[JimMorrison]

I don't think that I stated anyone did an excellent (or stellar) job of anything. However, the statistics compiled by our own government show with clear numbers, that averaging out each year under a Democratic President there was a trend of better performance in every economic indicator, than there was under a Republican President.

Some of the statistics in the report (compiled by our government! I can't stress this enough) do start in the 40's, and some start in the 50's. I believe the reason to do the table of statistics as they were done in the article, was to only use data beginning in years when data in all areas was available


The Democrats have not "been in power" for the last 40 years, that is patently false. How can you even make such a claim, when the directly observable trends in areas of economy, society, and bureaucracy swing in VERY different directions when there is a Republican President in the White House (as there has been for 20 of the last 28 years, for example).

In fact, according to all indicators, as tracked by our own government, perhaps you could postulate that Democrats haven't done a "stellar" job with the economy, but it is also glaringly obvious from these figures that the Republicans did substantially, and reliably worse (f not horribly so).


I hardly see what deficit figures near 100% of the annual tax incomes for the last 3 years of WWII has to do with anything? The entire world was under rather unique economic stresses at the time, and we came through it the best that we could.

Let me give you an interesting bit of information, while we are on the subject of taxation, spending, deficit, and the relative performance of Presidents of different parties.....

This is the % increase in our national debt, over the period of a particular President's time in office (first 2 lumped because JFK wasn't around long enough, nor Ford....) -

JFK+LBJ = 28.24%
Nixon+Ford = 70.6%
Carter = 44.51% (I'll agree, this one is bad enough)
Reagan = 186.14% (makes Carter look like a financial GENIUS)
Bush Sr= 53.85% (worse in 4 years than even Carter as well)
Clinton = 40.65%
Bush Jr = 71.52%

So you see, according to our own internal bookkeeping, every Democrat has performed better in terms of the relative balance of revenue/spending than the Republican that followed them.


And yet, still, these numbers are embarassing. Neither party should consistently see debt growth on such a ridiculous scale. My argument the entire time was that what we truly need is a new paradigm altogether, and a new system whereby we can have a functioning economy, AND a functioning social infrastructure. While both are inarguably dysfunctional in American today (and have been for decades), there is a measurable difference, in all available benchmarking, that favors Democrats in nearly all statistical categories that we can look at.

So to reiterate - I do not think that any Democrat, Obama included, is the real answer we are looking for. But at the same time, it is ridiculous to claim that a Democrat will be worse than a Republican (in general terms), based on party affiliation, for any purpose other than your anger at having your income potential hampered, as one of those top 5% earners in the nation. If you're in the other 95%, and most of us are, then you are being completely deceived into your vote, and that is a statistically corroborated fact, because a Republican will do far more harm to you than a Democrat will.

<3