FORBES: For a Better Economy, Vote Democratic

[blacken700]

. . .


• 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
 

The whole story:

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







 

[Straw Man]

If Romney wins I'm sure middle class Republican will be happy to give up their mortgage interest deduction in order to pay for Romneys tax cus on dividend and capital gains.    Uber rich people don't need mortgages so they couldn't give a rats ass about the mortgage interest deduction

[Princess L]

. . .


• Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents (EXCEPT UNDER OBAMA)
 
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents (EXCEPT UNDER OBAMA)
 
• Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year) (EXCEPT UNDER OBAMA)
 
• 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) (EXCEPT UNDER OBAMA)
 
• Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents (EXCEPT UNDER OBAMA)
 
• The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations (NOW UNDER OBAMA)
 

The whole story: by  Adam Hartung, Contributor

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

fixed
 

[Straw Man]

fixed
 

I can't believe Forbes got that wrong

surely you have some sources for your claims

[Princess L]

Adam Hartung, Contributor

"Thanks for commenting Christian Conner. The primary intent of the column was to encourage people to seek out facts about the history of the parties, and the historical policies of the candidates – and not rely on conventional wisdom, or possibly myths that have been created out of history."

[mogulgangi]

. . .


• 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
 

The whole story:

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







 

Blacken is actually correct on this....although a little skewed of the truth, he does bring a good point for me to resolve..it is proven, by Goldman Sachs global research, that under a democratic president and a democratic senate the economy prospers more..you can use historical evidence to prove the upcoming election's potential ecomonic benefit..what blacken failed to mention and Forbes as well is that the next 4 years are very different that any period of time in America..fiscal cliff is upon us..Obama runs a very different economic agenda than what bill Clinton did ..bill Clinton expanded the free markets..bill clinto did not favor tax hikes, obama care, ect ec.Obama wants to skink them the private sector with much strict regulation...pretty much everything bill Clinton offered, which is one of the most economical effective time, Obama does the opposite..to compare Obama ti previous democrats is blasphemy..no other president what put such a large burden on our budget..

Blacken fail

[Straw Man]

Blacken is actually correct on this....although a little skewed of the truth, he does bring a good point for me to resolve..it is proven, by Goldman Sachs global research, that under a democratic president and a democratic senate the economy prospers more..you can use historical evidence to prove the upcoming election's potential ecomonic benefit..what blacken failed to mention and Forbes as well is that the next 4 years are very different that any period of time in America..fiscal cliff is upon us..Obama runs a very different economic agenda than what bill Clinton did ..bill Clinton expanded the free markets..bill clinto did not favor tax hikes, obama care, ect ec.Obama wants to skink them the private sector with much strict regulation...pretty much everything bill Clinton offered, which is one of the most economical effective time, Obama does the opposite..to compare Obama ti previous democrats is blasphemy..no other president what put such a large burden on our budget..

Blacken fail

by "expanding free markets" are you referring to NAFTA or the deregulation or the commodites industry or something else/more?

[mogulgangi]

by "expanding free markets" are you referring to NAFTA or the deregulation or the commodites industry or something else/more?

Look up Lawrence summers, Alan Greenspan, and Robert rubins work..they were the pioneers or gov free markets...

[Straw Man]

Look up Lawrence summers, Alan Greenspan, and Robert rubins work..they were the pioneers or gov free markets...

so you're referring to deregulation of the commodities and capital markets

that's what happened at the very end of the Clinton administration with the result being the near collapse (they actually did collapse but were bailed out) of credit markets less than 10 years later

here is what Greenspan said when testifying to Congress:

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity," Greenspan, described as a maestro and an oracle while at the central bank, told a House committee. Greenspan called that "a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works."[/quote]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6100290&page=1

[flipper5470]

Greenspan is attempting to shift blame from the Fed.  One of the theories behind the cause of the great recesssion of 2007-2009 is that the Fed stayed on a tight money policy for too long.  The irony here is that Ben Bernanke has posited that the fed caused the great depression fo the 20's and 30's by holding to a tight policy for too long.

[Straw Man]

Greenspan is attempting to shift blame from the Fed.  One of the theories behind the cause of the great recesssion of 2007-2009 is that the Fed stayed on a tight money policy for too long.  The irony here is that Ben Bernanke has posited that the fed caused the great depression fo the 20's and 30's by holding to a tight policy for too long.

the "great recession" was triggered by a worldwide collapse of the credit markets due in large part (though not in whole) to the deregulation of the commodities market which allowed the AltA mortgage mortgage to come into existence and which allowed an insurance company to issue insurance policies (credit default swaps) without having a penny of reserves to back them up (due to their high credit rating which brings in the collusion between the bond rating agencies and the companies that directly paid them in return for favorable ratings)

Eventually bankers figured out that a cool way to make money was to create pools of loans that were designed to fail so that that could cash in on the CDS's

http://www.propublica.org/article/all-the-magnetar-trade-how-one-hedge-fund-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble

[flipper5470]

Robert Hetzel...an economist with the Fed in Richmond...says the recession of 2007 would have been moderate had the fed not held to a tight policy. 



He outlines his case in his book...The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? (Studies in Macroeconomic History)

[Straw Man]

Robert Hetzel...an economist with the Fed in Richmond...says the recession of 2007 would have been moderate had the fed not held to a tight policy. 



He outlines his case in his book...The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? (Studies in Macroeconomic History)

the argument against Hetzel assertion is that easing monetary policy would have done nothing to fix the problem of toxic investments on the balance sheets of banks all over the world which is what triggered the meltdown to begin with

[flipper5470]

The weakness there is that Hetzel isn't adressing the cause...simply the degree of the effect.

  In my view, eliminating mark to market accounting woukd have been a wise move.  The default rate on subprime mortgages peaked at @ 20%...the aggregate of all mortgages was far lower, IIRC closer to 5-6%.  That means at worse the underlying asset for mortgage paper traded institutionally was paying at worse 80%.  When the market froze...banks were forced to write those assets down to nil because there was no market for them.  Allowing them to carry an imputed value based onth einterest recieved would have kept their balance sheets far healthier and obviated the need for the government to step in and buy these supposedly "toxic" assets.

[Straw Man]

The weakness there is that Hetzel isn't adressing the cause...simply the degree of the effect.

  In my view, eliminating mark to market accounting woukd have been a wise move.  The default rate on subprime mortgages peaked at @ 20%...the aggregate of all mortgages was far lower, IIRC closer to 5-6%.  That means at worse the underlying asset for mortgage paper traded institutionally was paying at worse 80%.  When the market froze...banks were forced to write those assets down to nil because there was no market for them.  Allowing them to carry an imputed value based onth einterest recieved would have kept their balance sheets far healthier and obviated the need for the government to step in and buy these supposedly "toxic" assets.

I can't totally argue against that though the original TARP plan was to buy the toxic assets but in the end very little of that was actually done.

[GigantorX]

The weakness there is that Hetzel isn't adressing the cause...simply the degree of the effect.

  In my view, eliminating mark to market accounting woukd have been a wise move.  The default rate on subprime mortgages peaked at @ 20%...the aggregate of all mortgages was far lower, IIRC closer to 5-6%.  That means at worse the underlying asset for mortgage paper traded institutionally was paying at worse 80%.  When the market froze...banks were forced to write those assets down to nil because there was no market for them.  Allowing them to carry an imputed value based onth einterest recieved would have kept their balance sheets far healthier and obviated the need for the government to step in and buy these supposedly "toxic" assets.

But the toxic assets are still on the balance sheets, all the magic and illusions and rule changes can't hide that fact.  The bad assets are still there and the debt is still there. Vaporizing the rule of law wasn't the way to go and is never the way to go. All that is assured is this will happen again and it will be worse than the last collapse.

It's like telling a cancer patient that all is well because the AMA has changed the medical definition of cancer to something more positive.

This was and continues to be the true form of Voodoo Economics.

[George Whorewell]

. . .


• 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
 

The whole story:

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

How many of the above quoted statistics involve the current Democratic President?

[POB]

If Romney wins I'm sure middle class Republican will be happy to give up their mortgage interest deduction in order to pay for Romneys tax cus on dividend and capital gains.    Uber rich people don't need mortgages so they couldn't give a rats ass about the mortgage interest deduction

This is a great point. It's funny how many people voting Romney carry mortgages and are voting for less write offs for themselves...

[tonymctones]

This is a great point. It's funny how many people voting Romney carry mortgages and are voting for less write offs for themselves...

whats also hillarious are the ppl voting for obama due to govt assistance they feel the govt should provide for ppl. Those same ppl bitching about "rich" ppls taxes not being high enough. Ignoring the fact that even if we took all their assets we could only run the massive govt for 3 months.

The same ppl who dont realize and ignore the fact that if we keep spending like drunken obamas we will have no choice at all but to raise taxes on the middle class.

its a fuking knee slapper I tell ya!!!!

[Necrosis]

whats also hillarious are the ppl voting for obama due to govt assistance they feel the govt should provide for ppl. Those same ppl bitching about "rich" ppls taxes not being high enough. Ignoring the fact that even if we took all their assets we could only run the massive govt for 3 months.

The same ppl who dont realize and ignore the fact that if we keep spending like drunken obamas we will have no choice at all but to raise taxes on the middle class.

its a fuking knee slapper I tell ya!!!!

well one thing is for sure, Republican policies are generally worse wrt to economic growth, that's quite clear.

You guys are in for a really rough haul if Romney gets in. He is going to rape the middle class so hard, lol.

[tonymctones]

well one thing is for sure, Republican policies are generally worse wrt to economic growth, that's quite clear.

You guys are in for a really rough haul if Romney gets in. He is going to rape the middle class so hard, lol.

haha sure sure

the middle class has done so great under obama, all he need is another 4 years right necrosis?

[blacken700]

well one thing is for sure, Republican policies are generally worse wrt to economic growth, that's quite clear.

You guys are in for a really rough haul if Romney gets in. He is going to rape the middle class so hard, lol.

that's not what rush tells them  and you know they get their marching orders from him and hannity,shit they admit it they have the highest ratings 

[Soul Crusher]

well one thing is for sure, Republican policies are generally worse wrt to economic growth, that's quite clear.

You guys are in for a really rough haul if Romney gets in. He is going to rape the middle class so hard, lol.

LOL - NY, CA, demo run cities are all in the toilet as a result of liberal policies. 

[tonymctones]

that's not what rush tells them  and you know they get their marching orders from him and hannity,shit they admit it they have the highest ratings 

LOL media matters broham!!!

[240 is Back]

I like a lot of the romney platform.  Some, I do not.

Im surprised forbes took this position.