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.