Performance matters

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ledroit, Oct 15, 2008.

  1. ledroit

    ledroit New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    854
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    This is amazing. We've had 40 yrs of GOP presidents, 40 yrs of Dem presidents. GOP claims to be better with money. But in reality, which party has actually been better for capitalism and economic growth?

    Under 40 yrs of dems, ave growth was 8.9%. Under 40 yrs of the GOP, 0.4%!!

    This country is 95% middle class. If you turn up the heat on them even 1 degree, you will see the effects everywhere.

    The super rich are less than 1%. You can kiss their asses and shovel money down their throats all you want, and the economy will not move a fraction of an inch. It's not difficult to see why. The chances that a nice chunk of their change will leave the US and be invested abroad is not difficult to see either.

    But why is this so difficult for people to see in the US?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    These numbers are completely scewed due to the returns of the Clinton Admin. I didn't much mind Slick Willie, but handing him credit for the thriving equity markets of the nineties is premature and misplaced.

    Demographic (baby boomers) trends, internet, information age, etc all contributed to prosperous financial markets.

    If you pull the best and worst out from each party, your returns will be similar.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted