Democrats are good and Republicans are bad, the next chapter

In a bipartisan fashion newbies note well what superdave is referencing. The liberal "Atlantic" periodical cited features of graph, below which is cited (in the very second sentence) "a very crude method by which to judge" (need we really go further?).

Democrats are Democrats and Republicans are Republicans. Whether they are good or bad is for God alone to judge.

Thank you.

And newbies: Welcome aboard!

 

You know, the problem with newbies is that they don't know how to embed images.

 

Here's another way to rank the presidencies:

Success:
Clinton
Reagan

Failure:
Bush I
Carter
Nixon

Baffles me every day:
Johnson (Civil rights vs. Vietnam)

Middling:
Kennedy

So far, its a slight advantage for the Dems, until:

SS Titanic:
BushCo

If this were a soccer game, it would be 3-1 dems.

 

Keller was serious when he posted shit like this; that's the difference.

And he was banned for a lot more than just this.

 

Karl only posted the drivel he read on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed pages.

 

Newbies: Note the response to the source of the information, not the content. This is a standard characteristic of 'conservative thought'. Remember, if you denigrate the source you can evade the implication of the information.

 

Alright, then I will. Because it's precisely the ridiculous Republican economic policies like "trickle down" (as in peeing on the peons) and "cutting taxes raises revenue" that creates the enormous inequality between the Hiltons and everyone else. "You're just not working hard enough with your 3 jobs - now watch how I slash these estate taxes!"

 

And everyone knows, the two goal lead is the most dangerous in soccer !

 

Wow this is a terrible thread based on simplistic data and erroneous conclusions. I take it Superdave is not an economist?

His growth was caused by massive deficit spending? Where did you get that information from? Sheer lick of war driving down oil prices? When Carter came into office in January 1977, the price of a barrel of oil was about $14. When he left four years later oil was at more than $35 a barrel. Wich is why Carter had double digit inflation that ended during the 1980's. The consumer price index, which rose 4.9 percent in 1976 up to 6.7 percent in 1977, 9 percent in 1978, and 13.3 percent in 1979 Tell me Superdave, how do Democrats rate on stagflation? Does your graph mention that productivity was extremely low during the Carter years? Does it mention that productivity is higher under Bush than Clinton?

And.... I suppose Clinton supporting the easy lending of the Fed (cause of the housing bubble*) and the tech bubble wasn't sheer luck?

*Bush is guilty of this as well.

 

Can you tell me why the gap between the upper and lower class jumped during the Carter and Clinton years? (they have climbed during the Bush 1+2 years as well but disproves your post)

 

Keller didn't have tribal loyalties in his favor when he made a dumb post. The Leftist circle jerk would start and the mods collapsed under the pressure.

SpecialDave's serious too.

And and idiot. This thread takes it from the realm of personal attack to merely a statement of fact. I find it to be a failure of democracy that this this thread can be taken seriously. Even the posters from the Left can't figure out if this is a serious thread or not.

 

If the mods relabeled the thread title to be "Democrats are good for the economy and Republicans are bad for the economy", much of the vitriol and comparisons to Keller would disappear.

I doubt we'd reach agreement on anything any sooner though.

 

Yes - Reagan grew the national debt by more than any president in modern history other than FDR, who had that pesky war against the Nazis to deal with.

Apparently the myth of Reagan's fiscal responsibility still lives on.

 

SpecialDave's already proven the answer.

 

Yes, as any reference to Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or Fox News will prove, liberals never stoop to such tactics

 

I thought the standard reply was that Dem congresses w/ Republican presidents increase the debt and the converse reduce it. I guess I keep on forgetting what is proven around here.

 

Hell, even links to the WSJ, IBD, or the Financial Times are scoffed at here. Meanwhile DailyKOS and the Huffington Post are cited as fact.

 

No one would argue that Reagan didn't increase the debt, his military spending was out of control, but to link that spending to economic growth is plain wrong.

 

Prove it. Cite examples or just admit that this is more of your "Look what I just pulled out of my ass" nonsense to go along with your usual M.O. of ineffectually sniping from the sidelines with strawmen and ad hominem attacks while providing nothing of substance. The only thing I can think of that comes close to your claims are WSJ Op Ed pieces (that often directly contradict the usually excellent actual reporting in its own pages) and nobody takes those seriously except the kind of people who believe Art Laffer is a great economist or that "the New Deal destroyed the American economy".

----------------

That said, not all Republicans are "bad" per se but some of them seem to have exceedingly selective memory:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080129/ap_on_re_as/afghan_schools;_ylt=AqWDrNSJMyd9lEU_OFxfrKas0NUE

 

Care to back up your assertion with facts and reason?

 

Yeah, I know what you mean. The daily KOS is really disappointing these days. They have this funny 'encyclopedia' like wikipedia and their entry for Coulter used to be filled with absolute bile and loathing, it was great. Now it's been toned down to disdain, and there's even a blurb under her picture describing her as "Rush Limbaugh's brain inside Lisa Kudrow's body." Aside from that she's much smarter than Rush, it's almost a compliment!

 

I'll match up Kos against a Bill Kristol op-ed any day of the week.