(no subject)

[pearwaldorf]

Economic indicators always do better under Democratic presidencies

YAY! Number dweebiness! But no matter how you crunch it, the economy always does better under a Democratic administration. It always amuses me when right-wingers tell me Clinton's economic boom was due to Reagan's policies. Really? You mean the whole eight years?

[any meaningful commentary cut short by the playing of the Shoggoth on the Roof documentary]

Comments

[sonatine.livejournal.com]

It's actually possible that Reagan's crack dream economic policies would have had a benificial effect after the fact.

How so? Given that they didn't do a hell of a lot of good when he was president, or afterward when George I was, why would they mysteriously start working after he vacated office? I realize that it takes a while to start seeing the effects of economic policy decisions, but twelve fucking years? That seems a bit farfetched.

[sonatine.livejournal.com]

All respect intended, I think your logic is flawed. Money doesn't ever trickle down when rich people get it--it concentrates. Sure, they spend some, but most of it gets tied up in investments or tax-deferred accounts like IRAs. Perhaps this will change when baby boomers retire and start cashing out their 401k's and such. I dunno. And there aren't enough rich people to spend money in truly significant ways, economy-wise. In contrast, when people of lesser means get money, they spend it. A lot of people spending a little bit of money creates much more impact than a few people spending a lot. And you can't rely on the rich to prop up the economy--there's not enough of them, and proportional to their wealth they don't actually spend a hell of a lot.