Why trust the Democrats on Economic issues?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I've heard that too and it makes sense to me.

Right. I agree with it.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, my husband was telling me that the Democratic party was in much better shape under Kennedy and LBJ. Many of the "old school" cling to that, but it has really, really changed from those days.

In away they were more Republican then some Republicans now-

It has changed most definitely.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jeanie

In away they were more Republican then some Republicans now-

It has changed most definitely.

I agree.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I read that when policy changes it takes until the next presidency to realize the results. Thus, Clinton was enjoying the changes from Reagan and Bush is realizing the results from Clinton.

Would that be correct?

in some ways. some policy hits immediately like Sarbanes-Oxley. That added regulation and the day it became law, the stock market dropped 200 points.

It immediately forced companies to change their accounting practices AND how their IT departments actually operate. Entire organizations had to be reorganized.

It cost billions in the first year and it costs billions to maintain right now. It is a multi-billion dollar drag on the economy.

but other things take time to build. Tax policy of the 1980's allowed the expansion of a lot of small businesses that grew and grew over time. As they grew they expanded the economic strength of the nation. That absolutely stretched into the 1990's and some would say beyond that.

The current crisis actually got started in the 1990s with the Community Reinvestment Act revisions that Bill Clinton wanted. Those changes really are the should of this crisis and it has take 12 years for the snowball to grow to the point that it is now causing problems.

Complicating matters now is the FEDs actions in 2001 and beyond where they began to lower interest rates to very dramatic levels making money so easy to get. When you take the requirements of the CRA that forced banks to get "creative" in the kind of loans they came up with, then provide them with nearly free money because the fed funds rate was so low, you get a perfect storm..... but the storm doesn't happen over night, it takes time to sell that many loans, then it takes time for them to become a problem then it takes more time for them to default. so now here we are. in a fine mess.


That is an over simplification but it illistrates it pretty well.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Jeanie

Or Kennedy?

I come from a family of Dem.s and I can not help to think they are stuck in the 60's or even further back to FDR and are entirely blind to the changes the dems have gone through over the last 40 or so years.

The term Yellow Dog Democrat comes from that FDR period. a lot of people became democrats because they were in the whitehouse and they were the ones passing out soup in the soup lines.

A lot of the old timers became brand loyal over that very thing.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Ferd

The term Yellow Dog Democrat comes from that FDR period. a lot of people became democrats because they were in the whitehouse and they were the ones passing out soup in the soup lines.

A lot of the old timers became brand loyal over that very thing.

These old timers take voting time very serious too!

Well I learned something new as well, I do not think I am aware of the term "Yellow Dog Democrat".

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Jeanie

These old timers take voting time very serious too!

Well I learned something new as well, I do not think I am aware of the term "Yellow Dog Democrat".

Right.

Kennedy was a fiscal conservitive. he lowerd taxes....

[Pressing-On]

Thanks, Ferd!!! Makes a lot of sense.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The polls and news show that people trust the Democrats on the economy more than the Republicans.

I've asked so many people and they say they don't know why.

Aside from the "give me welfare mentality", what are the other reasons? Anyone know?

Ferd? Is it a left over thought from LBJ?

My short answer is that people are idiots. As a group, I mean, not necessarily individual people. But the aggregate result of all the individual decisions for presidential elections shows this.

If the economy is fine, the bleating electorate keeps the status quo, either giving a second term or maintaining the party of the outgoing president. If the economy is troublesome, they blame the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania.

Never you mind that spending originates in the congress, or that it usually takes more than 4 years for the results of new economic policies to be evident. That is just too much thinking for your average voter. They don't have time to read up on this because they haven't finished this month's People magazine.

In this particular instance, President Bush created an enormous entitlement program, and never once vetoed a spending bill. However, I harbor suspicion that more people will vote against his party because of the price of gasoline, or the way he pronounces 'nuclear,' than either of those.

As a country, we have lost our ability to think clearly and to use logic to accurately perceive cause-and-effect relationships. I blame union-controlled government schools, and the apathy that accompanies abundance. People, as a group, behave much more like sheep than sentient individuals. Easily alarmed, easily stampeded and panicked, and always looking for a strong, firm hand to lead us to "safety."

People are idiots.

But not you, of course.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I read that when policy changes it takes until the next presidency to realize the results. Thus, Clinton was enjoying the changes from Reagan and Bush is realizing the results from Clinton.

Would that be correct?

I don't think that holds too much water for this situation. Furthermore, the recession under Bush 1, was that caused by Reagan policies, or was it Carter's fault?



I do think it is interesting that at the end of the Reagan years, you had the S&L situation.

At the end of Bush 1 years, we had a recession. He promised no new taxes and then raised taxes-- thus earning my economic distrust.

Throughout the Bush 2 years, we've had 2 or 3 recessions or significant economic downturns, not including this current "dire" mess.

It seems to me that if you leave the Republicans in power too long, we have financial meltdown. However, I do think we would see the same phenomenon if Democrats are left in office too long. America is unique that way.