You do know that the left believes that calling a racist a racist is a racist thing to do. Unless the alleged racist is white.

 

The thesis of Bulls, Bears, and the Ballot Box is that the President of the United States is the CEO of the economy. He has more responsibility for what happens economically than anyone or anything else. The fact that there is a consistent record of better economic times under Democratic presidents is not a coincidence. It is a correlation that indicates causation.

 

Republicans like to say that Ronald Reagan did good things for the economy. When I point out that Jimmy Carter had several better economic numbers than Reagan, and that by every criteria the economy was better under Bill Clinton Republicans change their story, and say that the president has little control over the economy.

 

So, what Bush H policies did Clinton change to make things so great and then tell me how these polices were change when Bush W was in office that made things so bad????

You are completely wrong about Carter, he was almost as bad as Obama. Reagan made several changes that brought the country out of a recession and got inflation under control. He also rebuild the US military and set the stage for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

Again, economies do better under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones because of two reasons in general (of course Congress has a substantial role in this due to controlling the purse strings); number 1 is because Democrats tend to raise taxes and borrow less, which business likes because it leads to investment when you are more solvent (or solvent at all I should say. Number 2 is peace. Democrats since Carter have been considerably against full scale war. Republicans tend to go looking for it as Reagan, Bush and Bush did. Peace and solvency is tremendous for business. Not to mention safety, enforcement of contracts and infrastructure.

 

Distant Lover -

People who say Reagan did good things for the economy either don't understand economics and finance, OR, benefited from him. It cracks me up when people say the economic boom he got to experience was because of his irresponsible tax cuts. Economies don't improve when money is removed from the national consumption equation. Reagan got a boom for two distinct reasons. The first was the end of the oil embargo mostly due to Reagan's promise to sell Iran arms (which the GOP now accuses Obama of and is critical of, gotta love that). The second and far more important was the credit ease that Reagan's nutcase Treasury Secretary Milton Friedman (an Ayn Rand fetishist) strong armed the FED to lower rates after Volcker did the hard work of stabilizing inflation. This along with massive regulations of banks relaxed allowing usury laws to be ignored.

This easy flow of money both for citizens and the government lead to growth because it pumped a massive amount of money into the system (far more than was removed due to tax reduction) which is always beneficial, at least in the short term. It also leads to massive national debt for the citizens and the government. Reagan's outgoing gift to us was nominating another Ayn Rand lover, Alan Greenspan to the FED to ensure the federal funds rate stayed low to help increase profits for investment firms which were battling defense contractors to be the largest campaign contributors. Nearly everything that has occurred since 1980 in our government is done in favor of SOME kind of profit for someone. Nobility is a thing of the past.

 

Wars the US has been involved in the last 100 years....
Below is a list of wars (major) started under both Democrat and Republican presidents and the number of Americans killed as a result:

Republican wars (Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq )
7,011 American soldiers killed

Democrat wars (WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam)
636,438 American soldiers killed

Let's reiterate once more:
Democrats killed 636,438 Americans
Republicans killed 7,011 Americans

That makes Democrats 128x bigger warmongers than Republicans.

Shall we look at your economic numbers next?????????????????

 

Peanuts! Popcorn! Cold beer right here. Coldest foam in the dome!

 

mindless socks

 

American Experience
General Article: The 1982 Recession

When, in August 1981, Reagan signed his Recovery Act into law at Rancho del Cielo, his Santa Barbara ranch, he promised to find additional cuts to balance the budget, which had a projected deficit of $80 billion -- the largest, to that date, in U.S. history. That fall, the economy took a turn for the worse. To fight inflation, running at a rate of 14 percent per year, the Federal Reserve Board had increased interest rates. Recession was the inevitable result. Blue-collar workers who had largely supported Reagan were hard hit, as many lost their jobs.

The United States was experiencing its worst recession since the Depression, with conditions frighteningly reminiscent of those 50 years earlier. By November 1982, unemployment reached, nine million, the highest rate since the Depression; 17,000 businesses failed, the second highest number since 1933; farmers lost their land; and many sick, elderly, and poor became homeless.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-recession/

---------

The Reagan Recession of 1982 was not the result of an inevitable "down cycle." It was engineered by the Reagan administration.l It was ostensibly designed to fight inflation. Its actual effect, and probably its clandestine intention, was to reduce the ability of employees to negotiate for higher wages, and to weaken the labor movement.

Although inflation did decline after 1982, this was because of a decline in the world price of petroleum.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

This decline was caused by the fact that the OPEC oil price increases, which caused the stagflation of the 1970's were price fixing, and could not be sustained economically.

 

The First World War was morally ambiguous. Without American intervention the Central Powers would probably have won. The harsh peace imposed on Germany inspired the Nazi movement. We can never know how things would have been with a victory of Imperial Germany.

I believe the American involvement in World War II was justified.

By every criteria I value South Korea is a better country than North Korea. Therefore, I think the Korean War was justified. However, after Gen. MacArthur's sucessful Inchon Landing, Gen MacArthur should not have demanded unconditional surrender from North Korea. He should not have sent the U.S. Army to the Yalu River.

The Communist Chinese had legitimate security concerns about an enemy army facing them on the other side of the Yalu River. In 1931 the Japanese had invaded Manchuria by crossing the Yalu River.

A better course of action would have been to conquer the southern half of North Korea, while leaving the northern half to remain as a buffer zone between Communist China and the United States.

The War in Vietnam happened because President Eisenhower refused to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954. That scheduled an internationally supervised election to be held in Vietnam to unify the country. It forbade the entry of foreign troops to Vietnam. It stated that the the division of Vietnam into north and south was temporary.

In his memoirs President Eisenhower admitted that his advisers told him that as many as 80% of the Vietnamese people would have voted for Ho Chi Minh if the election had been held. During the War in Vietnam the United States was in the embarrassing position of ostensibly defending democracy in a country where the Communists would have won a fair election in a blowout.

When President Eisenhower refused to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954 he pretty much guaranteed that there would be a war in Vietnam during the 1960's.

President Eisenhower's "Domino Theory" was an inaccurate explanation of the strategic reality of South East Asia. Nevertheless, it resonated with the American people. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson sent troops to Vietnam because they feared a Republican backlash if they did not.

 

By the criteria of jobs created per year, maximum unemployment, deficit spending, and length and depth of one recession each, the Carter administration had better economic numbers than the Reagan administration.

Carter was not responsible for the inflation and gasoline lines. The Iranian Revolution was responsible for the oil shortages that caused that. . Carter was not responsible for that. President Eisenhower was. When Eisenhower directed the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and install the Shah as dictator he caused the Iranians to hate us. When the Iranians overthrew the Shah in 1979 they acted on their hate.

 

LOL, I was referring to wars in my lifetime Rick Flair. Why didn't you include the Civil War? Or the Spanish American War? Or the other wars we were in? Arguing with conservatives is like arguing with a pissed off girlfriend. No logic or thought shall be used.

 

How old are you, like 15 or 16?

Don't get all mad at me because you have decided to showcase your stupidity....

 

You should be embarassed whenever the topic of stupidity is broached.

 

You should be proud. When looking up the word stupidity in a dictionary, next to the definition is a picture of you.....

 

You forgot the extra 10 trillion dollars added to our debt. That is the democratic philosophy: "up to your eyeballs in debt? No problem: just raise your credit limit and spend more money than you have and you will achieve prosperity.". Isn't that what responsible people do when they are on a tight budget? Go out and get as many credit cards as they can and max them all out? Then when they can't make the payments, they get more credit cards to pay off the ones that are maxed out! What's the problem with that?!

 

The Republican philosophy is, "Let's cut taxes to grow the economy, and balance the budget." To find any evidence that that has worked, you have to go back to the administrations of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Even then, there was nearly as much economic growth during Franklin Roosevelt's first administration as during the eight years Harding and Coolidge were president.

 

What is wrong with letting people keep more of the money that they work hard for and earn?

Why is it the Democrats want to take more and more money from people that work in order to support the people that don't work or won't work?

Where and when does the gravy train end?

 

Identifying with the rich won't make you rich. It will not make the rich identify with you.