I've heard them ALL before. Sore losers can't accept reality and therefore resort to all sorts of EXCUSES to explain why their theories were wrong.
1) Correlation does not imply causation unless of course you are talking about tax cuts and growth, then it is cause and effect.
2) It takes 2, 4, and even up to 8 years for a president's policies to take effect. That is why Reagan was responsible for the Clinton expansion (but not responsible for the Bush Sr recession). Of course this only applies selectively. If you're talking about Reagan and Bush Jr, then their policies had immediate effects and Carter and Clinton had nothing to do with it.
3) The Republican congress was responsible for the Clinton expansion but the Democratic congress during Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with the Reagan growth.
4) Government action has absolutely no effect on government policies. FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton were just plain lucky.
2007-07-25 16:32:06 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
5) FDR saw much greater growth then Reagan because FDR had to deal with a depression whereas Reagan had to deal with a recession. Doesn't matter that economy tanked for four straight years after 1929. It was bound to come up.
2007-07-25 16:32:54 · update #1
dingus,
A supply side Republican is a Republican who belives that cutting taxes will lead to even more economic growth and tax revenues, that eventually will pay off the deficits created.
NEVER WORKED!
Keynesians (invest in the American people through education, job training, labor rights, etc) always leave them in the dust.
2007-07-25 17:10:15 · update #2
When you attempt to show an economic conclusion, using statistics from only two variables...you deserve the thumbs down.
Not up to date on your Analysis of Variance techniques, are you?
And if you can show one iota of typing from me on this site about tax cuts and growth, I will kiss your a$ $ on the courthouse lawn, and give you 20 minutes to draw a crowd.
2007-07-25 16:36:21 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
2OK the Pres. Bush Sr recession was caused by the democrat forced tax increase. the democrats tied a tax increase into a civil rights act so senior Bush was put in a lose -lose situation. pass a tax and eat his words or veto a civil rights bill and be called a racists. the tax increase on high price boats and cars hurt those industries. but by time the elections came around the nation economy was growing at 5%.
3 yes the democrats congress helped the growth they backed Pres. Reagan tax cuts. but to get the tax cuts pres, Reagan had to give into the spending bills of the congress.
when Pres Clinton is handed a econmy growing at 5% and quickly turns into one growing at less then 2% , because of a tax increase most take notice that tax increase does effect econmy.
also pres. Clinton rode a stock market econmy which is not the best for the USA.
4 for FDR if it was not for WW2 he would go down as a terribl president. yes JFK did some good things but in todays politacal climant would be more republican. LBJ really did not do much in resolving of civil strife. and yes because of the tech. bubble pres, Clinton was sitting in a nice place in history .
5 a depression is the lowest spot of a recession so FDR was dealing with a recession/deppresion. the same with Pres, Reagan .
6. sorry supply side has always worked. only been passed by three Pres. and the econmy has grown everytime and tax revenue has increased, passed by JFK, Pres. Reagan and Bush.
2007-07-26 00:30:28 · answer #2 · answered by rap1361 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wow, you're bringing up some old liberal talking points here, you pulled these out of your archive. The truth is government isn't responsible for economic growth. The innovation of the American public is responsible for that. The only real thing government does is get in the way of that growth. You made the mistake of sighting liberal talking points to explain your excuse of why big government is good. What a predictable liberal you are.
2007-07-25 23:39:43 · answer #3 · answered by - 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Bro, I have no idea what you are talking about.
You have to learn to articulate your question. Are you trying to allude that democrats are keynesian, because keynesians know that private spending will eventually take over for gov. spending. Democrats just want the mommy gov. to control spending regardless of location in the economic cycle.
You say that gov. action is different than policy, then use the terms interchangeably.
I don't know what a supply side Republican is, but I think its a reference to supply and demand, referring to a Free Market?
Whatever. I'm smart, but not abstract enough to understand this.
2007-07-25 23:47:20 · answer #4 · answered by dinguskhan2 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Supply-side works and puts willing Americans to work! Dems are all about hand-outs and taxing the prosperous into oblivion.
You know, "Robin-Hood" Economics - rob from the rich and give to the poor or should I say "lazy"?
2007-07-25 23:39:16 · answer #5 · answered by Charlie D 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Tax increases do not take 2,4 or 8 years to take effect.
2007-07-25 23:37:04 · answer #6 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
My favorite is #3. It makes me laugh the most.
2007-07-25 23:54:24 · answer #7 · answered by The Doctor 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You like to cut and paste a lot, don't you?
Looks like 'Heart and Troll', 'ohbrother', 'Charlie D' and 'none of your business' told you!! Stupid liberals!
2007-07-25 23:40:32 · answer #8 · answered by Ninja Rabbit 007 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
tacos rule
2007-07-25 23:34:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Umm... i dont know what you are talking about...
Probably because republicans worship the owl god lilith.
BOHEMIAN GROVE
----
It's not a myth, it's been documented and there are pictures.
2007-07-25 23:35:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋