What's the Magician's Other Hand Doing While we're All Watching the War?

[Undertoad]

Clinton did several things that improved the economy and extended the boom.

- He did not enact a large tax increase.
- He did not enact a large spending increase.
- He led the passage of NAFTA.
- He led the passage of welfare reform.

Adam's idea that you need to elect a tax -n- spend libbrul to improve the economy is spot-on. The reason is that only a tax -n- spend libbrul is politically incapable of taxing and spending. Clinton tried it in his first year, wanting to federalize health care, but the voters gave him a harsh smack in return in 1994 by electing a Republican House. Similarly, only Bush 41 could increase the size of government the way he did, spending like the wind, something 43 looks to duplicate for some unknown reason.

Thus, electing a big-gov D may be the only way to guarantee that the next administration truly cuts spending. Bush 41 could never have gotten NAFTA or welfare reform through. On the other hand, only a Republican can end the drug war. Strange, isn't it?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by azion
That's my way of poking fun at the way that Clinton, the tax-and-spend liberal (booga! booga! booga!) was able to balance a few budgets while the three fiscally-responsible conservatives before and after him were not even to come even close to submitting a single one which was either balanced or even less in the red than the one before it.

And who controlled Congress for 6 of those 8 years, including those in which the budget was balanced?

Presidents get way too much credit and/or blame for the economy.

[azion]

Originally posted by Whit
     On the subject of things that happened, remember OPEC? It was towards the election time that they began restricting sales to drive up prices. My memory is a little fuzzy on the details but I remember maybe four or five economists on NPR saying that every time oil prices have shot up it's hurt the economy greatly. I remember gas prices hitting $1.70 or so per gallon of regular around here not long after that. I think I even heard Alan Greenspan giving warnings of this nature. Yet, that's the one thing I never heard Bush making a lot of noise about. I've heard 9/11 blamed a lot, and a few other things, but not the oil situation. Am I the only one that thinks it's odd that these guy's say the economy is going to tank, give a reason for it, it does tank and nobody on the Hill seems to notice they said anything? Did I miss it?
     Also I understand the opposite is true, cheap oil gives immediate boosts to our economy. I've said elsewhere that the cheap oil we get from Iraq after the war will do wonders for the economy. And I think Bush will credit his tax breaks. Am I running with conspiracy theory of the week or does this make sense?

It makers perfect sense. Indeed, I've had a similar theory for quite a while. To wit:

The political memory of the American public goes back roughly 2 years- that is, if something happened more than 2 years ago, voters don't usually consider it at the polling place.

King George I made the mistake of not getting the bad economic news over with early in his term, and having the war end more than 2 years before the '92 election. Hence, when the election came, peoples' political memories said nothing about the war victory (during and after the war, Bush I's approval rating was through the roof), but lots about the current recession.

King George II is trying to follow precisely the opposite strategy that his father followed. He's hoping that this economic bust ends before the election, and that the war is fresh in voters' minds.

Of course, if he doesn't like the election results, he'll just ask the Supreme Court to help again,
Z

[russotto]

What you seem to be saying, Tony, is that "gridlock works". I agree. (note to Republicans in Harrisburg: Stall Rendell's tax increases until doomsday if necessary)

Reducing the price of oil should also work. Which should be accomplished by the completion of this war.

If, by "more than two years", you mean "one year, eight months and one day"...

I'll agree that it's a good rule of thumb, but I'd shorten the timeframe. Maybe to 18 months. But I think I'd give probably 75% influence to the last year in office.

[azion]

Originally posted by sycamore


And who controlled Congress for 6 of those 8 years, including those in which the budget was balanced?

Presidents get way too much credit and/or blame for the economy.

True enough, the GOP was in controll of Congress for 6/8 years... just as they have been for the entire Bush II administration. If your implied argument- that the GOP Congress was largely responsible for the balanced budgets- is to hold water, then surely you would expect at least a single balanced budget to come from a combination of GOP controll of both Houses of Congress and the Executive Branch.

But, FWIW, I agree that Presidents- and Congress- get too much credit for the vagaries of the business cycle. However, policies can tweak the cycle so as to enhance it in one direction or the other.

Your ball,
Z

[azion]

Originally posted by Undertoad

Thus, electing a big-gov D may be the only way to guarantee that the next administration truly cuts spending. Bush 41 could never have gotten NAFTA or welfare reform through. On the other hand, only a Republican can end the drug war. Strange, isn't it?

Historical fact: the President who increased the size of the Federal government the most was that demigod of conservatism, Richard Nixon.

Trick Dick himself,
Z

(For the record, I think the tax cut was a bad idea. It really *was* geared toward the rich. The government should be taking that surplus and using it to create jobs or <b>something</b>.)

[Whit]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ok, I'm in on the idea that we need a President of a different party than the Congressional Majority. Just 'cause I'm trying to keep track of all this, does anyone disagree on this point? I have trouble believing that we all agree on anything...

[azion]

Originally posted by Whit
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ok, I'm in on the idea that we need a President of a different party than the Congressional Majority. Just 'cause I'm trying to keep track of all this, does anyone disagree on this point? I have trouble believing that we all agree on anything...

I wouldn't say that we need the President and Congress to be under the control of different parties per se, but I would definitely agree that this situation is much more conducive towards creating the kinds of checks and balances which the founders explicitly wanted in the Federal government which they were designing.

As opposed to "It's good to be the King,"
Z

[Whit]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sorry, your right. My phrasing sucked. Still, this seems to be a commonly held belief around here. I think your right about the checks and balance system though.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I've been saying that now is a good time for a third party to get somewhere. I wonder how it would effect said system if a third party did come in and take, even a modest portion, of the Congressional seats?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hey, it better be good to be the king, it has to suck to be president. Have you seen the physical changes the last couple of guys have gone through while in office???

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by azion
If your implied argument- that the GOP Congress was largely responsible for the balanced budgets

That's not my argument at all. Hell, I'd love to give Bill all the credit for it, since I'm not much of a fan of the Republicans. But of course, that would be unfair.

Whit, I was noticing the other day that Dubya has gotten noticeably grayer since taking office. I wonder how white Reagan's hair would have been had it not been dyed?

[slang]

Originally posted by sycamore
had it not been dyed?

[joke] It wasnt dyed, it was an ape hair toupe [/joke]

[Whit]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ronnie the Ray-Gun is an interesting case. Did the job contribute to his mental decline? If so, when? How much did Nancy decline during his presidency? If it was considerable do we assume it had nothing to do with who was in charge?

[wolf]

I think the LACK of the job was probably a greater contributor to his decline ...