How important do you think economics is in politics?

Ardentfrost · 07-28-2006, 02:35 AM

In the early 1900's our congress was full of economists, but then it moved to lawyers, which they pretty much all are today.

Do people still think economics are important? If so, why don't economists win elections? Are they just not running? Can they not competely with the charisma of other politicians? Or is it just that people think lawyers are better equipped to create law than economists are?

Personally I find it VERY important, but that is to be expected of a libertarian-minded person... what about everyone else?

bheld · 07-28-2006, 02:38 AM

I don't think it's more or less important than anything else. I agree that law is heavily overrated though. Politicians should know enough to make educated decisions on every vote.

6SpeedTA95 · 07-28-2006, 09:49 AM

Yes economics is important, its funny in another thread the other day I mentioned how we needed more ecnomist instead of lawyers in DC.

Economics does win elections see 2000 elections. Republicans won in 2000 and 2002 due to economics and terror.

Economics got Reagan elected and JFK, so they're still very important as they should be. The problem is you get these lawyer politicians that are in DC for the "power trip" and dont give a rats ass about us the american citizens. So they vote for things like more handouts for the poor, the elderly, the children, all in an attempt to play on everyone's emotions.

Thorgrim · 07-28-2006, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

. So they vote for things like more handouts for the poor, the elderly, the children, all in an attempt to play on everyone's emotions.

When was this? I didn't get that memo

6SpeedTA95 · 07-28-2006, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

When was this? I didn't get that memo

All these changes began taking place under FDR, namely in his second and third terms. Then again when JFK was elected there were more resources devoted to social handouts. Again under carter then we had 20 years where things were pretty good. Clinton did a pretty good job at controlling handouts and Reagan did a reasonable job. Then bush got elected and jumped on the handout bandwagon, the most prominent being the prescripion drug plan.

Thorgrim · 07-28-2006, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

All these changes began taking place under FDR, namely in his second and third terms. Then again when JFK was elected there were more resources devoted to social handouts. Again under carter then we had 20 years where things were pretty good. Clinton did a pretty good job at controlling handouts and Reagan did a reasonable job. Then bush got elected and jumped on the handout bandwagon, the most prominent being the prescripion drug plan.

the prescription drug plan was a big payoff to the medical industry, if you fall into that middle category of not too sick or too healthy, you pay thousands, not much of a handout

so, about 7+ presidential terms ago, in the middle of the last century, some people got some programs you'd call handouts

I'm guessing next we are going to discuss the foreign policy of President James Polk, hey do you really think the British would have given us the fifty four 40'? How does this play in our relationship with North Korea?

6SpeedTA95 · 07-28-2006, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the prescription drug plan was a big payoff to the medical industry, if you fall into that middle category of not too sick or too healthy, you pay thousands, not much of a handout

so, about 7+ presidential terms ago, in the middle of the last century, some people got some programs you'd call handouts

I'm guessing next we are going to discuss the foreign policy of President James Polk, hey do you really think the British would have given us the fifty four 40'? How does this play in our relationship with North Korea?

It is a handout, playing on emotions as I said earlier. "The old people are starving because they ahve to pay for their medicine" its all a big emotional ploy to create handouts. Its sickening.

There's always someone paying thousands that dont benefit and in most cases its people with good incomes that get screwed.

Edit: the thread title is about economist in the senate/house and the impact or lack thereof that economics has in current day politics. Since handouts can be lumped in iwth economic policy in some form or fashion it seems ok to discuss it. Furthemore economists disappeared from congress/senate when FDR took office. So yes mentioned handouts and programs from that time period seems ok to me.

DosEquis · 07-28-2006, 11:30 AM

I think it is equal in a list of like top 5 issues. It can't be denied that a strong economy (for everyone) is a good selling point for votes.

Ardentfrost · 07-28-2006, 11:56 AM

But moreso than touting lower taxes and whatnot, what about REAL economists in D.C.?

motivez · 07-28-2006, 07:17 PM

I don't think anyone should have to be a certain profession to be elected to Congress, but I agree economics is an important issue.

I would hope that any person in Congress without a deep understanding of an issue would hire advisors that could advise them on economics, etc, so that they're basing their opinion on more than guesswork.

That said, I don't think many people in Congress care too much about the specifics unless it can be used for political gain or to attack another political party honestly.

How many times have we really seen something that wasn't debated or brought to the forefront of political discussion in the country?

6SpeedTA95 · 07-29-2006, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't think anyone should have to be a certain profession to be elected to Congress, but I agree economics is an important issue.

I would hope that any person in Congress without a deep understanding of an issue would hire advisors that could advise them on economics, etc, so that they're basing their opinion on more than guesswork.

That said, I don't think many people in Congress care too much about the specifics unless it can be used for political gain or to attack another political party honestly.

How many times have we really seen something that wasn't debated or brought to the forefront of political discussion in the country?

This is a great post. I met with a state congressman for lunch today who will remain nameless and we touched on this very issue. So much shit goes on because of "politics" instead of whats right/wrong/good for the country that it makes both of us sick.

Economics is important but someones profession and/or degree shouldn't be of upmost importance.

Ardentfrost · 07-29-2006, 12:48 AM

An economist in a position to make fiscal decisions, to me, seems to hold more weight than someone not knowing what they're talking about, so falls back to someone else to provide them the information they need. I think I'd be more receptive to the latter if they didn't let money going to their pocket sway their vote.

I'm not saying economists would be the answer necessarily. I'm just thinking outloud

motivez · 07-29-2006, 06:16 PM

The interview I did of one of my state reps here was pretty enlightening really

He said that really, you can't "do the right thing" because there are really only 2 choices on a lot of issues, bills, etc, that come up.

He's a Republican. So, on the one hand you might have some Republican bill that you disagree with certain aspects of, but the counter proposal is a Democrat bill that you disagree with more

If you vote against one and it doesn't pass, you might get stuck with what is in your mind, a worse bill.