OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[AdmiralZhao]

Wow.

So .. our competitors are in ruins; the democrats have more or less 40 years in power; and according to you they do an excellent job of managing the economy and world affairs.

Yet - if thats so how do our competitors, by 1980.. catch us? How does europe rebuild? How does Russia become a military power on par with us? You'd think that if the democrats did such a stellar job - there was no way anyone else could catch us.

Or is it in fact because perhaps in fact - that other nations - and not just one or two - but whole HOSTS of other nations.. exceeded us.

Yes, I too blame the Democrats for helping Europe rebuild after WWII. o_0

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by AdmiralZhao

Wow.

Yes, I too blame the Democrats for helping Europe rebuild after WWII. o_0

Lets make it simple:

1. The USA was the only world power to escape WWII with its economy intact.
2. The democrats retained power for significantly all of the 40 year period.
3. The democrats did a world class job of managing the economy.

One of those things has to be false. Because if it were true, the US would still have an equally dominant economy.

I believe the statistics show that after wwii, the gnp of the american economy exceeded all other powers involved in the war - combined. In fact, the GNP of the American economy is more than 50% of the GNP of the rest of the world combined.

It certainly wasn't true after 40 years of democratic rule.

So Jims assertion that the democrats do (did) an outstanding job of managing the economy fails on its face.

But if you need a link, here is a comparison of US growth rates to japanese growth rates post wwii:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5aE...esult#PPA45,M1

Here you see similiar statistics for france, italy and spain
ie., that they are narrowing the per person gdp all through the 1960s and 1970s... IE., that the the democrats did not do an outstanding job.. indeed - they did worse than the managers of four countries.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/181

In fact, if you examine the data further, they did worse than the managers of virtually *all* those world powers over the same period.

[JimMorrison]

I don't think that I stated anyone did an excellent (or stellar) job of anything. However, the statistics compiled by our own government show with clear numbers, that averaging out each year under a Democratic President there was a trend of better performance in every economic indicator, than there was under a Republican President.

Some of the statistics in the report (compiled by our government! I can't stress this enough) do start in the 40's, and some start in the 50's. I believe the reason to do the table of statistics as they were done in the article, was to only use data beginning in years when data in all areas was available


The Democrats have not "been in power" for the last 40 years, that is patently false. How can you even make such a claim, when the directly observable trends in areas of economy, society, and bureaucracy swing in VERY different directions when there is a Republican President in the White House (as there has been for 20 of the last 28 years, for example).

In fact, according to all indicators, as tracked by our own government, perhaps you could postulate that Democrats haven't done a "stellar" job with the economy, but it is also glaringly obvious from these figures that the Republicans did substantially, and reliably worse (f not horribly so).


I hardly see what deficit figures near 100% of the annual tax incomes for the last 3 years of WWII has to do with anything? The entire world was under rather unique economic stresses at the time, and we came through it the best that we could.

Let me give you an interesting bit of information, while we are on the subject of taxation, spending, deficit, and the relative performance of Presidents of different parties.....

This is the % increase in our national debt, over the period of a particular President's time in office (first 2 lumped because JFK wasn't around long enough, nor Ford....) -

JFK+LBJ = 28.24%
Nixon+Ford = 70.6%
Carter = 44.51% (I'll agree, this one is bad enough)
Reagan = 186.14% (makes Carter look like a financial GENIUS)
Bush Sr= 53.85% (worse in 4 years than even Carter as well)
Clinton = 40.65%
Bush Jr = 71.52%

So you see, according to our own internal bookkeeping, every Democrat has performed better in terms of the relative balance of revenue/spending than the Republican that followed them.


And yet, still, these numbers are embarassing. Neither party should consistently see debt growth on such a ridiculous scale. My argument the entire time was that what we truly need is a new paradigm altogether, and a new system whereby we can have a functioning economy, AND a functioning social infrastructure. While both are inarguably dysfunctional in American today (and have been for decades), there is a measurable difference, in all available benchmarking, that favors Democrats in nearly all statistical categories that we can look at.

So to reiterate - I do not think that any Democrat, Obama included, is the real answer we are looking for. But at the same time, it is ridiculous to claim that a Democrat will be worse than a Republican (in general terms), based on party affiliation, for any purpose other than your anger at having your income potential hampered, as one of those top 5% earners in the nation. If you're in the other 95%, and most of us are, then you are being completely deceived into your vote, and that is a statistically corroborated fact, because a Republican will do far more harm to you than a Democrat will.

<3

[Gregstrom]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Lets make it simple:

I believe the statistics show that after wwii, the gnp of the american economy exceeded all other powers involved in the war - combined. In fact, the GNP of the American economy is more than 50% of the GNP of the rest of the world combined.

It certainly wasn't true after 40 years of democratic rule.

So Jims assertion that the democrats do (did) an outstanding job of managing the economy fails on its face.

I don't believe that the two are related. I suspect that the statistics show that war-damaged economies recover faster than peace-time economies can grow. As a baseline comparison, why not use the pre-war economies?

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

But if you need a link, here is a comparison of US growth rates to japanese growth rates post wwii:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5aE...esult#PPA45,M1

Here you see similiar statistics for france, italy and spain
ie., that they are narrowing the per person gdp all through the 1960s and 1970s... IE., that the the democrats did not do an outstanding job.. indeed - they did worse than the managers of four countries.

...and of those 4 countries, 3 had strong genuinely socialist political parties between WWII and now. 2 had influential communist parties, in fact. Are you suggesting that having far-left socialist rulership is better for an economy than having a far-right and centre-right 2 party state?

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Gregstrom

I don't believe that the two are related. I suspect that the statistics show that war-damaged economies recover faster than peace-time economies can grow. As a baseline comparison, why not use the pre-war economies?

...and of those 4 countries, 3 had strong genuinely socialist political parties between WWII and now. 2 had influential communist parties, in fact. Are you suggesting that having far-left socialist rulership is better for an economy than having a far-right and centre-right 2 party state?

No, I am making two assertions:

1. Statistics can be used to prove anything.
2. The statistics Jim used to prove that Democrats are better stewards are a particular egregious example of #1.

I suppose I would also advance the argument that who we are as a country now is a product of democrats and republicans - good and bad. That who we are transcends democrat or republican - and that the trends of how our country does are longer range than the time of any one president. Who can doubt that clinton benefitted from the miraculous advent of the pc and the internet when the seeds of it were sown in the late 70's and early 80s.
Who can doubt that the first two years of Obama's presidency will be dealing with the problems of this financial mess.


I don't think any serious person can argue that Reagan wasn't a great president. I personally think FDR was a disaster during the great depression -but that he was absolutely *amazing* during ww2. Who can argue that Lincoln saved the union - and Rooseveldt Teddy was a great leader.

I think Woodrew Wilson was an amazing example of american optimism and idealism - even while he did the income tax and the treaty of versailles.

Jimmy Carter, W Bush, and Grant, Taft and Polk, will all go down as mediochre presidents. And while I may not agree with you as to the role of democratic presidents in the 50s-70's.. I believe that Martin Luther King (a democrat, yes?) played a larger and more constructive role than any of those presidents.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I am making two assertions:

1. Statistics can be used to prove anything.
2. The statistics Jim used to prove that Democrats are better stewards are a particular egregious example of #1.

I'm sorry if it was completely outrageous of me to draw a direct correlation between growth of debt, and a degrees of fiscal responsibility. Especially since you don't seem to care about the other economic indicators presented, either. But apparently my method of providing facts, offends yours right to just believe what you want to believe....?

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Who can doubt that clinton benefitted from the miraculous advent of the pc and the internet when the seeds of it were sown in the late 70's and early 80s.

Okay, at this point I should know better, but I will bite. The assertion that the rise of the internet just suddenly made more money appear, borders on the absurd. Yes, some people made a lot of money. In fact, if you look at our government's published figures, the budget surpluses had more to do with a slowdown in proportionate spending increases, rather than a disproportionate increase in revenues.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I don't think any serious person can argue that Reagan wasn't a great president.

Trickle down theory? Make the rich richer to benefit everyone?
Iran Contra? Have the CIA sell cocaine on American soil, to fund militant extremists?
The worst income/expenditure ratio of any President?

Reagan was a tool. The worst kind, really.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I'm sorry if it was completely outrageous of me to draw a direct correlation between growth of debt, and a degrees of fiscal responsibility. Especially since you don't seem to care about the other economic indicators presented, either. But apparently my method of providing facts, offends yours right to just believe what you want to believe....?

Okay, at this point I should know better, but I will bite. The assertion that the rise of the internet just suddenly made more money appear, borders on the absurd. Yes, some people made a lot of money. In fact, if you look at our government's published figures, the budget surpluses had more to do with a slowdown in proportionate spending increases, rather than a disproportionate increase in revenues.

Trickle down theory? Make the rich richer to benefit everyone?
Iran Contra? Have the CIA sell cocaine on American soil, to fund militant extremists?
The worst income/expenditure ratio of any President?

Reagan was a tool. The worst kind, really.

Wow Jim.

I dont really know how to respond to that, other than to say millions and millions of americans lined the highways of america to pay their last respect - and two polls by historians have ranked him in the top 10 of american presidents. And he is widely regarded as the icon of the american conservative movement.

A long period of prosperity at home, the most successful arms reductions we ever had with the soviets, a major role in freeing eastern europe from the USSR - dramatic reductions in unemployment, and inflation. Event he iconic are you better off now than you were 4 years ago... and so many other staples of modern political activism.. my memory tells me springs from the Reagan era.

Thousands of americans from across the political divide thought he was a great president - including those that were his political opponents such as Tip O'Neil, Walter Mondale

His allies loved him, including european leaders (thatcher for example) and his enemies respected him.

You can have the last word on Reagan....

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

And [Reagan] is widely regarded as the icon of the american conservative movement.

con·ser·va·tism (kÉ™n-sûr'vÉ™-tÄ*z'É™m) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

I hardly see how this makes him a saint. According the dictionary, this sort of outlook borders on fascism. As far as fiscal conservatism goes, I have a hard time fitting someone into that ideology, who had the voracious ability to spend, as he did. Let's make this very clear - Carter, whom you seem to want to demonize, overspent to a FAR lesser degree than Reagan. In fact, even though fiscal conservatism is all about "minimal government", in such a capacity as the intent is to make government smaller, to make the government financial drain smaller - Reagan seems to have failed utterly miserably. Fiscal conservative policies in America are as old as the nation itself. Originally the idea was to have a federal government that intruded as little as possible on the lives of Americans, that maintained a minimal military and as such, spent as little as possible at all times, thus keeping us free from the temptation to use a bloated military offensively, yet leave us able to rapidly expand the military, should the need arise. So in the terms of classical conservatism, Reagan falls flat. He may be a hero to the neo-cons, but judging by their political methods, they are a gross abomination of American ideals.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

A long period of prosperity at home, the most successful arms reductions we ever had with the soviets, a major role in freeing eastern europe from the USSR

The USSR was forced to collapse, through political intrigue most of all. Unfortunately, our method of causing this, was by convincing OPEC to increase oil production. The resulting increase in supply caused the price of oil to plummet dramatically, and due to the USSR sustaining its economy on oil exports, it ended the cold war, and caused all of the nifty things we associate with that. Unfortunately, it did also cause a lot of destabilization in the Middle East. So indirectly, mister Reagan is partially responsible for the debacle we face now.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

- dramatic reductions in unemployment, and inflation.

Absolutely and patently false. According, once again, the government report on the economy, Reagan almost broke the 10% unemployment mark, and had the highest unemployment rate recorded (probably only surpassed by the Great Depression). In fact, LBJ had about the lowest unemployment possible (~3%), which stabilized under Nixon and Carter to more moderate levels, and then skyrocketed under Reagan. Bush Sr managed to still give Clinton a 7.5% unemployment rate, which he pushed down to 4%, just in time for it to start growing again under Bush Jr (while we've started cutting off people's benefits, and thus not considering them unemployed once their benefits end - whether they are working or not).

Inflation is a more complicated issue, as while the average citizen has many reasons to hate inflation, our contrived method of finance requires a certain level of inflation in order to function smoothly. Therefore, unless you have studied this effect in full (for example, 2% inflation is called a "recession", even though the economy is technically still growing), then it is hard to argue which President actually has the healthiest levels of inflation while in office (though most would agree it seems Carter had too high inflation, and Bush Jr had too low, what falls between is not clear cut, plus Republicans seem to want to blame GW's woes on Clinton, why can't we blame Nixon for some of Carter's tribulations....?).

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Thousands of americans from across the political divide thought he was a great president - including those that were his political opponents such as Tip O'Neil, Walter Mondale

Public opinion does not alter the facts of the matter. Honestly, I care much less for what people think, than I do about what actually achieves desirable results. Unfortunately, we have been proving time and time again in this country that people will act from a basis of opinion, rather than fact, and that it often provides us with undesirable results.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

His allies loved him, including european leaders (thatcher for example) and his enemies respected him.

You can have the last word on Reagan....

Say what you will about the man as a diplomat, perhaps that was his shining value to the world (I hesitate to say nation, because we had such a profound effect on the world at that time, it's nice to think SOME of it was positive), but then again, it seems readily apparent that Clinton/Gore were even more loved and respected by the world community, but since you like to downplay that contribution, I don't think you value it highly as anything more than as a tool to try to prove your other points.