Just like those you accuse you vote for the same things under a different banner and call it good. Both teams suck and if you cannot see it it's your problem.

I'd attempt a clever response, but the cat has my tongue.

I can see that both teams suck, and not surprisingly, you're saying that as just another strawman argument to fight at.

Here's what I said:

1. The stock market, economic growth, personal incomes, and corporate profits always do better under Democratic administrations. Always...and it is easily verifiable.

2. If you vote based on those issues, and vote for the GOP, then you are a clown...unless, of course, you are against the stock market going up, economic growth in the USA, increased personal incomes, and corporate profits.

Is that too hard for you to understand?

Fish on...

Todd

<-----------------------

'nuf said.

BS. As I said before the stock market is up because of money printing . If you think that's good you are stupid. Corporate profits are up because the companies are not hiring nor investing in growth levers if you think that is better you are stupid. Personal incomes have not grown in 10 years and to add insult to injury the buying power of those incomes is 39% less than it was in 2000 if you think that is better you are stupid . Your historical comparison does no one any good because it is a sophist argument and simply not true this time.
Obama has completely abandoned the middle class.

If a democrat runs for president and can fix all that is wrong I would vote for him . I could careless about the party.

Then do your research. Those things have done better under every Democrat, and have done worse under every Republican.

You can be like Hank, or like Slabby, and not give two schits about anything other than voting for the GOP, but don't vote for the GOP if you care about the stock market, economic growth, personal incomes, or corporate profits.

If you do, then you are voting against what you want...and like I said, that is not a particularly rare occurrence, people do it all the time...but they're usually idiots who don't care about the truth, or ignorants who don't bother even trying to find out what it is.

Fish on...

Todd

If you really do not care which party you vote for, but only which one is better at economics, then here are some places to start:

http://www.presidentialdata.org/

Since World War 2, 55,794,000 jobs have been created under Democratic Presidents, while 38,256,000 jobs have been created under Republican Presidents

Jobs have grown an average of twice as fast annually under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents
Nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under Republican presidents.

Republican presidents' deficits are twice as large as Democrats' and nearly twice as high as a percent of GDP.

GDP grows 52% faster under Democratic presidents.
Businesses invest more than two times as much under Democratic presidents.

This data is compiled by offsetting a President's Administration by a year to account for the fact that the Federal budget for any given fiscal year is drafted and passed in the previous calendar year. For example, 1993's budget was drafted and passed in 1992, during the Bush administration, so that year is ascribed to President Bush, even though President Clinton was in office in 1993.

One exception has been made: 2009's ARRA was drafted and passed by the Obama administration, creating $114 billion of Federal outlays for 2009. That amount has been subtracted from President Bush II's 2009 budget/deficit total and added to President Obama's.

Since World War II . . .

Almost twice as many jobs are created per year under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents (1.8 million jobs under Democratic Presidents versus one million jobs under Republican Presidents.)

The deficit under Republican Presidents has been more than twice as large as the under Democratic Presidents. In dollars, Republican Presidents have contributed nearly $4 trillion more to the national debt than Democratic Presidents.
GDP growth has been 52% higher under Democratic Presidents.
Business Investment Growth has been 165% higher under Democratic Presidents.
Unemployment has been 23% higher under Republican Presidents.
Average increase in weekly earnings have been 107.5% higher under Democratic Presidents

Nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under Republican Presidents (www.nber.org/cycles.html)

JOB GROWTH

Democratic Presidents have created 17.5 million more jobs than Republican Presidents, and jobs have grown nearly twice as fast under Democratic Presidents as under Republican Presidents.

Total jobs created under Democratic Presidents: 55,794,000
Total jobs created under Republican Presidents: 38,256,000

Average jobs gained per year under Democratic Presidents: 1,830,000
Average jobs gained per year under Republican Presidents: 1,063,000

GDP GROWTH

Real Gross Domestic Product growth under Democratic Presidents has been 52% higher than during Republican Presidents.

Average real GDP growth under Democratic Presidents: +4%

Average real GDP growth under Republican Presidents: +2.63%

BUSINESS INVESTMENT GROWTH

Real business investment growth under Democratic Presidents has been 165% higher than under Republican Presidents.

Average growth under Democratic Presidents: +6.3%

Average growth under Republican Presidents: +2.76%

FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS

Federal budget deficits under Republican Presidents are 100% higher than under Democratic Presidents (as a percentage of GDP, Republican Presidents have been 90% higher than Democratic Presidents).

Total Democratic Budget Deficit: $3,887.6 billion

Total Republican Budget Deficit: $7,807.2 billion

Average deficit under Democratic Presidents: 2.1% of GDP

Average deficit under Republican Presidents: 3.98% of GDP

UNEMPLOYMENT

Unemployment under Republican Presidents has been 23% higher than under Democratic Presidents.

Average unemployment under Democratic Presidents: 5.06%

Average unemployment under Republican Presidents: 6.23%

GROWTH IN SPENDING

Federal Spending has increased twice as fast under Republican Presidents than under Democratic Presidents

Democratic Presidents' annual spending increased by an average of $35.3 billion per year

Republican Presidents' annual spending increased by an average of $70 billion per year

BALANCE OF TRADE

Trade deficits under Republican Presidents have been 116% higher than under Democratic Presidents.

Total trade deficit under Democratic Administrations (in millions): $2,695,994

Total trade deficit under Republican Administrations (in millions): $5,828,385

STOCK MARKET

The Stock Market under Democratic Presidents has grown 200% faster under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents.

Average yearly growth in Stock Market returns under Democratic Presidents: +1.92%

Average yearly growth in Stock Market returns under Republican Presidents: +0.64%

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/23/b...omic-terms.html

For more detailed information and specific sources, click on the topics above. You can download the full document here. Footnotes for all documents can be downloaded here.

Most Sources from: Statistical Abstract of the United States; 1992-2011 Economic Reports of the President, Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Labor Statistics, all data since World War II.

**************

That's just for starters.

Go to the link provided, and you can not only read all of that stuff there, but you can see all the citations to where the information came from.

HINT: The information did not come from the DNC, the RNC, FoxNews, or MSNBC. It came from direct sources.

Fish on...

Todd

A sophist argument that does not translate down to the middle class in any form in the short term and gets worse the further out you take the data. Obama is the single most destructive force the middle class has ever seen and it is shameful to defend him. On top of that he is the best president Wall Street has ever known at the expense of all of us now and in the foreseeable future.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

More.

You guys don't have to use facts, or the truth, when forming your opinions...like I said above, plenty of idiots ignore the facts and the truth, and plenty prefer to remain ignorant by not even wondering about the facts or truth.

You will not be alone in being so profoundly wrong.

Fish on...

Todd

From Business Insider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-increased-the-debt-2012-9



Common theme, every election cycle...this is the truth, and the GOP tells you exactly the opposite.

That's what most people call "lying"...unless they like being lied to...then they call it "Good Republican Strategy".

Fish on...

Todd

There are literally dozens of articles on the InterWebz outlining all those things, and they are brutally consistent: the GOP sucks at everything economic other than stuffing the pockets of the rich.

This conclusion is drawn by FoxNews online, Fox Business News online, Bloomberg, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and dozens of other sources.

It's not new information, and it's not surprising information...and it's not surprising that 45% of the voters in this country take it at face value when the GOP tells you that they are the "fiscally responsible party", and votes for them in direct contravention of not only their own well being, but in direct contradiction to the truth.

You guys can carry on doing so, just know that you are incredibly wrong when you do.

Fish on...

Todd

And how about the rest of the story?

The chart, which, notably, was produced by the Office Of The Democratic Leader, shows the amount the U.S. debt expanded under each President since Reagan. It shows that the debt increased far more on a percentage basis under Republican Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush than under Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama.

However, for several reasons, the chart is not particularly meaningful, as the myth-busters at Snopes.com make clear:

Two of the Republican Presidents--Reagan and Bush 2--had two terms, and in an economy that is running at a deficit, you'll accumulate more debt over two terms than one. Importantly, of course, Democratic President Clinton had two terms, and he accumulated the least debt of any of these Presidents.
Incoming Presidents inherit the spending and taxing policies of their predecessors, as well as their economies. So a lot of what happens early in Presidential terms should be laid at the feet of the predecessor.
Congress plays a big role in spending and debt creation.
Debt analyses are most relevant on a debt-to-GDP basis. This chart shows the change in debt in absolute dollars.
Percentage changes are less meaningful when dealing with small numbers than they are with big numbers. Bush 2.
The chart only goes through the end of 2010.

So, yes, the chart is basically accurate, but it's not particularly meaningful.

If you want to assign blame for our huge current debt and deficit problem, read the article below.

SEE ALSO: The Truth About Who's Responsible For Our Massive Debt And Deficit Problem

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/who-increased-the-debt-2012-9#ixzz2mYlz4jHi

There are dozens of articles and sources out there on all the topics surrounding the growth of the economy, the growth of personal incomes, the growth of corporate profits, and the growth of the stock market, and all of them say the exact same thing.

Rev, you, too, can completely ignore the facts if you like...just know that when you pull the lever for "GOP" you are voting in direct contradiction to what you profess to believe in...fiscal policies that benefit the USA and its citizens.

As noted above, you won't be the only one doing it.

Fish on...

Todd

There's nothing more to say...until one of you clowns starts another thread about how great the GOP is on fiscal policy...then I'll remind you again that you are talking out your ass.

The GOP has always sucked at fiscal policy, every actual news source or direct source confirms it, and since they are continuing to sell the exact same failed policies over and over again, there is no reason to think that they won't continue to suck at fiscal policy.

Fish on...

Todd

Hank, ignore the facts all you want...this is America, and if you want to purposely be an ignorant fool you can do that.

Fish on...

Todd

It took me a few minutes, but now I understand this thread. He who hurls the greatest number of high quality insults at the guy across the street wins.

And the win goes to Toddster, by a country mile. And congrats to all you runners up.

Well, when it comes to being offensive Todd is simply peerless.

Determining the loser is easier. If you've got Carl Rove on your side, you lose... game over.

The biggest loser is anyone that dismisses anyone out of hand because they call they are liberal , conservative, libertarian ,fat , skinny , female, homosexual or any color. We are too short on good ideas to fix this problem to be foolish enough to limit our options.

LOL... I knew you'd be offended by that!