Presidents and the Economy

[Nutz]

I get it...you don't. You want a partisan discussion, I want an honest discussion.

so you think when govt taxes away your money you can still spend it?? How slow are you?

I never said that.

direct quote:
↑
↑
Why should anyone give a flying fuck who appropriates the money, asshole?
Wouldn't spending affect the economy?govt spending tends to be wasteful and prevents taxpayer spending so you have a net loss.

Do you understand?No, how does gov't spending prevent Americans from spending money?

huh?

direct quote

where?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so you think when govt taxes away your money you can still spend it?? How slow are you?

I never said that.

direct quote:
↑
↑
Why should anyone give a flying fuck who appropriates the money, asshole?
Wouldn't spending affect the economy?govt spending tends to be wasteful and prevents taxpayer spending so you have a net loss.

Do you understand?No, how does gov't spending prevent Americans from spending money?

huh?

direct quote

where?

#23 you perfect idiot liberal

 

[Nutz]

I never said that.

direct quote:
↑
↑
Why should anyone give a flying fuck who appropriates the money, asshole?
Wouldn't spending affect the economy?govt spending tends to be wasteful and prevents taxpayer spending so you have a net loss.

Do you understand?No, how does gov't spending prevent Americans from spending money?

huh?

direct quote

where?

#23 you perfect idiot liberal

Again, where? You are full of shit. Quote it...or are you too fucking stupid you partisan hack.


Idiot pussy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

direct quote:
↑
↑
Why should anyone give a flying fuck who appropriates the money, asshole?
Wouldn't spending affect the economy?govt spending tends to be wasteful and prevents taxpayer spending so you have a net loss.

Do you understand?No, how does gov't spending prevent Americans from spending money?

huh?

direct quote

where?

#23 you perfect idiot liberal

Again, where? You are full of shit. Quote it...or are you too fucking stupid you partisan hack.
#23 you perfect idiot liberal

Idiot pussy.

 

[Nutz]

huh?

direct quote

where?

#23 you perfect idiot liberal

Again, where? You are full of shit. Quote it...or are you too fucking stupid you partisan hack.
#23 you perfect idiot liberal

Idiot pussy.

Too fucking stupid to learn how to quote, faggot?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

direct quote

where?

#23 you perfect idiot liberal

Again, where? You are full of shit. Quote it...or are you too fucking stupid you partisan hack.
#23 you perfect idiot liberal

Idiot pussy.

Too fucking stupid to learn how to quote, faggot?

post #23 dear!!

 

[regent]

I just bought fifty Big Mac's s because of the shortage, now to sell them at a tremendous profit. Capitalism is the only way to go. Anyone have a solution for freshening stale buns?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I just bought fifty Big Mac's s because of the shortage, now to sell them at a tremendous profit. Capitalism is the only way to go. Anyone have a solution for freshening stale buns?

How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. --Paul Krugman

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

direct quote

where?

#23 you perfect idiot liberal

Again, where? You are full of shit. Quote it...or are you too fucking stupid you partisan hack.
#23 you perfect idiot liberal

Idiot pussy.

Too fucking stupid to learn how to quote, faggot?

see post #23 you perfect idiot liberal

 

[Nutz]

where?

#23 you perfect idiot liberal

Again, where? You are full of shit. Quote it...or are you too fucking stupid you partisan hack.
#23 you perfect idiot liberal

Idiot pussy.

Too fucking stupid to learn how to quote, faggot?

see post #23 you perfect idiot liberal

Quote it you ignorant faggot. You won't because I never said what you claim...pussy bitch. I can't stand you pseudo-conservative bitches....Pussy.

 

[Dad2three]

I just bought fifty Big Mac's s because of the shortage, now to sell them at a tremendous profit. Capitalism is the only way to go. Anyone have a solution for freshening stale buns?

How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. --Paul Krugman

Well, that’s their problem. What I want to ask instead is whether any of this makes sense. How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. But is this time different?



To understand why economists usually downplay the economic role of presidents, let’s revisit a much-mythologized episode in U.S. economic history: the recession and recovery of the 1980s.

On the right, of course, the 1980s are remembered as an age of miracles wrought by the blessed Reagan, who cut taxes, conjured up the magic of the marketplace and led the nation to job gains never matched before or since. In reality, the 16 million jobs America added during the Reagan years were only slightly more than the 14 million added over the previous eight years. And a later president — Bill something-or-other — presided over the creation of 22 million jobs. But who’s counting?

In any case, however, serious analyses of the Reagan-era business cycle place very little weight on Reagan, and emphasize instead the role of the Federal Reserve, which sets monetary policy and is largely independent of the political process. At the beginning of the 1980s, the Fed, under the leadership of Paul Volcker, was determined to bring inflation down, even at a heavy price; it tightened policy, sending interest rates sky high, with mortgage rates going above 18 percent. What followed was a severe recession that drove unemployment to double digits but also broke the wage-price spiral.

Then the Fed decided that America had suffered enough. It loosened the reins, sending interest rates plummeting and housing starts soaring. And the economy bounced back. Reagan got the political credit for “morning in America,” but Mr. Volcker was actually responsible for both the slump and the boom.

The point is that normally the Fed, not the White House, rules the economy. Should we apply the same rule to the Obama years?

Not quite.


For one thing, the Fed has had a hard time gaining traction in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, because the aftermath of a huge housing and mortgage bubble has left private spending relatively unresponsive to interest rates. This time around, monetary policy really needed help from a temporary increase in government spending, which meant that the president could have made a big difference. And he did, for a while; politically, the Obama stimulus may have been a failure, but an overwhelming majority of economists believe that it helped mitigate the slump.

Since then, however, scorched-earth Republican opposition has more than reversed that initial effort. In fact, federal spending adjusted for inflation and population growth is lower now than it was when Mr. Obama took office; at the same point in the Reagan years, it was up more than 20 percent. So much, then, for fiscal policy.

There is, however, another sense in which Mr. Obama has arguably made a big difference. The Fed has had a hard time getting traction, but it has at least made an effort to boost the economy — and it has done so despite ferocious attacks from conservatives, who have accused it again and again of “debasing the dollar” and setting the stage for runaway inflation. Without Mr. Obama to shield its independence, the Fed might well have been bullied into raising interest rates, which would have been disastrous. So the president has indirectly aided the economy by helping to fend off the hard-money mob.

Last but not least, even if you think Mr. Obama deserves little or no credit for good economic news, the fact is his opponents have spent years claiming that his bad attitude — he has been known to suggest, now and then, that some bankers have behaved badly — is somehow responsible for the economy’s weakness. Now that he’s presiding over unexpected economic strength, they can’t just turn around and assert his irrelevance.

So is the president responsible for the accelerating recovery? No.

Can we nonetheless say that we’re doing better than we would be if the other party held the White House? Yes.

Do those who were blaming Mr. Obama for all our economic ills now look like knaves and fools? Yes, they do. And that’s because they are.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/opinion/paul-krugman-presidents-and-the-economy.html?_r=0

 

[regent]

I just bought fifty Big Mac's s because of the shortage, now to sell them at a tremendous profit. Capitalism is the only way to go. Anyone have a solution for freshening stale buns?

How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. --Paul Krugman

That's good to know because a lot of posters have indicated that FDR had a great deal of influence on the economy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I just bought fifty Big Mac's s because of the shortage, now to sell them at a tremendous profit. Capitalism is the only way to go. Anyone have a solution for freshening stale buns?

How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. --Paul Krugman

That's good to know because a lot of posters have indicated that FDR had a great deal of influence on the economy.

dear, thats shorthand for FDR, Congress, Courts, press, and voters.

 

[Nutz]

I just bought fifty Big Mac's s because of the shortage, now to sell them at a tremendous profit. Capitalism is the only way to go. Anyone have a solution for freshening stale buns?

How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. --Paul Krugman

That's good to know because a lot of posters have indicated that FDR had a great deal of influence on the economy.

dear, thats shorthand for FDR, Congress, Courts, press, and voters.

Pussy

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I just bought fifty Big Mac's s because of the shortage, now to sell them at a tremendous profit. Capitalism is the only way to go. Anyone have a solution for freshening stale buns?

How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. --Paul Krugman

That's good to know because a lot of posters have indicated that FDR had a great deal of influence on the economy.

dear, thats shorthand for FDR, Congress, Courts, press, and voters.

Pussy

How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. --Paul Krugman

 

[Nutz]

I just bought fifty Big Mac's s because of the shortage, now to sell them at a tremendous profit. Capitalism is the only way to go. Anyone have a solution for freshening stale buns?

How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. --Paul Krugman

That's good to know because a lot of posters have indicated that FDR had a great deal of influence on the economy.

dear, thats shorthand for FDR, Congress, Courts, press, and voters.

Pussy

How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. --Paul Krugman

PUSSY

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How much influence does the occupant of the White House have on the economy, anyway? The standard answer among economists, at least when they aren’t being political hacks, is: not much. --Paul Krugman

 

[regent]

Did any president have more influence over the American economy than FDR? In fact, the
first 100 days of FDR's influence have a separate section in most history books. It was not only a turnaround period but it changed parts of America forever.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Did any president have more influence over the American economy than FDR? In fact, the
first 100 days of FDR's influence have a separate section in most history books. It was not only a turnaround period but it changed parts of America forever.

FDR lacked the education to understand capitalism so did a series of idiotic liberal things to prolong the Depression and cause World War. Liberals made him a hero like stupid humans have done throughout human history.

 

[regent]

Did any president have more influence over the American economy than FDR? In fact, the
first 100 days of FDR's influence have a separate section in most history books. It was not only a turnaround period but it changed parts of America forever.

FDR lacked the education to understand capitalism so did a series of idiotic liberal things to prolong the Depression and cause World War. Liberals made him a hero like stupid humans have done throughout human history.

FDR had a great education, he even went to Groton home of rich conservative children.
FDR understood that America, a capitalist nation and was deep in a Republican capitalistic depression and by millions of desperate Americans with the idea that FDR would do something about Republican capitalistic depression, and for what he did, historians have rated FDR as best American president.