Political: It's the economy, stupid (redux)

[earendel]

Jobless figures climbed to 6.1% in August, meaning that the most pressing issue facing the electorate will be the economy (barring a Russian invasion of the Crimea or some other major international incident). Traditionally the Democrats do better when the major talking point is a domestic issue such as the economy.

[danielh41]

Jobless figures climbed to 6.1% in August, meaning that the most pressing issue facing the electorate will be the economy (barring a Russian invasion of the Crimea or some other major international incident). Traditionally the Democrats do better when the major talking point is a domestic issue such as the economy.

I've never been able to figure out why Democrats do well with the economy. Things were horrible in 1980 after four years of Carter. Ronald Reagan came in with the simple idea of letting people keep more of their own money, and the economy started growing again. Reagan and Reaganomics is a big reason why I consider myself a conservative.

What scares me is that an Obama presidency would be a far larger disaster than the Carter presidency ever was. And I believe that Carter was a man of integrity. He was just wrong about a great many issues. I don't see any of that integrity in Obama.

[Appa23]

If I put on my political scientist hat, I can see the Republican strategy (hope): traditional politics may not be at play during this election.

Let's say that you are a blue-collar worker, worried about your job and being able to pay your bills. Elimininating social and moral issues, the traditional thought is that you will vote for the Democrat, as that is the party that caters to unions and will therefore "look out for your best interest."

Normally, there is that thought because everyone on both tickets speak a good game but don't actually know your pain, as they are millionaires who haven't worked "an honest day in their life". They all are politicians who used to be lawyers or corporate CEOs.

The GOP are trying to show that this year is different. The Democrats have put up two multi-millionaire attorneys, both of which have spent their entire adult life in politics, and who now try to relate through talking about the rising price of arugula.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are putting forth a person who spent over 2 decades "wearing the uniform", albeit he clearly can be shown as having lost touch (i.e. the houses soundbite, where providing an accurate answer involves family corporations.) Then, you have Sarah Palin, who has a union husband and has worked with him as a commercial fisherman. They have lived the life of balancing a household budget, paying the mortgage, and setting aside money for college funds.

I finally got a chance to see the Palin biography video that got bumped when Guiliani talked too long. It is a wonderful piece of "she is you", "she is your daughter", "she is your neighbor from church/PTA/grocery store/whatever", right down to the use of non-professional, family-taken snapshots and her high school b-ball exploits (which Moonbat liberal blogs have mocked).

It is an interesting, "big win / bad loss" gamble. For months, we have heard all about the "Cult of Personality" that is Obama-nia. In my view, the Republicans really are gambling that when small-town, middle class voters (which comprise a majority of this country) go to vote, their gut reaction is that McCain and Palin (especially) will look out for their pocketbooks (economy) and lives (security).

[silverscreenselect]

I've never been able to figure out why Democrats do well with the economy. Things were horrible in 1980 after four years of Carter. Ronald Reagan came in with the simple idea of letting people keep more of their own money, and the economy started growing again.

Reagan didn't just cut taxes. He coupled that with mammoth spending increases which meant that the government was essentially printing oodles of money every month and pumping it into the economy. Of course, that's going to improve things, until it comes time to start paying back what's been borrowed. That's what people who max out their credit cards find out.

Reagan's not the only one. JFK's tax cuts didn't grow the economy. It was those cuts coupled with LBJ's massive spending on the Great Society and Vietnam that did that.

If Republicans ever truly tried to cut spending, not just campaign about cutting spending but actually make the cuts needed to balance a budget with radically lower tax rates, the economy would dry up in short order. "Wasteful" government spending isn't money that's taken out and buried or burned; it's recycled into the economy in the form of benefit payments to various individuals or government contracts.

So I take McCain's claims about cutting spending with a grain of salt. He may try to cut particular programs in favor of others but he's not going to put a stop to the money spigot. You'll notice Palin didn't reject the funds for the Bridge to Nowhere (which would have cost Alaska billions that would have gone to another state instead); she merely redirected them.

The only president in recent memory who had the stomach to actually balance the budget through sensible programs of taxation and spending was Clinton, and we did pretty well under his presidency until Bush squandered it all in a matter of months.

[gsabc]

Reagan didn't just cut taxes. He coupled that with mammoth spending increases which meant that the government was essentially printing oodles of money every month and pumping it into the economy. Of course, that's going to improve things, until it comes time to start paying back what's been borrowed. That's what people who max out their credit cards find out.

That's the basic premise and explanation in Ken Fisher's book, the financial one you see touted everywhere online. He states that federal deficits are good for the economy. I read that and his explanation, and had a "duh!" moment.

I've never understood how "borrow and spend" was better than "tax and spend", or why the Democrats never bother to point that out.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I'm sure its just that post hoc, promter hoc fallacy, but didn't the minimum wage just go up? I think that must have be GWB ideaer.