Funny how one can present facts in a manner that helps to make their point. Of course when you throw the great depression in there the numbers are greatly skewed.
However any 9th grade civics student could tell you that the Legislative branch not the Executive branch holds the power of the purse. What was the makeup of Congress during the last six years of Clinton's Presidency? You mean the Republicans were in control?
How about the last two years of the current President Bush's second term when the market tanked? You mean the Democrats controlled the power of the purse?
Funny thing is the last time except for Clinton's first two years where the Democrats held the Presidency and all of Congress was during the peanut farmers time in the White House. Maybe the stock market went up but that would make sense seeing as we had double digit inflation.
So based on this opinion artcicle from the bastion of "fair and balanced reporting" that Pravda, I mean the NY Times is known for we can conclude that if Barry is elected President we will have an up stock market with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and double digit unemployment. Sounds like the way to go.
If you don't think the president influences the economy, you need to go back to ninth grade and stay there until you can legitimately pass your civics exam. Fortunately, President Clinton signed the 1993 Budget Bill, which paved the way for the success of the '90's.
You have just demonstrated that your math is worse than your spelling, which may explain your support of supply side economics and the massive deficits they produce.
Why exclude Clinton? Don't you hate it when the facts get in your way!
AND, even admitting your data is valid (which I don't), excluding Clinton, does not it show more steady growth, as reflected by the S & P, under R Presidents?
Which begs the question, if "O" wins and inherits this recession, are you going to "count" the numbers 4 years from now.
The answer, no you won't.
I can't type but you are and will remain a homer. Homer
There you go again putting words into my post. I never said the President doesn't influence economic policy. Point out where I said this in my post please.
For your edification I present the relevant parts of the US Constitution. If you can find these powers anywhere in Article 2 of the US Costitution which describes the powers of the Executive Branch please let me know.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 is the Taxing and Spending Clause “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:
“ No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. ”
The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress' power of the purse.
Thanks for the cut + paste constitution. I actually refer to my World Almanac + Book of Facts - right by my computer - when I want to refer to that wonderful document.
With respect to the "power of the purse": Nothing meaningful with respect to spending + taxes will happen w/o agreement of the WH. This states the obvious. To try to deflect the past 8 years of Bushes term by suggesting it's not his brief is silly.
The past 21 months with a Democratic Congress have not changed the trajectory of the policies that Bush put in place when the GOP had a monopoly on power. There has not been any meaningful legislation as they are not on the same page.
Much the same thing happened in the '90's. The Dems passed the 1993 Budget Bill w/o one Republican vote. Then, when they took over in 1994, they enforced it. There was little else done to taxes or spending for the balance of his presidency. Yes - cap gains were reduced and some "emergency" spending was permitted (stuff you + I would probably both oppose), but the 90's followed the 1993 Budget Bill blueprint.
President Clinton gets credit for all of that. I will give the GOP Congress an award for their supporting role, however, they did not do the heavy lifting. We saw what happened as soon as a Republican hit the WH and it was ugly. Eight years later, the national debt was nearly doubled...
8 comments:
Funny how one can present facts in a manner that helps to make their point. Of course when you throw the great depression in there the numbers are greatly skewed.
However any 9th grade civics student could tell you that the Legislative branch not the Executive branch holds the power of the purse. What was the makeup of Congress during the last six years of Clinton's Presidency? You mean the Republicans were in control?
How about the last two years of the current President Bush's second term when the market tanked? You mean the Democrats controlled the power of the purse?
Funny thing is the last time except for Clinton's first two years where the Democrats held the Presidency and all of Congress was during the peanut farmers time in the White House. Maybe the stock market went up but that would make sense seeing as we had double digit inflation.
So based on this opinion artcicle from the bastion of "fair and balanced reporting" that Pravda, I mean the NY Times is known for we can conclude that if Barry is elected President we will have an up stock market with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and double digit unemployment. Sounds like the way to go.
So excluding Clinton and the dot com boom, growth under Republican presidents averaged 11%, and *5 under Democrats.
You are such a homer.
Mark:
If you don't think the president influences the economy, you need to go back to ninth grade and stay there until you can legitimately pass your civics exam. Fortunately, President Clinton signed the 1993 Budget Bill, which paved the way for the success of the '90's.
Jim:
You have just demonstrated that your math is worse than your spelling, which may explain your support of supply side economics and the massive deficits they produce.
Why exclude Clinton? Don't you hate it when the facts get in your way!
OK, OK.
damm caps key
11% R
8% D exclude Clinton
AND, even admitting your data is valid (which I don't), excluding Clinton, does not it show more steady growth, as reflected by the S & P, under R Presidents?
Which begs the question, if "O" wins and inherits this recession, are you going to "count" the numbers 4 years from now.
The answer, no you won't.
I can't type but you are and will remain a homer. Homer
I will count Barack's eight year term, as well as Michelle's eight that will follow...
Rich,
There you go again putting words into my post. I never said the President doesn't influence economic policy. Point out where I said this in my post please.
For your edification I present the relevant parts of the US Constitution. If you can find these powers anywhere in Article 2 of the US Costitution which describes the powers of the Executive Branch please let me know.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 is the Taxing and Spending Clause
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:
“ No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. ”
The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress' power of the purse.
Mark:
Thanks for the cut + paste constitution. I actually refer to my World Almanac + Book of Facts - right by my computer - when I want to refer to that wonderful document.
With respect to the "power of the purse": Nothing meaningful with respect to spending + taxes will happen w/o agreement of the WH. This states the obvious. To try to deflect the past 8 years of Bushes term by suggesting it's not his brief is silly.
The past 21 months with a Democratic Congress have not changed the trajectory of the policies that Bush put in place when the GOP had a monopoly on power. There has not been any meaningful legislation as they are not on the same page.
Much the same thing happened in the '90's. The Dems passed the 1993 Budget Bill w/o one Republican vote. Then, when they took over in 1994, they enforced it. There was little else done to taxes or spending for the balance of his presidency. Yes - cap gains were reduced and some "emergency" spending was permitted (stuff you + I would probably both oppose), but the 90's followed the 1993 Budget Bill blueprint.
President Clinton gets credit for all of that. I will give the GOP Congress an award for their supporting role, however, they did not do the heavy lifting. We saw what happened as soon as a Republican hit the WH and it was ugly. Eight years later, the national debt was nearly doubled...
Post a Comment