New American Dream is to have a JOB.

#51
#51
Gramps said:
It was mainly fron Bill Gates, He changed. the world.
Steve Jobs and s few others also helped.

Reagan and Clinton had very little to do with it.
Click to expand...

What? Go look at the explosion in availability of equity capital once the marginal and cap gains tax rates fell. I went through the roof.
 
#52
#52
BigPapaVol said:
Agreed. The loon currently in the WH is worse than his predecessor, but both screwed taxpayers. Obama's is larger and more painful, but Bush was horrendous, especially since he sold out. We knew what Obama was going to be.
Click to expand...

You can also throw the members of the Senate and House in there with Bush and Obama.
 
#53
#53
volprof said:
I understand that a president can sometimes benefit from the policies of the one before him, but, by that logic, we could pin one president's poor performance on his predecessor. For instance, according to this logic, we could possibly condemn George W. Bush for Obama's poor job recovery. And I don't see many on here condemning Bush for Obama's poor recovery.

Sometimes things just extend well beyond any one particular president or even policy. Anyhow, I don't feel like getting in a pissing match about this, so I'll move on.
Click to expand...

Eh, the truth is the president historically gets way too much blame and way too much credit for either the economic successes or failures during their administration.
 
#54
#54
Gramps said:
You can also throw the members of the Senate and House in there with Bush and Obama.
Click to expand...

Both had complicit congresses who provided no check on the constant vote buying binge. All the turds let us down enormously in lining their own pockets and self preservation.
 
#55
#55
PKT_VOL said:
Eh, the truth is the president historically gets way too much blame and way too much credit for either the economic successes or failures during their administration.
Click to expand...

A function of ridiculous campaign proclamations. Self inflicted wounds.
 
#59
#59
PKT_VOL said:
Eh, partially. In reality, the president (himself) really doesn't have much power or influence over the economy.
Click to expand...

He can at times.
If he has a congress that will go along with his policies he can have a big influence.

Reagan and Tip O'neil were on very opposite ends of the political world, very different visions, but they worked together and Reagan had a big influence. on the economy.
 
#60
#60
Gramps said:
He can at times.
If he has a congress that will go along with his policies he can have a big influence.

Reagan and Tip O'neil were on very opposite ends of the political world, very different visions, but they worked together and Reagan had a big influence. on the economy.
Click to expand...

Congress is different. Additionally, most legislation takes a while to impact the economy in full force. There is almost always a delayed effect of various lengths between passage of legislation and economic fruitily.
 
#61
#61
Gramps said:
He can at times.
If he has a congress that will go along with his policies he can have a big influence.

Reagan and Tip O'neil were on very opposite ends of the political world, very different visions, but they worked together and Reagan had a big influence. on the economy.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
#65
#65
PKT_VOL said:
Congress is different. Additionally, most legislation takes a while to impact the economy in full force. There is almost always a delayed effect of various lengths between passage of legislation and economic fruitily.
Click to expand...


You are correct on paper, however, everything does not work they it is suppose to

You too young to remember Reagan.
He was " the. great communicator"

There was very little confidence in America when Reagan was elected. Things were bad and stayed bad during most of his two terms.

He had a way that he related to the people. He could sell ice to eskiminos.

He sold his policies to the American people worked with a Dem congress got rings passed.

The way people feel about their future has a lot to do with the economy.

With home mortgages intge 15% range, people both homes. I bought one at 12.75% and felt great about it

The president can help the economy, don't. think for a minute they can't help or hurt a economy.

Reagan helped economy,Obama has hurt the economy.
It is not all about the tax rate either. All the money sitting on sideline is not sitting there due to a tax rate. It is sitting there because Obama does not know how to make people feel good about their future .

Reagan did several things that I did not agree with but He was exactly what America needed in the 1980's.

Clinton could also relate and make people feel good.

I can remember back to Kennedy.
Reagan and Clinton were the two best at this and they were the best two presidents.

This may not show on paper but it is a reality. A good president is a good salesman.
 
#66
#66
BigPapaVol said:
Throughout the 80s and early 90s.
Click to expand...

Carter was a weak president but he is the one that cut the CG taxes down the most.
He cut them from 49% to 28%.


You may be referring to some of the other taxes cut by Reagan.

If you recall, taxes were like a yo yo during his term. He had the largest tax cut in history then turned around and had the largest increase.

He changed the tax structure for sure.
He was not scared to cut or raise taxes.

I am not a big fan of all of his policies but he made America a better place.
 
#67
#67
Gramps said:
You are correct on paper, however, everything does not work they it is suppose to

You too young to remember Reagan.
He was " the. great communicator"

There was very little confidence in America when Reagan was elected. Things were bad and stayed bad during most of his two terms.

He had a way that he related to the people. He could sell ice to eskiminos.

He sold his policies to the American people worked with a Dem congress got rings passed.

The way people feel about their future has a lot to do with the economy.

With home mortgages intge 15% range, people both homes. I bought one at 12.75% and felt great about it

The president can help the economy, don't. think for a minute they can't help or hurt a economy.

Reagan helped economy,Obama has hurt the economy.
It is not all about the tax rate either. All the money sitting on sideline is not sitting there due to a tax rate. It is sitting there because Obama does not know how to make people feel good about their future .

Reagan did several things that I did not agree with but He was exactly what America needed in the 1980's.

Clinton could also relate and make people feel good.

I can remember back to Kennedy.
Reagan and Clinton were the two best at this and they were the best two presidents.

This may not show on paper but it is a reality. A good president is a good salesman.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but you are talking about a different thing. The strength or weakness of an economy is done through policy and shows on paper.

What you are talking about is perception which is key in politics. Your description of Reagan and Clinton is good. Hence, the '84 election. Perception is a powerful thing in politics. It is one reason Romney was a terrible choice for the GOP and the reason that Obama would win if the election were held today.
 
#68
#68
Won't be jobs here until manufacturing comes back here.
Most of the manufacturing jobs we lost went to China.
I don't see how a President can sit over this kind of economy and not address the trade imbalance with China and their devalued currency.
It's the white elephant in the room.
How many trips has Obama made to discuss it?
I'm not following him, but I doubt he has made many.
 
#69
#69
WA_Vol said:
Won't be jobs here until manufacturing comes back here.
Most of the manufacturing jobs we lost went to China.
I don't see how a President can sit over this kind of economy and not address the trade imbalance with China and their devalued currency.
It's the white elephant in the room.
How many trips has Obama made to discuss it?
I'm not following him, but I doubt he has made many.
Click to expand...

Those manufacturing jobs, at the levels we were once use to, are never coming back regardless of the president or how well the economy is doing. There are some jobs in manufacturing but they will be small in comparison to the old days and they will be highly technical compared to the old manufacturing jobs.
 
#70
#70
PKT_VOL said:
Those manufacturing jobs, at the levels we were once use to, are never coming back regardless of the president or how well the economy is doing. There are some jobs in manufacturing but they will be small in comparison to the old days and they will be highly technical compared to the old manufacturing jobs.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree. Fully automatic lines are the future. Mainly technicians and engineers working an automated assembly line. Not a lot of manual assembly labor as there once was. Not going to save a lot going to China for an automatic assy line.
 
#71
#71
WA_Vol said:
Not sure I agree. Fully automatic lines are the future. Mainly technicians and engineers working an automated assembly line. Not a lot of manual assembly labor as there once was. Not going to save a lot going to China for an automatic assy line.
Click to expand...

Precisely my point.
 
#72
#72
PKT_VOL said:
Precisely my point.
Click to expand...

right but my point is these have evolved to high tech jobs that could be done here. the reason the job migrated to china was cheap manual labor, not cheap engineers/techs. India has the cheap engineers not china.
 
#73
#73
WA_Vol said:
right but my point is these have evolved to high tech jobs that could be done here. the reason the job migrated to china was cheap manual labor, not cheap engineers/techs. India has the cheap engineers not china.
Click to expand...

Right. That's what I meant when I said:

PKT_VOL said:
There are some jobs in manufacturing but they will be small in comparison to the old days and they will be highly technical compared to the old manufacturing jobs.
Click to expand...

The price of transportation of finished products back to the US is offset by the limited number of people need to operate the highly mechanized assembly line.

The one downfall that you alluded to is that those positions are normally filled by engineers. In the past, a person who only had a GED or high school diploma could get a solid middle class job straight out of high school with no skill set required. Gone are those days. That demographic is getting absolutely murdered on the global market.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top