It's the economy usually. Dems win a lock as economy goes south.

[88Comrade2000]

Most switches in power from Democratic to Republican and vice versa have been the economy.

Reagan won due to Carter's horrible economy. He won reelection due to the economy. His successor: Bush won because the economy was good. Clinton beat Bush due to the economy. Economy was good in 96; so he won reelection.

2000 is the exception to the economy rule; though it was starting to decline but it was still good enough; Gore should won easily and there wouldn't even have to been discussion about hanging chads or supreme courts.

Economy was good in 2004; so Bush won.

2008. The economy is getting worse. The whole country should be in a severe recession by election day. That alone should gaurentee the democrats a win; regardless of whether it's Hillary or Barack.

Right?

[LVRedskinsFan]

Maybe, but I'm still worried, there is just something about McCain that so many people like.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Proof positive that some Democrats are rooting for a recession.

How sad is it that there's a contingent of people out there who want to see the economy take a hit so that a Republican doesn't get elected?

Pathetic.

[Kosher Ham]

It only goes south when so many people use credit instead of cash.

[Thiebear]

I would agree, but what Hill/Obama are proposing don't fix it, it makes it worse.

[Kosher Ham]

I would agree, but what Hill/Obama are proposing don't fix it, it makes it worse.

Or more opportunists.

[#98QBKiller]

Proof positive that some Democrats are rooting for a recession.

How sad is it that there's a contingent of people out there who want to see the economy take a hit so that a Republican doesn't get elected?

Pathetic.

I think you forgot your sarcastic smiley face

[twa]

I would agree, but what Hill/Obama are proposing don't fix it, it makes it worse.

Which results in Republicans winning

And the Merry go round continues.

[Thiebear]

Which results in Republicans winning

And the Merry go round continues.

Well, IF.. notice the caps. IF McCain could be as little spending as his previous attempts were aimed at we'd probably be good. the other 97% of the crap i disagree with would make my eye twitch...

[MDRedskinsFan]

I would agree, but what Hill/Obama are proposing don't fix it, it makes it worse.

Bingo. In a recession, the best thing to do is either increase government spending or decrease taxes, or sometimes both. Normally, increasing government spending wouldn't cause as many problems, but government spending is already incredibly high with the war, and if the Democrats get their wish and completely withdraw from Iraq, it'll be counterproductive as they will be cutting jobs at the same time.

If any of these Democrats win in 2008, then they will increase government spending, which initially may look ingenius as the economy may show signs of recovering, but then an already ridiculous budget deficit will get even worse, and just as we begin to recover, they'll have to raise taxes to an all-time high just to get a balanced budget. Sometimes, we just need to bite the bullet and flat out cut programs that have little to no effect on employment. Those of you who are tired of Bush because of his spending ways, these Democratic candidates will be even worse on that front, and they'd be lying if they said otherwise.

Add in the fact we are combating rising inflation at the same time (stagflation), then we have one heckuva problem facing us. The Federal Reserve has already shown us its cards, they are fighting decreasing GDP before worrying about inflation, we need an administration who will rely on their actions and act in unison with them. We need a president who favors tax cuts, lower government spending, and one who will defer to the Federal Reserve for advice. I don't think McCain is the best candidate, but he is a better alternative than the choices from the Democrats.

[TimmySmith]

I disagree. The economy has an effect and is the major effect in only few elections.

1980 Reagan absolutely smoked Carter. Carter was just plain incompetent. There was NO aspect of his presidency that the American people liked. The Iran hostage crisis had more to do with Reagan's win than the economy.

1984 Regan smokes again. He is spending like crazy. This win has more to do with America's faith in Reagan than the economy.

1988 Bush wins on Reagan's coattails.

1992 Clinton wins. No Perot, no Clinton.

1996 Clinton wins again. Technology is making gains. This election is mostly about the economy and Americans feeling good. Republicans really have no candidates.

2000 Gore loses more than Bush wins. Not enough americans like Gore. Bush runs a great campaign.

2004 Bush wins. War.

2008 ?. Once again a war vote, the economy plays a role, but no candidate is running on an economy platform.

[chomerics]

Bingo. In a recession, the best thing to do is either increase government spending or decrease taxes, or sometimes both. Normally, increasing government spending wouldn't cause as many problems, but government spending is already incredibly high with the war, and if the Democrats get their wish and completely withdraw from Iraq, it'll be counterproductive as they will be cutting jobs at the same time.

If any of these Democrats win in 2008, then they will increase government spending, which initially may look ingenius as the economy may show signs of recovering, but then an already ridiculous budget deficit will get even worse, and just as we begin to recover, they'll have to raise taxes to an all-time high just to get a balanced budget.

Or we can just do what republicans do. . . increase spending to all time high levels, cut taxes and ignore the problem :doh:

Sometimes, we just need to bite the bullet and flat out cut programs that have little to no effect on employment.

Hmmm. . . kind of like that $500 Billion dollar gorilla in the corner called Iraq???

Those of you who are tired of Bush because of his spending ways, these Democratic candidates will be even worse on that front, and they'd be lying if they said otherwise.

Says who??? You??? Who spends more democrats or republicans? Do you want me to show you the data to prove to you how completely wrong you are???

Add in the fact we are combating rising inflation at the same time (stagflation)

rising inflation is NOT stagflation. I would suggest taking a little economics 101, then come back to this thread, because you have already thrown your credibility to rationally debate the topic down the toilet. . . although your credibility is in good hands, I know a BUNCH of hypocritical republicans leading our country who have their credibility down there with yours! :thumbsup:

then we have one heckuva problem facing us. The Federal Reserve has already shown us its cards, they are fighting decreasing GDP before worrying about inflation, we need an administration who will rely on their actions and act in unison with them. We need a president who favors tax cuts, lower government spending, and one who will defer to the Federal Reserve for advice. I don't think McCain is the best candidate, but he is a better alternative than the choices from the Democrats.

LMAO, do you actually believe this nonsense???? You first of start by saying the democrats favor government spending (false) then say we are going fighting inflation and stagflation (you don't even know they are generally speaking opposite terms) then say we have to cut spending, so we will put in there the same people who have spent us into oblivion.

Have you paid attention to politics over the past 25 years, or are you still living in 1983??? I ask you this question because apparently the mountainous data that proves you wrong on almost all fronts is completely oblivions to you.

[portisizzle]

Proof positive that some Democrats are rooting for a recession.

How sad is it that there's a contingent of people out there who want to see the economy take a hit so that a Republican doesn't get elected?

Pathetic.

Locker 'er up.

[GibbsFactor]

Wait, isn't it the job of Congress to control monetary and fiscal policy?

Wasn't it 2006 when the Dem's took control?

Hasn't the economy done a nose dive since then?

Yeah.... It's fun to blame the GOP isn't it.

[GibbsFactor]

Or we can just do what neo-cons do. . . increase spending to all time high levels, cut taxes and ignore the problem :doh:

Fixed that for ya!

Hmmm. . . kind of like that $500 Billion dollar gorilla in the corner called Iraq???

Agreed, awful waste of money. But we're there now and so is our enemy. Better there then here I say.

Says who??? You??? Who spends more democrats or republicans? Do you want me to show you the data to prove to you how completely wrong you are???

Democrats spend more, they just bring in more taxes. Of course the Republicans haven't stood by their platform in 30 years.

rising inflation is NOT stagflation. I would suggest taking a little economics 101, then come back to this thread, because you have already thrown your credibility to rationally debate the topic facing us. You have only sprouted out ludicrous baseless general beliefs which are downright laughable when looked at against the actual FACTS that surround government spending.

Rising inflation is one of the key symptoms of stagflation. Stop dealing in absolutes. Mmmk? Without inflation you cannot have stagflation.

LMAO, do you actually believe this nonsense???? You first of start by saying the democrats favor government spending (false) then say we are going fighting inflation and stagflation (you don't even know they are generally speaking opposite terms) then say we have to cut spending, so we will put in there the same people who have spent us into oblivion.

Huh? I now realize you are the one that does not know what stagflation is.

[chomerics]

Wait, isn't it the job of Congress to control monetary and fiscal policy?

Actually. . .the president is the one who controls monetary and fiscal policy, because he is the one that gives the budget. Congress votes on his budget, but it starts and ends with the president.

Yeah.... It's fun to blame the GOP isn't it.

There is no one person for the economy of the US, and it can not be controlled by a single person. What they can do is put in laws and change some rules to stimulate or cool down an economy. That is normal operation.

As for blaming the GOP, well for the past 6 years they have spent money like it was going out of style, relaxed laws for business that got us into the sub-prime loan fiasco, and cut taxes when we were growing as an economy.

So yea, I think they deserve a good piece of the blame pie going around.

[GibbsFactor]

Well, the President creates a budget and gives it to Congress to pass. The President has no role what so ever in monetary policy. What he can do is veto budgets and bills with specific appropriations in them.

But it's congress that does the appropriations, deals with the Treasury, the Fed and runs the monetary policy.

By my count, it would appear that things really started going down hill around early 2007. A good one year into the terms of the Donkey's. You guys didn't get JackAss' cousin as a mascot by accident.

[Duckus]

Proof positive that some Democrats are rooting for a recession.

How sad is it that there's a contingent of people out there who want to see the economy take a hit so that a Republican doesn't get elected?

Pathetic.

How did you come to this conclusion from the original posters claim?

[chomerics]

Fixed that for ya!

yea, Regan was a real Neo-con :doh:

What a joke. . .

Agreed, awful waste of money. But we're there now and so is our enemy. Better there then here I say.

OMFG, people like you still exist??? "Lets fight them there and not here" :doh: Lets spend over HALF A FRICKIN TRILLION DOLLARS to fight a war against the PEOPLE WHO DIDNT ATTACK US!!!!

Why don't we just invade Canada, heck it's closer!!!

Democrats spend more, they just bring in more taxes. Of course the Republicans haven't stood by their platform in 30 years.

So which is better, spending and paying for it, or spending, ignoring the issue and making our children and grandchildren pay for our gluttony???

Rising inflation is one of the key symptoms of stagflation. Stop dealing in absolutes. Mmmk? Without inflation you cannot have stagflation.

Yea, my bad, I was thinking of deflation, not stagflation.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think you forgot your sarcastic smiley face

That wasn't sarcasm at all.

There are Dems out there that'd love to see this country fall to its knees just so they can prove a point.

[Spaceman Spiff]

How did you come to this conclusion from the original posters claim?

Are you kidding me?

[GibbsFactor]

yea, Regan was a real Neo-con :doh:

What a joke. . .

OMFG, people like you still exist??? "Lets fight them there and not here" :doh: Lets spend over HALF A FRICKIN TRILLION DOLLARS to fight a war against the PEOPLE WHO DIDNT ATTACK US!!!!

Why don't we just invade Canada, heck it's closer!!!

So which is better, spending and paying for it, or spending, ignoring the issue and making our children and grandchildren pay for our gluttony???

Yea, my bad, I was thinking of deflation, not stagflation.

Chom, I won't reply to all of this and just kinda tell you where I stand with one sentence.

I campaigned for Ron Paul.

[chomerics]

Well, the President creates a budget and gives it to Congress to pass. The President has no role what so ever in monetary policy. What he can do is veto budgets and bills with specific appropriations in them.

Look at what you are saying. . .

The president writes the budget, and then signs it. What ever happened to "The buck stops here"??? is that only when you have a democrat president to blame?

The president is the single most important person in the fiscal budget of a country. He writes the bill, and he signs it, yes Congress does a lot to it, but the president ALWAYS has the right to veto it, ALWAYS. So it starts and ends with him, but he has no role in monetary policy???

But it's congress that does the appropriations, deals with the Treasury, the Fed and runs the monetary policy.

Agrees, and gives it to the president to sign. If he disagrees with their assessment he can veto it.

By my count, it would appear that things really started going down hill around early 2007. A good one year into the terms of the Donkey's. You guys didn't get JackAss' cousin as a mascot by accident.

By your count, by your imaginary and fictitious boogie man called the evil liberal. . .don't go to sleep at night or the evil liberal will get you :doh:

Explain the graph I gave you then. . .

[chomerics]

Chom, I won't reply to all of this and just kinda tell you where I stand with one sentence.

I campaigned for Ron Paul.

Then when Obama wins, and we start to curb the deficit, and cut spending, what will you say then? mea culpa???

[GibbsFactor]

Then when Obama wins, and we start to curb the deficit, and cut spending, what will you say then? mea culpa???

I'm only concerned with the spending, and all of our deficits.

Our entire system is debt based, from you to me to our Government.

We'll always be in debt because of it.