Welcome to PatsFans.com

Economy Would Have Been Bad Regardless of Who was President

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by maverick4, Jul 7, 2009.

  1. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    This current economy was due to be horrible regardless of who was elected last November. No matter who was elected, that person was going to look bad. I said it two years ago and still say it. Even Mitt Romney or Ron Paul couldn't look good as President even with their economic knowledge.

    The writing has been on the wall for years and several high profile people warned about collapse before it happened.
  2. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Also, no matter who got elected, what was going to happen was government steps would be taken to improve the unemployment figure and get people jobs, but the US dollar was going to get hurt big time along the way. Our purchasing power outside the US is going to be less than half what it used to be, at best.

    This was all going to happen regardless of who got elected.
  3. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,428
    Likes Received:
    149
    Ratings:
    +306 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Probably true but the obamans have done nothing to help. A non stimulative stimulus, no progress on new energy sources, nothing but spending on projects that won't create long term growth.
  4. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,856
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +321 / 4 / -2

    This just in, the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west.
  5. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    OK just wanted to make it clear, in case there are those here (and there are) who keep making threads trying to pin 40 years of inevitability onto one guy. By the way I would have said the same thing had a Republican gotten elected.
  6. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I don't believe this.

    If a President would have been elected that would have lowered or eliminated corporate taxes, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, reduce government spending, let GM fail, establish an economic policy that includes domestic drilling and nuclear power, pass tort reform, and basically give the free market the certainty that government is not going to change "the rules" on them based on a skewed socialist philosophy, this recession would have been mild. Unfortunately, Obama's policies are making it worse and increasing the length.

    Who fits that bill? No idea.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  7. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    This recession would have been mild otherwise you say? I'm no fan of bailouts but what you just described would have completely destroyed the US economy within a month. The question is whether to let it collapse immediately or slowly over time. I think no matter who was elected they would have chosen the latter.
  8. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    No it wouldn't. It would have spurred economic growth, the only thing that will eventually get us out of this mess. Growing the government is having a detrimental affect.
  9. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    How does it spur economic growth and prevent job losses, when you advocate for letting huge financial and industrial companies die? You also can't keep cutting taxes without suffering from inflation and currency issues when foreign nations are hesitant to keep funding our deficit spending.

    I agree that long term it's better to just take the damage earlier rather than later to recover faster, but that means taking a lot more damage early on. It doesn't make things better short term.

    McCain didn't have the balls to do it and I don't think Romney would have either. It would have made things even worse than it is right now, though we would have recovered faster.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  10. alvinnf

    alvinnf Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I think the timing of the election in general is being underestimated. Markets are emotional in some senses, the uncertainty of the electioncertainly did'nt help it gain traction once it started to falter. However, I believe BF's assertion that it has reacted negetively to the current administration is also true. They have certainly introduced further uncertainty, ie. cap and trade and tarp, feasability of healthcare.... A steadier hand would have helped.
  11. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I agree with what you said in your second and third paragraphs.

    We do need to reduce government spending and encourage economic growth - that just ain't happening now. And honestly, it didn't happen with Bush and wouldn't have happened with McCain.

    How did the GM bailout work for us?

    Cutting corporate taxes (we have the 2nd highest in the world), would actually result in increased government revenue. Our current corporate tax structure is suffocating our ability to compete in the global markets and destroying our manufacturing base.

    Inflation is going to happen because we are printing too many dollars. And foreign nations are already hesitant to keep funding our deficit.
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,856
    Likes Received:
    152
    Ratings:
    +321 / 4 / -2

    I don't think anyone is laying the blame on Obama. What people are doing is criticizing his policies, and comment's, regarding the economy, and any potential recovery.
  13. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    The problem is, had the republican candidate been elected, we would have had the same financial collapse AND tried to bomb our way out of it, sending several thousand more U.S. soldiers to an early grave.

    You know, the neoconic strategy of offense, not defense. :rolleyes:

    Oh, yeah.... That, and we'd spend hundreds of billions drilling dry holes everywhere we could.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,771
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    ljuneau, What exactly would you cut from the federal budget? And, if you cut taxes, would you do so and allow the federal deficit to grow?

    As far as corporate taxes go, we have no shortage of corporations here and people who want to start up new businesses. Our taxes may be high, but we have loopholes that make our taxes more competitive, and we also have the best market and one of the most skilled workforces. The countries with lower tax rates than us are not always the envy of the world by any measure.

    Obama's approach to this crisis is to get the wheels of capitalism turning again in the same way Roosevelt, Reagan, and Bush did, by deficit spending. In addition, he is trying to make the economic infrastructure more accountable, initiative a new business sector (energy), and bring health care costs into line with other countries.

    Cutting taxes and cutting spending will simply lead to a lot of misery and social problems, especially for the truly needy, the legitimately unemployed, poor children, and so on. Not only that, it won't do any good. Even Reagan understood you have to spend yourself out of a recession. As the old saying goes, it takes money to make money.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  15. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    but if you are spending it on taxes, then you have less money to make money with

    taxes are no help in any way to the business cycle........especially when you have a government that skims the tax revenue the way the US does.......
  16. alvinnf

    alvinnf Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    You do realize that your anti-war president committed 50,000 troops to Afghanistan. Those guys must be going over on their own dime to play patty cake......
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  17. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    He's not "my president" of choice, so save the strawman.

    I do realize it, and I do not agree with it, considering bin Laden's dead, and Islam has already gotten the message. I used to agree with going after the real enemy, but I no longer see the point in Afghanistan.

    But at least he's not ramping up "axis of evil" nonsense and threatening Iran like YOUR president McClown would have.
  18. alvinnf

    alvinnf Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Well unfortunately the enemy carries a suitcase and does'nt identify with a flag. But the fickle minded average joe needs to believe the enemy has a name. So on it goes, conflict is, was and always will be good for business.
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,428
    Likes Received:
    149
    Ratings:
    +306 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    You don't "get the wheels of capitalism turning" by taking capital out of the system and putting it in the government. Your quote above is the single most misguided thing I have ever read; and yet I think you believe it.
  20. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Patters, very simply:

    1 - Wealth is created by the private sector
    2 - The government does not create wealth
    3 - Corporations do not pay taxes - they pass the expense on to the consumer

    The government can spend and spend and spend and spend, they will never create wealth. Government spending has never gotten us out of a recession, depression or wet paper bag - this is the biggest liberal economic myth. Today's un-so-stimulus plan and over-spending is proving it - again.

    If our government lowered corporate taxes, US companies would be able to compete better globally - providing an incentive to stay in the US and subsequently creating more jobs and more government revenue.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>