I know how you all pray at the alter of Friedman and Reagan but folks I fot news for you YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!
Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?
A $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.
I know you all hate how reality has a liberal lean but this chart should end all the bull manure about this subject
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html
Oh and one more thing FDR did not prolong the depression, I’m about tired of that republican lies as well,
It was only with the passage of New Deal efforts–the SEC, the FDIC, the FSLIC–that the mechanisms of private capital began to kick back into gear. Don’t take it from me. Take it from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who wrote the following in Essays on the Great Depression: “Only with the New Deal’s rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression.”…
The argument that the New Deal’s efforts “perhaps had prolonged, the Depression,” is a canard. One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian–I mean a serious historian, not a think-tank wanker, not an economist, not a journalist–who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression.
Pants too tight it must hurt your brain loosen them up and think for a change
Ahh the deniers come out but offer not ONE bit of proof I’m wrong
Typical of the deluded
April 28, 2010 at 6:31 pm
dont care, Obama is a traitor and a fool….don’t want Obama.
[Translate]
April 28, 2010 at 7:08 pm
You don’t really have a question in there, although you could certainly use some better information. The deficit spending that got the US out of the Great Depression didn’t really start till after Lend-Lease. Your S&P numbers don’t allow for the delays required before policies have an impact. The stock market is a discounting mechanism. For example, the stock market will begin its next leg up long before the economy improves. Another point is that you are not considering who is in control of Congress. The economic boom of the nineties had a lot to do with the lack of action in Washington that stemmed from split government. If Clinton had been doing something more significant than hitting on fat interns, he would have ruined the economy. Indeed, the recession that came on the heels of his presidency stemmed from the surplus that he was bragging about.
[Translate]
April 28, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Anybody can manipulate the numbers! The economy is too complicated to say we prosper under Dems or Reps. It’s the combination of each and it’s an ongoing thing.
[Translate]
April 28, 2010 at 8:12 pm
you evidently are a little kid or a very ignorant young person that has not lived through the different administrations, under the demos and their crap left behind , I have not prospered but under the republicans I have always benefited
[Translate]