Politics

[valpotx]

Thought I would create this after Run's post listed below:

The recruiting issue being associated with Scott Drew is just like Republicans saying all the things that are killing our economy, and costing the taxpayers, are Obama's fault, when some of the stuff that we're paying for now are result of bills that President Bush 43 signed before he left office, but because President Obama is in office, he inherits the wrath of the GOP swinging the blame to the sitting president, rather than the President some of the problem is really associated. Yes, I admit I am a liberal, but I'm not a fool to let the media tell me that all of this is President Obama's fault because it makes a good soundbite. All you have to do is read some of the bills that are being used against him and find out what the original language said, and not what some researcher's translation says. Scott is getting this thrown on him because the casual college basketball fan doesn't know who the assistant coaches are, unless they went to the school or follow the team.

I hate to disagree with you here run, but I just have to speak up.  I am sure you know this, but a lot of people don't realize that these ups and downs in the economy are cyclical, though this last down was pretty bad.  Many factors contributed to this last downturn outside of Bush practices (price of oil, real estate companies taking advantage of those who couldn't afford the variable rate mortgages they signed up for, etc).  You can no more blame Bush for this downturn than you can reward Obama for the uptick in the economy currently, just because they were the sitting presidents at the time it happened.  I am going to have to turn off the TV every time Obama claims to have saved the economy in this upcoming election.  Saving the auto industry companies and real estate organizations from bankruptcy DID NOT start this upward trend, it happens over history after a recession due to consumer confidence.

Regardless of what side someone is on, you do have to realize that most politicians switch their positions on key issues to the public, depending on who has the majority of people in office.  Since getting outside the college bubble, it is ridiculous to see how much flip-flopping and disagreement happens in our government.  Neither side wants to be the one who approved or canceled something that the public might not be fully behind, even if it is for the betterment of the country, so nothing gets accomplished.  Look at all the budget talk that comes up every few months, and it takes some miraculous 'last minute' session to even get that done each time...

[valporun]

I can agree with what you're saying here, valpotx. I was just using the political analogy as a possible "We don't know who really did it, so we're gonna blame the FACE of the problem NOW".

[agibson]

You can no more blame Bush for this downturn than you can reward Obama for the uptick in the economy currently, just because they were the sitting presidents at the time it happened.  I am going to have to turn off the TV every time Obama claims to have saved the economy in this upcoming election.  Saving the auto industry companies and real estate organizations from bankruptcy DID NOT start this upward trend, it happens over history after a recession due to consumer confidence.

I take your point that the economy tends to be cyclical, and that bull and bear markets, and indeed even recessions and depressions, don't last forever.

And, I do suspect that many people overrate the ability of government policies to affect this.

But, I wonder if you're taking it a little too far.  You almost make it sound like government policies have _no_ effect on the economy.

It's probably difficult to quantify, but I think different tax and spending policies (stimulus, bailouts, regulation, tax breaks, tax hikes) do affect the economy, and can affect the severity and duration of good and bad economic times (bull markets, bear markets, recessions, depressions, etc). 

So, no, I don't think the recession was all Bush's fault.  And, I don't think that the (incremental?) recovery is all to Obama's credit.  But, I think that government policies _are_ (at least they can be; so "sometimes are'?) correlated with the economy.

[valpotx]

I wasn't meaning to say that they don't affect the economy at all.  I was just meaning to point out that a sitting president is often the beneficiary of good times, while also being the 'goat' during the bad, often due to these cycles.  You can have a president make all the right moves and still end up with a recession, with him/her eventually being considered as a poor president because of that recession.

[covufan]

Is Rick coming to be the moderator for this thread?

[valporun]

covufan, if Rick was moderating this one, the articles would be a daily showing with about 300 pages of them by now, and heavily saturated in conservatism to the point that you couldn't argue with him without getting frustrated with being in the argument. Yes, dealt with that a lot myself in 2008. I'm still seeing bruises from those days.

[agibson]

I wasn't meaning to say that they don't affect the economy at all.  I was just meaning to point out that a sitting president is often the beneficiary of good times, while also being the 'goat' during the bad, often due to these cycles.  You can have a president make all the right moves and still end up with a recession, with him/her eventually being considered as a poor president because of that recession.

OK - I hear you.  And agree with most of it, though I hope in the long view history's able to separate "unlucky with the business cycle" from "poor president".

Historically, where we are in the business cycle does have a huge effect on the chances of the incumbent, or the incumbent's party.  Probably more than is reasonable.

[VULB#62]

 :two cents:

TX and others, there is common ground here on this string. I enjoyed the exchanges and think they have been thoughtful.  I detect donkeys and elephants participating and that's good.  I also see rounds of beers shared in fellowship. Thanks.   But..........

.... let me add a slightly different, but pretty relevant (I think, at least) perspective to the discussion -- the "then and now" worlds we, unfortunately, have to deal with today in the universe of instant....
(a) gratification,
(b) information
(c) sound bytes
(d) communication, etc.

It use to be (then) that ideas took a while to evolve, be crafted, refined and then civilly (mostly) debated with (my idealism showing through here) the greater good as the target. In this dialogue, history shows us that, despite differing political philosophies, compromise and doing what's right generally (emphasis on the generally) overrode personal agendas.  Things got done in the past in government -- at lead more things.

Today not so much.  (now) unbreachable walls have been erected. The overwhelming need to win, even on the smallest issue, and the ability to marshal instant electronic support has essentially gutted the "then" process and left us with no ability to compromise and no ability to make decisions for the common good, because it "might" cause a shift in electronic allegiance that would cause a defeat in some polls, which in turn will cause  more innuendo and disparaging remarks to be released by an anonymous source or through a blog to cover one's behind.

Our presidents are as much victims of this new ethos as they are participants.  The same may be true for a head BB coach whose assistant texts some kid one day before he was, by NCAA rule, allowed to, or a male elementary school teacher who gives a female student a hug for doing something special.

My sadness is in the fact that reasonableness has "left the building." 

[valporun]

I have to agree with you, VULB#62. I've only been voting since the 24/7 instant news cycle has been available. I always feel it is difficult to get the real idea that a candidate might have a clue because the media skews it to match the soundbites.