1 The wonderful, fantastic, amazing Democratic Congress for a little  over a year now and the economy  the worst in ....? They sure work fast.

2

The 12th commandment of the Republican Party is:

Thou Shalt Not Accept Responsiblity for What Happens on Your Watch.

 

 

3

I said it when Clinton was President and I'll say it now:  "The President of the United States has very little effect on the economy.  Blaming or congratulating a president for the state of the economy is as fruitless as spitting into the wind; and just about as effective."  Of course, that never stops the left or the right from trying to take responsibility for the economy, or push  the responsibility onto the "enemy."

Take a real look at the way the Republicans spent like drunken sailors, and take a look at the way the Democrats are doing the exact same thing.

Ropers corillary to McLovin's "12th Commandment for the Republican Party" is that "Little minds leap to blame the other guy FIRST."

4 McLovin must believe that we can tax our way into lower prices and prosperity.

5 McLovin - The Dems said they had a 100 day plan to save the world and create heaven on Earth. I'm still waiting.

6

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=home&sid=aFyT0fu5KFeM

Exxon Profit Rises as Oil Surges Toward $100 a Barrel

"Profit for all of 2007 was $40.6 billion, topping Exxon Mobil's own record for full-year earnings by any U.S. company. "

Somehow, I don't think they're suffering too much.  Exxon could pay the whole $18 billion by themselves and still have more cash on hand than they could possibly know what to do with.

7

Moose, did you know that EXXON alone pays more taxes than the top 50% of individual taxpayers put together?  Maybe I should say that they pass along those taxes in higher gas, which is the truth.

8

The president has little direct effect on the economy but has an enormous impact on framing discussions and shaping the outlook.

Why do you think bond traders hang on every word the president utters. They know the president is key to shaping the economic agenda and, long term, to determing the outcome.

GM has overlooked the role of leadership.

Presidents cannot be effective leaders unless they insist on taking responsiblity, even for things they don't fully control.

Clinton stepped up and publically accepted responsibility for the economy and this inspired confidence in his leadership. He didn't try to blame Reagan or Bush for the massive deficits he had to pay down, even though they were clearly their fault. This is what leaders do: they accept responsibility for fixing things, even when they haven't directly caused a problem.

Granted, that's politics, not policy and the presidents powers to steer the economy are limited. But I would argue that Bush has squandered his by allowing his overall credibility to dwindle to dangerously low levels.

His comments on the economy have tracked those on the war in Iraq--a long, unbroken record of unwarranted optimism. When he says he thinks the economy's doing a "heckuva job" no one believes him. That's not leadership and that's not good for the country. Clinton did a lot better on that score.

9

McLovin, you have GOT to be kidding me.  Framing a discussion counts more than the FACTS about a discussion?  Oh PUH-LEZE!!!

"Clinton stepped up and publically accepted responsibility for the economy..." 

What planet were you living on in January - September, 2001 when Clinton (both of them) blasted Bush for the poor performing economy when the problems that the economy had (at least those not exacerbated by 9/11) from the burst bubble of the Clinton's years of "exuberance?"

Tell your tales to someone who doesn't remember beyond the last two years!

10

GM, I don't recall Clinton blaming Bush in September 2001.

Perhaps you've misunderstood criticism of tax cuts with blame for the slowing economy. Can you cite any examples of what you're talking about?

I do recall Bush's supporters blaming Clinton for the bad economy under Bush. That's still happening today.

Republicans never accept responsibility for anything that happens on their watch. Even 9/11 is supposedly Clinton's fault. The failure in Iraq? Blame the news media, of course.

Like I said. Republicans only rarely accept responsiblity for anything that happens on their watch, unless it's good, of course. I think you can say the same for Democrats, of course, to be fair.

And GM has also misunderstood my comments. I in no way suggested that framing matters more than facts. I simply said that presidents have the power to frame the discussion of the economy, which is important.

 

 

11 FACT:  When Clinton left office, the nation was officially in a recession.

12 e. nonee moose and McLovin - Once again, the all saving Democratic Congress has been in power for over a year now and the economy continues to slip. How is taxing Exxon, et al going to help the average American? It ain't.

Making the cost of operation increase for Exxon sure isn't going to lower gas prices! The only thing it will do is make a few imbeciles feel good because they're "hurting" some big corporation that is self-supporting and runs more efficiently than our government.

And, what's Congress's big issue? Steroids in baseball and investigating Roger Clemens. Give me a break!!!

13 This was a topic at dinner.  The consensus was that the more stupid things which occupy Congress, the better, so that they can't do more damage on important things.

14

Woody: so are you with GM in believing that presidents have no responsibility for what happens to the economy on their watch?

Or are you suggesting that Clinton should accept responsiblity for the state of the economy on his watch?

Only in the most technical sense was the economy in recession in the final months of the Clinton administration. There is a ongoing debate among economists about whether it was a recession even under the technical definition of two successive declines in the growth rate.

But it is good to compare the economic performance of Clinton to Bush or Reagan, for that matter.

Clinton presided over the longest series of continuous growth in American history. More jobs were created under Clinton than at any time in American history. The average quarterly GDP growth was more than 20 percent faster under Clinton than under Reagan, and about 50 percent faster than under Bush, so far.

Do the math, Woody. The economic performance under Clinton was spectacular. You can argue that he had nothing to do with it, in which case your point about slowing growth in the final quarters of his administration is irrelevant, but you can't deny that the performance was by far better than under any Republican administration in our lifetime.

 

 

15

McLovin, I suspect then that you will read ALL of these articles:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20227 

“All I know is 18 months ago, we had a surplus"
- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

“These people ran on responsibility, but as soon as you scratch them
they go straight to blame,'' Clinton responded in a recent television
interview. ''Now, you know, I didn't blame his father for Somalia. I
didn't do that."
- Former President Bill Clinton

Stiglitz Discredited Democrats' Claim That Bush Administration Is
Responsible For Recession. Stiglitz noted that during the Clinton
Administration "the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped;
deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to ...."
(Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)
http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research030803.htm

“Under the Clinton Administration, the markets had been booming. We saw growth in an unprecedented way and we expected - everyone expected - that growth to continue. But that's not what happened. What happened instead was over the last 18 months, that $16.4 trillion pie has shrunk to $11.9 trillion. We've lost $4.5 trillion in market capitalization in just 18 months.” [Congressional Record, 9/18/02] U.S. Senate
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/ec092402.htm 

I won't do any more research for you, I can't help it if you don't remember how the dems trashed Bush I also will note that the Repubs have trashed dems... BOTH are wrong, the Prez DOES NOT HAVE THAT MUCH POWER.... PERIOD!!!!

16

Mac, I stated a fact.  You drew your own conlusions from it.  Yes, we were technically in a recession when Clinton left office.  There is no confusion about that.  It's a fact!  You are among the crowd who doesn't know what the definition of "is" is.  

If Clinton wants to take credit for growth, then let him take credit for leaving office with us in a recession.  

However, I don't consider the dotcom bubble to be a result of Clinton economics.  It's luck in the timing of his presidency and Bill Gates should get most of the credit--and, Al Gore for inventing the internet.  

I don't blame Bush for the economic diaster following 9-11.  It's amazing, frankly, that our country rebounded as it did...and, we didn't tax ourselves into recovery but gave tax breaks.

Also, despite your wish and the claims of liberal media, we are not in a recession right now, technically or otherwise, although such talk undermines confidence and can create one, as is intended.

You're really not very good at arguments.  You just alter the discussion and play loose with the facts.  Ann Coulter must have met you.   'How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)'

17

Let me draw an analogy....  If a pitcher has some good innings and gets bat support, he might have a 5-0 lead in the sixth inning.  But, then he gives up some walks, hits a batter, is charged with a wild pitch, gives up some bloopers, and then someone knocks a grand slam...well, now he has lost his five run lead and is behind by four runs.  He's pulled, and the ball is turned over to a reliever, who has to fight to get back the lead.  Should the starter get credit for a win in that case?

It's not selected accomplishments in the middle innings that count.  It's who's ahead when you leave the game.

18

Economic growth under Clinton averaged about 3.8 percent a year, higher than any president since Johnson. Personal income grew 50 percent faster than under Bush I and TWICE as fast as under Bush II, so far. More jobs were added to the economy than at any time in American history.

This isn't baseball, Woody, it's math. Do the math and get back to me.

If you knew anything at all about economics, you would know the dot.com bubble did almost nothing to contribute to economic growth.

Soaring stock prices doesn't add anything to economic growth. Sure, it gives people confidence and THAT helps the economy, but the dot.com bubble itself adds nothing.

To suggest that the record period of growth under Clinton is the result of the dot.com bubble is to be ignorant of basic economics..

19 Again, Mac.  I've likely had a lot more economics courses than you have, but surely you're the expert.  The dotcom growth provided a lot of jobs and wealth that eventually was flushed, but that has nothing to do with jobs and wealth according to you.  I'll go back to baseball.  Clinton left the mound with the team behind, but he deserves the win for what he did in the middle innings.