CDZ Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!

[Chuz Life]

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?

Bush crashed the economy even with a war!!!

"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

your source is part of the Heritage Foundation so it's too bias to be credible.

For YOU, maybe.

But if you can not refute nor dispute their numbers. . . I see no reason for why I should share YOUR bias against them.

 

[jillian]

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?

Bush crashed the economy even with a war!!!

"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

your source is part of the Heritage Foundation so it's too bias to be credible.

For YOU, maybe.

But if you can not refute nor dispute their numbers. . . I see no reason for why I should share YOUR bias against them.

you are the one who needs to refute the points made with fact....not an opinion piece.

 

[jillian]

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?

did you see her say that?

please point out where.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Bush crashed the economy even with a war!!!

"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

your source is part of the Heritage Foundation so it's too bias to be credible.

For YOU, maybe.

But if you can not refute nor dispute their numbers. . . I see no reason for why I should share YOUR bias against them.

you are the one who needs to refute the points made with fact....not an opinion piece.

I have already presented facts and the article I cited provides facts as well.

If you can not refute the facts I cited or that the article cites. . . I see no reason to adopt your bias against them.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

Bush crashed the economy even with a war!!!

"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

Did you miss this?

Can we discuss the OP please?

Feel free to argue the points made in the OP but please, stick to verifiable facts as they relate to the parties, NOT individuals.

 

[HUGGY]

Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!

• 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”

As to the challenging Republican party’s platform, Mr. Goldfarb commented:

• “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.

No thanks. I prefer to ride republican!

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Bush crashed the economy even with a war!!!

"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

Did you miss this?

Can we discuss the OP please?

Feel free to argue the points made in the OP but please, stick to verifiable facts as they relate to the parties, NOT individuals.

I was doing exactly that - responding to the OP.

You need to direct this message at those who are trying to divert attention away from the OP and onto their perceived "bias" against some of the sources being cited.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

Bush crashed the economy even with a war!!!

"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

Did you miss this?

Can we discuss the OP please?

Feel free to argue the points made in the OP but please, stick to verifiable facts as they relate to the parties, NOT individuals.

I was doing exactly that - responding to the OP.

You need to direct this message at those who are trying to divert attention away from the OP and onto their perceived "bias" against some of the sources being cited.

Oh, sorry ... I thought you posted this, which concerns individuals instead of parties.

Perhaps you would like to actually address the points made in the OP?

 

[Anathema]

Nowhere in their top 10 dimensions? I can't speak for the other member, but to those who cannot or won't put "the economy"/economic matters among the top ten issues that drive their preferences among candidates for President, I suggest emigrating.

Some of ys just feel that there are significantly more important criteria for POTUS than their economic plan.

As for emigration.... it has been and continues to be considered as an option; but it us not as simple as one might believe.

 

[Anathema]

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.

That is the responsibility of the individuals, their families and their communities. For the most part the econony is NOT something the Federal Government should be involved with. The exception being ensuring the Isolationist nature of the country.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Bush crashed the economy even with a war!!!

"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

Did you miss this?

Can we discuss the OP please?

Feel free to argue the points made in the OP but please, stick to verifiable facts as they relate to the parties, NOT individuals.

My post (that post) already does address the claims made in the OP.

That is, Unless you are claiming that Obummer is not a democrat or maybe you are claiming the Democrats are disowning him.

Regardless, the math on his budget deficits speaks for itself. And the post is an answer to the claim that Bush's "wars" were the death nail to the economy, anyway.

If more deficit spending means a bigger and better growing economy for any one party or president. . . it should mean the same for any other party or president. Shouldn't it?

 

[edthecynic]

the post is an answer to the claim that Bush's "wars" were the death nail to the economy, anyway.

No, I said that BUSH was the death nail to the economy even though he had the wars going FOR him, which was the response I made to the claim that WWII spending made the economy flourish under FDR.

 

[edthecynic]

Regardless, the math on his [Bush's] budget deficits speaks for itself.

No, it speaks to the four budget gimmicks Bush used that Obama banned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html

 

[Mertex]

A half dozen posters here have posted the growth of the economy over the last seven years. It averages 1.5% and that IS the worst ever. 3% is considered a minimum.

That means that we in fact have had NO recovery in the last seven years but have been in a stagnant economy thanks to O-blame-a.

Can we please stick to verifiable facts?

For example, can you prove that the points in the OP are wrong?

Thanks ever so much.

12 screens of fact here...
SIMPLY THE WORST=> Obama is First President Ever to Not See Single Year of 3% GDP Growth
Read it and weep

Considering Obama's is better than GW Bush's.....I would say it is naive to claim that Obama is the worst.


Maybe you also need to consider the fact that the Republicans in Congress vote "NO" on everything Obama has tried to do. If the initial stimulus had been accepted for the amount that Obama suggested, we would have gotten over the "recession heading for depression" that Republican President GW Bush put the country in a lot quicker. Economists have always contended that the country does best when a Democratic President is in the White House.....and the past few decades have affirmed it.

Actually, the President has nothing to do with why the economy does better....it is probably due more to a sense of security and peace that is enjoyed by the populace when a Democratic President is in the WH as opposed to the "war is the only solution" Republican philosophy. Americans feel more confident and are not gripped by the fear that Republicans like to spread (as GW Bush did to get us into that worthless Iraq war) - Democrats don't cower in fear that everyone is out to get us and we must hate everyone that isn't white and speaks English.



“The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics.”

Explaining the mystery of fast economic growth under Democratic presidents

 

[jillian]

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.

That is the responsibility of the individuals, their families and their communities. For the most part the econony is NOT something the Federal Government should be involved with. The exception being ensuring the Isolationist nature of the country.

the economy is more than just the effort of an individual. thinking that someone can create a healthy environment to work or run a business just by willing it is unrealistic

 

[FA_Q2]

I wonder why your 'vote a democrat' theory ignores what party controls congress...

Want a batter economy? Base your votes and positions around something other than a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

[Chuz Life]

Regardless, the math on his [Bush's] budget deficits speaks for itself.

No, it speaks to the four budget gimmicks Bush used that Obama banned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html

My comment was not about Bush's deficit. It was about obummer's. Please don't misquote me like that again.

 

[2aguy]

Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!

• 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”

As to the challenging Republican party’s platform, Mr. Goldfarb commented:

• “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.

This is the Chicken and egg lie.....Republicans come in when the democrats create a recession...Carter did this before Reagan....and clinton created one just before Bush came in.....then, the Republican turns things around...Reagan....and then the democrat uses their 4-8 years to tax the crap out of the growing economy...after they take credit for the economy created by the Republican...Reagan's boom lasted through clinton.....it took him 8 years to end that boom..that is how strong the Reagan economy was.....then with clinton...he had a republican congress that forced him to balance the budget.......


If the democrats didn't lie they wouldn't have any way to discuss these issues.

 

[Mertex]

Regardless, the math on his [Bush's] budget deficits speaks for itself.

No, it speaks to the four budget gimmicks Bush used that Obama banned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html

My comment was not about Bush's deficit. It was about obummer's. Please don't misquote me like that again.

Obama's deficit has more to do with Bush's spending that you right-wing-nuts like to ignore.

And yeah, you "chuz" life...that's why you probably support the lax gun laws and abhor welfare and healthcare....regardless of how many die without it.