• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which party is more responsible for the state economy?

Which party is more responsible for the state of the economy?

  • The Republican Party

    Votes: 33 63.5%
  • The Democratic Party

    Votes: 19 36.5%

  • Total voters
    52
to OP:

Neither. Republicans want all the money, Democrats want to give it all away! Neither of the two parties lookout for the people that actually get them in office. Half the time they don't know the repercussions of what they are doing, all they care about is getting elected. It's like a popularity race on who can be set for life! Whatever happened to "a country by the people, for the people."
 
to OP:

Neither. Republicans want all the money, Democrats want to give it all away! Neither of the two parties lookout for the people that actually get them in office. Half the time they don't know the repercussions of what they are doing, all they care about is getting elected. It's like a popularity race on who can be set for life! Whatever happened to "a country by the people, for the people."

The problem isnt parties...its the rich in both parties that buy influence for what benefits them...at the expense of everyone else...through their foundations and superpacs and lobbiests....all the things the mass's dont have
 
The question cannot be answered only figuring what you think you know today.

The housing problems date back to 1977 when the Senate had 61 Democrats and the house had 292 Democrats.

Carter was in the white house and this year 1977, they passed The Community Reinvestment Act which lead to the housing melt down we are still in today.

The reason we are not in recovery in any portion of the economy is Obama knows as much about the economy as about Theoretical Physics, and that is a big ZERO.

His waste it unsurpassed in world history and is equal only to his failed plans and projects.
 
There is no option for Both Parties, because the question is which party is more responsible for the state of the economy?

the picture that I've always used is that of the US economic actor - the worker, the small business owner, the venture capitalist; all of them pulling the cart of the economy along. then the Republicans under Bush came along and shot them in the knee. Down we went. Then, as we were struggling to get back up, Democrats under Obama came along and shot us in the face. and we've been pretty much flat ever since.
 
The question cannot be answered only figuring what you think you know today.

The housing problems date back to 1977 when the Senate had 61 Democrats and the house had 292 Democrats.

Carter was in the white house and this year 1977, they passed The Community Reinvestment Act which lead to the housing melt down we are still in today.

The reason we are not in recovery in any portion of the economy is Obama knows as much about the economy as about Theoretical Physics, and that is a big ZERO.

His waste it unsurpassed in world history and is equal only to his failed plans and projects.


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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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:
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:
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?


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.
 
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.

economic_freedom.gif


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:
:) 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.
 
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:

Canada.jpg


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

UnitedStates.jpg


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.

:shrug: 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:
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.
 
Michael Bloomberg:

...Bloomberg was asked what he thought of the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

"I hear your complaints," Bloomberg said. "Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I'm not saying I'm sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn't have gotten them without that.

"But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it's one target, it's easy to blame them and congress certainly isn't going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans. This is exactly the same speech they criticized them for."...
 
Not for nothing CPwill...I wouldnt take bloombergs word for nothing..hes a chameleon and a fraud. Democrat, republican, independent...he has no soul he only has his personal wants.

And he should be doing federal time for conspiring to violate federal and state gun laws
 
I would say Republican.

The government policies that allowed the banks to take on excessive leverage were most predominately pushed by Republican party members
 
I would say Republican.

The government policies that allowed the banks to take on excessive leverage were most predominately pushed by Republican party members

The New Deal set the stage for all this nonsense
 
Comeon..until we stop all this nothing is going to change....WE ALL KNOW its both parties that did this...and they will both continue to do this...everything they say is bs to con us and pacify us...Lobbiests and the rich rule this country...the congress democrats and republicans are for the most part rich..who pays the most gets what they want...and until the mass' acknowledge their side is no better than the other...nothing is going to change...they will only change if we collectively make them.
 
I would say Republican.

The government policies that allowed the banks to take on excessive leverage were most predominately pushed by Republican party members



What They Said about Fan and Fred

...Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists....
 
Last edited:
There is no option for Both Parties, because the question is which party is more responsible for the state of the economy?

Decades of Republocrat rule led us to this place.
 
The question cannot be answered only figuring what you think you know today.

The housing problems date back to 1977 when the Senate had 61 Democrats and the house had 292 Democrats.

Carter was in the white house and this year 1977, they passed The Community Reinvestment Act which lead to the housing melt down we are still in today.

The reason we are not in recovery in any portion of the economy is Obama knows as much about the economy as about Theoretical Physics, and that is a big ZERO.

His waste it unsurpassed in world history and is equal only to his failed plans and projects.

Are you serious? I thought you were a serious poster, but, come on.... do you actually believe some benign piece of legislation passed in the 1970's created a crisis 30 years later?
At first blush your assertion is almost idiotic. You owe us all an explanation of how this led to the housing bubble.

I really doubt you understand the purpose, intent and reason for the CRA. It was about bank redlining, taking money FROM a neighborhood, but not, under any circumstance, putting that money back into the neighborhood. This bank practice promoted urban blight in the 1970's, which was a very serious problem. How did this lay low for 3 decades and then suddenly cause a problem. Sorry, but this was something created by Fox News designed to sound good to the intellectually lazy. You are better than that.

The problem was a supply side problem of incredible amount of money being made available for mortgages. The I-Banks and hedge fund managers created sophisticated financial instruments that pooled high grade mortgages with sub-primes and wrapped with private insurance guarantees. There was so much money available for this product, sub-prime mortgage companies with boiler room outbound sales operations sprung up all over the country to FIND customers willing to re-fi, take 2nd and 3rd mortgages or speculate on real estate. The I-banks PUSHED the product out... paying substantial commissions to the retail operations (10-15% of mortgage value.) I am happy to go into great detail about this as I witnessed it first hand.

Sorry, but this was a problem of greed, unregulated banking and too much money chasing too few of good deals.
 
Last edited:
The New Deal set the stage for all this nonsense


Really the new deal is responsible for excess bank leverage?

Countries like Canada have higher tax rates and higher social spending yet did not have the banking system collapse of the US
 
Back
Top Bottom