic. Sorry, that was to easy.
Goldbeg, your dad sopunds alot like mine. Oh by the way my parents were upper lower class working people whose son graduated from psu and whose daughter made it through Harvard. We have very little sympathy for the poor, since we were.
doogie:
"Skimming through this thread it seems every woman is voting NO. That just makes me more sure voting YES is the right thing. "
I’ll make sure I never, ever provide you with any advice again, then. That remark must also mean that women can’t know anything about training as well. Chauvinistic asswipe. And that goes for anyone else who believes in his asinine remark.
Ever thought that maybe most of the women of this site don’t think according to their vaginis but with their brains?
Hope so. But I thought that Bush had the election in the bag after the 1st gulf war. You never can be sure,so go VOTE!