answered question
0
Votes
Votes
4
Answers
Answers
M$0.25
Will voting Republican solve the Nations economic troubles?
Last night voters in Virginia and New Jersey ousted their Democratic Governors in favor of Republican ones, exit polls show over 80% in each state cited the economy as their reason.
Will this become a trend in upcoming elections?
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/election-2009-virginia-jersey-exit-polls-obama-economy/story?id=8984551
Will this become a trend in upcoming elections?
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/election-2009-virginia-jersey-exit-polls-obama-economy/story?id=8984551
tags:
republicans
,
2012
|
Report
answers (4)
You are asking three different questions. First, will voting Republican help the nation's economy. Second, will voters continue the trend of being concerned about the economy. Third, will they throw out Democratic incumbents.
The answer to the first question is no. Rather than attempt a policy analysis, which would be extremely unreliable even if politicians stuck to their declared policies, I'll look at the record of the 20th century.
Here are the recessions of the 20th century, their length in months, and the President at the time:
Sept. 1902-Aug. 1904 23 Republican T Roosevelt
May 1907-June 1908 13 Republican T Roosevelt
Jan. 1910-Jan. 1912 24 Republican Taft
Jan. 1913-Dec. 1914 23 Democrat Wilson
Aug. 1918-March 1919 7 Democrat Wilson
Jan. 1920-July 1921 18 Democrat Wilson
May 1923-July 1924 14 Republican Coolidge
Oct. 1926-Nov. 1927 13 Republican Coolidge
Aug. 1929-March 1933 43 Republican Hoover
May 1937-June 1938 13 Democrat F D Roosevelt
Feb. 1945-Oct. 1945 8 Democrat Truman
Nov. 1948-Oct. 1949 11 Democrat Truman
July 1953-May 1954 10 Republican Eisenhower
Aug. 1957-April 1958 8 Republican Eisenhower
April 1960-Feb. 1961 10 Republican Eisenhower
Dec. 1969-Nov. 1970 11 Republican Nixon
Nov. 1973-March 1975 16 Republican Nixon/Ford
Jan. 1980-July 1980 6 Democrat Carter
July 1981-Nov. 1982 16 Republican Reagan
July 1990-March 1991 8 Republican Bush I
March 2001-Nov. 2001 8 Republican Bush II
totals: R: 217 D: 86 total 313 months
One can therefor expect that voting Republican makes a recession between two and three times as likely.for any particular month. So far the 21st century is following that pattern but there is not enough data yet.
Second question, yes. Voters will continue to be concerned about the economy. This is especially true when the economy is bad but also when it is good.
Third question, no. Incumbents have a big advantage and are usually only defeated after a scandal or a particular failure, especially in Congress. Only one unpopular Democrat was unseated in this election (NJ) and the Democrats won both Congressional races, which is actually quite remarkable in an off year election.
The answer to the first question is no. Rather than attempt a policy analysis, which would be extremely unreliable even if politicians stuck to their declared policies, I'll look at the record of the 20th century.
Here are the recessions of the 20th century, their length in months, and the President at the time:
Sept. 1902-Aug. 1904 23 Republican T Roosevelt
May 1907-June 1908 13 Republican T Roosevelt
Jan. 1910-Jan. 1912 24 Republican Taft
Jan. 1913-Dec. 1914 23 Democrat Wilson
Aug. 1918-March 1919 7 Democrat Wilson
Jan. 1920-July 1921 18 Democrat Wilson
May 1923-July 1924 14 Republican Coolidge
Oct. 1926-Nov. 1927 13 Republican Coolidge
Aug. 1929-March 1933 43 Republican Hoover
May 1937-June 1938 13 Democrat F D Roosevelt
Feb. 1945-Oct. 1945 8 Democrat Truman
Nov. 1948-Oct. 1949 11 Democrat Truman
July 1953-May 1954 10 Republican Eisenhower
Aug. 1957-April 1958 8 Republican Eisenhower
April 1960-Feb. 1961 10 Republican Eisenhower
Dec. 1969-Nov. 1970 11 Republican Nixon
Nov. 1973-March 1975 16 Republican Nixon/Ford
Jan. 1980-July 1980 6 Democrat Carter
July 1981-Nov. 1982 16 Republican Reagan
July 1990-March 1991 8 Republican Bush I
March 2001-Nov. 2001 8 Republican Bush II
totals: R: 217 D: 86 total 313 months
One can therefor expect that voting Republican makes a recession between two and three times as likely.for any particular month. So far the 21st century is following that pattern but there is not enough data yet.
Second question, yes. Voters will continue to be concerned about the economy. This is especially true when the economy is bad but also when it is good.
Third question, no. Incumbents have a big advantage and are usually only defeated after a scandal or a particular failure, especially in Congress. Only one unpopular Democrat was unseated in this election (NJ) and the Democrats won both Congressional races, which is actually quite remarkable in an off year election.
source(s):
http://www.cnbc.com/id/20510977
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York's_23rd_congressional_district_special_election,_2009
http://www.cnbc.com/id/20510977
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York's_23rd_congressional_district_special_election,_2009
voted helpful: lilyloretta
Voted as best: chriswingate, theenlightened
great answer! agree 101%.
Tip chriswingate for this comment
|
Report
Mid-term elections frequently go against the party in power. This is not unusual or hard to understand. The party in power, rightly or wrongly, is held accountable for all the things that are not working. When the economy is still in sad shape, as it is now, this means the party that's in will suffer some losses.
As for the question "Will voting Republican solve the Nations economic troubles?" the answer is obviously not. If history teaches us anything it is that there are always troubles. Each party in turn tries to solve them, with more or less success, but the solutions along with evolving reality usually bring up new problems. Thus, economic or other problems will never be fully solved. Sometimes they will be more troublesome, and sometimes less. The only effect that throwing out one party in favor of the other has is the type of problems that become worse, and the type of problem that become better.
As for the question "Will voting Republican solve the Nations economic troubles?" the answer is obviously not. If history teaches us anything it is that there are always troubles. Each party in turn tries to solve them, with more or less success, but the solutions along with evolving reality usually bring up new problems. Thus, economic or other problems will never be fully solved. Sometimes they will be more troublesome, and sometimes less. The only effect that throwing out one party in favor of the other has is the type of problems that become worse, and the type of problem that become better.
The answer to the economy lies with better management of public funds, commerce planning, strengthening small businesses, and helping Americans live a more realistic lifestyle. Just choosing one monster group over another monster group isn't the way to fix this mess. You can't straighten out your knotted up fishing reel by just adding more line. Things need untangled.
Big government. Small government. It isn't going to work while special interests hold the reins. Groups like ACORN should never have grown to the juggernauts they are now unless they were better managed and had a few checks and balances to keep them in line. There are some good points to ACORN. It started out as a decent idea. But I digress.
Ok, here's the thing. The US is paying for way too many dumb things right now. The schools . . . well don't get me started on schools. I feel like there is so much room for improvement there, and it's a tragedy that we are paying taxes for kids to take classes like "Relationships" and "Transportation" and "Copper Jewelry Design." Don't those sound like clubs or extra curricular activities?
There are a lot of leaks in Medicaid. I know of a dentist who put platinum caps on baby teeth. Yeah, shiny metal grills on the public's dime. When I took my kids who were on insurance to the same dentist, she wanted to charge me $500 to pull a baby tooth that hadn't come out yet and another $650 for a spacer. Uh that was my pay out. Who knows what she charges the government.
And I hate to sound mean, but the illegal situation isn't good for our country. The reason for this, is most of the illegals I know, who are decent enough folks, have figured out how to totally scam our government and there isn't a single person to do anything about it. Let's talk about the scenario, and remember Americans pay for plenty of these little groups.
They come to the country illegally. The first thing they do is get some sort of a job. They go from there to apply for housing and food stamps. This is just how they do. If they have a medical problem, it's the emergency room whether they have medicaid yet or not. They get quick TANF if they can, and boy they know how to get it fast. I was surprised at how fast they can get emergency money. Okay they move into a house they sublet from another illegal already here. What they do is, they rent from them a house that the established illegal family has a subsidy for.
As soon as they get their housing, they rent it out to a fresh family and double up as tight as they can. In a three bedroom place next door to us, there was two people in each of three bedrooms, three in the living room, and two kids in the laundry room. They go to all the soup kitchens and emergency food places they can in a week. They drink beer every night and have parties all the time. They send most of the money home. Why? So they can retire at 34 years old. We have one friend who only worked here six years and will retire next year and live comfortably. This is people we knew and know. They seriously do this. Isn't there a way to better regulate this? But if we do, people will see us negatively, right? Well another thing is they all need special liasons for the kids at the schools which costs a whole salary. They refuse to teach the kids English and I've known some illegals to even throw a fit if the teachers wanted to make the kids speak English in school. Besides, it is said that they commit 35% of all crimes. Um, how expensive is that?
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17591 I'm not saying that we should be horrible to illegals, but something needs done to make them NOT drain the economy.
Okay our prisons is another leak on our resources. Prisoners should contribute as best they can. Seriously. They should grow gardens with their own food sometimes. They should have to work for their ammenities.
Pot is another way that money can be gained through taxes to relieve the burden on the US tax payer. If you must regulate, do so. It's a good idea. But I've known alcoholics who were way worse than potheads.
I'm for opening up trade with Cuba again and believe it or not, better relations with getting Mexico modernized to create a better over-the-border consumer base. I think broadband should be available country-wide, which will create jobs (though it will cause call centers in India for big Internet providers in the US to be disappointed). I also think that incentives should be given to help companies make the right decision to bring jobs back home. Penalize the companies who lie to get tax breaks and then pick up shop.
Encourage a more sustainable, greener business plan for factories. Believe it or not, trash is expensive. I'm not referring to cap and trade at all! I'm talking about the green factory proceedures like Subaru, Toyota, and similar businesses have committed to. It's Kaisen. I'm not saying force them in. Incentives alone should make a company greedy for improvement.
Stop extending unemployment. I'm sorry about this one, but from what I've heard from factories all over Indiana, the workers out there who apply just aren't worth hiring. Everyone else is relaxing on unemployment, which makes the pool of qualified workers dismal.
Let things fail! I keep hearing that this or that is too big to fail. Sometimes you have to let things fail. I don't care who you have in your voter pool, the whole stack of cards isn't built on the pet projects, ceos, and personal invested firms congress has decided to coddle.
Insurer REFORM yes. Health care reform, NO. Let an independent group be in charge of investigating denials and then charge the insurers with penalties when they are naughty. Um and while you're at it, Medicaid reform.
And that's just a start.
Big government. Small government. It isn't going to work while special interests hold the reins. Groups like ACORN should never have grown to the juggernauts they are now unless they were better managed and had a few checks and balances to keep them in line. There are some good points to ACORN. It started out as a decent idea. But I digress.
Ok, here's the thing. The US is paying for way too many dumb things right now. The schools . . . well don't get me started on schools. I feel like there is so much room for improvement there, and it's a tragedy that we are paying taxes for kids to take classes like "Relationships" and "Transportation" and "Copper Jewelry Design." Don't those sound like clubs or extra curricular activities?
There are a lot of leaks in Medicaid. I know of a dentist who put platinum caps on baby teeth. Yeah, shiny metal grills on the public's dime. When I took my kids who were on insurance to the same dentist, she wanted to charge me $500 to pull a baby tooth that hadn't come out yet and another $650 for a spacer. Uh that was my pay out. Who knows what she charges the government.
And I hate to sound mean, but the illegal situation isn't good for our country. The reason for this, is most of the illegals I know, who are decent enough folks, have figured out how to totally scam our government and there isn't a single person to do anything about it. Let's talk about the scenario, and remember Americans pay for plenty of these little groups.
They come to the country illegally. The first thing they do is get some sort of a job. They go from there to apply for housing and food stamps. This is just how they do. If they have a medical problem, it's the emergency room whether they have medicaid yet or not. They get quick TANF if they can, and boy they know how to get it fast. I was surprised at how fast they can get emergency money. Okay they move into a house they sublet from another illegal already here. What they do is, they rent from them a house that the established illegal family has a subsidy for.
As soon as they get their housing, they rent it out to a fresh family and double up as tight as they can. In a three bedroom place next door to us, there was two people in each of three bedrooms, three in the living room, and two kids in the laundry room. They go to all the soup kitchens and emergency food places they can in a week. They drink beer every night and have parties all the time. They send most of the money home. Why? So they can retire at 34 years old. We have one friend who only worked here six years and will retire next year and live comfortably. This is people we knew and know. They seriously do this. Isn't there a way to better regulate this? But if we do, people will see us negatively, right? Well another thing is they all need special liasons for the kids at the schools which costs a whole salary. They refuse to teach the kids English and I've known some illegals to even throw a fit if the teachers wanted to make the kids speak English in school. Besides, it is said that they commit 35% of all crimes. Um, how expensive is that?
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17591 I'm not saying that we should be horrible to illegals, but something needs done to make them NOT drain the economy.
Okay our prisons is another leak on our resources. Prisoners should contribute as best they can. Seriously. They should grow gardens with their own food sometimes. They should have to work for their ammenities.
Pot is another way that money can be gained through taxes to relieve the burden on the US tax payer. If you must regulate, do so. It's a good idea. But I've known alcoholics who were way worse than potheads.
I'm for opening up trade with Cuba again and believe it or not, better relations with getting Mexico modernized to create a better over-the-border consumer base. I think broadband should be available country-wide, which will create jobs (though it will cause call centers in India for big Internet providers in the US to be disappointed). I also think that incentives should be given to help companies make the right decision to bring jobs back home. Penalize the companies who lie to get tax breaks and then pick up shop.
Encourage a more sustainable, greener business plan for factories. Believe it or not, trash is expensive. I'm not referring to cap and trade at all! I'm talking about the green factory proceedures like Subaru, Toyota, and similar businesses have committed to. It's Kaisen. I'm not saying force them in. Incentives alone should make a company greedy for improvement.
Stop extending unemployment. I'm sorry about this one, but from what I've heard from factories all over Indiana, the workers out there who apply just aren't worth hiring. Everyone else is relaxing on unemployment, which makes the pool of qualified workers dismal.
Let things fail! I keep hearing that this or that is too big to fail. Sometimes you have to let things fail. I don't care who you have in your voter pool, the whole stack of cards isn't built on the pet projects, ceos, and personal invested firms congress has decided to coddle.
Insurer REFORM yes. Health care reform, NO. Let an independent group be in charge of investigating denials and then charge the insurers with penalties when they are naughty. Um and while you're at it, Medicaid reform.
And that's just a start.
voted unhelpful: albanian
Voted as best: lidyax
I am sorry that some feel my answer was unhelpful, but in actuality, it is true that choosing one monster over another will do nothing. And by monster, I mean bloated party. We have to work on problems one at a time and help people through them. Clearly the things mentioned above in my post are worth mentioning, but are not the only leaks in our economy. And I am not anti immigration at all. I just think we need to do something about untangling the mess, not making another mistake with a bloated monster party.
Only if the elected Republicans realize that they are in office only in the hope that government spending will be reduced. All government can do to help the economy is to make running business easier by deregulation and by lowering taxes. To lower taxes, government has to lower spending, and to deregulate, government has to relinquish control. Neither party likes to cut spending and control. Democrats seem to like spending even more than Republicans, so that may be the motivation.
We need conservatives who believe that government has seriously overreached its bounds and should be pared back to allow free market forces to take over. I don't know if that will ever happen.
We need conservatives who believe that government has seriously overreached its bounds and should be pared back to allow free market forces to take over. I don't know if that will ever happen.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
