T Nation

FORBES: For a Better Economy, Vote Democratic

  • 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

Carl:

Do you have ready access to a Fortified Bomb Shelter?

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Carl:

Do you have ready access to a Fortified Bomb Shelter?

Mufasa[/quote]

Yes :slight_smile:

…Then RUN, My Son…RUUNNNNnnnn!

Mufasa

[quote]Carl_ wrote:

  • 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

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/[/quote]

I guess when you can’t defend the Obama administration you go off on a tangent about how great democrats are. No problem, I’ll let you slide. At least you’re smart enough not to try to claim Obama has done a good job.

You’re not saying that…right?..RIGHT?

I guess when you can’t defend a Republican administration you got off on a tangent about how great Reagan was. No problem, I’ll let you slide. At least you’re smart enough not to try to claim Bush/Bush had done a good job.

You’re not saying that…right?..RIGHT?

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
I guess when you can’t defend a Republican administration you got off on a tangent about how great Reagan was. No problem, I’ll let you slide. At least you’re smart enough not to try to claim Bush/Bush had done a good job.

You’re not saying that…right?..RIGHT?[/quote]

I want to be paid as your writer before I go forward and push your face in a pile of facts that you won’t like at all.

Problem is, Carl, that history or not this particular election is a no-contest in favor of the Republican as far as economics goes. I’ve had a taste of Obama and I don’t like it at all. He had four years to start progressing towards a solution, and I don’t see any in sight. If he were a lowly NFL coach he’d have been fired 2 or 3 seasons ago.

Aside from that, history has a funny way of being interpreted. I’m going to let the history argument go because quite frankly it’s too involved for me to want to get into at the moment. The only thing I will say is that there is significant lag time economically speaking between the genesis of a problem or solution and when that bubble bursts or solution kicks in. That can easily cross administration and party lines. But as I said, I don’t want to debate that. All I want to know is, are you defending Obama as having a better understanding of business environment and economics than Romney?

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The only thing I will say is that there is significant lag time economically speaking between the genesis of a problem or solution and when that bubble bursts or solution kicks in. That can easily cross administration and party lines. [/quote]
Oh I see… Thanks for that information.

[quote]DSSG wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The only thing I will say is that there is significant lag time economically speaking between the genesis of a problem or solution and when that bubble bursts or solution kicks in. That can easily cross administration and party lines. [/quote]
Oh I see… Thanks for that information. [/quote]

Ok, Forbes lost my trust completely when the man they quoted in the article the OP linked stated ?Obama at this time would rank on par with Reagan" regarding the economy. I just don’t have any reason to believe that.

[quote]Carl_ wrote:

  • 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

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/[/quote]

Bush was a… laissez…faire…administration?

What !?!

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Ok, Forbes lost my trust completely when the man they quoted in the article the OP linked stated ?Obama at this time would rank on par with Reagan" regarding the economy. I just don’t have any reason to believe that.[/quote]

Well let’s see Reagan took over from a President who destroyed the economy and in his eight years created 20 million new jobs and grew the economy to its greatest size ever. He also brought the Russians to the negotiating table by escalating US nukes.

Now let’s see, Obama took over a bad economy and made it worse. He then made a total disaster of the Middle East Ignoring Israel and topping it off by allowing an Ambassador to be killed when he was screaming for help 24 to 48 hours prior to a planned terrorist attack which. Obama immediately blamed an anti Muslim Internet film

Nope… I can safely say that Obama has nothing in common with Reagan. NADA!

[quote]orion wrote:

Bush was a… laissez…faire…administration?

What !?![/quote]

lol, that is when I decided it wasn’t even worth my time to click the link, the off chance that wasn’t OP’s wording and was actually in a forbes piece.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
I guess when you can’t defend a Republican administration you got off on a tangent about how great Reagan was. No problem, I’ll let you slide. At least you’re smart enough not to try to claim Bush/Bush had done a good job.

You’re not saying that…right?..RIGHT?[/quote]

I want to be paid as your writer before I go forward and push your face in a pile of facts that you won’t like at all.[/quote]

Attempted insertion of .gif with somebody failing to put on goggles. Instead, resulted in failure to insert .gif

Ready!

But in all seriousness, just trying to give you a taste of the vitriol you are putting out currently (word for word). Makes it difficult to have constructive conversations, as noted previously. Personally, for the record, I don’t think Reps or Dems are inherently better for the economy but if you feel the need to push my face into something, by all means go ahead.

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
I guess when you can’t defend a Republican administration you got off on a tangent about how great Reagan was. No problem, I’ll let you slide. At least you’re smart enough not to try to claim Bush/Bush had done a good job.

You’re not saying that…right?..RIGHT?[/quote]

I want to be paid as your writer before I go forward and push your face in a pile of facts that you won’t like at all.[/quote]

Attempted insertion of .gif with somebody failing to put on goggles. Instead, resulted in failure to insert .gif

Ready!

But in all seriousness, just trying to give you a taste of the vitriol you are putting out currently (word for word). Makes it difficult to have constructive conversations, as noted previously. Personally, for the record, I don’t think Reps or Dems are inherently better for the economy but if you feel the need to push my face into something, by all means go ahead.[/quote]

I’ve noticed a very telling similarity in your posts. When the going gets tough we can all be sure of one thing.

“Sniff…sniff…ZEB is a big ole’ meany…boo hoo”

We’ve gone back and forth a few times and I’m still waiting to read something that might cause me to sit up and take notice. It has happened with other liberals on this site…but not you.

You admit you are clueless regarding small business, never worked for one, never owned one. But that doesn’t stop you from rambling on endlessly on that very topic.

You admit that raising taxes on small businesses might not be a good idea but oh well if you are in the top 10% of income earners then 90% in taxes is okay by you. Let’s raise taxes to the highest point that they’ve ever been in the history of the US!

As I said in another post you and Obama have a whole lot in common and I understand why you support him. Neither of you have a clue regarding the private sector.

LOL…You’re such a Shmarrrrt guy when it comes to this topic.

If you don’t like it you can wonder on down the road.

Or, better yet stick to a topic where you have a good base of knowledge. And I assure you I’ll stay clean out of your way. I’ll be thinking “now there is a guy who knows about _________”

I just gave you the benefit of the doubt. Now go out and prove that you actually know something.

Please refer to my answer in the other post ZEB. I would rather this not consume multiple threads. Thanks.

Enjoyed Martin Weiss’s article this morning about what happened during past money printing/ monetary expansions in US history. Not often mentioned, but is likely to have a greater impact on Americans future than anything else, is our feds historically massive expansion of our money supply. Other western countries are now doing the same, printing money, hoping this will solve their debt woes.

Such extreme actions being taken, does draw into question if our politicians are capable of managing our debt and currency system. Politicians have made too many promises with other peoples money. Possibly once all done, we might see a new monetary system created.

“Monetary Explosion Goes Global!”

http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/monetary-explosion-goes-global-50732

excerpt from the article:

"…The chart shows the five-year growth rate in the Fed?s financial assets since 1950. And it demonstrates the incredible, unmistakable, inexcusable expansion of the Fed?s role ? in three distinct eras:

Era of monetary stability (1950 ? 1963): On average, the Fed grew its financial assets by only 3.4% every five years.

Result: Inflation and interest rates were very tame. Any speculative bubbles and busts were limited to niche sectors. Recessions were relatively mild. And the U.S. dollar was king in the global economy.

Era of monetary expansion (1964 ? 2007): The Fed began expanding its balance sheet at a rapid pace ? by an average of 37.2% every five years, or ELEVEN times faster than in the prior era of monetary stability!

Result: Inflation surged and interest rates went through the roof. Moreover, toward the end of the period, two boom-bust cycles and the worst recession since the Great Depression nearly destroyed America?s middle class. The U.S. dollar fell precipitously and America?s global leadership became a shadow of its former self.

Era of monetary EXPLOSION (2008 ? present): Chairman Ben Bernanke, true to his nickname ?Helicopter Ben,? has expanded the Fed?s financial assets at an average five-year clip of 194.9%!

That is now FIFTY-SEVEN times faster than the pace of growth recorded during the era of monetary stability!

Result: Unknown and unimaginable.

And as if this weren?t enough to rekindle some of the worst inflation of our lifetime, look at what the world?s other powerful central banks are doing ?

European Central Bank?s QE2
Is Far Larger Than Its QE1!

Throughout the post-Lehman era, the European Central Bank (ECB) tried to portray a modicum of restraint.

Europe?s monetary leaders said they would absolutely NOT follow the U.S. Federal Reserve?s lead on its wild escapade toward money printing.

Some European leaders even warned that such a path would lead to monetary destruction akin to Weimer Germany?s hyperinflation.

So while the Fed launched QE1 with a big bang in September 2008, the ECB grew its assets from 1.9 trillion euros (nearly $2.8 trillion) on August 31, 2008 to ?only? 2.6 trillion euros ($3.4 trillion) two months later.

The greatest increase since in Europe since Weimar Germany? Yes!

As fast as Mr. Bernanke?s money-printing machine of that two-month period in late 2008? No.

But all that so-called ?restraint? disappeared last year when the ECB responded to the latest phase of the European debt crisis:

On April 29, 2011, the ECB?s balance sheet stood at less than 2.5 trillion euros ($3.5 trillion). Today, it?s close to 4 trillion euros ($5.1 trillion)!

What does this mean?

Simply that the world?s most ?conservative? major central bank is now printing money at an even more rapid pace than Helicopter Ben himself!

But if you think that?s extreme, consider this:

Bank of England Bloats Its
Balance Sheet 4.3 Times Over!.."

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Problem is, Carl, that history or not this particular election is a no-contest in favor of the Republican as far as economics goes. I’ve had a taste of Obama and I don’t like it at all. He had four years to start progressing towards a solution, and I don’t see any in sight. If he were a lowly NFL coach he’d have been fired 2 or 3 seasons ago.

Aside from that, history has a funny way of being interpreted. I’m going to let the history argument go because quite frankly it’s too involved for me to want to get into at the moment. The only thing I will say is that there is significant lag time economically speaking between the genesis of a problem or solution and when that bubble bursts or solution kicks in. That can easily cross administration and party lines. But as I said, I don’t want to debate that. All I want to know is, are you defending Obama as having a better understanding of business environment and economics than Romney? [/quote]

I agree with you re: the importance of past administrations. It is far more important to choose between the two individuals standing before us now than to choose between the parties as they were decades ago.

But, they whole notion of policy taking shape over time and not manifesting itself right away seems to take a lot of the edge off of criticisms of Obama’s (or anyone’s) Presidency. If Romney is voted in and the economy continues to improve, will anyone on the right be willing to give this argument a second look? Probably not.

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Please refer to my answer in the other post ZEB. I would rather this not consume multiple threads. Thanks.[/quote]

Now you’re the thread police huh?

LOL…you’re a real beauty!