Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Democrats have proven to be good a winning national elections with the help of their media enablers, a watered down electorate of low information voters, and changing demographics more concerned about identity politics than actual results.
These obviously are big advantages for the democrats.
Democrats, however, have a serious governing problem: Their policies don't work. More often than not, they make things worse. They can even get away with that as long as they can continue the charade that leads voters to believe that someone else is paying for it (i.e. make the rich pay their fair share, etc.) and that any negative results are the other guy's fault (i.e. the dismal economy is the fault of Bush, now the GOP Congress, etc.).
But Democrats finally overreached on healthcare. The middle class is getting hit over the head with a big old 2 by 4 of reality: you are paying for this, and you are paying a lot. And we lied to you about it. Deal with it.
Democratic policies don't work? The two greatest economic crashes in history happened on the watch of Republican presidents. And stats show democratic presidents have a better economic record than Republicans.
As for Obamacare, it hasn't even officially begun yet. Don't be so naive to think we can analyze it's true effect on the economy and healthcare until about a decade from now.
Democrats win elections because Republicans insult those who aren't rich by calling them lazy moochers.
As for "Democrats, however, have a serious governing problem: Their policies don't work," it's nice to write in vague generalities. The fact is Democratic policies do work. The New Deal polices grew the middle class. Social Security and Medicare brought seniors out of poverty.
On Obamacare, this is what the Times said on Sunday:
Quote:
Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that. By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don’t provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year. So they’ve sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people who hold these substandard policies. (At issue here are not the 149 million people covered by employer plans, but the 10 million to 12 million people who buy policies directly on the individual market.)
But insurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees. They must offer consumers options that do comply with the law, and they are scrambling to retain as many of their customers as possible with new policies that are almost certain to be more comprehensive than their old ones.
Indeed, in all the furor, people forget how terrible many of the soon-to-be-abandoned policies were. Some had deductibles as high as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that, and some didn’t cover hospital care.
The overreach is Congressional Republicans who have stoked consumer fears and confusion.
Democrats win elections because Republicans insult those who aren't rich by calling them lazy moochers.
As for "Democrats, however, have a serious governing problem: Their policies don't work," it's nice to write in vague generalities. The fact is Democratic policies do work. The New Deal polices grew the middle class. Social Security and Medicare brought seniors out of poverty.
On Obamacare, this is what the Times said on Sunday:
The overreach is Congressional Republicans who have stoked consumer fears and confusion.
I'm not sure that writing off 12 million people because it is only, after all, 12 million people is a very good strategy. And, no kidding, a lot of good policies are being cancelled. And, no kidding, the Obamacare replacements typically have higher deductibles and much higher copays and coinsurance percentages. (I never heard of a 50% coinsurance rate on in-network care in a policy until I saw the details on my new Obamacare policy.)
The overreach is the Times and every other liberal organ peddling the 'junk policy' lie. When the bills come in and regular folks, subsidized and unsubsidized, find the highest out-of-pocket obligations ever...the Dems will get the blame.
Oh, yes, you are right as rain about one thing: Republicans have not covered themselves with glory either.
Democratic policies don't work? The two greatest economic crashes in history happened on the watch of Republican presidents. And stats show democratic presidents have a better economic record than Republicans.
As for Obamacare, it hasn't even officially begun yet. Don't be so naive to think we can analyze it's true effect on the economy and healthcare until about a decade from now.
As far as comparing R & D admins on the economy going back further than Carter is a fool's errand. Reagan transformed the political debate, as Pres. Obama himself has said. The economy was poor under Carter, good under Reagan (at least after the first 2-3 years, ok under HW Bush, and good under Clinton (although he did leave office with a tech crash). We recovered from the tech crash under Bush, and the economy was actually ok under W Bush until the very end. W Bush left us with the housing crash of course, however he had tried to address the problem, but was stymied by people like Maxine Waters (D, CA) and Barney Frank (D, MA). So it is hardly fair to blame the housing crash on W Bush. NYT reporter Gretchen Morganstern in her book Reckless Endangerment actually laid much of the blame for the problems with Fannie Mae at the feet of none other than Bill Clinton. Clinton was allied with Fannie Mae CEO James Johnson.
As usual, the devil is in the details, and a meat-ax approach of 'R's bad for the economy, D's good for the economy' is just dumb.
As far as it being too soon to assess Obamacare, I will totally agree with you on that. Even another decade will be too soon. We're one month pregnant, and we're trying to call the baby's historical impact.
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 $3.9M at the end)
Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
Now, it's possible that the items on the list above are the result of simple coincidence. After all, how much of an impact on the stock market, or corporate profits, or personal disposable income does a President have?
There's also that saying about lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Still, it's an interesting and even impressive list, and should give pause to anyone who may - for one reason or another - think simplistically that Republican President = good economy and Democratic President = bad economy.
Democratic policies don't work? The two greatest economic crashes in history happened on the watch of Republican presidents. And stats show democratic presidents have a better economic record than Republicans.
As for Obamacare, it hasn't even officially begun yet. Don't be so naive to think we can analyze it's true effect on the economy and healthcare until about a decade from now.
There are close to 9 million fewer people working now than when Obama took office. Labor participation rate near historic lows. Record numbers on food stamps, etc. etc. etc.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,406,723 times
Reputation: 2394
Hopefully it's the Waterloo of our two party dictatorship. To steal a line from The Joker (as played by Jack Nicholson) D.C. needs an enema!!!! Flush that s^%$ out!!!
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
Now, it's possible that the items on the list above are the result of simple coincidence. After all, how much of an impact on the stock market, or corporate profits, or personal disposable income does a President have?
It's a meat ax analysis, and that is dumb. Again, Pres. Obama himself said that Reagan transformed the alignment between D's and R's. Nixon today would have been a Democrat. He imposed wage/price controls, affirmative action, favored a national ban on handguns, etc. JFK would have been a Republican. He favored tax cuts on the rich, was an NRA life member, staunch anti-commie, etc.
The hubris of presidential candidates who promise to fix the American economy if they are elected to the White House summons the image of legendary King Canute, who believed he had the power to hold back the advancing sea.
The last president to have a substantial influence over the American economy was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. From 1939-45, federal spending increased from just under 10 percent of gross domestic product to more than 43 percent of our total national GDP, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Spurred by New Deal domestic programs and massive military spending to fight wars in Europe, North Africa and the Pacific, federal expenditures accounted for 43 cents of every dollar of our economic output at the peak of World War II.
Democrats have proven to be good a winning national elections with the help of their media enablers, a watered down electorate of low information voters, and changing demographics more concerned about identity politics than actual results.
These obviously are big advantages for the democrats.
Democrats, however, have a serious governing problem: Their policies don't work. More often than not, they make things worse. They can even get away with that as long as they can continue the charade that leads voters to believe that someone else is paying for it (i.e. make the rich pay their fair share, etc.) and that any negative results are the other guy's fault (i.e. the dismal economy is the fault of Bush, now the GOP Congress, etc.).
But Democrats finally overreached on healthcare. The middle class is getting hit over the head with a big old 2 by 4 of reality: you are paying for this, and you are paying a lot. And we lied to you about it. Deal with it.
Do you have any proof that, on average, it's costing people more than it would before? Here's the problem with all of the whiny CINO's around here. You act conservative, but you're just emotional whiners. Go dig up some real data that shows that costs on average for health insurance have increased and that they have increased by more than what they were projected to increase and then you'll have an actual argument. Until then, all of this is pure conjecture and it just makes the few REAL conservatives around here look bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
