Whereas alternatively, conservatives do not propose to spend money on various things, and therefore don’t need any money? Huh? Have you even read the FACTS presented earlier in this thread, that say that Democrats are more fiscally responsible?
This goes to my premise that short, simple soundbites “TAX and SPEND!!” “LIBERAL MEDIA”, if they are repeated often enough, and loud enough, will become the truth. It really matters not what those rude and elitist so called “facts” have to say about it. Republicans are masters at creating their own reality. Ignore this at your peril.
Conservatives would like to cut taxes and cut spending.
Liberals would like to raise taxes and raise spending.
Voters like low taxes and high spending.
When politicians are elected they enact the popular parts of their agendas first.
Given these facts the equilibrium is that we have high deficits and a large debt even though neither conservatives nor liberals prefer this outcome.
Liberals raise taxes and keep spending in line with revenue, leading to lower deficits or even a small surplus.
Conservatives cut taxes, and raise spending, leading to larger deficits that add to the total debt that must be paid off by our children.
DINE AND DASH CONSERVATIVES!
DINE AND DASH CONSERVATIVES!
DINE AND DASH CONSERVATIVES!
(doing my part to create my own reality with a snappy soundbite)
Conservatives like to promise to cut taxes, then borrow money, and never cut spending.
Liberals raise the money first, then spend it.
Voters like handouts, but don’t like to pay for it.
Small sample size? It is as big as it can be going back to WWII (which I would equate with the beginning of our modern economy…not sure relevant comparisons can be made between pre/post WWII when it comes to economic policies).
I wish I could find the cite but Bartels does actually address your issue with correlation. As noted in my original NY Times link in the OP:
“Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.”
What do you mean by invest? If you mean investing in industry, I hope not - though we seem to be doing a lot more of it than we should be. But as far as investing for the future, the interstate highway system is an excellent example of a good investment, as is funding of NSF and NIH.
Presidents don’t make budgets, they can only reject them. Congress is charged with making budgets and currently both houses are run by Democrats. The only thing the President can do is reject a budget and shut down the country. The last time this was done was by President Clinton against a Republican Congress but it wasn’t because the budget was too high, it was because he wanted more added to it.
Fine. How does that change the distinct trends shown in the OP that the country prospers more under democrats than republican Presidents? There is another thread discussing how much actual power the President has in this regard so I’d say the President wields some real pull in this regard.
Based on the fact that Congress creates the budget, makes fiduciary laws and adjusts the tax rates I would say the President has little to do with it.
When you watch the presidential candidates talk about their policies you should stop and consider what power they actually have to do this. Both candidates talk about taking on “corporate greed” and other focus group soundbite bullshit. They have no such power. They can talk a good game but ultimately all they can do is submit their ideas to Congress.
And they can veto whatever budget Congress sends to them.
The President is in no way a toothless figurehead. He leads his party which is a powerful lever to pull in getting those in Congress on his “side” to do what he wants. If that party is in power in Congress that is a particularly powerful lever to pull. Also the power of the Bully Pulpit.
And again you are ignoring that the book cited in the OP details a very distinct trend in how the economy prospers under democratic versus republican presidents. Just mere chance in your view? A weird statistical hiccup that means nothing?
Sorry for the snark. I don’t want my point to be lost. Democratic presidencies consistently lead to lower budget deficits. Clinton exhibited superior spending constraint. I want to hammer that point home, because it seems at odds with conventional wisdom, the graphs in my link notwithstanding.
Good regulation is a prerequisite for efficient financial markets. Can McCain do it right? Just today he called for the firing of the head of the SEC, because of Cox dropped the freaking uptick rule. Never mind that when stocks are quoted to the penny, that it sort of loses a lot of its force. Never mind that the President can’t fire the head of the SEC anyway.
Conservatism needs to remake itself: it needs to eschew fantasy and come to terms with science and factual observation, as opposed to wishful thinking. McCain’s fan base in the press is getting increasingly upset with his shoot-from-the-hip / facts-be-damned style. But it is the business conservative who needs to do some seriously thinking about What Has Happened.
