How did Republicans convince the masses that they're "better for the economy"? (Congress, Reagan)

[VTHokieFan]

Originally Posted by jamezz

The reality does not reflect that.

That graphic is horrible. What does it even mean? Is this when a republican is in the white house, or is this control of congress?

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

no matter the party, govt. is terrible for the economy, well unless you're a crony of part of the ruling class.
Look how wealthy DC is from the backs of working people of all ideologies

YEP!

The thing the OP and many liberals fail to add into their logic is that Dem presidents benefit from the prior Rep who was fixing what the prior Dem screwed up, at least until GWB who did a wonderful job at screwing us completely. Clinton and Gore took credit for the Internet, when it was Reagan who made it possible. That's the way they play their games.

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

That graphic is horrible. What does it even mean? Is this when a republican is in the white house, or is this control of congress?

That too... those Dem presidents almost always had a Republican House and Senate, so we know this country works best when both parties work together.

These days, not so much.

[2nd trick op]

Republicans. particularly in the Upper Midwest, drew much of their support from farmers and small businessmen; the ranks of the former were diminished by urbanization -- the replacement, or at least supplementation, of farm income with a blue collar job and/or a working wife; of the latter by concentration of business in chain and "discount" stores, and still later by the likes of WalMart.

[WestCobb]

Originally Posted by jamezz

The reality does not reflect that.

I remember watching an interview with Nixon in the 1990s. He was discussing the future of the Republican Party. He rightfully noted that Clinton balanced the budget whereas Reagan increased deficits at a rate far beyond Carter. Nixon said this was going to have long term implications for the Republican Party. A Republican Party that can't handle the books is like a Republican Party that is weak on defense or on law and order. Fiscal responsibility is one of its pillars. Without it, the party crumbles. Well, low, low, low, low and forever low taxes (every year since 1980 Republicans have shouted tax cuts, tax cuts! .. that was almost 40 years ago... a half century of tax cuts) is not good economic policy. Sometimes, you have to raise taxes to balance the budget.

[rorqual]

With the help of churches, most of which now operate as political indoctrination centers for supply-side economics.

Which is why churches and houses of worship should be taxed.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by WIHS2006

Add in the dog-whistle bashing of minorities ("makers" [Whites] vs "takers" [minorities] and that's what sways most of the GOP base. Ironically enough it's those solid red states in the Deep South that are the most economically dependent on federal handouts, the Mama June types are the real welfare queens

How to win the GOP primary: bash minorities, bash gay people, praise the Bible, drool over guns.

Source?

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by mrmondaynight

Those same poor whites have been voting for laws and bills that **** over minority groups. The irony is that they have been ****ing over themselves by proxy.

This is why they're pro Trump. He paints a picture of "Us vs Them" and "them" is anyone not white. He promises he'll make white lives better at the expense of everyone else's life and it totes won't negatively affect poor whites nope, not at all just all the other racial groups! And he does so without the dog whistles (tellin it like it is!).

Their racism trumps their sense of self preservation and welfare for their fellow man. As an interesting aside, Dr. King tried to expand his movement to be in inclusive of these people before he was assassinated. The same ones that hated him and everything he stands for.

For years the white voting block was the most powerful, and all they did was vote in folks the enacted laws that screwed them over because it had the added benefit of ****ing over blacks, women, and others.

Minority groups?

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by sandsthetime

I'm glad someone here passed sixth grade civics. Not sure what they're teaching these days.

Meanwhile, my post proving unemployment and deficits are better when Republicans control both houses of congress is dying of loneliness.


Got all the facts and figures...lefties won`t go near it.




//www.city-data.com/forum/polit....html#poststop

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by engineman

Three choices, a Fascist/Communist, a pathological liar or one of the republicans. More and more folks are going for the republicans.

No they arent. George Bush got 62 million votes in 2004, neither Mitt Romney or John McCain outperfromed that. The same is true down the ballot in House elections.

Heck, in 2014 Democrats actually closed the gap in congressional voting compared to 2010.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Nonsense!


On the three previous occasions that Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, either unemployment significantly declined during the Republican`s tenure or we were at full employment when they left.

Also, running deficits either decreased significantly or the annual budget was in balance when they left.

They are already three for three and on track to make it four for four.




108th-109th Congress......Bush Jr.(R) Unemployment 6.0% to 4.6%, Deficit $377 Bn 2003, Deficit $248 Bn 2006.


104th-106th Congress......Clinton (D) Unemployment 5.6% to 4.0%, Deficit $164 Bn 1995, Surplus $236 Bn 2000.


80th Congress.................Truman (D) Unemployment 3.9% to 3.8%, Deficit $15.9 Bn 1946, Surplus $4 Bn 1947.




Over the decades, the party of the president has proven to be largely irrelevant and more an indicator of who controls Congress (Americans prefer divided government) than anything else.




Maybe a better question would be, how can you examine statistical data on the economy and the elected representatives presiding over good times and bad without the information I provided jumping off the page?

The problem with this argument is that the deficit had fallen every year since 1990 When H.W. Bush was President and we had a Democratic congress.

Also Americans dont vote for divided government. I wish people would stop making that false claim. You dont get to vote for the senators and congressmen from Alaska , there for you cant by definition vote for divided government nation wide. Even at the congressional level, i think there are maybe 7 out of 435 congressional districts that voted republican for their congressmen, but Democratic for their presidential vote and vice versa.

Americans dont vote for divided government, Democrats simply dont vote in mid terms to a lesser extent than Republicans. If turnout was uniform, or congressmen were voted on nationally every 4 years instead of 2 and 6, we would never have divided government.