Why the economy fares much better under Democrats

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Why the economy fares much better under Democrats (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081021/cm_csm/ybartels)


Thoughts?

[kjbstevens]

Spending, spending, spending is what keeps the economy going and that's what democrats do and encourage citizens to do. More jobs are created before more people are buying so more needs to be made but that doesn't mean people are stable or saving up for disasters. It's how excess and entitlement attitudes become so normal. In the Clinton years people had money to spend everywhere and building up to the point even if they didn't have money they were still spending. The economy looked great but there is only so much people can buy. Throwing money on things looks good, but it doesn't always teach responsibility if not used wisely. If they'd use it on more long term stuff instead of buying play things we'd actually end up prospering no matter who was in charge, but that isn't the rule of the land anymore. Greed has set it hard.

[Gina.Maria]

Um... Bush told people to go out and shop after 9/11. How can you point to Democrats as the source of this? Our entire government has evolved around support for a consumer economy and the party in the highest office has never done anything to discourage this regardless of party.

[scribler]

Um... Bush told people to go out and shop after 9/11. How can you point to Democrats as the source of this? Our entire government has evolved around support for a consumer economy and the party in the highest office has never done anything to discourage this regardless of party.

You are correct. However, kjbstevens point is still valid, because the article is referring to how much better our economy is under Democrats. So, it is fair to point out why it is only appears to be better under Democrats.

The whole article lost me anyway when it started assuming that those with Retirement Accounts were affluent. All it indicates is that you worked for a company that offered this as a benefit and chose to take advantage of it. I am by no means wealthy or affluent or whatever word you choose to use. I still have a 401k, because it is offered by the company I work for.

[thumper6423]

Yeah, they lost me on retirement accounts too. We have our own set up. My DH has never used his employer's 401K beyond what the employer contributed because of already having had his own accounts since he was a young 2LT. But we're by no means affluent.

Blaming or giving credit for the economy to the the President in office has always been a sore spot with me. People seem to forget that economies also have their natural ebbs and flows. Yes, these can be influenced by outside sources, but does 1 single person really make all that difference? You'd have a hard time convincing me of that.

[Gina.Maria]

I think it refers to current retired seniors who hold retirement accounts. Most retirement-age people with retirement accounts beyond Social Security or pensions are those who have been financially secure in a way that their peers might not have been. I know older members of my husband's family never contributed to retirement accounts because they planned to use their Social Security and pensions. Recent retirees may not fit that same picture because anyone in the job market in the past 15 years has to have had some uneasiness over the ability of SS to continue.

[kjbstevens]

The retirement stuff is a little wrong in that article I agreed too. My husband and all of my family has seperate retirement accounts and none of us make over 40K. Every full time state/local employee for Virginia and Maryland have this through employer matched 401ks. They are by no means affluent.

As said in many things Bush has been very wrong on stuff like that. On 9/11 Bush was meaning to go out and live our lives like the attacks didn't scare us. He's been playing to what people are telling him makes the economy go now and trying to go bipartisan so things can get passed. Especially here lately this treasury sec and Pelosi have been in telling him how things need to spend so it'll look better. He's listening to some bad advice. I'd rather us look bad and have a future than the false market we had that looked booming.