Is there any measurable way the country does better with Republican presidents?

Have you seen Ragin Cajun James Carville trying to comprehend what happened to his party?

its hilarious.

Yes, he is worth the price of admission...trying to form an audible response to the pretzel that he creates himself...too funny...and he is the sage of the Democrat Party.

Similar to the OP (with an Ivy League education) of course. Too funny.
 
Carter to Biden is a very long time.

Carter and inflation was the reason for that. For 12 years after Carter nobody wanted to vote for a Democrat.

Biden makes him look like a piker, so I'd hazard a guess people won't want another Democrat for 20 years after his disastrous presidency.

Might even have a new party or two formed.
 
How many people with an "Ivy League" education would waste all day on an obscure political forum?

That's a rhetorical interrogatory...no need for an answer.

How many people with an "Ivy League" degree would make an egregious grammatical error?
 
Spin this:

Dow down 1.4%-today
Nasdaq down 2.36%-today

Year top date-Dow-down 15%

The S&P is at a "bear market"

Nasdaq-year to date-down 29%

S&P- down 20% year to date
 
Last edited:
The rich people demographic is on the plus side, like always. They do terrifically on that one.

That's an interesting point. Have Republican presidents been better for rich people than Democratic presidents? You'd think so, given the way the GOP effectively shapes policy with almost no purpose beyond enriching the rich. But you might be surprised. See here:

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html

Looking at the inflation-adjusted column, since 1967, here's what incomes did at the top 5% level, in terms of annualized growth rates:

Trump: +3.03%
Clinton: +2.51%
Reagan: +2.19%
Nixon: +1.89%
Obama: +1.43%
Carter: +1.14%
LBJ: +0.53%
Ford: -0.03%
Bush2: -0.11%
Bush1: -0.15%

So, the rich only lost ground three times.... and each time was during a Republican presidency. That makes it an interesting question why the rich like the Republicans so much more. My theory is that it's about relative performance. The rich care more about the gap between them and the rest than they do about their own absolute material prosperity.

Think, for example, of a medieval lord. In absolute terms, the guy lived a dirt-poor life compared to even middle class people today. He sweated like a pig in summer, because there was no such thing as air conditioning. His winters were a nightmare in a dark and drafty castle. He had such limited dietary possibilities that getting his hands on some cinnamon would have been a decadent luxury. The healthcare was so shoddy he'd likely be an old man by the time he was in his 40's, if he managed to live that long. Yet, relative to the unwashed masses who lived in his fiefdom, he was like a god among men. He could treat them like garbage and they'd be afraid to let a moment of defiance flicker through their mask of submissive adoration. In that sense, he had a level of wealth that Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk can only dream of.

I think that explains why the rich prefer Republican policy, even if they arguably do better under Democrats. It's not enough to succeed -- they must see others fail to be happy. And during Democratic eras, the poor and middle class tend to do well. That's not a good thing if you're looking to surround yourself with peons who will bow and scrape to you. Democrats make the little people too uppity.
 
How many people with an "Ivy League" education would waste all day on an obscure political forum?

Quite a few. Is this the first you've met?

How many people with an "Ivy League" degree would make an egregious grammatical error?

I'd say just about 100%. Who hasn't made one, at some point?
 
White Supremacist Extremists. LOL!

WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE!

1LrQNcB.jpg
 
It's the place of all citizens.
Agreed. All taxpayers have a right to say how their money is spent. That's part of being a democracy (or republic). Authoritarians tell people to STFU and just hand over the money.
 
Quite a few. Is this the first you've met?



I'd say just about 100%. Who hasn't made one, at some point?

Well, Sweetie, you post all day and no, I don't believe you have an Ivy League degree.

I do have a degree from the Harvard of the South...that's anecdotal...unless you want to come to my small pueblo (that's redundant, that's redundant) and see it.
 
That's an interesting point. Have Republican presidents been better for rich people than Democratic presidents? You'd think so, given the way the GOP effectively shapes policy with almost no purpose beyond enriching the rich. But you might be surprised. See here:

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-income-households.html

Looking at the inflation-adjusted column, since 1967, here's what incomes did at the top 5% level, in terms of annualized growth rates:

Trump: +3.03%
Clinton: +2.51%
Reagan: +2.19%
Nixon: +1.89%
Obama: +1.43%
Carter: +1.14%
LBJ: +0.53%
Ford: -0.03%
Bush2: -0.11%
Bush1: -0.15%

So, the rich only lost ground three times.... and each time was during a Republican presidency. That makes it an interesting question why the rich like the Republicans so much more. My theory is that it's about relative performance. The rich care more about the gap between them and the rest than they do about their own absolute material prosperity.

Think, for example, of a medieval lord. In absolute terms, the guy lived a dirt-poor life compared to even middle class people today. He sweated like a pig in summer, because there was no such thing as air conditioning. His winters were a nightmare in a dark and drafty castle. He had such limited dietary possibilities that getting his hands on some cinnamon would have been a decadent luxury. The healthcare was so shoddy he'd likely be an old man by the time he was in his 40's, if he managed to live that long. Yet, relative to the unwashed masses who lived in his fiefdom, he was like a god among men. He could treat them like garbage and they'd be afraid to let a moment of defiance flicker through their mask of submissive adoration. In that sense, he had a level of wealth that Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk can only dream of.

I think that explains why the rich prefer Republican policy, even if they arguably do better under Democrats. It's not enough to succeed -- they must see others fail to be happy. And during Democratic eras, the poor and middle class tend to do well. That's not a good thing if you're looking to surround yourself with peons who will bow and scrape to you. Democrats make the little people too uppity.

what about deplorables?
 
You misunderstood. Try rereading. Good luck.
Sorry dear I misunderstood nothing.

you cut taxes and as a result the private sector spends money less productively than it was being spent in the public sector, and the GDP growth rate falls, that's bad. If, instead they spend it more productively and GDP growth rates rise, that's good.

That little miss is total stupidity. Taxes should cover the amount the government needs to take care of it's responsibilities under the constitution and not one cent more.

Here is an example of your beloved big government responsible spending. "You run a government dept. And have a budget of $500,000 for all expenses for one year. If you are frugal and save $200,000. Unless you spend that $200,000 your budget will be drastically cut the following year. However if you spend it all then you can expect a budget increase.
That dear is not spending money responsibly. It is clear you have never worked for the government.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top