bobby jindal in 2012?

[9 Volt]

Actually, our current economic woes are to do Democrat policies that created hedge funds and fannie mae. The only way out of the mess is to let the market do its work, cut government costs, and reduce taxes. Inflicting socialist policies and raising taxes will only cause a further downturn, perhaps even a depression.

What "Democratic Policies" are you talking about?

 

[glockmail]

What "Democratic Policies" are you talking about?

Actually I said "Democrat" policies. The ones that created hedge funds and fannie mae. Both under Clinton as I recall.

 

[9 Volt]

Actually I said "Democrat" policies. The ones that created hedge funds and fannie mae. Both under Clinton as I recall.

You can't talk about Clinton's economic policies without the disclaimer that he really just entrenched what Reagan had started. In fact, his policies resembled Reagan's moreso than any other President's since.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

He's a great governor but he's still very young. A Reagan II will appear to defeat Carter II. Let's work on forcing Obama, Pelosi and Reid to stick to their far-left agenda so it can happen sooner rather than later. The conservatives in the GOP should insist on counteracting every piece of freedom-hating legislation with one that reverses old liberal policy and enhances freedom, instead of supporting country-club Republicans offering a watered down Democrat version. That way a leader will appear naturally, as Reagan did. It may be Jindal, and it may be someone else.

he's young, so what?? by 2012, he'll have 2 yrs as a house member and 4 yrs as a gov, who has dealt with big issues

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

GOP cannot win the senate unless they win all but 3 seats in the 2010 race.
and dont have ur hopes high for the house.

how will the GOP win back 8million votes?

in 2012 there will be more hispanic,generation Y, african american, asian and arab voters.

translation = check mate.

news flash, voter turnout this yr wasn't that bigger than o4

 

[elvis]

Which economy are we talking about? The one that has already been destroyed during the Bush presidency?

I must read different sources. According to what I have been reading, we are in the worst financial and economic crisis since the great depresssion.

Today, we are further bailing out AIG again to the tune of billions.

If Obama can get US on an even keel, he will have been successful.

How did Obama vote on that AIG bailout? who deregulated the banks? Clinton.

 

[glockmail]

You can't talk about Clinton's economic policies without the disclaimer that he really just entrenched what Reagan had started. In fact, his policies resembled Reagan's moreso than any other President's since.

Reagan didn't start hedge funds or fannie mae. Those were pure Clinton.

 

[glockmail]

he's young, so what?? by 2012, he'll have 2 yrs as a house member and 4 yrs as a gov, who has dealt with big issues

In my opinion that is still young. But he is very promising. Maybe he cant take it after your uncle Jebster gets his 8 years.

 

[elvis]

In my opinion that is still young. But he is very promising. Maybe he cant take it after your uncle Jebster gets his 8 years.

I still think Romney's the best bet, at least at this point. He's got a lot of money and he won't pull any punches in a campaign.

 

[Toro]

I want him to keep all his Carter II promises. The resultant destruction of the economy will make voters very unhappy, and we'll end up with Reagan II.

Gee, perhaps you are not paying attention, but the resultant destruction of the economy is happening now.

I find it quite amusing Republicans who worry about what Obama is going to do to the economy as we go through the worst economic crisis since the Depression and government does everything it possibly can to avoid a repeat of the 1930s.

 

[glockmail]

I still think Romney's the best bet, at least at this point. He's got a lot of money and he won't pull any punches in a campaign.

He's too fiscally liberal, being from Massachusetts. Other than that he'd be a great candidate. He looks like a damn movie star; beautiful wife and family.

 

[glockmail]

Gee, perhaps you are not paying attention, but the resultant destruction of the economy is happening now.

I find it quite amusing Republicans who worry about what Obama is going to do to the economy as we go through the worst economic crisis since the Depression and government does everything it possibly can to avoid a repeat of the 1930s.

Krugman, the little shit, just wrote about Obama as the new FDR. Instead of Carter II maybe well get FDR II. FDR extended the depression from what should have been 12-18 months to ten years by introducing socialism, then fascism, to America.

I'm thinking that Obama will want to bring in that sort of "change" very quickly, and the shock will wake up the voters to can his ass in 2012. That's my hope anyway.

 

[Toro]

Krugman, the little shit, just wrote about Obama as the new FDR. Instead of Carter II maybe well get FDR II. FDR extended the depression from what should have been 12-18 months to ten years by introducing socialism, then fascism, to America.

I'm thinking that Obama will want to bring in that sort of "change" very quickly, and the shock will wake up the voters to can his ass in 2012. That's my hope anyway.

FDR did not extend the Depression. That's silly.

I don't worry about Obama. Obama was the most economically sound of all the candidates, perhaps with the exception of Ron Paul. What I worry about is the Congress. I worry about the Congress erecting trade barriers and imposing punitive taxes on capital, though I worry more about the former than the latter.

 

[glockmail]

FDR did not extend the Depression. That's silly.

I don't worry about Obama. Obama was the most economically sound of all the candidates, perhaps with the exception of Ron Paul. What I worry about is the Congress. I worry about the Congress erecting trade barriers and imposing punitive taxes on capital, though I worry more about the former than the latter.

Actually FDR did. Earlier US depressions, where the Feds did nothing, ended quickly.

Curious that you would compare Paul's and Obama's economic policies and call them both "sound". Aren't they diametrically opposed?

Obama-Pelosi-Reid won't be able to help themselves with the trough all to themselves. It won't be a pretty sight for anyone.

 

[Toro]

Actually FDR did. Earlier US depressions, where the Feds did nothing, ended quickly.

Curious that you would compare Paul's and Obama's economic policies and call them both "sound". Aren't they diametrically opposed?

Obama-Pelosi-Reid won't be able to help themselves with the trough all to themselves. It won't be a pretty sight for anyone.

Its not true that US depressions ended earlier. Much of the last two decades of the 19th century was spent in depression. The average depression since 1850 lasted for 18 months. Since WWII, the average time has been 9 months.

The Great Depression was caused primarily by a policy mistake by the Federal Reserve, which raised interest rates. It was exacerbated by the federal government which wanted to raise taxes and balance the budget, by the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and by the drought. Interestingly, the recession of 1937 was caused by FDR raising taxes and balancing the budget.

Both Ron Paul and Obama articulated sound economics based on both theory and empirical evidence. Here is an article from the WSJ.

"The Chicago School of Economics" has become shorthand for a no-holds barred free-markets view of the world that borders on the libertarian. At the University of Chicago, Milton Friedman laid the intellectual foundations for the anti-inflation, tax-cutting, small-government policies of President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

So in some ways it's strange that President-elect Barack Obama has been bouncing ideas off Chicago economists and counts some of them as his closest advisers. ...

One reason for the alliance among economists at Chicago and elsewhere with Mr. Obama is that they feel he is a fellow traveler, sharing their empirical, data-driven bent. James Heckman, a University of Chicago Nobel laureate, looked over the Obama campaign's education plan at the request of Austan Goolsbee, a Chicago business-school economist who is expected to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

"They were extremely interested in facts," Mr. Heckman said. "There seemed to be, with the people I dealt with, less of an ideological bias and more of an empirical one. A lot of economists like to feel that the direction of the profession is going that way, too."

Many economists were cheered in April when, amid higher gasoline prices, Mr. Obama opposed a gas-tax holiday -- an idea supported by Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton, who was competing with Sen. Obama for the Democratic nomination. Textbook economics said in response to the tax cut, demand would simply raise gas prices to their previous level, and so the benefit of the cut would flow to energy producers rather than consumers.

"The gas-tax episode was a very good sign," said Princeton University economist Jose Scheinkman, who spent most of his career at Chicago and was chairman of its economics department from 1995 to 1998.

Obama is a politician, however, and sound economics is often a casualty in political campaigns. Obama was no exception.

Still, a number of Mr. Obama's pronouncements have made many economists wince. His sometimes strident views on trade protection during the campaign weren't only troubling to Chicago's free-trade backers. A 2005 survey of Ph.D.s randomly selected from the American Economics Association found that 87.5% of economists agreed that the U.S. should eliminate tariffs and barriers to trade.

In March, when a Canadian government memo surfaced citing Mr. Goolsbee saying that Obama campaign statements on the North American Free Trade Agreement amounted to "political positioning," Mr. Obama took some lumps, but many economists were relieved.

Obama Builds Ties to 'Chicago School' - WSJ.com

 

[glockmail]

...Much of the last two decades of the 19th century was spent in depression. ....

Since you're premise is wildly incorrect then whatever springs from it is incorrect as well.

 

[Toro]

Since you're premise is wildly incorrect then whatever springs from it is incorrect as well.

Dude, I studied economic history under one of North America's pre-eminent economic historians.

The Long Depression (1873–1896) affected much of the world and was contemporary with the Second Industrial Revolution. At the time it was regarded as the Great Depression, remaining so until the Great Depression occurred in the 1930s. It was most notable in Western Europe and North America, but this is in part because reliable data from the period is most readily available in those parts of the world. The United Kingdom is often considered to have been the hardest hit by the Long Depression, and during this period it lost much of its large industrial lead over the economies of Continental Europe. The Depression is usually believed to have ended by 1897. The global economy grew at an impressive rate from that year to the start of World War I.

Long Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[glockmail]

So?

 

[Toro]

So?

So as people who study economic history know, the last quarter of the 19th century was a period of difficult economic times.

One has to know economic history to understand the causes and effects of economic cycles.

That's probably why you conclude that FDR prolonged the Depression.

 

[glockmail]

So as people who study economic history know, the last quarter of the 19th century was a period of difficult economic times.

One has to know economic history to understand the causes and effects of economic cycles.

That's probably why you conclude that FDR prolonged the Depression.

You're the one who has stated that the 1980s and 1990s were a depression. Anything that you say about economics after that is therefore meaningless.