Canadian 'baffled' by election

ReverendHellh0und said:

Canadians "bafffled"? What next are you going to tell me they like "hockey" and "beer"? lol

Click to expand...

Of course you would have to put "hockey" in quotes; it's not a real sport.

Come to think of it, "beer" is not that much of a drink, either.

As to the question of under which presidential party does the economy perform better, I think I'd agree with the following author's assessments.

The Bottom Line
The real question might be if the government can truly be responsible for controlling the ups and downs in the business cycle. The Federal Reserve and other politicians in Congress certainly pulled together to help save the economy from financial ruin at the height of the credit crisis, but most of the time there are just too many considerations that go into supply and demand fluctuations in the economy in general.

Click to expand...

GOP Vs. Democrats: Who's Best For America's Economy? - Forbes

Anyway, I think it’s fair to say that it matters what hand a president is dealt and how that hand is played.

Click to expand...

Are Democrats really much better economic presidents than Republicans? » AEI

The answer: The impressively large gap seems to have little to do with the presidents and policies themselves.

Click to expand...

Why Does the Economy Do Better Under Democratic Presidents than Republican Ones? | National Review Online

Seems to be the most reasonable position is that the president has limited impact on the economy as this would appear to be driven mostly by the business cycle rather than anything that the president does.

Once of the reasons that the economy is in recovery is that's what it does after a recession and / or financial collapse. The Fed's pumping billions of dollars into the economy month after month after month, life support likened to meth or crack, may be a reason that the depth of the collapse wasn't as deep as it may have been, but I'm not sure that it's the stuff of driving the economy forward. Driving the economy forward seems to be far more related to the consumer's mood about the economy, the business cycle, and the aggregate demand to which the business rector is responding.

Yeah, I think it's got a lot more to do with the cards that any particular president is dealt, rather than any policies or actions that that president may take.

The other thing that I wonder about is the 'lag' time between any sort of policy action and the business and economic reaction to that policy action.

Would the Internet boom during Clinton's administration have happened if some of the policy actions of the Bush administration prior weren't taken? A difficult question to honestly answer due to the vast number of inputs into the economy to which it reacts to.

Any analysis that just goes and claims that the economy does better under one presidential party or the other, I find suspect due to the likelihood that it's driven by ideological biases more so than anything else. And then there is always the correlation / causation question which never appears to have a satisfactory explanation.

eohrnberger said:

The other thing that I wonder about is the 'lag' time between any sort of policy action and the business and economic reaction to that policy action.

Would the Internet boom during Clinton's administration have happened if some of the policy actions of the Bush administration prior weren't taken? A difficult question to honestly answer due to the vast number of inputs into the economy to which it reacts to.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the reason has nothing to do with either Clinton's or GHWB's actions. The greatest cause of the boom was simple: all those baby boomers had reached their peak spending years. And there won't be another boom of a similar magnitude until the baby boomers' kids reach that same age bracket.

DifferentDrummr said:

Yes, and the reason has nothing to do with either Clinton's or GHWB's actions. The greatest cause of the boom was simple: all those baby boomers had reached their peak spending years. And there won't be another boom of a similar magnitude until the baby boomers' kids reach that same age bracket.

Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. As one who had a drawer full of stock certificates (that became valueless) during the internet boom, I know that had the SEC been doing it's enforcement job during those years we'd have never had the bust that followed. Entirely vaporware IPOs were allowed to proceed in large numbers while Clinton watched and let it happen. The bust was delayed until he was just about out of office.

DifferentDrummr said:

I've said many times before that I'm not a fan of Obama, but I still recognize that he's accomplished at least a few worthwhile things.

So for those of you who cling to this knee-jerk chant about how horrible he is, the following article might be worth reading.

Addicting Info – Baffled Canadian Writes To U.S. Voters After Midterm: ‘You Don’t Know How Good You Have It With Obama’

Click to expand...

When Bush II got elected my conclusion was that Americans were tired of all the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years and wanted change. They sure got it. The same seems to be true now. I have many issues with Obama, but he did help the economy recover, many more people can get health care and he hasn't been quick to drag us into any new wars (so far, its not looking good for the near future).

Hard Truth said:

When Bush II got elected my conclusion was that Americans were tired of all the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years and wanted change. They sure got it. The same seems to be true now. I have many issues with Obama, but he did help the economy recover, many more people can get health care and he hasn't been quick to drag us into any new wars (so far, its not looking good for the near future).

Click to expand...

Then you don't accurately remember that time. Wall Street, that had been riding high for years on the internet boom, was falling. The boom magnates were ending up with drawers full of valueless stock and everyone knew the SEC had been ordered to keep their hands off to delay the bust on the IPO Ponzi scheme. People were tired of hearing about that president getting blowjobs from a young intern in the Oval Office while his crook wife did all sorts of rather suspicious things. And then the dems choose to run Wilber Milquetoast against a guy most folks would like to have a beer with. Not to mention the different gates (IRS, Travel, etc).

clownboy said:

That's not entirely true. As one who had a drawer full of stock certificates (that became valueless) during the internet boom, I know that had the SEC been doing it's enforcement job during those years we'd have never had the bust that followed. Entirely vaporware IPOs were allowed to proceed in large numbers while Clinton watched and let it happen. The bust was delayed until he was just about out of office.

Click to expand...

Clinton's other unfortunate habit: being too cozy with big money.

ARealConservative said:

the partisan idiocy is just too much. I stopped reading after a long run-on first sentence that blames one party for our economic woes and gives the president praise for fixing it.

pure fantasy

Click to expand...

I agree that it is too much. I see this type of thing with both parties, and virtually everyone who claims any particular ideology.

X Factor said:

How do people not know the difference between an "article" and an "editorial".

It's well established that lots of things about the US "baffles" non Americans; gun rights, no hate speech laws, The Death Penalty and just generally a greater emphasis on personal liberty (and responsibility) over notions of the communal good.

Click to expand...

I can't help but notice how extremely morbid all of the things you're complaining about losing are.

I mean, aside from what complete BS that is. Hate speech laws have been pretty much the same since the 60's, the death penalty is a state issue, and no one has taken your damn guns -- this too is a state issue, and there have been as many gun law repeals as there have been additions.

But again, what I am most struck by is that all of your concerns are about wanting as many ways as possible to destroy things, psychologically or physically. What an alarming platform of complaints. I mean, I can think of plenty of things to complain about with Obama... and this is what you pick?