Back to Kerry and his MTP interview today. Did anyone else notice that he is now trying the “angry” thing? Indeed, he noted that he was “angry” at the Bush adminstration (feeling a little pressure from angryman Dean?). And his claim that the reason that he is running is because he is angry at the President’s execution of the war comes across as disingenuous at best, as he was clearly running well before it was clear how the war and post-war period was going to play out.
And I love this sort of thing (Dean made a similar claim a while back):
When challenged by moderator Tim Russert on the incompatibility of funding new programs in the face of a still-spiraling deficit, Kerry was upbeat.“I’m going to cut the deficit in half in the first four years,” he said. “I’m going to do exactly what Bill Clinton did. And if you liked the economy under Bill Clinton, America, you’re going to love it under John Kerry.”
Again, I ask, what exactly did Clinton do to make the economy grow? Answer: be President during a boom. If it was that easy to make the economy grow, won’t all presidents make sure that the economy grew?
Wow:
Kerry launches his bid for the White House amid numbers from one new poll that gives him the support of 5 percent of registered Democrats. Most voters haven’t started paying attention to the Democratic presidential race, according to the CBS News poll released over the Labor Day weekend — the campaign’s traditional starting point.
Although, granted it is still early. Although I must admit, these numbers are amazing to me:
Two-thirds of voters — including two-thirds of Democrats — were unable to name any of the Democratic candidates for president, said the poll, released Sunday.
Further, they are a great reminder of how most of the country pays radically less attention to politics than do we political junkies.
Source: Kerry takes aim at Bush, challengers
September 2nd, 2024 at 12:35 pm
Once again, Steven trots out the myth our last democratically-elected President did nothing–the economy just happened. It serves two purposes: one, it bashes Clinton; and two, it absolves Dubya for this lousy economy.
Using Steven’s logic, we should just dissolve the Federal Reserve and do away with most of the Departments of Commerce and Treasury. Let’s trim the federal payroll of all those taxpayer-supported economists. Let’s relegate the study of economics to where it really belongs–with the practitioners of astrology, palmistry, and tea leaf reading. After all, the economy is magic–it’s alchemy–it just happens. And nothing anyone does or doesn’t do has no bearing on this ephemeral beast called “the economy.”
Steven’s evidence for all this boils down to yet another bumpersticker-sized analysis: if good economies could be created, wouldn’t every President create them?
Weep for Troy State students.
September 2nd, 2024 at 1:55 pm
Very good, Steven. You’re backing away, albeit slowly, from your claim that nothing can be done to influence or control the economy. Let’s see if we can get you all the way home.
To be sure, policies can only get you so far. For example, a doctor can provide a patient with a plan or regimen for good health. Does that automatically mean that patient will live to be 90 or 95? It depends. First, is the MD’s advice sound? Will the patient follow the regimen? Will there be external events that cannot be forecast?
That’s a simple model for the economy. Good policies–implemented and observed–should lead to a good economy barring any circumstances not planned for. OTOH, bad policies will surely lead to economic problems.
“I would challenge you to tell me precisely what the Commerce Department did (or indeed does today) that is of great consequence to this economy.”
Hmmm. I wonder why Dubya is running around telling supporters that he’s created an Asst. Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing because his regime is so concerned about manufacturing sector jobs?
September 2nd, 2024 at 3:15 pm
I never said that presidents have zero effect on the economy, just that their influence is far, far less than they (or the general population, for that matter) like to think. I know, for example, that they cannot create jobs by fiat, nor can they make GDP grow by wishing it such. These would seem to Kerry’s and your positions, respectively, however.
And I would agree that the Bush’s move on creating a special “job czar” is a minor move at best, and really nothing more than symbolism. Despite your attempts to paint me as such, I do not see everything through a crude partisan lense. I leave that to others. I would also note that by your logic, you shoudl aplaud Bush’s move.
Your Doctor analogy is flawed by the way, as is much of your economic analysis. Again I refer you to the “ex post ergo proptor hoc” logical fallacy. I take it you still haven’t looked that one up.
And just saying “good policies” are good and “bad policies” lead to economic problems hardly qualifies as much of an argument. Neither in this discussion nor in prior discussions on this issue, have you ever so much as articulated ONE actual economic policy, btw.
Further, this thread is a great illustration of how you never actually respond to what I write. I criticized Kerry’s proposal. Where have you defended it, or actually done anything more than engage in sophomoric jabs?
Just curious.
So far you would be doing well to be getting a C- in the course–and that’s assuming some charity on my part. Responses are required to actually respond to the question asked, and evidence must be provided to back up assertions.
August 10th, 2024 at 3:01 pm