Economic what if

Post Reply New Topic

WHat do you think would have likely happened with the economy if John McCain had won the 2008 election?

The real power lies with congress. If that is the only thing that changed, at least he would have been a veto to reign in a congress that is hostile toward business.

Had the Republicans won back congress also, I firmly believe we would be well out of this recession and unemployment would be under 6.5%.

Um, no.

Obama is bad, but McCain would have largely been a continuance of failed current policy. This depression was unstoppable, but the Democrats are going WOT as we get ready to auger into the ground.

The policies that got us where we are have been accumulating since the 70's. The Bush administration made 14 calls for loan / risk reform but the Dems always shot it down as it would have affected low income home ownership.

Punishing businesses and investors is the exact opposite of what isneeded to get out of a recession.

This statement is nothing short of delusional. For one, it was 8 years of Republican policies that led to the recession in the first place. In case you've forgotten, the financial crisis occurred during the Bush administration- and at the very end of it, so you're out of the time range where you can just blame Clinton for anything that goes wrong.

Also, McCain would have made it worse. He listened to wingnuts like Art Laffer for his economic platform, and his policies would probably have been some contorted amalgamation of populist nonsense, corporatism, and protectionism.

Oh, so you are completely clueless about economics, much like the current leadership.

The Congress only controls fiscal policy. That's kind of important to the economy, but not nearly as important as monetary policy, which is controlled by the Federal Reserve.

And if you really think that switching parties would fix everything, you truly are delusional.

I am not talking about merely switching parties. I am talking about switching philosophies. The last several administrations had us on a slow march towards a cliff. What past administrations had done wrong, this administration is doing orders of magnitudes worse.

A lot of the economy isn't moving because of uncertainty. With health care, climate change, taxes going up soon, etc. this Government is keeping things uncertain, thus keeping things from really taking off. Plus printing money and driving up the debt, that is going to really hurt.

Ah yes you are right. Margret Thatcher. It was reforms in the city of London that took the hand off the tiller, and shortly after the Americans followed suit. Thatcher and Regan, sitting in a tree K.I.S.S.I.N.G. Poor old Denis, it was bad enough having Pinochet cramping his style.

Of course if you want to pin it to a single party I wouldn't be so sure yours isn't implicated. Though the tradition is the blame lies when the opposing team were last in power.

You can blame complacency but every party is implicated in that, you have to go back to when the deregulation was first implemented. As you say, the keys to the maserati were handed over late 70s and 80s.

I was asking if McCain would have handled it as well or better than Obama has.

I blame the recession on all the people who bought houses they couldn't afford.

This financial crisis is a bipartisan fiasco. Three parties seem largly at fault here:

1) Democratic President Bill Clinton - for enthusiastically signing into law the bill with the Orwellian name of "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" and surrounding himself with neoliberals sycopthantic to the financial industry (i.e. Larry Summers).
2) Republican Phil Gramm for his championing of the act.
3) President Bush - for sinking the US into red ink via wars of aggression, spending hikes without tax hikes, and continuing the financial deregulation of his predecessor.

Why is it so few people choose to listen to the one economist who accurately predicted this fiasco: Dean Baker?

As for McCain's performance, it would've been absymal. Phil Gramm was McCain's senior economic advisor (until he blew it with his "this is a mental recession" comment) and McCain has stated that:

"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

LINK

As bad as President Obama's political eunuchism has been - passing a stimulus bill $500 billion too little, failing to restore a reugulatory structure, and caving into far-right demands on healthcare - he's still leaps and bounds above what McCain would've been. The US and world economy would be imploding if McCain was afront right now.

As for those foolish homeowners - look to where they got their information and try and find the widespread debunkers of this almost scam style technqiue.

Doesn't the subprime mortgage crisis date back to 1977 (the year they were first issued)?

So Carter would be at fault, then.

Carter-Reagan-Clinton-Bush, to be exhaustive.

I learned a lesson from this. I will not buy a house unless I am 100% certain that I can qualify for a prime rate.

Politically, I tend to vote Republican, but only because the Libertarian Party has virtually no chance of winning any public office.

I voted for Obama in 2008, but only because I thought it would increase my chances of getting laid.

Actually, Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama (?)

Just about the same bail out, but no big deal over government run medical.

McCain would have taken care of his corporate buddies, just as Obama and Tiny Tim Geithner have. The stink of Wall Street is on all the major actors in the the Obama administration.

ruveyn