pickleprince wrote:
Stok and Gbaji...where are you?
Facts are light and you are roaches.
Sheesh. Lighten up and get that chip off your shoulder. You're just gong to get really frustrated in the long run...
I don't think a raw measurement of economic growth during a presidents term is the best indicator of that Presidents economic saavy (or ability to listen to advisors as mentioned above). You are looking at stats in a vaccum when you do that. Economic "growth" is by definition a relative thing. Thus, what came before, and what comes afterwards is just as important as what happened during the years a president is in office.
Also. Economic trends dont follow the same 4 year cycles that presidential terms do, so a president could take office during any part of a trend. Additionally, actions taken while the president is in office tend to take 3-5 years to have their full effect on the economy. You don't just fiddle a few bits and see an immediate change. You look at what's going on right now, then you come up with a plan to change something. Then you implement that change via budget/tax proposals. Then you wait a year for that change to take effect (generally changing of taxes and budgeting). Then you wait at least one more year to see what effect it had.
Economic growth during a 1 term presidency is far more likely to have something to do with what the previous administration was doing, and the other economic factors of the time, then any action that president took.
What's telling is when a president takes office during a recession, and how quickly he turns it around. What's also telling is where a recession starts and how long it runs.
When I see those economic trends, and assuming we were to give full credit/blame to the presidents (which is not really correct anyhow), then the trend I see is that when the economy starts to fall, we elect a Republican. That Republican makes the needed changes and the economy turns around. Once that starts and there are "good times", people elect a Democrat (cause there's plenty of money, so why not feed the hungy and cloth the poor and all the other liberal causes). That Democrat then enjoys several years of prosperity, but eventually runs it into the ground, starting another recessionary period. Then a Republican is elected and we repeat the process.
The way I see it, Repubicans know how to take an economy that isn't working and make it work, and Democrats know how to take an economy that is working and break it...
But that's just my opposition view (cause folks were complaining about the lack of disagreement).