Democrats Scorched Earth Policy is Disgusting

[adios]

In reaction to the 7.2% GDP growth number someone stated that they were more or less disappointed because a slower economy would hurt Bush's chances of reelection. I essentially pointed out that this means you're rooting to have more people out of work and more economic pain for people. I don't think the poster really had thought of it in that way so I wrote it off to an unthinking, careless remark. Nobocy can turn the US economy "on and off" like a water faucet for crying out loud.

However, that's basically the thinking that the Democratic Party has promoted IMO. Their thinking is such that an economic slowdown is good because it will hurt Bush's chances of reelection. The message is that we want people to have economic pain and suffering so we can win a crummy presidential election. The Democratic Party promotes themselves as the party of the common man more or less to boot while hoping the common man suffer more. A pox on the house of the Democratic Party for being so insensitive and uncaring. None of you folks that blindly support the Democratic Party better ever hold up the notion that the Democrats are all about the interests of the common man. It's clear to me anyway all they're interested in is getting elected, maintaining their current power base, and increasing it at virtually any cost.

[Ed I]

I think you can drop the word Democrats and add politicians.

[brad]

dems basically decloaked when they supported nafta and betrayed their supposed common man constituency.

[hetron]

Where did you read or hear anyone in the Democratic party say they were rooting for a bad economy? Maybe some of them secretly were because of election 2004, but the same can be said for anyone in any political party. You didn't think the Republicans were rooting for bad economies during the Clinton years?

Besides, one month of blistering US economy growth is no more indicative of sound economic policy than a $1200 1 hour 20-40 rush is of sound poker playing.

[David Steele]

I believe it was me you argued with and I don't even live in the United States. To make me the spokesman for the Democratic party is absurd.


D.

[adios]

Nobody said you were a spokesman for the Democratic party. You've certainly given your opinion on how you would like to see the US election go. Furthermore your statement that in effect states that you'd like to see more Americans suffer economic pain and hardship is indicitive of many of the attitudes of the Democrats within this country. BTW I don't wish that people suffer more economic pain and hardship in your country no matter who the leader of your country is.

[adios]

"Where did you read or hear anyone in the Democratic party say they were rooting for a bad economy?"

Plenty of places. Of course the leadership isn't going to come out and say it but the message is clear in their responses that they aren't very happy with the results. Dennis Kucinich of all people stated that he welcomes a relief to those that have suffered. No other comments that I found stating that we're glad to see the economy on the mend and are glad to see that more Americans should be going back to work. The leaders of the Democratic party are well aware of the fact that job growth is a lagging indicator in an economic recovery scenario. They're also well aware of the fact that historically that the US unemployment rate is actually fairly low. Yet the ranting by Dean implying that the US economic slowdown is akin to the Great Depression because of the millions of jobs. Well the economy is a lot bigger now too. The comments by the leaders of the party show me anyway that they're pinning their hopes on winning the election on a poor performing economy and they're not happy that the play is fizzling. Here's a recent NY Times article:







For Democrats, Economy's Surge Poses Challenge (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/politics/campaigns/02ECON.html?ex=1068354000&en=e5d8d06dd1bbd27c&ei=5 062&partner=GOOGLE)

A can only wonder why such an event should pose a "challenge."

For Democrats, Economy's Surge Poses Challenge
By DAVID LEONHARDT

Published: November 2, 2003

or more than two years now, the Democrats seeking the presidency have planned on running a 2004 campaign built around the weak economy and patterned after Bill Clinton's 1992 defeat of President Bush's father.

But with the economy having surged this past quarter they are suddenly confronting the possibility of a far less encouraging historical comparison: that the election year economy could be more like the one Ronald Reagan ran on in 1984, when the country was coming out of a long slump.

Advertisement

The rapid change in the outlook — underscored by figures released on Thursday showing the fastest quarterly economic growth since 1984 — is already forcing the Democratic presidential candidates to calibrate their attack on Mr. Bush's economic record in ways they did not have to just a week ago. It has also left them in danger of looking as though they were clinging to economic gloom.

Rather than simply lamenting the economy, the Democrats now say that one good quarter does not erase three sluggish years. The growth has not caused a rebound in the job market, they note, and large budget deficits loom for years.

"For there to be a genuine recovery, it's got to happen in more than economic statistics," Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and a presidential candidate, said on Thursday on the campaign trail in Buffalo. "It's got to happen in the lives of America's middle class and those working hard to get into it."

Many Democrats say they still consider the economy an issue that will benefit them next year. President George Bush lost in 1992 even though employment began growing eight months before Election Day, they point out.

"I just think the likelihood — I can't prove this in any way — is that people are going to have uncertainty, not reassurance, about where the economy is headed," said Representative Richard A. Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, another presidential contender.

But even many Democratic campaign aides concede that their task has just become more difficult. A sustained recovery could reduce projected budget deficits that are at the core of their attacks on the administration's tax cuts. A turnaround might also cause the job market to improve early enough before Election Day to influence voters.

Adding to the Democrats' challenge is a fundamental economic reality that existed well before household and business spending soared this summer. As much as the economy weakened in the last three years, it was coming off such a high that it remains stronger by most measures than in the early 1990's. That high was reached on Mr. Clinton's watch, but it could help Mr. Bush next year.

The median weekly pay of American workers has risen faster than inflation over the last three years, a statement that could not have been made when Jimmy Carter, Mr. Reagan, the first President Bush or Mr. Clinton was gearing up for a re-election campaign. The price of houses nationwide has risen 22 percent since 2000. Stocks have fallen sharply over the same span but most investors made money in the last decade.

In 1992, "there was a degree of economic pessimism that had gone on for years," said Gene Sperling, an economic aide to Mr. Clinton who has advised five of the nine Democratic candidates this year.

Now, Mr. Sperling added, "there are still a substantial number of Americans who have had good economic times for a number of years."

The percentage of people who call the economy good has plummeted to 43 percent, from 84 percent when Mr. Bush took office, according to the most recent New York Times/CBS News Poll, which was taken before the latest economic news. But in an echo of other surveys, people remain more satisfied than they were in 1992, when about 20 percent of respondents gave the same answer.

In fact, while Mr. Bush's management of the economy receives lower approval ratings than Mr. Clinton's or Mr. Reagan's in their re-election campaigns, he does much better than his father or Mr. Carter.

"The economy doesn't dominate the scene as it did in '92," said Mark J. Penn, a pollster who advised Mr. Clinton and now works with Senator Lieberman. "But Bush is clearly vulnerable."


"Maybe some of them secretly were because of election 2004, but the same can be said for anyone in any political party. You didn't think the Republicans were rooting for bad economies during the Clinton years?"

Nope I really don't. For arguements sake say the Repulicans were. Then a pox on their house too but it still doesn't make the Democrats any less reprehensible.

[adios]

I agree to a point but I think there's a line the Democrats, at least some, have crossed if you will.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"Their [the Democrats'] thinking is such that an economic slowdown is good because it will hurt Bush's chances of reelection. The message is that we want people to have economic pain and suffering so we can win a crummy presidential election."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there's a line the Democrats, at least some, have crossed if you will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's this "message" that you're talking about? Can you provide a single example of a Democratic statement expressing any desire "to have economic pain and suffering," much less one so strong that it amounts to a "policy" of "scorthed earth?"

Twenty bucks says you can't (I'm serious). More likely, your complaint is based on Democratic criticsim and their predictable failure to sing Bush's praises as if they were attending a Saddam rally. It's a projection of the totalitarian mindset that infects alleged "conservatives." They claim to love democracy and free expression, but actually hate these things (partisanship as "scortched earth"), preferring instead that everyone rally around the maximum leader, pledging allegiance and mindlessly regurgitating received wisdom.

[Cyrus]

Suppose you have an economy that produced $10,000 in the year 2001 and that 100 people contribute to it. (We will equate production with income here.) Suppose that, in 2002, the economy produced $10,200 with the same 100 participants. We could correctly say that the economy grew between 2002 and 2001 by 2%.

However, would that figure by itself be satisfactory? Suppose we look further into the data and discover that the increase is analyzed as follows: The production of 60 people remained constant, the production of 35 people fell but the production of the remaining 5 people grew so much as to more than make up for the loss of the 35. (For example, the 35 people's income fell overall by $1000 while the production of the 5 folks grew overall by $1,200.)

What you have is an economy that for 60 people did not grow at all, for 35 people it actually shrank, while 5 people got richer (and by more than 2%, for sure).

I'm saying the GDP growth figure, which for now apears to be impressive, (and which, I know only too well, is followed by markets & common folk alike more religiously than Catholics follow the Pope's every utterance) must be examined with additional significant data before we can say that the economy has any real impact for more than narrow strata of the population.

We should wait and see what happens. As dispassionately as possible, hopefully.

--Cyrus

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Cyrus:

Based on the explosion of poker book sales, I'm clearly in your top 5 (so to speak). But I want to make sure that I'm the only one who benefits from all this extra money I now have. So when the weather turns cold, and we do get a few chilly days in Las Vegas, I'm going to stuff it in my fire place and use it to keep Charmaine and myself warm.

You see, if I spend some of it, I would be helping countless other people. For instance, when I spend money to print more books I help (at our printer) the art designer we use, the pressman, the people who work the folding machine, the crew on the binding machine, the guy who drives the truck to the storage facility, our account executive, and so on.

In fact, I help many more people than that. Besides the people who work at our storage facility, there's a mill where the paper is made, there are many clerks in many stores where the books are sold, there are book buyers and accountants who work at the book store chains, and so on.

But I'm going to make sure that I'm one of your special five and burn the money. By the way, by burning the money not only do I help to conserve our national resources, I help to limit the growth of the money supply which helps to keep inflation in check.

Best wishes,
Mason

[nicky g]

What you're alleging sounds eerily similar to what people were alleging about Bush in the 2000 election campaign; that he was talking a perfectly healthy economy into a recession for political advantage.

[Gamblor]

Cyrus, you learn this in Grade 9 economics - GDP is only an indicator of collective growth, not confirmation of individual growth.

Of course, to really grow, one must be prepared to consider and even be open to accepting the opinions of others.

The IB program is a wonderful thing.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The two big lies of US Politics:

1. The Democrats care about poor people.
2. The Republicans favor small government.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
....preferring instead that everyone rally around the maximum leader, pledging allegiance and mindlessly regurgitating received wisdom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the loyal followers of say - Pope Chomsky the First, Lord of the Universe, holder of the keys to all sacred knowledge, and infallible leader that dispenses truth from on high.

-Zeno

[hetron]

"Where did you read or hear anyone in the Democratic party say they were rooting for a bad economy?"

Plenty of places. Of course the leadership isn't going to come out and say it but the message is clear in their responses that they aren't very happy with the results.

Of course not. They know elections are hard to win against an incumbent when the economy is going well. That doesn't mean they wish for people to suffer. They just know it makes taking over the White House that much harder. If you presented some ostensible evidence that Democrats were doing something to stifle economic growth, then I would think that is reprehensible as well.


"Maybe some of them secretly were because of election 2004, but the same can be said for anyone in any political party. You didn't think the Republicans were rooting for bad economies during the Clinton years?"

Nope I really don't. For arguements sake say the Repulicans were. Then a pox on their house too but it still doesn't make the Democrats any less reprehensible.

You really don't? Either you are a die hard republican or incredibly naive.

It's the same in other areas too. Say I am the 2nd string quarterback and really want to start, but I know there isn't a chance if the first string is healthy. I might want something to happen to first stringer so I can start. That doesn't mean I want him to get hit by a truck or struck by lightning.

And I still don't believe that one quarter of great growth indicates that Bush's spending or economic policy is sound.

[Cyrus]

Greetings, Mason.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I wish you would not really burn your money. Contrary to what you wrote, the action puts a strain on natural resources because then we'd have to pulp more trees to keep our M1 steady, which is tough enough as it is without you burning Franklins.

Besides, it's illegal.

As to your very valid point about the multiplier effects in an economy, I agree with you. But let me just point out that if you have $10,000 as monthly disposable income as opposed to $100,000 it makes a big difference. You will not really buy 10 times more sweaters. (Will you?)

Take care.

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

" GDP is only an indicator of collective growth, not confirmation of individual growth."

I will have you know that GDP is not an indicator of any growth whatsoever, but I will not explain why -- you could not be precise if your life depended on it.

I will also let you chew over the fact that the set of all GDP-producing individuals is actually the set that produces GDP.

I know, it's a very advanced concept, but I'm just telling you what my teacher told me.

--Cyrus