I've heard them all. And these are excuses. If you have to explain why you are wrong the majority of the time, it is an EXCUSE, not an explanation.
GDP RANK WITH SOURCE
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoHfF5mmChD2IRQlJY7k_t_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071113112546AA1xtbO
1) It takes 4, 8, and even 12 years for a president's policies to take effect. That's why Reagan is responsible for the growth seen under Clinton. However, Carter and Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the growth seen under Reagan and Bush Jr.
2) Reagan was responsible for the growth under Clinton, but he was not responsible for the Bush Sr recession.
3) Just because the economy tends to do better under Democrats, does not imply cause and effect, unless you are talking about Republicans and tax cuts, then it is definitely cause and effect.
4) The Republican congress was responsible for the Clinton growth, but the Democratic congress under Reagan was not responsible for the Reagan growth.
2007-11-13
07:44:00
·
15 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
5) The government has absolutely no effect on the economy. Democrats were just plain lucky.
6) FDR inheriting a Great Depression was a good thing for him because the economy was bound to bounce back but Reagan and Bush Jr inheriting a recession was not.
7) FDR should not get credit for the growth seen after Pearl Harbor but Reagan should get credit for the economic impact from massive military spending.
2007-11-13
07:44:08 ·
update #1
Tyran,
Unemployment was around 25% percent when FDR took over. He cut it to about 13% even prior to WWII.
2007-11-13
07:59:21 ·
update #2
The stock Republican answer seems to be "Carter sucked".
The point of this question is to show that in almost every case, the economy has thrived more under Democrat presidents than Republicans. It also shows the inconsistencies in the various explanations (a.k.a. excuses) for why this might be, if you assume that by definition Republicans are the stronger economic party.
If Republicans can't answer this question, perhaps it's time they admit that their party is weak on economic leadership and policies. Focusing on the exception while ignoring the rule does not make for a strong argument.
I don't really have a favorite among the excuses you list - they're all quite amusing.
2007-11-13 08:22:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dana1981 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm not even going to look at all your gobble-ty-****. Normally I would agree that what a President does is not felt for a few years but there are exceptions; Bill Clinton claimed that he turned the economy around in 1993 when his first budget hadn't even happened yet. This is about people not policies. Jimmy Carter lambasted Gerald Ford with his Misery Index; unemployment + inflation + prime interest rate and it was much higher when Carter left office. FDR made many right moves but the economy faltered in 1937 when he tried to raise taxes. GW Bush inherited a recession, Clinton did not. The ecomony had already turned around when Clinton was inaugarated. No one, but no one had to deal with something like 9/11. Taking what you say for truth we have to look at eight year administrations. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy/Johnson, Nixon/Ford, Reagan/Bush, Clinton, Bush FDR got better, there was no place left to go but up Truman the economy was having difficulty at the end Eisenhower there was a minor recession in 1960 JFK/LBJ inflation was out of control in the 60s Nixon/Ford inflation was eating up prosperity Reagan/Bush inherited a disaster and made an economy which increased for 20 years. Had to spend a billion dollars on the S & L bailout. Clinton the tech bubble burst and the stock market was in decline in March 2000. He also didn't have to make one payment on the S & L bailout which helped his budget. Oh Phil... times up. Reagan reduced the highest tax rate from 70% to 38 %. WSJ gives him the credit. You lose.
2016-05-23 00:05:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
All of the above!
American conservatism has grown into a cult.Everyone is out to get them and everything that's not slanted to the far right is liberally biased.
Science,truth and facts are all less important than the ideology. Everyone who distracts from the Divine path becomes an enemy and part of the evil outside world.
The few conservatives who are smart and courageous enough to make up their own mind are immediately labeled as traitors or RINO's
It's good to see more and more Americans waking up and realizing they can't take conservatism serious anymore until it rids itself of this cultist spirit
2007-11-17 02:54:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by justgoodfolk 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
You wouldn't be able to handle the truth if it was spoon fed to you on a spoon, so I'll tell you my personal experience. Life was not so good under Carter with stagflation making everything unaffordable including food!
Then there was the mighty Clinton years - all two of them that the Dems controlled congress. Not so good again, because he taxed the hell out of my social security dependent mother.
Fortunately, the Republicans ran congress after that - and for your info, it's congress who spends the money. Not the president. He only approves or veto's what congress does, so celebrate the 90's if you want, because it was Newt and the Cons that gave Clinton the free ride.
2007-11-13 08:05:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
lol, the president does not run and control every aspect of the economy. What little control he has over it domestically has little immediate impact, and is difficult to measure. He has no control over foreign economics, and this has a major impact on domestic economics.
So, we can be real and mature and agree that Democrats or Republicans don't necessarily make a better or worse economy just by sitting in office, or you can be immature and say "but when Clinton was president, look how much better everything did!".
2007-11-13 08:06:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
Personally I always love it when Cons say that a Dem prez inherited a great economy (even though it usually was tanking when the Con predecessor was in office...like now)...but then when a Con is in office and the economy tanks...It's cuz of the Dem Congress.
Cons are a joke...
2007-11-13 08:23:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
For the 15th time this week....Who was in charge during the 1929 depression, and the oil shortage in the late 70's? Both were the worst our economy ever has been, and both well...you know.
2007-11-13 08:01:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by mbush40 6
·
2⤊
4⤋
If you're asking the right to open their minds, you're wasting your time. Everything you said will fall on deaf ears, and they'll only call you stupid. But, I have to say, this is an excellent question.
2007-11-13 08:00:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Lisa M 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
I remember how great the economy was under Jimmy Carter.
2007-11-13 07:53:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by john c 6
·
4⤊
3⤋
Your still living in GeezerLand. It's not about democrats and Republicans. They both screw you. It's just a device to make people think they have a choice (of 2).
Thinking people don't vote now. The system will always stay the same.
2007-11-13 07:51:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
5⤋