Republicans Are Good for Your Pocketbook: A Reality Check

Bill,

I got a 'page not found' from NYT on that link.

Thanks

Yes, the link does not give an article, only a "Page Not Found".

Now there's this message:

Server Error


We're sorry, but we are temporarily experiencing a server error. Our systems administrators have been notified and are working to fix the problem. Please wait a few moments, then press Reload or Refresh in your Web browser. If the problem persists, please exit your Web browser and try again. We regret the inconvenience.

I ultimately did a Google search and got the article. Very revealing.

Can we mention that while under Clinton's Administration that Clinton BORROWED MONEY from the Social Security fund, thus causing hte problems that there is now in the Social Security fund and not being enoughSo money for seniors and people that are entitled to it?

Sorry I'm not buying the Obama package for more than one reason...
Mooch

Clinton had a surplus, does it matter where he borrowed it from? He paid it back and then the Republicans stole all the insurance and other money on Wall st. Get a grip Mari.

Good facts there Bill, I sent the gist of that onto some friends!

Mari,

You've got some of the facts straight and some mixed up. When money comes in from the SS contributions, it is placed somewhere to draw interest. At the present time it is placed into government notes that are to be redeemed when the system needs it. This has been true of every president, not just Clinton.

The problems faced by Social Security are the result, not of someone "stealing" the money, but because the work force is diminishing and the retirees are increasing and will continue this through the baby boomers lives.

Whether or not that is the best instrument in which to invest those funds is open to argument like most things but no president can be faulted for his personal handling of the funds, Republican or Democrat.

This, of course, has no real bearing on whether you like Obama or not, that is entirely up to you. Please just be sure that your reasons are real and accurate, then vote your conscience!

Interesting read!

Thanks James C. And thanks for Googling it, Maurice. Sorry that the link failed. Basically, if you invested $10k only under the Republican Presidents you would have only $11k plus today -- or if you strip out Herbert Hoover, $51k and change. Under Democratic Presidents your $10k would have grown to over $301k! There's probably a lot a statistician would quibble over in these figures, but the point is that the idea that Republicans are good stewards of the economy is a myth. I think, at least lately, that it is in part because the Republicans have an economic theology and don't approach these problems pragmatically. That was evident in this latest intervention. Only after the Europeans (especially Gordon Brown in the UK) started actually buying equity in their banks did our own leaders finally forsake economic orthodoxy as posited by the Republican ideologues and start taking effective measures to rescue the economy. Don't think McCain has any new ideas on this subject. And if, god forbid, Palin ends up as President...well, just imagine her at a G-7 meeting. The mind boggles.

Thanks, Bill.

I don't agree, but that's just my opinion.

Yah but what about 911 and it's aftermath. U don't compare apples to apples. Even Dems admit that the econmy was failing at the end of his term and the Replicans controled the purse strings in Congress who actually determined the surplus. We were doing well during Bushes term until the Dems took back Congress. Congrats Dems.

Bruce W.,

On the contrary, the Democrats didn't come back into power in congress until 2006 and Bush had been running record deficits for years preceding that! Of course, "doing quite well" may mean something totally different to you than to me.

The House controls the purse strings but when they tried to force Clinton to sign a ridiculous bill, they were totally mismatched! The chief executive does have the power, through the veto pen, to seriously effect things. However, it is policies that make the real difference and the Republicans had no policies available with which to deal with a lessening financial situation early in Bush's term.

The lesson now is that one cannot just set there and do nothing! Bush was so preoccupied with invading Iraq that he did just that on our economy, just sat there! We are paying the price at this time.

Bill Laurence,

Appreciate your efforts in digging this information out and making it available to us!

I have looked up facts pertaining to this as well. Thank you for sharing this with us, I wish I could believe that it would change some people's minds. It seems that when battle lines are drawn, not many people are changing sides. Thanks for sharing and peace.

Well, Kimber, that's very true. I was just listening to an exchange between Obama's and McCain's economic advisors on the relative merits of their tax proposals. There's no way for the average guy to truly assess them, I think. Probably there are pluses and minuses on both sides. In the end, Obama supporters will like his proposals and vice versa. I hate to sound like what the Marxists used to call an "obscurantist," but I think very few of us decide for a given candidate solely on the basis of positions and policies. Note that Cortney, above, presumably having looked at the stats, simply concludes that she "doesn't agree." In short, facts matter less than personalities, labels, and other influences. That, I think, is the way most of us operate.

Bruce K. If you read the piece you know that the figures aren't based on any one time period, but over the past 80+ years. And the Hoover era is stripped out. It isn't a measure of the economy per se, but how you would have done as an investor. The 9/11 effect was fairly short-lived, actually. If you stayed with the market -- and especially if you bought when the country resembled an ant hill after someone stuck a stick in it -- you would have done just fine.

I think you are on to something there Bill when outlining why people choose the way they do.

I still think Obama is the better one and I have read over both of their policies and no I didn't understand every bit of either, but what I did understand led me to belive Obama is best.

thanks for sharing

Very interesting article. My link worked.

thanks for sharing

My link worked, as well. Really great charts, and very telling.

The Republicans have been exposed as to their many, many years of fraudulent campaign talking points. They've fraudulently painted the Dems as Communist, Socialist, Tax and Spend, and now Terrorist, and anti-American.

All the while being everything, and doing everything, of which, they accuse the Dems.

Hmmm. They sound very much like deceivers. Kind of like Satan. A liar, deceiver, and a manslayer.

Hmmm. They are untrustworthy.

Reagan Federalistic policies (States Rights over Federal only has weaken our country. We are being conquered from with-in. Republicans are spend then tax specialists. They run large deficits knowing that it must be paid or the tripple wammy (higher prices, higher interest and higher taxes) will occur if the deficit doesn't get paid. And who will get the blame not the guy who created the problem, but the guy who has to solve it. That is how they have created the myth. In actuality, their State Rights over Federal means we all know pay more taxes. Think of Government Services as a product. Every person that touches that product doubles its cost. First off we have the local guy (local or county government) after all it is here that actually we get our services but the he has limited funds, so he needs help, this means the next guy is: Democratic Federal guy so this cost is two dollars one dollar four the local and one dollar for the Federal guy. That is how government use to work until Nixon. He felt bad that Federal government was bypassing him as a State Governor, so created the grants in aid program. Which took federal funds gave them to the State and then had the States give it to the local. If my math is right, that means you pay three dollars for the product. Regan increased grants in aids to new heights, Bush Senior just got the tail end of Reagan-nomics. Slick Willy understood that balance budgets always favors the Middleclass. Again balance budgets favors the middle class. Low interest helps fund start-ups and stable prices allows the middleclass's wages to gain on prices. So the MC is wealthier. Demand increases and everyone is better off. Simple isn't it? The only folks that are not better off is the greedy. Now comes Bush J. and Channy add a new wrinkle, Privatization. Just add another person to the product line. Now we pay for four people, with this info add in your article.

Very late commenting on this but I have always felt that in order to live like a Republican, I should vote Democrat(ic)!" Havent you every heard that before?

Hello Bill Lawrence,

I just wanted to say I am finally going through what is now under 6,400 pieces of gather new mail that is in my inbox on here. So with that in mind I have finally come to a piece of mail that was addressed to me in regards this article submission you have created to share with the gather community. Thank you for taking the time and sharing your piece with us here at gather. :o)