Rich Get Richer Even Faster With Democrats In Power!

Discuss.

I think this is an attempt to boil down the party differences to 'who gets me richer' which is not the issue that gets people riled up.

It's more about who decides what for whom.

Oh, so, who gets riled up about who's policies??? I mean the Republicans have allowed the religious right to dictate moral authority and want the government to enforce that moral authority....but the Democrats better not touch 'yer guns???

What do you really mean by that?

Don't think the Religious right dictate moral authority. Obviously when the Republicans have been in power over say the last thirty years. Then yes they have influence . In much the same way that Unions have influence over labor policy when the Democrats are in charge.

Amy,

I believe we are in agreement. I am merely saying, the issue little raised, is a minor one compared to the bigger issues that rile everyone up!

This is just stupid partisan hackery masquerading as "research" since it contains a graph. The title is misleading since is says "with Democrats in power" but only looks at which party controls the presidency. The real law making and budgeting power is in the congress. The control of congress and the control of the presidency have often differed over the last 50 years. (see here) There is also the issue that republican and democratic presidents have not been ideologically consistent over the past 50+ years. Federal spending on social programs and the number of federal regulations increased more under the "arch-conservative" Nixon than under Johnson's "Great Society" (see here). When a graph is so self evidently pointless (by excluding relevant data that would skew the beautiful trend lines showing the supremacy of democratic presidents) you have to question whether you can even trust what it does purport to show. One final criticism, the economy works over the long term and is subject to forces entirely outside the control of presidents (wars, disasters, demographic trends). Bush "inherited" Clinton's dot com crash and recession and intelligence failures (9/11). Obama inherited the crash from Bush's real estate bubble. None of this shows up in the graph as far as I know.

I was initially really annoyed with this linked video's purported "research" and the overall divisive tone. I just read this article over lunch and found it informative and think most on the GEBB - regardless of political affiliation - will as well.

How stories, true or not, drive politics

"But 'the narrative' combines all of these strategies into a larger all-encompassing perception of parties, platforms and candidates that boils down to one message: We're on your side and our opponent is a (fill in the blank)."

and,

"That's why the rising prominence of 'the narratives' in political discourse should serve as a warning to voters."

The narrative is all about fear- Republicans predict democratic disasters-Democrats predict republican disaster, Flat Earth party predicts both are disasters. Scare the electorate to gain power. But none offer realistic solutions or the willingness to compromise.

I feel like Linus(?) "ARG! We're doomed!"

Bravo again, Bio! Everyone gets so caught up in "this party" or "that party" and tearing down his or her opposing side that neither ends up offering potential solutions.

That was one of my primary issues during the last (as well as a few others) presidential campaign. I refused to vote for any of them until I knew what their platforms were....in detail. All I kept hearing about was Obama's healthcare plan vs. Hilary's healthcare plan vs. McCain's healthcare plan. They all talked about what they wanted to do, but none bothered with the "how". If you're going to try to sway my vote by telling me what your plans are, you'd better be prepared to explain the how and why or you're not getting my vote. If I don't know that something's plausible, I'm not voting for it....and it blows my mind just how many people blindly will.

GESM2-Sounds like you didn't vote last election.

No, I did. I considered not voting, but instead did a TON of research and had a lot of connections helping me research to at least get an idea of what they were planning. I just need some sort of basic outline to know what's going on and feel comfortable voting for someone....a crumb, if you will.

About evaluating Residential candidates on their plans for achieving their lofty goals...

It’s strange that we believe (or want to believe) that a President can single-handedly do so much, domestically. I’m not sure when presidential candidates began making “a chicken in every pot” promises — or when we began expecting them to deliver on them — but I’d guess it got going in a big way during the Great Depression.

A President has huge powers when it comes to dealing with other countries, largely with international policy implemented through the State Department, the CIA, the Pentagon (in his role as Commander-in-Chief), and his virtually unilateral ability to wage war.

Congress has some power to approve or disapprove foreign presidential actions, but — in general — such congressional oversight is done after the fact... and a President often has workarounds and alternatives. In theory only Congress can declare war, but — as recent history has demonstrated — it’s quite possible for the executive branch to get us into long, expensive and full-scale “undeclared” military “conflicts.”

Bottom line... Congress may be able to adjust or adapt some of the foreign policies and procedures a President has implemented, but, for the most part, the President calls the international shots.

Meanwhile, back at home and inside our borders... Congress rules. Bills start in the House, the Senate tweaks them, and — maybe — some will actually make it to the President where he can veto them or sign them into law.

The only power a President really has on domestic issues is that of the proverbial “bully pulpit.” He can plead, cajole and lobby Congress all he wants, but he has no power to create any new law on his own. (It does become easier for him to guide domestic policy if he, 51% of the House, and 60% of the Senate all belong to the same party, but even that is no guarantee.)

In any case, no President can personally raise or lower taxes, increase or decrease the deficit, implement any sort of reform or create any other legislation... be it reactionary, conservative, liberal, progressive or socialist. That responsibility belongs to Congress, and to Congress alone.

The point being: When it comes to domestic issues, candidates for President can honestly “promise” to deliver... absolutely nothing. They can only promise to “work to achieve...” things. But a President’s domestic hopes and dreams — no matter which party — can never become reality unless the House (and its Speaker) takes the point and the Senate agrees. Other than that, there can be no “plan” to guarantee that any Presidential agenda will ever be reached.

Just something to remember next time you hear a presidential candidate begin a sentence with, “If elected, I will....”

You are absolutely right, Ted. That's another thing that we the people tend to forget amidst all of the mud-slinging.

To clarify, I was looking to find out what the intentions were to do somewhat of a critical thinking analysis....determine how a given candidate thinks and his or her perspective on the world. Planning for changes and the future and the approach taken to do so tells a lot more about a person's perspective than does the individual his or her self. So, I wasn't actually expecting any of these things to occur, just more or less interested in finding out how the candidates problem-solved.

All the more reason to repeal tax breaks for the $250,000 bucks and above crowd- Bush said he did it to create jobs!? Where are those jobs?

You would think that with budget deficits of over 3T jobs wouldn't be a problem.

Whats bad is how weak this recovery is so far.

Typically at this stage we should be showing GDP growth in the the five to six percent range. Not the one to two percent range we're seeing now.

Coming out of the 81-82 recession we had growth of eight to nine percent. Even the Great Depression starting '33 we saw growth in the five to six percent range.

As for taxing those making 250K a year I guess that will hit a lot of government employees or retiree's at least in Illinois.

Government Pensions Cost us Millions

Taxpayer, your 81-82 recession numbers were also what led to another economical spike. The rollercoaster that is our economy is on a constant high and low, there is really no plateau. If there is, it's short-lived.

I'm not trying to defend this "turn around", as it is clearly taking far too much time, but you also have to remember that the economy is a lot different now than it was even in the 90s. It encompasses a far grander scope than history has ever shown and is impacted by far more components than in previous recessions. Everyone's kind of treading the water on this one as there's not a whole lot of history to benchmark it with.

Not sure what you mean by an economical spike.

By and large the U.S economy performed pretty well from 1983-2006. This was not a roller coaster economy. Some economists referred to it as the great moderation. Where we had high job growth, low inflation, and low interest rates. We also had decline in taxes and decline in governments percentage of GDP.

Taxpayer, it depends on the time frame sampled....the highs and lows are not going to be as visible over an extended time period, but if you take a smaller time sample to analyze, what seemed minor in the long run could look a bit larger. By spike I was referring to the investment peaks and portfolio increases in the mid to late 80s....and let's not forget the dot com bubble. A minor issue in the big picture, but major impact on the home front.

LOL Sorry but its not my "beloved party" Gus. Apparently you didn't see my earlier comment. I really don't like what any of the parties have turned into thought there are a few elected officials on both sides that I like.

Frankly I think we would be better of without the party system.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Biostitute,

GESM2: Think you have it backwards. You have to judge an economies performance over the long haul over an extended period of time. Judging it over a short period does not yield good results.

If you were to tell me that every dime in tax increases would be used for deficit reduction and that it would be met by equal cuts in spending. I would be open to it. But giving politicians more money is like giving booze to a drunk.

Especially in Illinois
Illinois Pension's funny Numbers


After two years of Obama we have over 9.5 employment, highest poverty rate in decades. An anemic jobless recovery, record unsustainable deficits. With no near term prospect for improvement in any of those.

I understand that Obama was dealt a tough hand. But he has played it poorly and may have made a bad situation worse.