You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. The economy is probably the most important issue to me in this election (with Iraq and Afghanistan close by). With that in mind, who is better for the economy, McCain
The economy is probably the most important issue to me in this election (with Iraq and Afghanistan close by). With that in mind, who is better for the economy, McCain or Obama, and why?
Along those lines, consider the economy in general, as well as the economy for the poor, the middle-class, and the rich.
This question would only make sense if you believe the economy as a whole benefits everyone. If the "economy" grew 10%, that'd sound great. If that 10% growth came back cutting the lowest third salaries by 50%, that doesn't sound as good. Within the economy there are a lot of ZERO-SUM-GAME subsets.
Barak Obama is better for the macro-economy. He's better because his deficit spending will be better skewed to everyone within the economy than McCain's deficit spending, which will be highly skewed in favor of the ultra-rich.
If all you care about is money, how much money you are going to make, how much money you are going to be able to leave to your kids, how big of a house you will be able to buy, AND you make over 250K a year, McCain's your economy guy. If you define economy outside of your own salary, vote Obama.
If all you care about is money, how much money you are going to make, how much money you are going to be able to leave to your kids, how big of a house you will be able to buy, AND you make over 250K a year, McCain's your economy guy.
-_Sf
But is that even true? Here's some data that show that even the rich do better under democrats. I haven't really anaylized the article, so I welcome comments on its flaws. I think some of numbers may be influenced by the terrific growth we had during the Clinton administration.
Personally, I'm kind of a trickle-up economics guy. I think that boosting the poor and middle class adds a lot of consumer confidence/spending, which triggers growth.
Under Obama's tax plan the deficit will get worse. Under McCain's tax plan the deficit will be double that of Obama's plan. I'm voting for Nader or Barr.
__________________ Show me your lightning bolt SANTEE!!
The economy is probably the most important issue to me in this election (with Iraq and Afghanistan close by). With that in mind, who is better for the economy, McCain or Obama, and why?
Along those lines, consider the economy in general, as well as the economy for the poor, the middle-class, and the rich.
I will go off the chart and say Ross Perot is best for the economy. Why, just read is resume!
Personally, I'm kind of a trickle-up economics guy. I think that boosting the poor and middle class adds a lot of consumer confidence/spending, which triggers growth.
This is the best method for our current situation I think. The boost to the poor and middle class in the late 40's through the 60's propelled our nation to world dominance.
This is the best method for our current situation I think. The boost to the poor and middle class in the late 40's through the 60's propelled our nation to world dominance.
that was after a major deflationary/debt contraction period, adding more currency at that point made sense and worked. The only way we are going to do more "trickle up" through the government is to create more debt and print currency, which is dangerously devalued already.
as a consumer nation, we have been on an unbelievable spending binge and we have to slow down. I hope we don't have to go through the pain of a depression to pull back as far as we need to so we can grow strong again.
floating more currency is not the answer right now (but government + the fed are locked into short term policies that are going to really bite us in the ass long term). biting the bullet pretty much is. Unfortunately, this means pain for a lot of people who made really bad financial decisions over the last decade.
CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.
Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?
Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.
I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.
The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.
It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.
The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.
The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)
The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.
The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.
The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.
Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.
The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?
Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.
__________________ "If I could lead you into the Promised Land, I would not do it, because someone else would come along and lead you out."
Wasn't the house and senate controlled by the Republicans during the clinton years?
Pelosi and crew got in charge in December and suddenly the gas prices start flying through the roof.
Both are crap.
Yeah, but Congress doesn't have anything to do with energy prices, as they have no control, except for Obama, who does everything good that comes out of congress, but valiantly fights all the bad stuff.
Yeah, but Congress doesn't have anything to do with energy prices, as they have no control, except for Obama, who does everything good that comes out of congress, but valiantly fights all the bad stuff.
Are you guys kidding me???? I would put the Kings organization in there for budget. They are the cheapest bastards I have ever seen. Take a look at Rich Hammonds report. The Kings budget this year is 40mil and they are having trouble getting to the cap floor. Most winning teams are at the cap max. That tells you that you get what you pay for. if you pay for sh** and it looks like sh** and they are treated like sh**, well guess what, you get sh**!
Who is better for the economy, and why? 
mudfisher
