Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!
As to the challenging Republican party’s platform, Mr. Goldfarb commented:
- Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
- Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
- Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
- Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
- Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
- The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
- The stock market has soared 14.72%/year under Obama, second only to Clinton — which should be a big deal since 2/3 of people (not just the upper class) have a 401K or similar investment vehicle dependent upon corporate profits and stock market performance”
- “The platform is the inverse of what has actually worked to stimulate economic growth
- The recommended platform tax policy is bad for velocity, and will stagnate the economy
- Repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will have a negative economic impact because it will force non-wealthy individuals to spend a higher percentage of income on health care rather than expansionary products and services
- Economic disaster happens in America when wealth is concentrated at the top, and we are at an all time high for wealth concentration. There is nothing in the platform which addresses this issue.”
From Forbes, no less! You don't get more Repub than that.
We've had this discussion before and its simply a known fact that if you want to do well, want your family to have a future, want your country to be successful, you vote Democrat.
Please check the OP. Its not about Obama. Its about the differences between the Republicans and Democrats.
Thanks.
Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!
As to the challenging Republican party’s platform, Mr. Goldfarb commented:
- Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
- Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
- Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
- Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
- Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
- The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
- The stock market has soared 14.72%/year under Obama, second only to Clinton — which should be a big deal since 2/3 of people (not just the upper class) have a 401K or similar investment vehicle dependent upon corporate profits and stock market performance”
- “The platform is the inverse of what has actually worked to stimulate economic growth
- The recommended platform tax policy is bad for velocity, and will stagnate the economy
- Repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will have a negative economic impact because it will force non-wealthy individuals to spend a higher percentage of income on health care rather than expansionary products and services
- Economic disaster happens in America when wealth is concentrated at the top, and we are at an all time high for wealth concentration. There is nothing in the platform which addresses this issue.”
From Forbes, no less! You don't get more Repub than that.
We've had this discussion before and its simply a known fact that if you want to do well, want your family to have a future, want your country to be successful, you vote Democrat.
You or the article you are citing is making the false assumption that the President (or the party that holds the office of the presidency) is actually in control of (and responsible for) the economy during their term. When in fact, it is the CONGRESS which controls the purse strings. Given that it is not at all uncommon for one party to have the Presidency while the other party has the majority in congress. . . it is extremely disingenuous to assign a "cause and effect" relationship between any one president (or party) for the entire state of the economy that took place (especially) DURING their term.
Please check the OP. Its not about Obama. Its about the differences between the Republicans and Democrats.
Thanks.
Obama is a democrat. It's absolutely relevant.
Please check the OP. Its not about Obama. Its about the differences between the Republicans and Democrats.
Thanks.
Obama is a democrat. It's absolutely relevant.
Please check the OP. Its not about Obama. Its about the differences between the Republicans and Democrats.
So does Trump!!!!!Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!
Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!
As to the challenging Republican party’s platform, Mr. Goldfarb commented:
- Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
- Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
- Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
- Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
- Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
- The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
- The stock market has soared 14.72%/year under Obama, second only to Clinton — which should be a big deal since 2/3 of people (not just the upper class) have a 401K or similar investment vehicle dependent upon corporate profits and stock market performance”
- “The platform is the inverse of what has actually worked to stimulate economic growth
- The recommended platform tax policy is bad for velocity, and will stagnate the economy
- Repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will have a negative economic impact because it will force non-wealthy individuals to spend a higher percentage of income on health care rather than expansionary products and services
- Economic disaster happens in America when wealth is concentrated at the top, and we are at an all time high for wealth concentration. There is nothing in the platform which addresses this issue.”
From Forbes, no less! You don't get more Repub than that.
We've had this discussion before and its simply a known fact that if you want to do well, want your family to have a future, want your country to be successful, you vote Democrat.
You or the article you are citing is making the false assumption that the President (or the party that holds the office of the presidency) is actually in control of (and responsible for) the economy during their term. When in fact, it is the CONGRESS which controls the purse strings. Given that it is not at all uncommon for one party to have the Presidency while the other party has the majority in congress. . . it is extremely disingenuous to assign a "cause and effect" relationship between any one president (or party) for the entire state of the economy that took place (especially) DURING their term.
"...it is extremely disingenuous to assign a "cause and effect" relationship between any one president (or party) for the entire state of the economy that took place (especially) DURING their term."
That's the opposite of what the article does.
Hey OP, getting involved in WWII caused our economy to flourish, are you suggesting we engage in a world war to make a few bucks?
Hey OP, getting involved in WWII caused our economy to flourish, are you suggesting we engage in a world war to make a few bucks?
No. That's what Republicans do.
trump and most of his supporters would love that.Hey OP, getting involved in WWII caused our economy to flourish, are you suggesting we engage in a world war to make a few bucks?
none of the conflicts we are involved are making us money where did you get that idea?Hey OP, getting involved in WWII caused our economy to flourish, are you suggesting we engage in a world war to make a few bucks?
No. That's what Republicans do.
Obama's a Republican?
Bush crashed the economy even with a war!!!Hey OP, getting involved in WWII caused our economy to flourish, are you suggesting we engage in a world war to make a few bucks?
your source is part of the Heritage Foundation so it's too bias to be credible.Bush crashed the economy even with a war!!!Hey OP, getting involved in WWII caused our economy to flourish, are you suggesting we engage in a world war to make a few bucks?
"The President’s media apologists are attempting to carry water for Obama and shift the blame for the budget mess squarely at the feet of President George W. Bush. Specifically, they argue that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and the recession are all to blame for today’s deficits. It’s an argument we heard before from Obama since the days of his campaign, and it’s an argument that is as flawed today as it was then. One simple number explains it well: the budget deficit figure in 2007, the last Bush year prior to the recession. The tax cuts were in full effect, both wars were raging, and the recession had not yet struck, yet the budget deficit in 2007 was$160 billion, or about a tenth of Obama’s deficit this year." -
ECONOMY
The Truth about Obama’s Budget Deficits, in Pictures
So what do you suggest for those of us who don't put "the economy" in our Top 10 issues we pick a candidate based on?
that's your business. but of course, society doesn't operate properly unless people can afford to eat, live, receive health care when needed and get educated.
Yes ... What comes to mind is Maslow's pyramid.
Bush crashed the economy even with a war!!!Hey OP, getting involved in WWII caused our economy to flourish, are you suggesting we engage in a world war to make a few bucks?
"The President’s media apologists are attempting to carry water for Obama and shift the blame for the budget mess squarely at the feet of President George W. Bush. Specifically, they argue that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and the recession are all to blame for today’s deficits. It’s an argument we heard before from Obama since the days of his campaign, and it’s an argument that is as flawed today as it was then. One simple number explains it well: the budget deficit figure in 2007, the last Bush year prior to the recession. The tax cuts were in full effect, both wars were raging, and the recession had not yet struck, yet the budget deficit in 2007 was$160 billion, or about a tenth of Obama’s deficit this year." -
ECONOMY
The Truth about Obama’s Budget Deficits, in Pictures
