Dangerous Democrats vs. the Free Market

[Pale Rider]

Dangerous Democrats vs. the Free Market



By Herman Cain
Monday, January 15, 2007


The American public is about to once again witness the liberals’ total disdain for, and ignorance of, the dynamics of capitalism and our free market economic system. Liberals in the House have already passed legislation to increase the federal minimum wage three times over the next two years. They have clearly voiced their economy-killing positions on issues ranging from tax rate increases to dictating what companies should pay their employees.

Since Franklin Roosevelt’s socialist New Deal policies, to Lyndon Johnson’s budget-busting Great Society, through Carter’s stagflation and Clinton’s largest tax increase in history, liberal Democrats never fail to cook up schemes that deny individuals their economic freedom and shackle our economy. That’s what they do.

The liberals’ so-called new direction is in fact the same direction they always go when entrusted with the reins of power – backwards. The first sight in their targets is, as always, successful businesses and the specter of a nonexistent national income disparity.

The new Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), wants the federal government to work on reducing income inequality. He will no doubt conduct numerous hearings and eventually initiate legislation that starts us down a slippery slope toward capping executive salaries and compensation. Liberals want us out of their bedrooms, but cannot wait to get into corporate boardrooms.

The only obstacles facing liberals are the facts. CNSNews.com reported on January 5 that Frank plans to focus his hearings on: “Why the top income earners are making so much more than lower earners and what the government can do about it.” Yet a Census Bureau study commissioned by the Congress’s own Joint Economic Committee found that from 2001 to 2005 there was “virtually no statistical change in income inequality.”

Rep. Frank appeared January 4 on “Your World with Neil Cavuto” to make his case for increased government oversight of corporate compensation. He argued, “I think we should let the owners of the companies decide what the CEO pay should be, and that’s the shareholders.” Earth to Congressman Frank, they already do! Corporate directors are elected by the shareholders and represent the shareholders. And in every corporate structure I am aware of there are corporate governance rules for nominating directors and changing directors if the shareholders are not happy with their decisions.

Congressman Frank added, “What we need to do is step in and amend the law because in some states where corporate law is set, shareholders who want to have a vote can’t get one. What I propose is that we should pass a law giving the shareholders a right to vote on these issues.” Most corporations are not structured that way, and if you can find some that are then shareholders can take their money somewhere else. Again, the facts and common sense are not on his side.

New statistics from the December 2006 jobs report provide additional facts that will surely annoy liberals. U.S. employers added 167,000 jobs last month, and the jobs figures for October and November 2006 were revised upward by 29,000 jobs. Additionally, the unemployment rate stood at 4.5 percent. Richard Moody, an analyst for real estate firm Mission Residential, stated in a January 5 Wall Street Journal story: “Perhaps the most noteworthy number in the December employment report is the 0.5% increase in average hourly earnings…December's increase in average hourly earnings reflects an over-the-year increase of 4.2 percent and, with the recent moderation in energy prices, workers’ wages are now running above inflation.” Now where is that economy that only benefits the rich?

Liberal whining over phantom inequality and a discriminatory economy will only increase when President Bush sends Congress his budget on February 5. Anything short of a 100 percent tax rate proposal on individuals and businesses will elicit liberal cries of budget cuts for children, veterans, the elderly, birds, bees and funding to teach children the birds and bees in government schools.

The Democratic leaders are expectedly claiming their victory is a mandate for any government-enforced tax, regulatory and spending idea they can concoct. Their true goal is to claim just enough populist and class warfare-driven victories to help ensure that they maintain control of Congress, and enhance the chances of electing a Democratic president in 2008.

Liberals are not only ignoring the facts, they are ignoring the threatened future of this country, and individual initiative and responsibility in order to achieve their not-so-new objective of an even bigger, inefficient and intrusive federal government.

Wake up America! The United States of America. Danger lies ahead!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HermanCain/2007/01/15/dangerous_democrats_vs_the_free_market

[Psychoblues]

I rescued this before it dropped off to the other page, PR.





Dangerous Democrats vs. the Free Market



By Herman Cain
Monday, January 15, 2007


The American public is about to once again witness the liberals’ total disdain for, and ignorance of, the dynamics of capitalism and our free market economic system. Liberals in the House have already passed legislation to increase the federal minimum wage three times over the next two years. They have clearly voiced their economy-killing positions on issues ranging from tax rate increases to dictating what companies should pay their employees.

Since Franklin Roosevelt’s socialist New Deal policies, to Lyndon Johnson’s budget-busting Great Society, through Carter’s stagflation and Clinton’s largest tax increase in history, liberal Democrats never fail to cook up schemes that deny individuals their economic freedom and shackle our economy. That’s what they do.

The liberals’ so-called new direction is in fact the same direction they always go when entrusted with the reins of power – backwards. The first sight in their targets is, as always, successful businesses and the specter of a nonexistent national income disparity.

The new Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), wants the federal government to work on reducing income inequality. He will no doubt conduct numerous hearings and eventually initiate legislation that starts us down a slippery slope toward capping executive salaries and compensation. Liberals want us out of their bedrooms, but cannot wait to get into corporate boardrooms.

The only obstacles facing liberals are the facts. CNSNews.com reported on January 5 that Frank plans to focus his hearings on: “Why the top income earners are making so much more than lower earners and what the government can do about it.” Yet a Census Bureau study commissioned by the Congress’s own Joint Economic Committee found that from 2001 to 2005 there was “virtually no statistical change in income inequality.”

Rep. Frank appeared January 4 on “Your World with Neil Cavuto” to make his case for increased government oversight of corporate compensation. He argued, “I think we should let the owners of the companies decide what the CEO pay should be, and that’s the shareholders.” Earth to Congressman Frank, they already do! Corporate directors are elected by the shareholders and represent the shareholders. And in every corporate structure I am aware of there are corporate governance rules for nominating directors and changing directors if the shareholders are not happy with their decisions.

Congressman Frank added, “What we need to do is step in and amend the law because in some states where corporate law is set, shareholders who want to have a vote can’t get one. What I propose is that we should pass a law giving the shareholders a right to vote on these issues.” Most corporations are not structured that way, and if you can find some that are then shareholders can take their money somewhere else. Again, the facts and common sense are not on his side.

New statistics from the December 2006 jobs report provide additional facts that will surely annoy liberals. U.S. employers added 167,000 jobs last month, and the jobs figures for October and November 2006 were revised upward by 29,000 jobs. Additionally, the unemployment rate stood at 4.5 percent. Richard Moody, an analyst for real estate firm Mission Residential, stated in a January 5 Wall Street Journal story: “Perhaps the most noteworthy number in the December employment report is the 0.5% increase in average hourly earnings…December's increase in average hourly earnings reflects an over-the-year increase of 4.2 percent and, with the recent moderation in energy prices, workers’ wages are now running above inflation.” Now where is that economy that only benefits the rich?

Liberal whining over phantom inequality and a discriminatory economy will only increase when President Bush sends Congress his budget on February 5. Anything short of a 100 percent tax rate proposal on individuals and businesses will elicit liberal cries of budget cuts for children, veterans, the elderly, birds, bees and funding to teach children the birds and bees in government schools.

The Democratic leaders are expectedly claiming their victory is a mandate for any government-enforced tax, regulatory and spending idea they can concoct. Their true goal is to claim just enough populist and class warfare-driven victories to help ensure that they maintain control of Congress, and enhance the chances of electing a Democratic president in 2008.

Liberals are not only ignoring the facts, they are ignoring the threatened future of this country, and individual initiative and responsibility in order to achieve their not-so-new objective of an even bigger, inefficient and intrusive federal government.

Wake up America! The United States of America. Danger lies ahead!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/HermanCain/2007/01/15/dangerous_democrats_vs_the_free_market

This partisan shit ain't nothing but partisan shit and that is why it sank on the front page to otherwise oblivian until I rescued it..

Dig it or dig out, PR. Your neg reps are noted and counted. Are you simply ignorant or are you really that stupid?

[stephanie]

bump...:cheers2:

[avatar4321]

I rescued this before it dropped off to the other page, PR.





This partisan shit ain't nothing but partisan shit and that is why it sank on the front page to otherwise oblivian until I rescued it..

Dig it or dig out, PR. Your neg reps are noted and counted. Are you simply ignorant or are you really that stupid?

If its nothing but crap then you can refute it cant you?

Ever think no one responded cause no one had any problems with it?

[Psychoblues]

I didn't take it that way, a'4321.



If its nothing but crap then you can refute it cant you?

Ever think no one responded cause no one had any problems with it?

I think the DP populace ignored it because it was bullshit and they knew it. You got support or refutation? That was my objective.

[avatar4321]

I didn't take it that way, a'4321.




I think the DP populace ignored it because it was bullshit and they knew it. You got support or refutation? That was my objective.

What the heck have you refuted in it?

[Pale Rider]

This partisan shit ain't nothing but partisan shit and that is why it sank on the front page to otherwise oblivian until I rescued it..


Are you simply ignorant or are you really that stupid?


What the heck have you refuted in it?

This is how most of the board liberals "refute" something avatar. With vile, caustic, frothing at the mouth, gutter talk. No substance, just trash talk.

[diuretic]

The writer is living in a fantasyland. There is no free market. All economies are managed.

[Hobbit]

The writer is living in a fantasyland. There is no free market. All economies are managed.

It's a free market, though, in that businesses keep their profits, consumers have the right to choose what they purchase and what they do not, producers have the right to choose what they will produce, and everybody has the right to own property. That's a free market. A few regulations can actually make it more free, as a total lack of rules isn't freedom, it's anarchy.

[loosecannon]

The writer is living in a fantasyland. There is no free market. All economies are managed.

BINGO, we have a winner.

[loosecannon]

It's a free market, though, in that businesses keep their profits, consumers have the right to choose what they purchase and what they do not, producers have the right to choose what they will produce, and everybody has the right to own property. That's a free market. A few regulations can actually make it more free, as a total lack of rules isn't freedom, it's anarchy.

Yeah right.

Our markets are about as free as the wolds richest could ever allow them to be.

Lobbyists, sleeping your way to the top, subsidies, tax subsidies, government contracts, Patents, copyrights, nepotism, cronyism, idealism, racism, sexism, monopolies, nationalism, national laws all conspire to remove any fragment at all of freedom from the marketplace.

If anything was missed that retains a shard of freedom in the free market please contact your local corporate monopolist and a way will be engineered to remove that last scrap of freedom from the market as well.

[Pale Rider]

Yeah right.

Our markets are about as free as the wolds richest could ever allow them to be.

Lobbyists, sleeping your way to the top, subsidies, tax subsidies, government contracts, Patents, copyrights, nepotism, cronyism, idealism, racism, sexism, monopolies, nationalism, national laws all conspire to remove any fragment at all of freedom from the marketplace.

If anything was missed that retains a shard of freedom in the free market please contact your local corporate monopolist and a way will be engineered to remove that last scrap of freedom from the market as well.

I think the point you make that our economy is being manipulated further proves it's a free economy.

[diuretic]

I think the point you make that our economy is being manipulated further proves it's a free economy.

Free economy? The only reason any regulations exist is that if capitalism - or corporatism more like - was totally untrammelled thing would be even worse. It would be dog eat dog all the way. At least now it's only dog snarling and attacking dog.

[Joe Steel]

Free economy? The only reason any regulations exist is that if capitalism - or corporatism more like - was totally untrammelled thing would be even worse. It would be dog eat dog all the way. At least now it's only dog snarling and attacking dog.

Exactly.

American-style capitalism is an outrage. Our laws permit exploitation of workers and protect the capitalists who exploit them. Bad as they are, however, they could be worse. They slight protection they offer is better than nothing.

[diuretic]

Exactly.

American-style capitalism is an outrage. Our laws permit exploitation of workers and protect the capitalists who exploit them. Bad as they are, however, they could be worse. They slight protection they offer is better than nothing.

And any protection was established by unions, not handed down by the noble capitalists. Hell the bastards fought unions with their thugs. But they smartened up. They know if they toss a few crumbs it'll protect them. They also know if they control the media, all arms of government, the education system and other forms of social control that people will believe the bullshit that's fed to them about the wonders of the free market and how everyone can get rich if only they tried hard enough :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

I think the point you make that our economy is being manipulated further proves it's a free economy.

About as free as an elephant in a zoo.

The economy would be a wild and free thing that self regulated by design via the invisible hand IF, and it's a looming IF, it weren't manipulated in dozens of ways to prevent that ever happening.

[loosecannon]

And any protection was established by unions, not handed down by the noble capitalists.

Actually it was more than unions that brought the 40 hr week, overtime pay, the end of child labor and sweat shops, company towns etc....

It was a movement called the populist movement and 60 years of workers striking, boycotts, riots, revolutions, and the threat of even more revolutions that finally scared the gummit and the robber barons into granting benefits and rights to labor.

[Joe Steel]

About as free as an elephant in a zoo.

The economy would be a wild and free thing that self regulated by design via the invisible hand IF, and it's a looming IF, it weren't manipulated in dozens of ways to prevent that ever happening.

Self-regulated?

Do you mean provide safe products?

Like the Pinto?

Like Jack-in-the-Box's hamburgers?

Self-regulation is nonsense. Firms occasionally stop selling a dangerous product when it no longer delivers sufficient profit but they almost never stop stop selling it just because it's dangerous. Is that your idea of "self-regulated?"

[Hobbit]

Wow, so few people actually believe in the free economy and seem to thing 'greedy capitalists' are 'exploiting workers' and that makes the economy not free.

Firstly, greed drives the system. Workers work because they want money. Unions form because they want more money. Corporations produce to make money for their shareholders. People buy stock expecting a return. Saying that greed ruins the system is like saying rain ruins agriculture.

Second, the word 'exploit' is innappropriate when referring to the employee/employer relationship. A worker enters into an agreement with his employer. The worker and his prospective employer agree on what the worker's labor is worth. If this agreement is not reached, the worker is free to pursue employment elsewhere. In my town, Kroger is having trouble hiring quality workers, as the Publix stores pay, on average $2/hour more. Kroger is still sticking to their measly wages, but they're only getting the people Publix won't hire. This isn't exploitation, as the lower quality workers are unable to convince anybody that their labor is worth what Publix pays, and Kroger is willing to hire them at a wage they can live with.

Third, anybody who doesn't think unions hold more power than corporations is stupid. Some American car companies are finding themselves in dire straits, as deals they had to enter into to appease unions have ensured that they pay for 30+ years of every worker's retirement.

The myth that you can't get ahead in a capitalist society through innovation and hard work because the 'rich, greedy executives' will keep you down is prepetuated by people who failed in such a society, and serves as an excuse for such people to assign the blame for their failure on someone else, because they can't come to terms with the fact that it's their fault.

As for self-regulating, a recall might not be too common, but self-regulation refers to the market, not the company. When Pintos were seen exploding, people stopped buying them. When people got sick off of Jack's burgers, their sales tanked. Corporations know that people want safe products and that an unsafe product won't succeed in the open market. There are even companies such as Steri-Tech and JD Power & Associates which test for the safety of products at the expense of the company being tested. The results are then posted to let consumers know who they're buying from.

[MtnBiker]

Self-regulated?

Do you mean provide safe products?

Like the Pinto?

Like Jack-in-the-Box's hamburgers?

Self-regulation is nonsense. Firms occasionally stop selling a dangerous product when it no longer delivers sufficient profit but they almost never stop stop selling it just because it's dangerous. Is that your idea of "self-regulated?"

The auto industry and the food industry both are government regulated for safety and health standards.

[Joe Steel]

The auto industry and the food industry both are government regulated for safety and health standards.

Nominally, yes. In practice, government regulation is spotty and weak and industry does pretty much what it wants.

[MtnBiker]

Can the government provide absolute safety in respect to all consumer goods?

[Hobbit]

Nominally, yes. In practice, government regulation is spotty and weak and industry does pretty much what it wants.

Except that, as I mentioned, private firms rate both cars and food sanitation conditions, then publish the results. It's easy to find out which cars are the safest by looking at the reports by J.D. Power & Associates. Companies like Steri-Tech check sanitation conditions. Companies benefit from a safer product, because a safer product is more likely to sell.

[loosecannon]

Self-regulated?




i was speaking of a hypothetical free market that doesn't exist.

[loosecannon]

Except that, as I mentioned, private firms rate both cars and food sanitation conditions, then publish the results. It's easy to find out which cars are the safest by looking at the reports by J.D. Power & Associates. Companies like Steri-Tech check sanitation conditions. Companies benefit from a safer product, because a safer product is more likely to sell.

Sorry But Ford sat on data 3 times that showed major safety risks in their vehicles and never changed them or warned their customers until a LOT of people had been killed.

[loosecannon]

Wow, so few people actually believe in the free economy and seem to thing 'greedy capitalists' are 'exploiting workers' and that makes the economy not free.

maybe but only you have posted anything of the sort.


Firstly, greed drives the system. Workers work because they want money. Unions form because they want more money. Corporations produce to make money for their shareholders. People buy stock expecting a return. Saying that greed ruins the system is like saying rain ruins agriculture.

again nobody else mentioned anything of this sort


Second, the word 'exploit' is innappropriate when referring to the employee/employer relationship.

Laughable. Obviously there will be times when the word exploit is appropriate and times when it is not.


Third, anybody who doesn't think unions hold more power than corporations is stupid.

Even funnier than your last comment. Care to even try to back this up?


Some American car companies are finding themselves in dire straits, as deals they had to enter into to appease unions have ensured that they pay for 30+ years of every worker's retirement.

No the employees paid for their own retirements the auto firm was merely the trustee, and in this case failed to actually invest enough money to honor their contracts.


The myth that you can't get ahead in a capitalist society through innovation and hard work because the 'rich, greedy executives' will keep you down is prepetuated by people who failed in such a society, and serves as an excuse for such people to assign the blame for their failure on someone else, because they can't come to terms with the fact that it's their fault.

Spoken like an oblivious apologist.

Nobody else had spoken of such a myth cept you, but addressing it:

It is a myth that everybody can get ahead just because they work hard.

It is integral to the design of capitalism that only a few people will achieve great success. Most will be relegated to the lower classes (less of that success) by the very design of the system.

Capitalism is based upon the idea that a class of capitalists is the driving force in economics and that by definition they will be the great successes while the labor class capitalism also creates will be much less successful.

Meanwhile the profit motive rewards capitalists for suppressing the wages of the majority to create their own success. It is an intentionally unlevel playing field in which the very design of the system demands that MOST of the people who contribute to the success of the economy will receive less than what they helped create.

[loosecannon]

Can the government provide absolute safety in respect to all consumer goods?

No way.

[Pale Rider]

Well there's a lot discussion about whether or not the economy is free, but none debunking the stated fact in my original post that democraps are bad for the economy. I'll take that as a yes in agreement from the board liberals.

[diuretic]

Actually it was more than unions that brought the 40 hr week, overtime pay, the end of child labor and sweat shops, company towns etc....

It was a movement called the populist movement and 60 years of workers striking, boycotts, riots, revolutions, and the threat of even more revolutions that finally scared the gummit and the robber barons into granting benefits and rights to labor.

That depends on location. In my country it was the union movement that did it. The first 8 hour working day in the world was established in the state of Victoria, Australia. The other working conditions we now recognise here as standard were obtained by the union movement. Nothing was granted, everything was gained by struggle.

[diuretic]

Sorry But Ford sat on data 3 times that showed major safety risks in their vehicles and never changed them or warned their customers until a LOT of people had been killed.

Worse, they did a risk calculation and decided they could afford to fight the law suits over deaths. Callous bastards.

[Hobbit]

Worse, they did a risk calculation and decided they could afford to fight the law suits over deaths. Callous bastards.

And you're being part of the solution to that, right now. You are helping expose Ford for what they are (I usually buy from a GM subsidiary), thus decreasing their market share. Given the hit they took over safety, they'll learn to be more careful in the future, or they will go broke.

[diuretic]

And you're being part of the solution to that, right now. You are helping expose Ford for what they are (I usually buy from a GM subsidiary), thus decreasing their market share. Given the hit they took over safety, they'll learn to be more careful in the future, or they will go broke.

I think Ralph Nader did that - I'm just remembering.

This is one of those examples that shows that unregulated markets - or in this case unregulated manufacturers - are dangerous to the consumer. It's all very well arguing that market forces will sort this out but how many people have to be burned alive in rear-end collisions before market forces kick in? Ford made some callous calculations, as I said. That's how unregulated manufacturers operate. How does it affect the bottom line? That's why regulation is needed in markets and in manufacturing and in food production and in any just about any other human endeavour.

[loosecannon]

Well there's a lot discussion about whether or not the economy is free, but none debunking the stated fact in my original post that democraps are bad for the economy. I'll take that as a yes in agreement from the board liberals.

democrats bad for the economy? Hogwash.

Republicans bad for the economy? hogwash.

The article title said dems were bad for free markets. That might be true. But Republicans are also opposed to free markets. In reality almost everybody opposes free markets.

[Guernicaa]

Since Franklin Roosevelt’s socialist New Deal policies
Republicans should all have honorary statues of FDR in their homes...
If he hadn't stepped in to save the country, America could have had numerous problems ranging from a communist revolution to America becoming a third world country.
Hoover (REPUBLICAN) was a worthless piece of conservative shit.
We saw during that time period just how much America needs progressive policies.

[Hobbit]

I think Ralph Nader did that - I'm just remembering.

This is one of those examples that shows that unregulated markets - or in this case unregulated manufacturers - are dangerous to the consumer. It's all very well arguing that market forces will sort this out but how many people have to be burned alive in rear-end collisions before market forces kick in? Ford made some callous calculations, as I said. That's how unregulated manufacturers operate. How does it affect the bottom line? That's why regulation is needed in markets and in manufacturing and in food production and in any just about any other human endeavour.

Yeah, safety standards are a must, but they're not the only element. Potential for consumer outrage and boycott is one of the largest and most effective incentives in the market. Break a federal regulation, you can sometimes just pay the fine and move on. If your customer base vanishes, you're screwed.

[Pale Rider]

...... and DEMOCRATS are BAD for the ECONOMY!

[loosecannon]

...... and REPUBLICANS are BAD for the ECONOMY!

Well sorta......this really isn't a partisan issue.....

[diuretic]

Yeah, safety standards are a must, but they're not the only element. Potential for consumer outrage and boycott is one of the largest and most effective incentives in the market. Break a federal regulation, you can sometimes just pay the fine and move on. If your customer base vanishes, you're screwed.

The corporation has a trick up its sleeve. It can simply dissolve itself. When it does there are no liabilities any longer. It just sets itself up elsewhere, later and business as usual.

[Hobbit]

The corporation has a trick up its sleeve. It can simply dissolve itself. When it does there are no liabilities any longer. It just sets itself up elsewhere, later and business as usual.

That's like saying a married couple can avoid tax evasion by getting divorced and then remarried somewhere else. Forget the fact that everyone complicit in violating regulations like that is individually responsible, not to mention the added crime of evading the law. Even after that, dissolving and then reforming a corporation is like a bit like disassembling a plane and then putting it back together again. It's immensely hard to do, involves hundreds of people to do correctly, and tends to draw a lot of attention.

[loosecannon]

That's like saying a married couple can avoid tax evasion by getting divorced and then remarried somewhere else. Forget the fact that everyone complicit in violating regulations like that is individually responsible, not to mention the added crime of evading the law. Even after that, dissolving and then reforming a corporation is like a bit like disassembling a plane and then putting it back together again. It's immensely hard to do, involves hundreds of people to do correctly, and tends to draw a lot of attention.

Actually Diuretic was absolutely correct.

When halliburton moves it's corporate headquarters to Dubai in a few months the corporate records move as well.

If the US files charges against them for price gouging in Iraq reconstruction contracts and fuel contracts they can just close their US subsidiary and hide forever behind national borders in the UAE.

In fact Dubai is being built exclusively for this kind of shelter for business from liabilities.

We have no authority over Walmart or Halliburton if they relocate.

What are we gonna do, suddenly begin to care about the World Court?

[Joe Steel]

Except that, as I mentioned, private firms rate both cars and food sanitation conditions, then publish the results. It's easy to find out which cars are the safest by looking at the reports by J.D. Power & Associates. Companies like Steri-Tech check sanitation conditions. Companies benefit from a safer product, because a safer product is more likely to sell.

So?

Self-serving ratings by self-serving capitalists are not effective regulation. They're only as good as the vendor's loyalty to the truth and willingness to provide it to the public. Both of those are subject to profitability.

The only effective regulation is the absolute authority to remove products from the market.

[Joe Steel]

Well there's a lot discussion about whether or not the economy is free, but none debunking the stated fact in my original post that democraps are bad for the economy. I'll take that as a yes in agreement from the board liberals.

You're making a big mistake.

A few years ago I looked at the average growth of the economy since WWII. Through the Clinton years, every Democratic president had a better average than every Republican president except that Reagan's first term was better than Carter's.

Contrary to popular belief, Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.

[Joe Steel]

I think Ralph Nader did that - I'm just remembering.

This is one of those examples that shows that unregulated markets - or in this case unregulated manufacturers - are dangerous to the consumer. It's all very well arguing that market forces will sort this out but how many people have to be burned alive in rear-end collisions before market forces kick in? Ford made some callous calculations, as I said. That's how unregulated manufacturers operate. How does it affect the bottom line? That's why regulation is needed in markets and in manufacturing and in food production and in any just about any other human endeavour.

Exactly.

The permanently disabled and horribly burned former Pinto-owner will find scant comfort in Ford's diminished share price.

[loosecannon]

Contrary to popular belief, Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.

This is fuzzy. You are speaking about dem presidents which is quite diff than dem congresspersons or dems generally.

Same for repubs.

And what is meant by "good for the economy"? Usually GDP, but that is really an asinine growth metric that serves little purpose.

Generally speaking people "know it when they see it" and that is a more accurate index than some silly stat that really does not effect their life or size up the economy.

[Birdzeye]

Well there's a lot discussion about whether or not the economy is free, but none debunking the stated fact in my original post that democraps are bad for the economy. I'll take that as a yes in agreement from the board liberals.

That "democraps [sic] are bad for the economy" is a matter of OPINION, not FACT.

Unless, of course, you'd care to back up your claim with some reliable evidence - for a change.

[Joe Steel]

This is fuzzy. You are speaking about dem presidents which is quite diff than dem congresspersons or dems generally.

Same for repubs.

And what is meant by "good for the economy"? Usually GDP, but that is really an asinine growth metric that serves little purpose.

Generally speaking people "know it when they see it" and that is a more accurate index than some silly stat that really does not effect their life or size up the economy.

Fine.

Real income for working Americans declined during the Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 years. Real income increased during the Clinton years. Real income is money you can take to the bank and Democratic presidents implemented public policies which produced more of it.

[loosecannon]

Fine.

Real income for working Americans declined during the Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 years. Real income increased during the Clinton years. Real income is money you can take to the bank and Democratic presidents implemented public policies which produced more of it.

OK, I agree. But I also know that the source of that income in Clinton's era was not generated by Clinton and can very arguably be called a BAD economic event.

There was a massive stock market bubble that created trillions of dollars of artificial wealth.

Same is true today. The "recovery" that the GOP likes to pretend has occured is olny mild in the best light, but in fact reflects a MUCH larger bubble than the previous one. Much MORE artificial wealth.

So choosing a metric with which to guage economic success is dubious and presidents have very little to do with the economy during their term.

Their budget deficits are realized a generation later (Reagan's about now) and the Federal reserve controls inflation, employment and stimulates growth (at least according to the monetarists cult).

Not much of a basis to rank the economy according to parties.

[Pale Rider]

Fine.

Real income for working Americans declined during the Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 years. Real income increased during the Clinton years. Real income is money you can take to the bank and Democratic presidents implemented public policies which produced more of it.

I'm sure you can prove this right?

Because democrats, as clinton did, raised taxes, which results in less money in your pocket.
Reagan and Bush 2 both cut taxes, which results in MORE money in your pocket. I think you have your arguement ass backwards.

[loosecannon]

I'm sure you can prove this right?

Because democrats, as clinton did, raise taxes, which results in less money in your pocket.
Reagan and Bush 2 both cut taxes, which results in MORE money in your pocket. I think you have your arguement ass backwards.

PR, while I agree with the idea that lowering taxes AND reducing spending does leave more money in your pocket that isn't what Bush and Reagan did.

Both Bush and Reagan and Bush 41 INCREASED spending while they lowered taxes.

They just passed the taxes along to future presidents and citizens to deal with.

I can't call that a GOOD economy either.

The economy stopped being GOOD on it's own when Nixon took us off the gold standard.

[Pale Rider]

PR, while I agree with the idea that lowering taxes AND reducing spending does leave more money in your pocket that isn't what Bush and Reagan did.

Both Bush and Reagan and Bush 41 INCREASED spending while they lowered taxes.

Yes... I know. Washington has been spending money like it grows on trees, and stands there and admits it. Like that somehow makes it right. At the rebublican presidentian debates, a few of them said that spending was WAAAAAY out of control in Washington... WE'LL THAT'S WHERE YOU WORK SONS A BITCH, AREN'T YOU THE ONE SPENDING IT???!!!!

Like I've said in other threads loose, I've lost all but a small portion of my respect for ANY politician. I think they're all a bunch of scum bags.