View Poll Results: Which party is more responsible for the state of the economy?

Voters
66. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Republican Party

    41 62.12%
  • The Democratic Party

    25 37.88%
Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 131

Thread: Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

  1. #31
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    You're kidding me, almost the entire history of modern US economics (meaning post-Depression) consists of Keynesian prescriptions. We don't really have any way to evaluate the alternative (referring to Austrian prescriptions), because they simply haven't really been implemented.
    I tell you what. I will give you two incidents of large reductions in state spending fueling a recovery, if you will give me two examples of large increases in state spending fueling a recovery.

  2. #32
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Council man 30% or more of america out of work and underemployed losing their houses and not making enough to pay their bills is a TODAY problem
    damn straight. and since the policies that we've been pursuing since 2008 (that's right, 2008, not a typo) have utterly failed... why are we continuing to pursue them?

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    You're kidding me, almost the entire history of modern US economics (meaning post-Depression) consists of Keynesian prescriptions. We don't really have any way to evaluate the alternative (referring to Austrian prescriptions), because they simply haven't really been implemented.
    No it doesn't.

    American economic prosperity regenerated because of WW2 shoring up deficit spending, and afterwards, neoliberal globalization shoring up investment.

    The best argument you can make regarding Keynesian policy is the abandonment of the gold standard, but that's a monetary conversion at best, not a true fiscal policy.

    The current situation is transforming America into a maintenance economy where R+D are being dedicated towards maintenance industries such as energy, health care, and information technology. There is very little culture being catalyzed today to create new economic sectors.
    Last edited by Daktoria; 10-31-11 at 09:04 AM.

  4. #34
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by stsburns View Post
    Whatever happened to "a country by the people, for the people."
    We keep re-electing career politicians.

  5. #35
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

    Hey! Lookit that! Germany is sitting on an unemployment rate of 6%.... despite the Eurozone crises and the economic slowdown of all their trading partners....

    gosh, well how do they do it? maybe we could see what they do well?


    ...To figure out how Germany got where it is today, you need to go back 10 years. In 2002, Germany looked a lot like the United States does now, they had no economic growth and their unemployment rate was 8.7 percent and climbing. The country needed help, so the top man in Germany at the time, Gerhard Schroder, the German chancellor, made in an emergency call to a trusted friend.

    The friend was Peter Hartz, a former HR director whom Schroder knew from his VW days. Schroder put Hartz in charge of a commission, the mission of which was to find a way to make Germany’s labor market more flexible. The Hartz commission made it easier to hire someone for a low-paying, temporary job, a so-called “mini job”:

    A mini-job isn’t that great of a deal for workers. In these jobs, they can work as many hours as the employer wants them to, but the maximum they can earn is 400 Euros per month. On the plus side, they get to keep it all. They don’t pay any taxes on the money. And they do still get some government assistance.

    They also reduced the generosity of unemployment benefits: Here’s what you get if you’re out of work for more than a year in Germany: 364 euros a month – that’s about $500 – subsidized rent and heat, and a job counselor. Before the Hartz commission, you would get around 50 percent of your last income indefinitely for as long as you were unemployed.

    Kenney says that Hartz “wanted to make unemployment uncomfortable so that people would get off of it quickly.

    These changes haven’t made Peter Hartz a popular figure in Germany. His legacy is controversial. He was convicted of paying off union leaders at Volkswagen to go along with his cutbacks. But no matter how people feel about Hartz, it’s hard to argue with the huge drop in the country’s unemployment rate....
    what else have the Germans been doing right?

    ... A stimulus by reduction of income-tax rates. This reduction was part of a series of supply-side-oriented reforms implemented between 1999 to 2005 — including a wide-ranging overhaul of the income-tax system meant to boost potential growth that didn’t have much effect until 2004.

    Significant structural reforms to tackle the rigidity in the labor market as well as demographic pressure on the pension system. These two were connected and perceived as a response to an aging population. These reforms included “an increase in the statutory retirement age, the elimination of early retirement clauses, and tighter rules for calculating imputed pension contributions.” The reform avoided an increase in social-security contribution rates.

    Large expenditure cuts in the fringe benefits in public administration (no more Christmas-related extra payments!) and also serious reductions in subsidies for specific industries (residential construction, coal mining, and agriculture)...

    In 2009 Germany adopted an amendment to its constitution to introduce a balanced-budget provision at both the federal and the Länder (state) levels. From 2016, it will be illegal for the federal government to run a deficit of more than 0.35 percent of GDP. From 2020, the federal states will not be allowed to run any deficit at all. The law, of course, allows for some exceptions in case of emergencies...
    well, gee wiz, in our current structure, which party is the party of making unemployment more v less comfortable, balancing budgets through reductions in expenditures, and supply-side tax reform?

    oh, look at that. Canada Is Beating Us, Too:

    ...A federal government runs a large deficit. Deficits are so large that the ratio of federal debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) approaches 70 percent. A constituency of voters have gotten used to large federal spending programs. Does that sound like the United States? Well, yes. But it also describes Canada in 1993. Yet, just 16 years later, Canada’s federal debt had fallen from 67 percent to only 29 percent of GDP. Moreover, in every year between 1997 and 2008, Canada’s federal government had a budget surplus. In one fiscal year, 2000–2001, its surplus was a whopping 1.8 percent of GDP. If the U.S. government had such a surplus today, that would amount to a cool $263 billion rather than the current deficit of more than $1.5 trillion...

    The main policy actions that the Canadian government took to shrink its budget deficit and turn deficits into surpluses were cuts in government spending. Moreover, the Canadian government didn’t just cut the growth rate of spending, a favorite trick of U.S. politicians who want to claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It also cut absolute spending on many programs in dollar terms. And because the inflation rate in Canada, though low, was greater than zero over the whole time period, these cuts in dollar terms were even larger in inflation-adjusted dollars....
    Last edited by cpwill; 10-31-11 at 10:22 PM.

  6. #36
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Hey! Lookit that! Germany is sitting on an unemployment rate of 6%.... despite the Eurozone crises and the economic slowdown of all their trading partners.
    Germany also increased the net euro value of lending over the same time period, the exact opposite of the US. What's with you and completely ignoring monetary policy and lending when it suits your arguments? Seriously dude, you wouldn't know the definition of honesty if it smacked you in the forehead.

    gosh, well how do they do it? maybe we could see what they do well?
    So keeping lots of people at slightly above poverty with nowhere to go is good?

    oh, look at that. Canada Is Beating Us, Too:
    Canada is also reaping windfall profits from oil. Not to mention it saves considerable amounts of money in its healthcare program compared to ours. Health care is a massive drag on the economy in the form we have.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #37
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Germany also increased the net euro value of lending over the same time period, the exact opposite of the US. What's with you and completely ignoring monetary policy and lending when it suits your arguments? Seriously dude, you wouldn't know the definition of honesty if it smacked you in the forehead.
    did you know, when you start insulting, that's how I know that you think your position is weak? someone's compensating.

    So keeping lots of people at slightly above poverty with nowhere to go is good?
    it is superior to keeping them in poverty and going nowhere.

    Canada is also reaping windfall profits from oil.
    which we should be enjoying as well. but we don't because we are stupid.

    however, she also has a freer market than we do.

    and, (notably) they are working on making theirs freer, whereas we are moving in the opposite direction.



    Not to mention it saves considerable amounts of money in its healthcare program compared to ours. Health care is a massive drag on the economy in the form we have.
    that is true, but two things leap to mind: 1. Canada is able to offload many of her costs onto us and 2. I still don't see how rationing is a panacea or a responsible solution.
    Last edited by cpwill; 11-01-11 at 06:19 AM.

  8. #38
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    did you know, when you start insulting, that's how I know that you think your position is weak? someone's compensating.
    I'm just getting sick and tired of your arguments that leave out key pieces of information you know are relevant but refute your positions. There's a reason I consider you one of the least honest people here.

    it is superior to keeping them in poverty and going nowhere.
    Like saying that vermillion is a superior shade of red to cardinal. You praising this pretty sad.

    which we should be enjoying as well. but we don't because we are stupid.
    Not really. Let Canada burn up its oil while spending the money to figure out economical ways to get out otherwise unappealing sources of oil. Then we license such technology for cheap and reap the profits ourselves. Besides, it doesn't make too much sense to pile all in now when the national oil companies still hold the keys. As much as I may dislike Exxon, it's a tadpole compared to the Saudi National firm, Gazprom, Iranian national oil companies and so on and so forth.

    however, she also has a freer market than we do.
    Depends how you define free. It's banking system is fairly more regulated which is partially why Canada never took it in the shorts.

    and, (notably) they are working on making theirs freer, whereas we are moving in the opposite direction.
    Don't be like Riverdad. Cite your graphs.

    that is true, but two things leap to mind: 1. Canada is able to offload many of her costs onto us
    And we to it. Goes both ways.

    I still don't see how rationing is a panacea or a responsible solution.
    You believe in Capitalism no? Capitalism is by definition rationing.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #39
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I'm just getting sick and tired of your arguments that leave out key pieces of information you know are relevant but refute your positions. There's a reason I consider you one of the least honest people here.
    See, that's interesting - because I find it dishonest how you will try to bring in strawmen or irrelevant data and insist that therefore all evidence arrayed against you is moot.

    Like saying that vermillion is a superior shade of red to cardinal. You praising this pretty sad.
    I will usually praise advancement - people who are working, being productive and living better lives are situated superior to those who are living as drains on their fellow man, doing little to nothing, and experiencing a lower standard of living.

    Not really. Let Canada burn up its oil while spending the money to figure out economical ways to get out otherwise unappealing sources of oil.
    funny how you are so quick to give it credit for Canadian economic success, and so quick to insist that we shouldn't try to experience any of that economic growth ourselves.

    given that you are the one always worried about short-term demand, you would think you would recognize the immediate-term benefits of massive investment and higher-than-average paying jobs. or is it only public sector investment and employment that you care for?

    Then we license such technology for cheap and reap the profits ourselves. Besides, it doesn't make too much sense to pile all in now when the national oil companies still hold the keys. As much as I may dislike Exxon, it's a tadpole compared to the Saudi National firm, Gazprom, Iranian national oil companies and so on and so forth.
    yet another great reason to allow it access to our full reserves so that it can compete and beat them.

    Depends how you define free. It's banking system is fairly more regulated which is partially why Canada never took it in the shorts.
    well, the composite scores are an averaging of Business Freedom, Trade Freedom, Fiscal Freedom, Investment Freedom, Financial Freedom, Property Rights, Lack of Corruption, Government Spending, Labor Freedom, and Monetary Freedom.

    they've been moving up:



    while we've been generally flatlined but lately moving down:



    Cite your graphs.
    I'm surprised you don't recognize the Economic Freedom Index.

    And we to it. Goes both ways.
    not nearly comparable.

    You believe in Capitalism no? Capitalism is by definition rationing.
    well if you want to broaden the definition into that old standard of economics "the allocation of scarce resources that have alternate uses", you could make the argument that economics is "rationing" of a form - but you would still be incorrect here with regards to whether or not the solution is to allow individuals to allocate their resources, or to allow the state to seize those resources and then reallocate them as it sees fit.
    Last edited by cpwill; 11-02-11 at 04:19 AM.

  10. #40
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

    For anyone interested, here is one of the most comprehensive descriptions of how the economic meltdown occurred. This is the address for a free online version of the documentary, "Inside Job", which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary in 2011:

    Inside Job. The documentary. Online. For free.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •