Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 1489638" data-attributes="member: 2189">IMO, yes there is a hand in that too.&nbsp; The US and especially its economy does not turn on a dime as no big ship does either.&nbsp; Even when a new President is elected, his/her first year is not under their own budget but rather the budget set by the previous President.&nbsp; To put in the current context, Obama&#039;s first budget as President that was his own was for fiscal year 2010&#039; as the 2009&#039; budget was all Bush and the 2008&#039; Congress.&nbsp; All budgets are set in the previous year just as Obama and the 2016&#039; Congress will set the budget for 2017&#039; which is the first year of the next President.&nbsp; Keep that in mind going in the next election cycle when you hear the political spin being circulated by both sides.When you study the functions of State and policy, these tend to not be based on year to year but rather much longer term, mostly in 5 or 10 year visions.&nbsp; Now a President can tweak a policy or even make large policy changes and re-direct policy focus but actions on the ground over time don&#039;t relate or move in the same manner (speed) as spin to the public does. The narrative is always well ahead of results, positive or negative.Anytime a policy change occurs, it can take a couple of years to impact to full effect.&nbsp; Case in point would be Reagan who had his first budget in fiscal year 82&#039; and regardless what one thinks of Reagan, the economy stumbled along almost to the 84&#039; election before it really turned the corner so to speak.&nbsp; Reagan could have rightly blamed Carter but in so doing he would be blaming himself as he (Reagan)&nbsp; embraced a very important Carter policy which I&#039;ll explain below.So in respect to Carter, he was not only a victim of himself to some degree but also as result the entire Nixon/Ford era.&nbsp; No matter who got elected in 76&#039;, there was going to be rough times.&nbsp;&nbsp; Carter even had the courage to take a radical direction in the economy by embracing deregulation.&nbsp; To make the point even further, Reagan is often credited with deregulation but it actually began <a href="http://articles.herald-mail.com/2011-02-20/opinion/28614285_1_jimmy-carter-deregulation-peanut-farmer" target="_blank">under Carter</a>.&nbsp; Ironic that Reagan became infamous as the great deregulator but then that is what actors do.&nbsp; <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; But then it&#039;s not like democrats want to wear this mantle so you could argue Reagan came about this honestly if not by default.Carter choosing to deregulate turned a long establish economic way on it&#039;s head and it created an economic reaction as the economy had to shift to a new policy paradigm.&nbsp; Carter was just unable to sell the long term vision and voters turned to Reagan instead.&nbsp; Reagan just picked up that policy, made it his own and most people outside of policy history accept as fact that Reagan deregulated the economy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 1489638, member: 2189"] IMO, yes there is a hand in that too. The US and especially its economy does not turn on a dime as no big ship does either. Even when a new President is elected, his/her first year is not under their own budget but rather the budget set by the previous President. To put in the current context, Obama's first budget as President that was his own was for fiscal year 2010' as the 2009' budget was all Bush and the 2008' Congress. All budgets are set in the previous year just as Obama and the 2016' Congress will set the budget for 2017' which is the first year of the next President. Keep that in mind going in the next election cycle when you hear the political spin being circulated by both sides. When you study the functions of State and policy, these tend to not be based on year to year but rather much longer term, mostly in 5 or 10 year visions. Now a President can tweak a policy or even make large policy changes and re-direct policy focus but actions on the ground over time don't relate or move in the same manner (speed) as spin to the public does. The narrative is always well ahead of results, positive or negative. Anytime a policy change occurs, it can take a couple of years to impact to full effect. Case in point would be Reagan who had his first budget in fiscal year 82' and regardless what one thinks of Reagan, the economy stumbled along almost to the 84' election before it really turned the corner so to speak. Reagan could have rightly blamed Carter but in so doing he would be blaming himself as he (Reagan) embraced a very important Carter policy which I'll explain below. So in respect to Carter, he was not only a victim of himself to some degree but also as result the entire Nixon/Ford era. No matter who got elected in 76', there was going to be rough times. Carter even had the courage to take a radical direction in the economy by embracing deregulation. To make the point even further, Reagan is often credited with deregulation but it actually began [URL='http://articles.herald-mail.com/2011-02-20/opinion/28614285_1_jimmy-carter-deregulation-peanut-farmer'][COLOR=#ff0000][B]under Carter[/B][/COLOR][/URL]. Ironic that Reagan became infamous as the great deregulator but then that is what actors do. ;) But then it's not like democrats want to wear this mantle so you could argue Reagan came about this honestly if not by default. Carter choosing to deregulate turned a long establish economic way on it's head and it created an economic reaction as the economy had to shift to a new policy paradigm. Carter was just unable to sell the long term vision and voters turned to Reagan instead. Reagan just picked up that policy, made it his own and most people outside of policy history accept as fact that Reagan deregulated the economy. [/QUOTE]

Verification