Guide To The Liberal Mind

[Boss]

when Republicans are elected, it's usually after Democrats have so fucked up the country the people had to elect a Republican to fix it.

The Stock Market crash of 1929 helped elect Franklin Roosevelt.

A recession that began in 1960 helped elect John Kennedy.

A recession that began in July 1990 helped elect Bill Clinton.

A recession that began in December 2007 helped elect Barack Obama.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

From 1921 to 2000 Republicans have been president for forty years. Democrats have been president for the other forty. During that time the per capita gross domestic product grew over twice as much under Democratic presidents in 1996 collars.

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there were nearly always more jobs created under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

I have already posted this, but I will re post it for the benefit of anyone who did not read it previously: "the Dow is up more than 50% since Obama took office during the depths of the financial crisis. Only three other presidents elected since 1900 — Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton – have experienced similar market returns...

"Despite the fact that Wall Street tends to prefer Republican candidates, the stock market historically has performed better under Democratic presidents.

"Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year."
What an Obama Win May Mean for Stocks - MarketBeat - WSJ

You continue to help make my point. Liberals will concoct a narrative based on totally erroneous assumptions about statistical data or coincidental circumstances. That is ALL you have done here.

What we are supposed to take away from this is, Republicans are bad for the economy and Democrats are good. Republicans mess up good economies and Democrats fix bad ones.

There are several things wrong with your assertions regarding the Republican presidents who Democrats saved us from their recessions and depressions. Namely, you fail to mention what the makeup of Congress was. This is important because presidents do not pass legislation into law. Speaking of which, you've failed to point out specifically, what legislation enacted by Republican presidents led to the catastrophic economies and what legislation enacted by Democrat presidents reversed the catastrophe.

So this becomes like the trivia that no one on 9/11 died who used a Mac. It's cute, it's interesting, but it doesn't really mean anything.

The stock market always goes up and down. Historically, over a longer period, it always has gone up. When the stock market is at it's lowest, it can't do anything but go up, doesn't matter who is the president. Now I haven't done the maths on this to see how many years of Republican vs. Democrat presidency we've had, but we've had far more Democrat presidents, so let's say in the past 100 years we've had 70 years of Democrat presidency and 30 years of Republican. Statistical odds and the nature of the stock market would indicate 70 years of Democrat presidency would probably yield a higher average than 30 years of Republican presidency. It has nothing to do with the party, it's statistical averages and the nature of the stock market. Republicans have had less time for the down markets to recover and Democrats have had more time for down markets to become up markets. Over time, the market always rises. So the more time, the more the market will naturally rise. This is why we see the statistic you presented.

 

[hadit]

when Republicans are elected, it's usually after Democrats have so fucked up the country the people had to elect a Republican to fix it.

The Stock Market crash of 1929 helped elect Franklin Roosevelt.

A recession that began in 1960 helped elect John Kennedy.

A recession that began in July 1990 helped elect Bill Clinton.

A recession that began in December 2007 helped elect Barack Obama.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

From 1921 to 2000 Republicans have been president for forty years. Democrats have been president for the other forty. During that time the per capita gross domestic product grew over twice as much under Democratic presidents in 1996 collars.

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there were nearly always more jobs created under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

I have already posted this, but I will re post it for the benefit of anyone who did not read it previously: "the Dow is up more than 50% since Obama took office during the depths of the financial crisis. Only three other presidents elected since 1900 — Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton – have experienced similar market returns...

"Despite the fact that Wall Street tends to prefer Republican candidates, the stock market historically has performed better under Democratic presidents.

"Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year."
What an Obama Win May Mean for Stocks - MarketBeat - WSJ

You continue to help make my point. Liberals will concoct a narrative based on totally erroneous assumptions about statistical data or coincidental circumstances. That is ALL you have done here.

What we are supposed to take away from this is, Republicans are bad for the economy and Democrats are good. Republicans mess up good economies and Democrats fix bad ones.

There are several things wrong with your assertions regarding the Republican presidents who Democrats saved us from their recessions and depressions. Namely, you fail to mention what the makeup of Congress was. This is important because presidents do not pass legislation into law. Speaking of which, you've failed to point out specifically, what legislation enacted by Republican presidents led to the catastrophic economies and what legislation enacted by Democrat presidents reversed the catastrophe.

So this becomes like the trivia that no one on 9/11 died who used a Mac. It's cute, it's interesting, but it doesn't really mean anything.

The stock market always goes up and down. Historically, over a longer period, it always has gone up. When the stock market is at it's lowest, it can't do anything but go up, doesn't matter who is the president. Now I haven't done the maths on this to see how many years of Republican vs. Democrat presidency we've had, but we've had far more Democrat presidents, so let's say in the past 100 years we've had 70 years of Democrat presidency and 30 years of Republican. Statistical odds and the nature of the stock market would indicate 70 years of Democrat presidency would probably yield a higher average than 30 years of Republican presidency. It has nothing to do with the party, it's statistical averages and the nature of the stock market. Republicans have had less time for the down markets to recover and Democrats have had more time for down markets to become up markets. Over time, the market always rises. So the more time, the more the market will naturally rise. This is why we see the statistic you presented.

Don't let facts and reason get in the way of a good emotional rant now.

 

[Friends]

There are several things wrong with your assertions regarding the Republican presidents who Democrats saved us from their recessions and depressions. Namely, you fail to mention what the makeup of Congress was.

There are two problems with this reasoning. First, the president sets the economic agenda. Second, the election of the president reflects the mood of the country. Presidents usually have had at least one house of Congress controlled by their party, They have often had both houses controlled by their party.

A pattern of better economic numbers under Democratic presidents as consistent as the one I have documented cannot be dismissed as coincidence.

 

[Friends]

Don't let facts and reason get in the way of a good emotional rant now.

Emotional rants and cliches seem to be all Boss has at his disposal. I quote facts drawn from credible sources. He blows hot air.

 

[Friends]

What we are supposed to take away from this is, Republicans are bad for the economy and Democrats are good.

Yes,. That is my point.

 

[Friends]

you've failed to point out specifically, what legislation enacted by Republican presidents led to the catastrophic economies and what legislation enacted by Democrat presidents reversed the catastrophe.

In The Communist Manifesto, written during 1847, Karl Marx pointed out that the natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top, and to experience increasingly destructive economic downturns.

Now, before you hyperventilate about me being a Marxist, and all that, I will acknowledge that Marx erred as well. Nevertheless, in these two assertions he was right.

Democratic policies counteract these tendencies by taxing the rich heavily, and spreading the wealth around. They also force employers to pay many of their employees more than those employees would earn through the market value of their labor with minimum wage laws, and laws that strengthen labor unions.

The benefits of these policies are those I have been documenting in this thread.

 

[Friends]

The stock market always goes up and down. Historically, over a longer period, it always has gone up.

The point I made, using The Wall Street Journal as my authority, is that during the twentieth century the stock market has gained over twice as much annually under Democratic presidents as under Republican presidents.

 

[Kosh]

And once again for the record being far left is not being a liberal. Many true liberals have abandoned the far left party of Democrats. Anyone with a brain does not defend Obama.

 

[Friends]

let's say in the past 100 years we've had 70 years of Democrat presidency and 30 years of Republican. Statistical odds and the nature of the stock market would indicate 70 years of Democrat presidency would probably yield a higher average than 30 years of Republican presidency. .

The fact I got from The Wall Street Journal said, "Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year."
What an Obama Win May Mean for Stocks - MarketBeat - WSJ

So, there are two problems with your comment.

The first is that the quote I got from The Wall Street Journal compared average annual increases between Democratic and Republican presidents, not cumulative increases. The apparent fact that you are unable to distinguish between average increases and cumulative increases indicates a fundamental deficiency in reading comprehension.

The second problem with your comment is that during the past 100 years the United States has had Democratic presidents for 52 years, and Republican presidents for 48 years.

I am surprised that a poster who claims in his profile to be a writer is so ignorant of basic facts, and so nonchalant about facts in general.

 

[Friends]

And once again for the record being far left is not being a liberal. Many true liberals have abandoned the far left party of Democrats. Anyone with a brain does not defend Obama.

Intelligent and learned people are reluctant to make unsubstantiated assertions, like you just did.

Your assertion is not that of someone with a brain, but of someone with a dittohead.

 

[Boss]

There are several things wrong with your assertions regarding the Republican presidents who Democrats saved us from their recessions and depressions. Namely, you fail to mention what the makeup of Congress was.

There are two problems with this reasoning. First, the president sets the economic agenda. Second, the election of the president reflects the mood of the country. Presidents usually have had at least one house of Congress controlled by their party, They have often had both houses controlled by their party.

A pattern of better economic numbers under Democratic presidents as consistent as the one I have documented cannot be dismissed as coincidence.

No, the president does not set the economic agenda. The president may have an economic agenda he wishes to set, but what is actually set in terms of policy is dependent upon his Congress.

Presidents often have a split congress and seldom have both houses controlled by their party. In the case of Republicans, they have very rarely held both house and senate while occupying the white house. What can't be dismissed is the makeup of congress under a given president. Yet that is precisely what you have dismissed.

 

[Boss]

you've failed to point out specifically, what legislation enacted by Republican presidents led to the catastrophic economies and what legislation enacted by Democrat presidents reversed the catastrophe.

In The Communist Manifesto, written during 1847, Karl Marx pointed out that the natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top, and to experience increasingly destructive economic downturns.

Now, before you hyperventilate about me being a Marxist, and all that, I will acknowledge that Marx erred as well. Nevertheless, in these two assertions he was right.

Democratic policies counteract these tendencies by taxing the rich heavily, and spreading the wealth around. They also force employers to pay many of their employees more than those employees would earn through the market value of their labor with minimum wage laws, and laws that strengthen labor unions.

The benefits of these policies are those I have been documenting in this thread.

And here you are, promoting Marxism is all it's splendor.

 

[Boss]

The stock market always goes up and down. Historically, over a longer period, it always has gone up.

The point I made, using The Wall Street Journal as my authority, is that during the twentieth century the stock market has gained over twice as much annually under Democratic presidents as under Republican presidents.

Well the Wall Street Journal can be wrong sometimes. You are failing to consider the makeup of Congress for those presidents, the policies enacted by Congress, how policies of a past president can effect future economics, and anything specific with regard to good or bad policies responsible for the results. You've simply taken a raw statistic and assigned meaning to it.

 

[Boss]

let's say in the past 100 years we've had 70 years of Democrat presidency and 30 years of Republican. Statistical odds and the nature of the stock market would indicate 70 years of Democrat presidency would probably yield a higher average than 30 years of Republican presidency. .

The fact I got from The Wall Street Journal said, "Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year."
What an Obama Win May Mean for Stocks - MarketBeat - WSJ

So, there are two problems with your comment.

The first is that the quote I got from The Wall Street Journal compared average annual increases between Democratic and Republican presidents, not cumulative increases. The apparent fact that you are unable to distinguish between average increases and cumulative increases indicates a fundamental deficiency in reading comprehension.

The second problem with your comment is that during the past 100 years the United States has had Democratic presidents for 52 years, and Republican presidents for 48 years.

I am surprised that a poster who claims in his profile to be a writer is so ignorant of basic facts, and so nonchalant about facts in general.

Again, the Wall Street Journal can be wrong. I understand you are comparing average annual increases between Democrat and Republican presidents. But if the stock market traditionally rises over time (which it alway has), and you have more swings of the bat, your average will probably be higher. Again, there is no consideration being given to the makeup of Congress under these presidents, what policies they enacted, or anything besides the letter next to their name.

You are taking a statistic, along with an article published in WSJ, and pretending it means something that it simply does not mean. It's clever, it's tricky, and really stupid people will probably look at that and think... hmmm... Democrats = Good, Republicans = Bad! And this is how propagandists operate, it's what they do.

 

[Friends]

And here you are, promoting Marxism is all it's splendor.

Have you ever known a Marxist? I mean a real one, not a liberal Democrat.

I have known and liked members of the American Communist Party.

Home cpusa

I did not think as well as members of the Progressive Labor Party.

Challenge Newspaper - The Revolutionary Communist Progressive Labor Party

Karl Marx was a great political thinker. He had valid insights, and made mistakes.

 

[Friends]

let's say in the past 100 years we've had 70 years of Democrat presidency and 30 years of Republican. Statistical odds and the nature of the stock market would indicate 70 years of Democrat presidency would probably yield a higher average than 30 years of Republican presidency. .

The fact I got from The Wall Street Journal said, "Since 1900, the Dow has averaged a 7.8% annual gain under Democratic presidents, compared with a 3% annual gain under Republicans, WSJ reported earlier this year."
What an Obama Win May Mean for Stocks - MarketBeat - WSJ

So, there are two problems with your comment.

The first is that the quote I got from The Wall Street Journal compared average annual increases between Democratic and Republican presidents, not cumulative increases. The apparent fact that you are unable to distinguish between average increases and cumulative increases indicates a fundamental deficiency in reading comprehension.

The second problem with your comment is that during the past 100 years the United States has had Democratic presidents for 52 years, and Republican presidents for 48 years.

I am surprised that a poster who claims in his profile to be a writer is so ignorant of basic facts, and so nonchalant about facts in general.

Again, the Wall Street Journal can be wrong. I understand you are comparing average annual increases between Democrat and Republican presidents. But if the stock market traditionally rises over time (which it alway has), and you have more swings of the bat, your average will probably be higher. Again, there is no consideration being given to the makeup of Congress under these presidents, what policies they enacted, or anything besides the letter next to their name.

You are taking a statistic, along with an article published in WSJ, and pretending it means something that it simply does not mean. It's clever, it's tricky, and really stupid people will probably look at that and think... hmmm... Democrats = Good, Republicans = Bad! And this is how propagandists operate, it's what they do.

It is tedious to push facts into narrow minds, but someone has to do it. I post facts. You post cliches.