View Poll Results: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • The CE is "the man". He steers it all.

    1 3.23%
  • The CE may not be a dictator, but still desreves the bulk of the blame/credit.

    4 12.90%
  • The CE sets "the tone", but has little actual influence.

    17 54.84%
  • The CE has virtually no influence whatsoever.

    3 9.68%
  • Other?

    6 19.35%
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 86

Thread: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

  1. #61
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The premise of the question is flawed. A significant portion of the GOP does not believe that an attempt to stimulate the economy through spending will be successful, and will therefore not see the question as whether or not to halt the economy from going off a cliff. A second - also not-insignificant portion of the GOP may believe in the potential for debt-produced keynesian spending to boost the economy, but has had their belief severely undercut by the experience of both the Bush and the Obama years. A third also not insignificant portion of the GOP may still believe that the government can net boost in the short term through Keynesian spending, but know that tying themselves to such an effort will mean getting primaried and losing the ability even to run for their seat. These three groups will prevent the remaining fringes of the GOP who may believe in the efficacy of Keynesian spending from passing Stimulus III.

    It is worth noting that of those three groups, only one of them (the first) existed during the Bush years, and it was dramatically smaller than it is now.
    Let's start with Group #3, since that's the easiest to address: If they believe in Keynesian stimulus but don't act for fear of a primary challenge, then it's a simple matter of electoral calculus. With this group, they'd have to weigh the political benefits of a stronger economy in the general election, versus the political costs of aggravating the base in a potential primary. If the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, this would strongly push this electoral calculation in favor of Keynesian stimulus. Why? Because the costs would be reduced (incumbent parties are much less likely to engage in ideological purges than opposition parties) and the benefits would be increased (because they'd be able to push for a stronger stimulus than with a divided government). Furthermore, at least some of the politicians in this group would be able to have their cake and eat it too, by having their colleagues vote for a stimulus while they stay silent, vote no, and claim they opposed it.

    As for Group #1 and Group #2...I think you're basically describing the same thing with both of these groups. A politician's "belief" isn't necessarily a fixed fact of nature. Both politicians and the general public are remarkably capable of changing their beliefs when it's in their interests to do so (e.g. the complete 180-degree turn the GOP made on health care reform in 2009, which was necessary in order to oppose Obama). If they had a Republican president urging more stimulus (and make no mistake, Mitt Romney most certainly doesn't fall into any of these groups), it's highly likely that at least some of these congresspeople in Groups #1 and #2 would find a way to get behind it.

    Basically, if the GOP had any track record in the last 80 years of cutting spending when they were in power (or even seriously trying to do so), I might be inclined to believe that they would do so again. But since they have no such track record, I don't see any reason to believe that it will be any different next time around.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-06-12 at 07:03 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #62
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    10-23-12 @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    110

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Women? You mean if they can abort or not? That's ridiculous. While I will agree with you that cookie cutter establishment GOPers are no different than Dems when speaking of spending habits, the "war on women" crap is nothing more than a re-election ploy by President Obama and his campaign staff to swing the womens vote his way.
    You're right, it has nothing to do with the GOP's support of personhood amendments criminalizing abortion and birth control.

  3. #63
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Let's start with Group #3, since that's the easiest to address: If they believe in Keynesian stimulus but don't act for fear of a primary challenge, then it's a simple matter of electoral calculus. With this group, they'd have to weigh the political benefits of a stronger economy in the general election, versus the political costs of aggravating the base in a potential primary. If the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, this would strongly push this electoral calculation in favor of Keynesian stimulus. Why? Because the costs would be reduced (incumbent parties are much less likely to engage in ideological purges than opposition parties) and the benefits would be increased (because they'd be able to push for a stronger stimulus than with a divided government). Furthermore, at least some of the politicians in this group would be able to have their cake and eat it too, by having their colleagues vote for a stimulus while they stay silent, vote no, and claim they opposed it.

    As for Group #1 and Group #2...I think you're basically describing the same thing with both of these groups. A politician's "belief" isn't necessarily a fixed fact of nature. Both politicians and the general public are remarkably capable of changing their beliefs when it's in their interests to do so (e.g. the complete 180-degree turn the GOP made on health care reform in 2009, which was necessary in order to oppose Obama). If they had a Republican president urging more stimulus (and make no mistake, Mitt Romney most certainly doesn't fall into any of these groups), it's highly likely that at least some of these congresspeople in Groups #1 and #2 would find a way to get behind it.
    so you'll take that bet?

    Basically, if the GOP had any track record in the last 80 years of cutting spending when they were in power (or even seriously trying to do so), I might be inclined to believe that they would do so again. But since they have no such track record, I don't see any reason to believe that it will be any different next time around.
    Oh, I'm not arguing they will reduce expenditures except "off the baseline" of growth at best. If we can get them to reduce entitlement expenditures "off the base line" while still increasing annually... hell, that will be a great achievement (politically, at least, if not fiscally).

    I'm just saying they aren't going to come out with some Stimulus III built around government spending.
    Last edited by cpwill; 07-07-12 at 07:56 AM.

  4. #64
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    so you'll take that bet?
    Like I said, I'm not sure how the terms would work since they most likely will not pass any bill with "stimulus" in its name, thus allowing for ambiguity as to whether they have actually done so. If they extend all or part of the Bush tax cuts at the end of this year, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they extend unemployment insurance, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they bail out one or more state governments, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they pass a large transportation or military bill, would you consider that to be a stimulus?

    I can't agree or disagree to a bet until I'm clear as to what exactly we're betting on.

    Oh, I'm not arguing they will reduce expenditures except "off the baseline" of growth at best. If we can get them to reduce entitlement expenditures "off the base line" while still increasing annually... hell, that will be a great achievement (politically, at least, if not fiscally).

    I'm just saying they aren't going to come out with some Stimulus III built around government spending.
    Well, tax cuts are definitely part of Keynesian economic stimuli too. In any case, what ratio of tax cuts to government spending would you consider sufficient to label a Stimulus III as *not* built around government spending? As scored by whom? And if it included new deductions in the tax code, would that count as a tax cut or government spending?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-07-12 at 10:12 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #65
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Like I said, I'm not sure how the terms would work since they most likely will not pass any bill with "stimulus" in its name, thus allowing for ambiguity as to whether they have actually done so. If they extend all or part of the Bush tax cuts at the end of this year, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they extend unemployment insurance, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they bail out one or more state governments, would you consider that to be a stimulus? If they pass a large transportation or military bill, would you consider that to be a stimulus?
    I would say a large program of expenditure whose purpose is to "increase demand". I would not consider Tax Rate reductions to be Stimulus, though I would be fine with considering one-time Tax Credits to be so. Bailing out a State would not be Stimulus, it would simply be wildly irresponsible and I will not be available to fulfill the terms of the bet anyway, as I would be in jail for having attempted to beat members of Congress with a hand-held copy of the Constitution.

    Well, tax cuts are definitely part of Keynesian economic stimuli too.
    Tax Credits, which function the same as transfer payments, certainly are. Permanent tax rate reductions, however, alter long term incentive structures and are supply-oriented.

    In any case, what ratio of tax cuts to government spending would you consider sufficient to label a Stimulus III as *not* built around government spending? As scored by whom? And if it included new deductions in the tax code, would that count as a tax cut or government spending?
    I would divide (again) based on permanence, with MarineTPartier given authority to call any major grey areas following a moderated debate in which we are each allowed to submit (1) post explaining our position and (1) post rebutting the other.

  6. #66
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I would say a large program of expenditure whose purpose is to "increase demand".
    This is way too vague. Most economic stimulus programs don't have increasing demand as their sole purpose...even the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act generally earmarked the funds for specific purposes (e.g. highway projects, education, alternative energy). What separates THIS spending from, say, a big transportation bill, other than the fact that politicians explicitly called it a stimulus and sold it to the public as helping the economy?

    I would not consider Tax Rate reductions to be Stimulus, though I would be fine with considering one-time Tax Credits to be so. Bailing out a State would not be Stimulus, it would simply be wildly irresponsible and I will not be available to fulfill the terms of the bet anyway, as I would be in jail for having attempted to beat members of Congress with a hand-held copy of the Constitution.
    Then it seems we have a yawning disagreement as to what exactly a stimulus is. I would certainly consider bailing out a state government (whether a wise idea or not) to be stimulus, as it would be massive government spending and it would most definitely increase demand.

    Tax Credits, which function the same as transfer payments, certainly are. Permanent tax rate reductions, however, alter long term incentive structures and are supply-oriented.
    They're supply-oriented when they focus on suppliers (i.e. corporations and the extremely wealthy). They're demand-oriented when they focus on consumers (i.e. everyone else). Most tax cuts - even Republican tax cuts - tend to have at least SOME of the latter.

    I would divide (again) based on permanence, with MarineTPartier given authority to call any major grey areas following a moderated debate in which we are each allowed to submit (1) post explaining our position and (1) post rebutting the other.
    The "permanence" thing is a red herring, because Congress almost never goes more than 10 years without tinkering with the top marginal tax rate...and it's unusual for them to even go that long. It doesn't really matter whether Congress sets a new tax rate for the next 2 years or the next 100 years, if the next Congress will change it anyway. And I would suggest that a user with the screen name MarineTPartier (whom I know nothing about) may not be the most unbiased judge.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-07-12 at 10:47 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #67
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by newfriend View Post
    You're right, it has nothing to do with the GOP's support of personhood amendments criminalizing abortion and birth control.
    Back to the original topic before others tried to distract it. I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread. There are plenty of those. Although your argument is ridiculous to say the least.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  8. #68
    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: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    aw, look at that. for someone who claims to be such a toughie... someone sure is sensitive
    I was betting you'd do that. You got your ass kicked and rather than actually attempt to refute something you know you can't do ever, you just throw out dumb frat boy comments like that.

    You are wrong. I'm smarter than you. Game over.

    Have you ever studied group dynamics? If so, you know how if someone has to insist that they are in charge.... it means they aren't?
    Have you ever studied group dynamics? What you describe is very different then what is happening now. I prove I'm smarter than you are. I merely state the obvious at the end of proving it. I could not state that and nothing would change. What you describe is someone starting from the beginning insisting they are in charge without actually providing evidence or reasons for it. Frankly though, I'm not surprised you don't even understand the terms you use.

    Seriously, you really have to start learning what the terms you use mean before you use them. You're getting almost to Mr. V's level of failure.

    But hey man, whatever you need in order to tell yourself that You're A Big Bad Boy now. No one is ever more abusive than someone who was abused - but really, when it's spitting vitriol on an internet forum it makes you look like an emotional child. Just a heads up.
    Translation: I can't beat him. Therefore I'm throw out psychological mumbo jumbo compensate for the fact that I can't argue my way out of paper bag.

    Not that such behavior is historically abnormal for you.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #69
    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: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    (I may regret doing this. Don'tfeedthetrollDon'tfeedthetroll...) But in there are a couple of nuggets worth responding to, because OC (despite his personal shortcomings) is smart - just not as brilliant as he thinks he is. Anywho, here they are:
    Hell No. I'm dumb. The problem is I'm less dumb than many of you here, particularly you Cpwill.

    The premise of the question is flawed.
    As predicted, you do not have the courage to actually answer this.
    Call me entirely unsurprised that you have no spine.

    A significant portion of the GOP does not believe that an attempt to stimulate the economy through spending will be successful, and will therefore not see the question as whether or not to halt the economy from going off a cliff.
    Utterly stupid point. As a recession hits, and if a particularly bad recession hits, you think the GOP will just stand and there do nothing as aggregate demand goes off a cliff? You do realize that Bush's tax cuts in 2008 did absolutely nothing no? Oh wait. You don't. I'm getting extremely abusive to you because you don't ever bother to ditch your ideology and come into the real world. It does not matter if they think it will work or not. You have this notion that they will enact policies that don't work, such as tax cuts as proven by both Bush (twice actually, once in 2001 and again in 2008) and Obama and will refuse to stimulate spend as aggregate demand nose dives. Tell me, how many politicians will do nothing as their voters lose their jobs in mass?

    A second - also not-insignificant portion of the GOP may believe in the potential for debt-produced keynesian spending to boost the economy, but has had their belief severely undercut by the experience of both the Bush and the Obama years. A third also not insignificant portion of the GOP may still believe that the government can net boost in the short term through Keynesian spending, but know that tying themselves to such an effort will mean getting primaried and losing the ability even to run for their seat. These three groups will prevent the remaining fringes of the GOP who may believe in the efficacy of Keynesian spending from passing Stimulus III.
    So you think that the politicians who aren't economically illiterate will let their economically illiterate colleagues prevent them from doing anything as their voters lose their jobs in mass? You may be right, but that's more of a function of incredibly stupid Republican primary voters. Such as when they handed primarily failure to Castle who's vote saved their retirement funds. It's hilarious how often Republican voters will vote in a way that directly ****s themselves over. Granted, Castle did this before the rise of the Tea Party. But I'm not sure I'll buy that it will happen again. The notion that the GOP will not move to at least alleviate a bad recession or a financial collapse seems....incredibly short sighted.

    Reagan wasn't an ideal conservative.
    Correction. Reagan wasn't a Conservative. If you apply the criteria objectively and refuse to worship at his Cult Alter.

    Only one man in history has been ideal, and He get's talked about in another forum entirely. Reagan was simply the right conservative at the right time to do some impressive things. However the theory that Reagan was a Keynesian would depend upon Reagan seeking deficit spending as a means of stimulating the economy. This is not reflected in any of Reagan's speeches or writings from that time period. Reagan took us out of a Recession and brought back impressive growth through reducing the burden of governance, particularly with regards to taxes, and breaking inflation. He considered a Deficit to be a problem, and the economic success we saw during that time period was in spite of the military build up, not because of it.
    Let's go over why you are wrong at least partially in that hot mess. First of all, the notion that massive military spending did not boost the economy is entirely bat****. It completely ignores the notion of the basics of a supply chain. Furthermore, it completely ignores the impact of military spending generating non-military goods, such as how Star Wars significantly helped the civilian satellite and launch industry. Second, Reagan's take on taxes is hardly as you claim it to be. Reagan cut and then enacted at the time one of the largest tax hikes in US history. The notion that Reagan just cut and cut is flat out wrong. And growth under Reagan did not have a correlated impact to tax rates. The issue of inflation was far more important, but Reagan himself leaned on Vockler to at least slow his artificial recession to help his reelection changes. Stagflation was prolonged BECAUSE of Reagan.

    And you're still missing the point. I never argued that Reagan was Kenysian. I merely pointed out that stimulus spending during Reagan worked to stimulate the economy. It does not matter if he thought the economic success was in-spite. What matters (and what you entirely fail to understand like so many many many things) is that the Idolized period of Reagan's growth was at the same time as truly massive government spending. You keep trying to weasel out of admitting that stimulus spending during Reagan stimulated the economy. Partially because you are exceptionally dishonest.

    incidentally, for everyone else, the study that OC is complaining about can be found here. In the WSJ one of the authors explains its' implications:
    And go on to the part where the authors explicitly state they did not look at any non-fiscal impacts. And you expect to be taken seriously for that posting of near epic bull****?
    And I like how you leave out the part where the authors create their own criteria for success and how they leave out the impact of monetary policy upon the success stories.

    I take it you failed statistics in community college?

    Certainly many factors play into economic success or failure. That's why A) economics is not a hard science that is capable of being tested as finely tuned as, say, physics and B) you need a larger data set in order to average out those externals. I'd say 91 case studies consistently demonstrating the same effect would be fairly good enough, considering there is no better and larger available data set (that I am aware of, at least) than the OECD when it comes to taking a look at modern economies.
    So yes, you did fail statistics in community college.

    Only a bat**** study like that would ignore the impact of monetary policy, the internet, government intervention via lending and reduction of regulation, resource finds such as oil and other economic data.

    It's amusing how you switch from "economic data does not exist in a vacuum" to "economic data exists in a vacuum" when it suits your agenda.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #70
    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: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    It did stimulate the economy. But it wasn't purpose of it. That was my point.
    Which is why it wasn't relevant. I'm not disagreeing your your argument. I'm merely using the point to show that Cpwill is as usual, wrong.

    Actually, the Tea Party started under President Bush when he began using stimulus funds at the end of his second term in '08. That dispels the common argument that the Tea Party is simply an anti-Obama movement. At its heart, in the beginning, the Tea Party was about fiscal conservatism, individual liberty, etc. Now, its been hijacked (much like Occupy) by Christians and gun law people. That stuff is important, but not what the Tea Party is about. Fiscal conservatism isn't something that's going to go away if Gov Romney wins. Fiscal conservative Tea Partiers are replacing establishment Republicans on a pretty regular basis now. I believe Gov Romney will be attacked if he starts spending just like President Obama was.
    First of all, the GOP is not the Tea Party. Second of all, I never argued that the TP is merely an anti-Obama movement. I do think the TP, at least the non-tax paying members of it are very misguided in backing some of their candidates, particularly ones that will enact a budget that will not only increase the deficit but cause a recession at the same time under the guise of fiscal conservatism.

    My point you didn't address is that the GOP frankly doesn't give a **** about fiscal conservatism unless it can be used as a tool against the Democrats. Gary Johnson, John Huntsman and Ron Paul are the only candidates during this GOP primary that actually showed they cared. Look where it got them. Romney is a joke. Perry's Texas has only be showing balanced budgets because the Rainy Day fund has been raided over the past few years.

    The Ryan Plan does ignore the largest problems our gov't has namely entitlements. But its better that what has been presented by the Senate and the POTUS. Which is A) Nothing and B) A plan that not even a single Dem would sponsor. The Dems are in the same boat with the budget as the GOP is with healthcare. They don't like the others plan but don't have a viable plan themselves.
    The Ryan plan will cause a recession. Actually the Ryan plan is a perfect example of how the GOP doesn't care about fiscal conservatism. If Ryan wasn't a liar, he'd cut at the same time as allowing the tax rates to return to their Clinton rates. That argueably would cause a severe recession, but at least on paper it would rapidly reduce the deficit. What bothers me about the GOP is that the Democrats were FINALLY willing to at least cut part of entitlements but the GOP said no to a deal. $10 in cuts to $1 in revenue and we all got nos from the GOP? I don't blame the Ratings Agencies for taking one look at that and downgrading the US. When one party has become completely unreasonable, we're on the path to ruin.

    For Healthcare, let's make it real simple. Whatever Congress and the White House agree on, they must themselves sign up for. What the Speaker of the House has for his healthcare plan should be readily available and affordable for everyone. What we get, they get. Let's literally put their skin in the game. Because right now it's as if the Aristocracy is deciding what the serfs get and all we get is bad legislation.

    As for the GOP "plan" they're having problems largely because Obama stole their ideas. They can't come out with a plan that has a large number of ideas from the ACA and then turn around and condemn the ACA as the worst piece of modern legislation. Romney is having huge problems attacking the ACA which is functionally a clone of his own medical plan.

    Women? You mean if they can abort or not? That's ridiculous. While I will agree with you that cookie cutter establishment GOPers are no different than Dems when speaking of spending habits, the "war on women" crap is nothing more than a re-election ploy by President Obama and his campaign staff to swing the womens vote his way.
    Why is that ridiculous? Do you know any women in your life?

    It's not just abortion. Women pay more for insurance purely because of being a different gender. Their access to drugs is significantly less than men. It doesn't make sense why many legal recreational drugs are free for men but are not for women.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 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
  •