[NEWARKCATHOLICFAN]

For the record I do not vote for either party.I feel both care not about the country and do whatever they have to do feed the 1%.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-econom...17880.html

[TheRealThing]

It just so happens that I have a perspective on that. The study you cited was done by two profs at Princeton University, the nucleus of Keynesian economic thinking. The 4 presidential terms they rated as tops for economic growth were as follows;

1) Truman from 1949 onward. The end of WW2 era in which wild optimism was the rule of the day. The United States emerged the undisputed leaders of the world. The military industrial complex we keep hearing so much about, was the very mechanism that insured America would lead the world economically into the foreseeable future. There was practically no way the US could have avoided economic boom. Now, if we'd had the present EPA and the merry band of loons we have running the show today, maybe. LOL

2&3) Kennedy Johnson the 1960's. The end of the same economic boom. Optimism was still high because the economy was still growing very strongly. The US was the apple of the world's eye. Our industrial might, space exploration, technological wizardry, our clear military superiority, etc. The world followed our lead on everything.

4) The Clinton era. As I have mentioned on numerous occasions. It was Ronald Reagan's economic policies that delivered America from the dark days of the Carter administration. So well healed were we at the end of his tenure that Clinton was able to ride his coat tails because again, the US was in an explosive growth cycle.

So, Truman and Clinton were in the right place at the right time. And, not that I would in any way associate JFK with the likes of Johnson but, I would analogize the 60's as follows. American industry of that era was almost immune to profit loss. Two perfect examples of that would be Armco Steel and Ashland Oil. It was said that those two entities proved it was impossible for either to lose money, no matter how badly they may have been run. That of course was a joke, and yet it demonstrates the point. And, Prof Alan Blinder (thought his name was a bit ironic) even admitted that the presidents cited could very well have been in the right place at the right time.

And, of course, there is this last important point. There is no question that this present Democratic administration will in no wise make the best of the best list. Unless one would want to rate the most screaming, hair on fire economic nose dives, that is. :biggrin:


Again, my intention was in no way aimed at your having posted the link. I appreciated it, therefore, my criticisms were brought solely to address Princeton's attempt to refocus attention away from today's nightmare economic landscape.

[WideRight05]

With the link being from yahoo, I didn't even open it. Not worth looking at an article featuring opinions from our folk in academia, most that have never worked in the real world. Sometimes a president will take the flack from decisions made by a previous administration, or they will ride the coattails of a previous administration to success. The economy goes up and down, and the president actually has very little to do with it unless he tries to tamper with it. Take Bill Clinton, for example. With the technological boom of the 1990's, even Obama wouldn't have been able to screw that up.

One would have to be quite naive to believe that just because the economy is up at a particular time, that it's because of a president and/or political party.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Yahoo news and Princeton professors. Definitely fruit and nut land. Surely no one believes any of this fertilizer.