Democratic Presidents outperform Republicans in 11 of 12 economic measures
 

Democratic Presidents outperform Republican Presidents in 11 of 12 economic indicators over past 80 years

Assuming their numbers are correct which is a big assumption, their book is completely worthless. JFK's fiscal policies are much closer to Romney than Obama. Is Bill Clinton supposed to get credit for the fake Internet bubble economy that he was lucky enough that it blew up after he left office? Does that mean we should have elected Carter over Reagan despite stagflation and a recession? Should we ignore that Obama has grown the largest debt in the history of the country or that he has presided over the worst recovery in 65 years? Should FDR get credit for the WW II economy or even worse should LBJ get credit for the Vietnam War economy? Like I said that book is worthless.

That figures. Ri(di)ot's worthless opinions have to come from someplace.

Useless post only meant to be insulting troll duly noted.

Assuming the earth is really measurably round, which is a big assumption, the theory that the earth isn't flat is completely worthless. As I said, completely worthless.

Because I said so.

Worthless.

Completely.

:D :tro:

Ah, yes - taking numbers you haven't read, from a book not yet published, and declaring it "worthless". What a magical mind you have regarding politics and the economy.

Yes taking numbers from a book that you haven't fact checked and is yet to be published and then declaring that people should vote a certain way is definitely worthless. Now actually try and address one thing in my post.

i'd imagine that when the economy does well it does so in spite of the politicians, not because of them. there's no need for anyone to help along the charade that government actually helps businesses in any purely positive way.

and it's funny how quickly all those pols disavow any responsibility whatsoever when the stuff goes south.

Excellent point Danzig, which is another reason why this book is worthless.

Try hard and concentrate here - I didn't say anything about voting, the author did, and the author, you'll note, was surprised at the result, as he thought it would be different.

Try to think, and not use just your lizard brain of kneejerk hate - why do you assume your concerns were not addressed in the data?

Which of the charts listed in the article - the actual numbers listed - make you think your concerns were not addressed, and why? All those numbers are public domain. Give us actual numbers that show differently than these two authors, and support your contention their numbers are wrong.

This isn't opinion - this is measurable numbers. 12 economic indicators. Not opinion. So stick with the facts and defend your casual "worthless" comment, if you want any respect for your opinion.

Thinking the economic performance of this country is independent from our Congress and government is completely absurd, and disproven by the past two centuries plus of our country's existence.

But this book looks at the facts of the past 80 years, excluding Obama (he's not included). And the measurable facts, the actual results, show that 11 of 12 economic indicators perform better under Dem Presidents than GOP.

Damn facts - they do seem to have a "liberal" bias, huh?

Just a quick glance at two charts shows how stupid and worthless the charts are. Our trade deficit has gotten worse with each successive President and if Obama was included he would be last, so that shows absolutely nothing.

However the most embarrassing for an Obama worshipper like you is that he would be third for highest average unemployment rate right behind Hoover and FDR, the two Presidents during the Great Depression. That alone is a good enough argument that he should be tossed to the curb in November 2012.

Any more questions Riot?

Don't do a quick glance, do an analysis - what is wrong about them? You're the one saying they are "worthless". Why? Convince me. You have valid reasons or not?

Yeah, yeah, Blah, blah, blah - nice distraction try, but we're discussing the charts you said were worthless. And Obama performance isn't included in the book, rocket scientist.

Didn't you even READ the article you are pontificating about?

We're waiting for your expertise to explain why.

Yeah - why can't you put your money where your mouth is, and defend your statement? You've got no facts. You've got nothing but mouth. You think that repeating "they are stupid and worthless" somehow magically makes it so. LOL - no. That's not how reality and measurable facts work. That's fantasy. That makes your deep analysis "worthless".

You defining a measurable fact as "stupid" is the nonsensical, idiotic reply of a five-year-old.

Any more questions, Sockpuppet? If your only contribution to discussing political issues of the day is "Obama sucks", please, go back and bother the other threads, because you're useless here. It would be nice to have some real political discussions about the actual state of the country. Not rants by haters, which are useless and worthless.

Nice try Ri(do)t, it is a fact that Obama has the third highest unempolyment, it is not rocket science just a simple fact.

Only a true sheep like you takes the charts at face value. Carter is listed as 4th for least amount of time in a recession. Yeah Riot stagflation and long gas lines are signs of a strong economy. Not even far left liberal nut jobs to the right of you try and spin that Carter presided over a good economy.

How about FDR at number 3 for the least amount of time in a recession, yet from 1932 until the war economy saved FDR's disastrous policies, the country was in the Great Depression. The term Recession was meaningless considering how far the economy fell.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see one original thought from your teeny brain on why we should take the charts at face value. In fact, I am still waiting for an original thought from on any subject.

Hello?

Knock, knock - are you there?

The subject of this thread is a book that says Democratic presidents have outperformed Republican presidents on 11 of 12 economic indicators.

Obama is not included in this book. Obama is not a subject of this thread.

You said the charts were worthless, even if their numbers were right. That's a pretty amazing statement :D

I haven't made up my mind about this book. I haven't read it. I just posted it as I found it surprising and interesting.

So change my mind - show me how the authors are factually wrong, as you assert.

Recessions fit a certain financial definition, and their duration is measured in months. This book covers the last 80 years. Our recessions are listed by duration on Wikipedia. Give me the figures you have that show this ranking to be incorrect.

Blah, blah, blah, more insults, more yakking.

It's apparent that you don't know the difference between opinion and fact. You think they are interchangable and the same, as you use them interchangably.

You are wrong. Facts are not opinion.

Guess you can't answer my question. I thought I'd give you a chance to show you think, but back you go, Sockpuppet Fake Dee Tee Account, back into the category of the frothing Obama-haters.

BTW? I'm not a "liberal" ;)

In fact, you know all those "conservatives" over in England that thought Mitt Romney a bloody fool for his disastrous visit before the Olympics? The Prime Minister? Those "far right righties" in England, those "conservatives", are to the left of our current Democratic party in the USA That's how far off the grid the Tea Party loonies have drug this nation to the far, far, FAR right, into John Bircher Land.

If you purchase Kindle version of this book, you deprive yourself of using it as doorstop. Yes, I have not read book. However, I did read USNWR article and Amazon book reviews. It is book written by poli-sci law professor and financial planner/finance professor. It is not economic paper published by recognized journal.

Any president would have looked good following Hoover. He had misfortune of being president when stock market collapsed. Aside, Hoover and Carter prove that engineers make horrible leaders. Furthermore, Nixon lead during initial Arab oil crisis. Energy became permanently more expensive after 1973. George W. Bush lead US after 9/11 tragedy. The economic carnage from that day continues today.

My parting factoid is no sitting president has been reelected since FDR with unemployment above 7.2 percent.

Nice try Ri(do)t, I have completely destroyed the charts and you haven't had one intelligence response.

So are you saying that Carter was a good President? Are you saying the economy was strong under Carter?

Dylbert makes a great point which will be lost on a sheep like Riot. You have to take the charts in context.

Why wasn't Obama included? Ford was included and his Presidency was shorter than Obama's. Obama wasn't included because the book was written by two liberals who sit in the ivory tower and who obviously didn't want to make Obama look bad. Again I stress, which Riot continues to ignore, that in the last 80 years Obama has the third highest average unemployment rate only behind the two Presidents who served during the Great Depression. Aren't we supposed to be in a recovery?

Also the charts don't measure the strength of the recovery as Reagan's recovery was much, much better than Obama's anemic recovery. Just another flaw in the worthless charts.

For once I agree with you Riot, you are not a liberal, you are a nasty, intolerant, far-left extremist who supports policies that have already failed wherever they have been tried. You are a regressive.

And yes Riot, all it takes is a quick glance at the charts, along with common sense, a knowledge of history, and the ability to see things in context, none of which you seem to possess, to know that those charts are worthless propaganda written by a two partisan hacks who sit in the ivory tower.

I challenge you to respond intelligently and in your own words, while actually answering what I have written about the various charts. Come on Riot, convince me that you can put an intelligent thought together in your own words that actually stays on issue.

Seriously, why should she? You'll NEVER be convinced of anything other than being a Liberal is on par with being an idiot, mass murderer and child molester all rolled into one so why should ANYONE try and convince you otherwise. Come on..whoever you are..just admit it..you're trolling for Liberals ( and succesfully so based on my outbursts) and really have no other objective. It's certainly not to discuss politics civilly and intelligently because you have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that you are inapable of that. Go back to Pace Advantage with the rest of those righties and sing cumbaya together.

Sure you have, honey :) And Batman wants you to wait by your window, watching for his signal to you so that you may join him ;) If you're not too busy spraying vinegar into the air to make the "chemtrails" disappear from the sky ....

Because when you poke them for fun, and they respond predictably and immediately with frothing, angry confusion, it's entertaining in an admittedly schadenfreudian sort of way.

Hey - I voted Republican for decades. I admit have a tiny bit of that mean streak left :o