Presidents impact on economics
 

I want to be careful because once again, a liberal poster claims (with ZERO merit) that there are no threads other than to bash the President. I disagree vehemently and offered a few threads I have started that liberals just do not seem to want to engage in and also said I would start a few if possible.

I began one on the AUMF and as of this writing there has been no liberal replies that I can tell, but it has only been about 7 hours or so.

I will start another here and in being careful, let me ask the question that I would like to see discussed and then repeat it at the end. I am hoping that no conservative will spend time simply bashing liberals and hope the liberals will do the same.

Question....

Do you think a sitting President has any effect on economic performance and if so in what way ?

PS....not talking about this president or previous president, just do you think a sitting president has any effect ?

I offer this from Fortune on this subject...

"If you hang around enough enthusiastic Democrats during election season, you will surely hear these folks trumpet the fact that the economy performs much better during Democratic presidential administrations than Republican ones.

And while this relative economic performance makes for a great statistic in political debates, it’s confounding for economists, given the fact that presidents do not have a lot of direct control over the economy."


"Political scientists have shown that the performance of the economy is one of the most important factors for voters when they head to the polls. If the economy is doing well, the incumbent will likely win, and vice versa. But Blinder and Watson have shown that the president has little effect on the economy. Economic performance is determined by factors that are largely outside the control of public policy, or at least the kind of policy that is directly controlled by the Commander in Chief."

Why the economy performs better under Democratic presidents - Fortune

Perhaps the question should be...

Why do voters put so much stock in economic performance when economists say the President does not affect it ?

"I tried to leave, but they keep on pulling me back in."

You put five items on your post, and said, Why don't we discuss these items? The implication being was that I not being serious, and only want to bash Republicans, and defend this president Then, you said that I was tiring.

What I said start threads on any of the five items, and see how quick they die. You started a post on the AUMF, and it has four posts. Isn't that I quick death?

But I do have to admit I was wrong on this thread. It didn't die a quick death. It is stillborn. Anytime, you want to make my case for me by all means do so. Consider this a cheap shot at you, as your post was a back handed shot directed at me.

I have posted the president effect on the economy before. Main theme of the Blinder, and Watson article isn't anything new. The president has little or no control over the economy. We were taught this in college in the late 60's. I have looked and looked for my post, but couldn't find it. The post had something to do with the length of time that it took for Obama to get the country out of the Great Recession. The post that I was addressing stated that it has taken Obama more time to get out of the recession than any president in history including getting out of the Great Depression.

It goes without saying, but I will say it anyway that I was told that I was totally wrong. My reply was that all recession aren't the same. The economic conditions have changed. We have gone from a production to a service economy. The factory jobs that existed in our times aren't there in great numbers any more.

Most, if not all elections, aren't decided on one issue. The exception maybe be, when Reagan got elected. As I have stated before, Reagan didn't do a damn thing in his first two years of presidency to get the country out of the recession. The recession had been going on for at least two years before he became president. If a company was on the verge of going bankrupt, it went under. Reagan wasn't that stupid. He knew that the programs that he could institute wouldn't get the country out of the recession.

If his presidency was flipped, and the recession occurred in his last two years, because of his trickle down economics, he probably wouldn't have gotten reelected. The mood of the voters at the time of an election has a lot to do with who they are going to vote for. If you are hurting, you want a change to the other party.

If you have been wronged as in the civil rights laws of the 60's, you vote for the other party, and doesn't have anything to do with the economy. You keep this attitude for the next 50+ years.

The next election the economy will be one of the major issues. The National debt, and the current attitude toward Washington will decide the election. I have stated this numerous times, and have been criticized for it, and called a liar that I am for John Kasich. This is the 6th or 7th time that I have asked this question, "What is wrong with John Kasich?" The last debate, he didn't look good. He was really aggravated, and couldn't hide it.

Lots of words to demean the OP and pat yourself on the back.

Are you going to share you superiority on the thread HOW DOES THIS RHETORIC STOP ? If you do, I assume more bashing of posters and very little discussion of the issue.

I'm not going to debate most of your comment, because in my opinion it's lame. No offense, but all you do is complain about how mean everyone is to Obama. I wonder why. Probably because he is the reason. Never mind.

But, in regards to the major reason for voting in the next election being the economy, I think that may need modification. If the vote was today, it would mostly be based on the terrorism attack scare. Soooo, if we get attacked before the next election, I dare say that most surely the Republican candidate will get elected. It's really a no brainer, because that is what happens in this country. Everyone is all complacent, voting for more freebies UNTIL we get attacked. Then suddenly, they want a gun slinger to be appointed sheriff and clean up the town. And as you know, that gun slinger is usually a conservative.

We know tha Obama can and will have a major impact on the economy.......

when he leaves office!!!!!

:thumbup: .....:agree:

To make it simple for liberals, I will give this example of how Obama has influenced our economy.

This emperor has spent all the money in the coffers on his invisible clothes.

Just got my health insurance premium notice for 2016. Up 32% from this year and nearly 90% for the past 3 years. Thanks goodness this is the "Affortable Health Care Act". Not sure I could afford the Unaffordable version. What this administration doesn't understand is I and others will cut back other goods and services which will have an adverse impact on the economy. If only I could print money like the government.

Those people "popping off" as the President said and predicting this would happen just shut up...you tend to p&& off the President when you call him on things

He is a little thin skinned.

Knowing I will be called a liberal weenie I still have to agree with almost all your post. A number of posters in this forum are still living in the 80's and the country no longer has the manufacturing to pull us out of this poor economy. The only reason it is as good as it is now is because of deficiet spending, nothing else. Those who are promising more tax cuts are pandering, that card has been played already. Where I do disagree with you is what will swing this election. I think more something for nothing will win as it usually does, Americans don't like to pay their own way. IMO

[QUOTE=Guest;1148843]Just got my health insurance premium notice for 2016. Up 32% from this year and nearly 90% for the past 3 years. Thanks goodness this is the "Affortable Health Care Act". Not sure I could afford the Unaffordable version. What this administration doesn't understand is I and others will cut back other goods and services which will have an adverse impact on the economy. If only I could print money like the government.[/QUOTE

Yeah, mine went up $3 a month. Guess I am going to have one less Happy Hour drink at Hemmingway's per month.

Consider yourself very fortunate.

Hate to be stupid but you agree with WHAT ?

The question was "Why do voters put so much stock in economic performance when economists say the President does not affect it ?"

Neither all knowing or you responded to it ? Both of you went right to the same place, and I was trying to keep it out of the party realm.

Trust me, you may feel as if everyone here is in the 80's but as someone who is an avid reader, I specifically asked the question because we are NOT in the 80's, and posts were made about both parties and two Presidents and how they either started something or ended something.

This forum is primarily a bash Obama site. Where you started your so called unbias question with the word liberal it kind of sets the tone, don't you think. Believe me there are some of us whom are conservative and think Bush 43 did much more damage to this economy than Obama but understand he had a lot of help. So I guess we agree the economy was toast before Obama got it and there is really not much he can do.

1. If you read the OP I typed that I was challenged to begin a thread that had no intent to bash Obama and that was the intent. It was about as neutral as you can get. The question I asked DID NOT contain the word liberal. Here it is once again..."Why do voters put so much stock in economic performance when economists say the President does not affect it ?"


2. I will give you guys credit for twisting anything to protect St. Obama. This is not the first thread that has been twisted this way. I am not accusing you because not sure who you are however I think I know but not for sure. You are one of the group who thinks everything is for fun and games. So enjoy your selfs and keep PMing between you all giggling like little girls.

Priceless! This thread was dead in the water until my post 2. That has been my only post in this thread. You asked your conservative friends to try and do the impossible not attack liberal posters in this thread. How long did that last?

What did I twist? How the hell is it a twist, when I have posted the same thing the article you referenced is stating, and did it a long time before the article was written? When I said it, I am protecting St. Obama. Well, the devil is a saint too. When are you going to stop attacking the devil, Obama?

What did I tell you about underlining? You can have a long post, and people here will pick out one line in the post, underline it, and attack it. Didn't you see that happen here?

When are you people here going to get it through your thick skulls, I am a moderate independent? No one but no one here will state why my choice for president, John Kasich, is unacceptable as the Republican candidate for president.

Why don't you answer your own question about the reason people put so much stock in changing the party running the government during recessions? Do you think that the opposing party is going to let the condition of the economy slide in its campaign ads? Of course, they are not. Negative ads ,and the blame game is the name of the beast in presidential campaigns, and has been that way for a long time.

If you want people here to lose their attitude, and not fire cheap shots at each other, maybe you should set an that example. There are no saints on this board only sinners. Open your eyes, and look at the threads on this board. You want to kill the liberals/moderates on this board say something good about Obama. Your fingers would probably fall off your hands typing that message.

Please Joe..you never make sense..just leave.

You attack, defend Obama, and them blame everyone for being mean to you.

Do you REALLY think that much of yourself ?

You got that right. Obama hasn't shown he can do anything. He is the most inept president yet. Gotta love you liberals' persistence though. As long as you have Bush to blame, Obama can play more golf.

Defending Obama is fine. If he just left the "poor me" attitude at home and stopped directly attacking other posters and just stick to the subjects.

Well, an attack on Obama is an attack on a liberal. After all, with their egos, do they really want to admit that they voted for an inept loser, not once but twice?

You make it sound as though President Obama lost two elections. No, it was the Republicans who voted for inept losers not once, but two times in a row! :1rotfl:

My broker says past performance is no guarantee of future performance, but I do cut back my exposure in stocks during a republican administration.

If BS was music you would be a brass band!

We've seen two terms of your inept loser. Republicans did not win the election so we don't know if they were going to be inept or not. You elected an entertainer instead of a president. He may be able to entertain you but he has yet to prove he can be presidential. Losing the election did not make them inept. But, he has proven he is inept. Some people are just not prepared, experienced or have the leadership enough to do the job. He is an example.

His impact on economics? He has had plenty of help in Reid and Pelosi, as well as his czars. He has attempted to hose up our economy but even though it has been the slowest rebound in history, he has yet to totally destroy it. Thank goodness for the rich that kept it going in spite of Obama and his cronies.

You didn't by chance read the articles in the first post in this thread. They were there in bold also, and repeated several times in other posts. The president has no effect on the economy. How can you destroy something when you have no effect on it?

We have elected a wannabe entertainer twice in Obama. I guess republicans really like entertainers as president. So, the leader in their race for the nomination is a real entertainer, Trump.

I have never not even once caste the first stone. I am pulling a Trump. Never fire the first shot, but go overboard in the response. The second part of that statement is wrong. So I am pulling a half Trump. People are being mean to me. Who talks like that other than five year old? In your world, the world of the five year olds, I should take my ball, and go home.

Maybe you should act like an adult. If I don't make sense, why don't you tell me why I don't make sense, or is that too much to ask?

Sorry, but if you don't think this tyrant hasn't had detrimental effect on the economy, along with his cronies, then you can't blame Bush for the recession. That's simple enough.

If one does not think that Obama has had any effect on the economy, then they either believe he is incompetent or lazy and didn't do his job. Which is it?

Of course he has had an effect on the economy....

HE DAMPENS AND STIFLES any activity that results in capitalism progress and improvement.

And lest we not forget his impact on keeping the unemployed continuously paid for not working.....forever.

And the impressive, explosive growth in the number of people on food stamps.

Also his affordable care and the massive insurance premium increases that come along with it.

Change the definition of what constitutes unemployment.

Put 'em all in a bag a shake them up and out comes Obama's impact on the economy......more poverty.....more racism......increasing costs to live.....and of course more dependency on the government hand outs.

Yes....he certainly has had an effect.

:thumbup:

Tell me where I blamed Bush for the recession. The only time "W" and the recession came up is, when people here started counting from day one of Obama's presidency the national debt increase, and putting it to Obama's shoulders. Even Hannity agreed, Obama's national debt clock started running on 10/1/09. You are going to tell me Hannity supports Obama.

Your post sounds good, but it isn't support by facts.

Massive insurance premium increases, you might want to check that. Health insurance premiums have increased over the rate of inflation for the past 30+ years. The insurance coverage that our parents had is now considered Cadillac plans.

Receiving unemployment benefits for 99 weeks up from 52 weeks is considered forever.

The increase in food stamps is a direct result of the recession. The high paying production jobs have been shipped overseas. Taking a job at the minimum wage qualifies you for food stamps in most cases. Look this up, and you will see, who was receiving the benefit for foods stamps. The companies not paying their employees a living wage.

"HE DAMPENS AND STIFLES any activity that results in capitalism progress and improvement." I would love to see you back this up with facts.

Here is an article about the rate of health insurance premium increases.

How Quickly Are Health Insurance Premiums Rising?

You might want to note the paragraph that stated health insurance premiums were in the double digits in the late 80's, and early 2000's. Refresh my memory, who were the presidents during these periods.

Thanks for validating the commentary in a back handed sort of way.

To make you feel better let us resolve it with that famous old saying:

the second BSer has no original game or thought to play, hence much more BS required.....which obviously does not seem to be a problem!

So, we are not supposed to hold Obama's broken promises accountable because of past presidents? So, what you are saying is that he CAN'T do anything about it. He is inept, right? He is a failure, right? You are the one making excuses for him, so just admit that he made promises he couldn't keep. Admit that Obamacare was something important enough that congress should have read it before passing it.

Just got my health insurance premium for 2016 and it decreased by 6%. My investment accounts have tripled in the last 6 years and none of my friends children have been killed in Iraq/Afghanistan. Fortunately, there have not been any ISIS attacks on American soil, just young white males shooting up movie theaters. So get a Netflix account, play some golf in The Villages and be thankful that we are living in greatest country on earth!

OK that's one!

You forgot to mention that Obama had no impact on any of the incidents mentioned.

Yes it happened while he was POTUS. He did nothing to make it happen.

Maybe when you have an hour or two you could enlighten us as to what the :censored: looking in the rear view mirror at 20 to 40 years ago has to do with what is happening today!!!!

I don't need "manipulated" stats to know that my health insurance has gone up over 20% since this president. And forget about blaming Bush, instead of Obamacare. I was told by my insurance that it was due to the new expanded coverage, and not only are they required to cover more procedures, but also have to cover more people that didn't qualify before (26 yr old adults). Funny how, I also lost some coverage due to the new requirements, such as P.E.T. scans for cancer patients, that was previously covered, but now NOT.