One year from now the economy is fully recovered

[elfkin477]

...or it's well on its way to a full recovery. The job growth rate is up, unemployment is down, and all the bestest most glowy predictions for recovery all come true between now and December 2011.

Who does this make look better going into the primaries:

Obama?
Congress with its new Republican majority?

Now, I'm not asking who SHOULD be able to take the most credit for a turn around, but who the majority of voters (dopers like us and all the rest too) are most likely to believe is responsible for the improvement.

I can see how it could be spun to an advantage by either, but what has happened historically when a recovery has happened before primary season?

[jsgoddess]

The president would benefit. Any president.

[Tom Scud]

The president and his party would benefit. Just like if the economy continues to stagnate, the president would be blamed and his party would suffer.

[elfkin477]

Originally Posted by Tom Scud

The president and his party would benefit. Just like if the economy continues to stagnate, the president would be blamed and his party would suffer.

This is what I thought would be more likely(it happened for Reagan, right?) but it makes it hard to understand dire predictions for the republicans in congress if they don't deliver on the promise of improving the economy... especially if an improvement would simply make Obama look good.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

The president would benefit. Any president.

This President in particular though.

I can see the cover of Time magazine now...He Has Risen! Correction.... make that covers........ probably about 17 or so.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

This is what I thought would be more likely(it happened for Reagan, right?) but it makes it hard to understand dire predictions for the republicans in congress if they don't deliver on the promise of improving the economy... especially if an improvement would simply make Obama look good.

It happened for Clinton too. To be honest, nobody really deserves any credit for the hypothetical recovery. It will or won't happen on its own regardless of what the government is doing.

Two people who deserve credit for keeping the economy imploding completely are Bush (at least in his last days in office) and Obama (at least in his first), but beyond that, the voters should really just thank the invisible hand and get on with their lives.

[Hampshire]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

To be honest, nobody really deserves any credit for the hypothetical recovery. It will or won't happen on its own regardless of what the government is doing.

ding! ding!
Oh both sides will try to take credit for it all right. But like you said, neither really had much control over it it anyway.

[gonzomax]

Not going to happen. this economy is in deeper trouble than a year can fix. It is nice speculation . Oddly Obama did not ditch the economy. Bush took a robust economy and a low deficit and totally trashed it. But somehow it has become Obama's economy. He is still trying to fix it but it will take time. A lot of time.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Bush took a robust economy and a low deficit and totally trashed it.

Bush didn't trash a low deficit. He trashed a record surplus.

[Shodan]

Actually, it was 9/11 and the dot-com bubble pop that created the deficit, but let's not let facts distract us.

Congress with its new Republican majority?

Last I checked, Congress was comprised of two Houses, and the Dems are still in control of one of them.

Which partially answers your question. If the GOP is perceived as being in control, and the economy recovers (it may), it will be hard to avoid the idea that the Dems had four years of Congressional control, two years of control of Congress and the White House, and the GOP had control of one House for one year and the economy recovered.

It depends on what each party actually does or tries to do.

Regards,
Shodan

[Chronos]

Actually, it was 9/11 and the dot-com bubble pop that created the deficit, but let's not let facts distract us.

If it weren't for the wars and the tax cuts (seriously, what kind of president cuts taxes during a war?), we wouldn't have the deficit. Both of those were things for which Bush bears responsibility (and, in fact, took credit).

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Hampshire

ding! ding!
Oh both sides will try to take credit for it all right. But like you said, neither really had much control over it it anyway.

Well, there are some broad issues under their control that can have a significant indirect effect. War, for instance. If Congress declared that all banking regulations were being rolled back to where they were in 1928, I daresay that would be significant.

[DigitalC]

Republicans thrive on fear, if the economy is doing well there is going to be a lot less fear and uncertainty.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Actually, it was 9/11 and the dot-com bubble pop that created the deficit, but let's not let facts distract us.

Last I checked, Congress was comprised of two Houses, and the Dems are still in control of one of them.

Which partially answers your question. If the GOP is perceived as being in control, and the economy recovers (it may), it will be hard to avoid the idea that the Dems had four years of Congressional control, two years of control of Congress and the White House, and the GOP had control of one House for one year and the economy recovered.

It depends on what each party actually does or tries to do.

Regards,
Shodan

Last I checked the permanent filibuster of the Repubs has completely negated the Dem numbers in the Senate. But you already know that. .

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Chronos

(seriously, what kind of president cuts taxes during a war?)

A Republican president. Ask something difficult next time.

When the United States entered World War II, the top tax rate rose to 88%. It was 94% by the end of the war.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

Unfortunately, by increasing the national debt with the illusion that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than tax increases the Republicans have reduced President Obama's ability to deal with the Great Recession. This nurtures the right wing attitude that the government can't do anything right.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

I agree with Gonzomax. The economy ain't going to get better for a long while.

[Mosier]

What does "the economy" even mean? The stock market has pretty much recovered. Unemployment still sucks, but the savings rate is higher, the bond market is strong, the government's credit rating is as high as ever, and inflation literally does not even currently exist.

Other than the real estate market and the unemployment rate, I'm not seeing much room for the economy to get better.

[Leaper]

In the political sphere, the unemployment rate may be all that matters.

It's sort of like the economic equivalent of that Mel Brooks quote about comedy and tragedy. For the voter, it's a recession (even a depression!) when (s)he isn't doing so well money/job-wise, no matter what other indicators there are.

[gonzomax]

I think perp walking a few bankers and investors who gamed the market would be very helpful for Obama. It would show he does not work for them. It would show he actually will do something to prevent the problem from recurring.