Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Aug 17, 2012.
80-year study: Democrats better at economics | WashingtonExaminer.com
So how does that study work if we accept that the democrats and republicans reversed themselves? You know, because the republican party was the leader in civil rights, but the dems say that the repubs of today were the dems of yesterday.
It can go both ways
The more we learn the less we know ...
The Republicans were leaders in Civil Rights up until maybe 1910, but gradually lost that role. This report talks about economics since the 1930s. But, who can blame you trying to change the subject, when the facts show the vast superiority of Democratic policies.
Nothing better for the stock market than an old fashioned World War.Or a tech boom.
Its a case of being in the right place at the right time.
I think buying steel stock in 1935 and cashing in 15 years later would have made a killing or. Buying 100 bucks worth of tech stock in early Regan years and cashing in late Clinton years you would have done the same.
Percentagewise, more republicans supported the Civil Rights Bill than democrats.
And when Robert Byrd, grand keagle and recruiter of the KKK, was looking for a political party to join with his hateful, racist ways, he chose the democrats.
But if he keeps repeating the lie, one day he thinks it will be true.
If only people understood that who is president has nothing to do with economic conditions. Why don't people understand that simple reality/truth is beyond me.
All this study shows is which party was in office most often when the economy "happened" to be doing well. End of story.
You're right, Wolfpack, and MLK was a Republican, too. The Dems were an unlikely coalition up until the JFK/LBJ era. The only reason southerners were in the Democratic Party was because of Lincoln. There are still a few southerners around who would never ever vote Republican because of the Civil War. But, when JFK/LBJ rejected the southern bigots, the Dixiecrats began looking seriously at the Republicans.
The Dixiecrats lingered on a few more years, but then Ronnie Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, known only as place where three civil rights workers were murdered, and spoke about "states rights," which was code for segregation. Thereafter, the Dixiecrats left the Democrats in droves, and I think formed the worst of the Tea Party today.
Yeah, the fun thing about calling everything someone says "code" for something else is you can pretty much put words in anyone's mouth and make them say anything you want to.
Of course, as I so often say, if you have to put words in someone's mouth to prove your point, then chances are it's a very weak point to begin with.
I have to question the politcal motivations behind anyone who conducts such a study, and then decides to start with Herbert Hoover. Yeah, Hoover was a republican and presided over the worst economic collapse this country has ever seen. But to consider Hoover a "republican" the way we use the word today is patently absurd. You can't even attach today's version of political affiliations to politicians from 40 years ago, let alone 80 years ago.
I ran some numbers myself and if we start with Eisenhower, that same $100k grows to $581k under republicans and $475k under dems.
2nd of all, if we want to look at percentage stock market growth, FDR/Truman are in 1st, and then Reagan-Bush, and then Clinton. Of course, as well all know, Clinton's gains were the result of an unsustainable bubble that would pop pretty much during his final year in office, but he got out just in time.
Separate names with a comma.