Democrats don't care what is best for the nation, they just care about keeping their power.

This meme could easily portray either side of the spectrum.

I mean yes he obviously has over that wall Mexico was supposed to pay for.. but...

Same bird different wings.

Nice. Except the economy, gdp growth, and the stock market are way better with a democrat in the whitehouse.

Good one!

You obviously have been brainwashed. Study the market and economic data or continue drinking the red koolaid.

It's true. GDP growth is historically substantially higher under a democratic whitehouse.
The stock market performs way better under a democratic whitehouse.
Those two things are the best barometer of the "economy".
Take the stock market data from JFK on through Obama. 28 yrs of Democratic presidents and 28 yrs of Republican presidents. You would have over 9 times as much money with the Democrat presidents vs the Republican presidents. Facts
Verifiable Facts.
Go ahead and drink the kool aid the Republican party is feed you.
Remain ignorant.

I've noticed that the conservatives 'round these parts are bad at math, history, and critical thinking. Asking them to do all three in one post is way too much. It'll overload their brains.

Hahaha.
I am not sure why people think trickle down economics benefits anyone other than the already extremely wealthy.

I'm not sure any of this really applies. The economy might be better statistically when one party or the other is in control, but that means absolutely zip for any specific individual. Social-eco class is not really a determinant either, regardless of what it is popular to say. The economy is a complex thing that really doesn't five a shit who is in power.

What? You've never fived a shit before? :) give a shit, it should say.

It sounds good though, like a handful of shit.

Ok, I'm feeling under the weather, but still....

im still surprised anyone even thinks trickle down economics.... EVEN EXISTS

Correlation without causation is nothing but gibberish. Where is the data to support the causal relationship you've described?

What exactly does the democrat party do to stimulate economic growth? Near as I can tell, they over-tax us, and spend it on social programs. How does that stimulate the economy?

"The economy does better under Republicans because they're gooder at running economies!"

"Actually it does better under Democrats, look at the graphs."

"Well.. That.... That's not from anything the Democrats did. Sometimes it just goes up for no reason, you know?"

Just because you believe in trickle down economics doesn't mean it works.
The stock market data is easily obtained and verifiable.
The gdp growth data is the same.
The tax cuts for the rich does not stimulate the economy, never has, never will. The wealthy just add those monies to their coffers.

It isn't what the the democrats do that is better for the economy. It's what they don't do. They don't give handouts to already very wealthy individuals and corporations and expect that to stimulate the economy.

Would you rather pay 30% tax on 9 million or 20% tax on 1 million?

You are blindly trusting that trickle down works. It doesn't. It never will.

The Republicans cut taxes but don't cut spending thus exploding the debt and that is why their economic policies only benefit the already extremely wealthy. The very individuals that don't need any more help.

I trust the data more than the theories.

All you got is theories. The data is on my side.
maybe just maybe lifting those out of poverty helps more people and is better for the economy?

hey, damagedgood, where did I say what I believe, other than ask a question about the dems policies to stimulate economic growth? I never said I was a republican. You just read into my post what you wanted, then went on a mindless rant of a reply. and btw, just saying that the data is readily available, proves absolutely nothing. I asked about a causal relationship, and you did not respond to that. Cite sources, or don't bother with useless comments like that.

One thing I will say about this new wave of socialist democrats is that they generally don't understand a thing about creating and accumulating wealth. It's not a zero sum game... or do you believe it is? Why can't a person create wealth, without it being removed (by implication, involuntarily) from someone else? So there I finally said something you can feel free to disagree with, which is that it is not a zero sum game. An individual can create their own wealth without trampling on others. To think otherwise is a defeatist mentality, imo. If you feel others are keeping you poor just because they're rich and they could only get that way by stealing what is rightfully yours, then move to a socialist country where that type of thinking is encouraged. In America, we believe in freedom, and the excellence / success of the individual through hard work. Well, we used to, until Ocasio-Cortez and her types started promising everybody everything for free.

Nothing works all the time. There are times and conditions where trickle down is appropriate and times when it clearly is not. Tax and spend, massive programs designed to aid the poor (whether indigent or merely slackers) can be just as economically damaging as trickle down.

And data and statistics are just meaningless numbers until someone interprets them. Research can be bought, biased and tainted. That doesn't mean they should be ignored, just not accepted without question.

There has been 14 recessions since 1928. 10 of those had a Republican president at the helm. If they were so good for the economy it wouldn't look that bad. LOL
Data. Not theories

This "trickle down" economics is older than that. It used to be called Horse & Sparrow economics back in the late 1800's. It caused recessions back then too. it never works yet conservatives keep trying to convince everyone else that it does.

Where's yours to support what isn't true to begin with?

I have seen that statement multiple times, but I have yet to see any facts to prove or explain it. While the economic data does seem to follow. It appears it is just a correlation without causation. If you have a source that proves this correlation, I would be happy to see it.

It is very difficult to infer causation between two variables without doing a randomized controlled experiment. Furthermore,
correlation can be a useful measure but has limitations as it is usually associated with measuring a linear relationship. You need to understanding that correlation does not imply causation.

There is a whole site that looks a spurious correlations.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

The level of proof you demand to alter your opinion that Republican economic policies are good is beyond anyone's capabilities.

True...correlation/=causation.

Why have 10 of the past 14 recessions been with a Republican at the helm?

Wars could be a major factor. Republicans are more likely to be war mongers. BTW I would put trade wars into that category too.

Republicans cut taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals arguing that the ensuing growth will more than offset the lost revenue. Thus expanding the debt because this isn't a revenue neutral policy. The growth never makes up for the lost revenue.

Inflation is generally and historically higher under Republican presidents. War probably being a major factor in that.

Republican tax policies puts more wealth into fewer people's hands. This doesn't stimulate the economy and that is why gdp growth rates are historically weaker for the Republican presidents.

None of this will convince the red koolaid drinkers because they always fall back on correlation/=causation excuse. They know it can't be proven so they hold tight to their belief system and ideology.

Spreading a country's wealth over a larger segment of it's populace is better for the economy than concentrating said wealth into fewer and fewer individuals and entities.

"None of this will convince the red koolaid drinkers because they always fall back on correlation/=causation excuse. They know it can't be proven so they hold tight to their belief system and ideology. "

Wow! You just proved yourself wrong with that comment. They know it can't be proven so they hold tight to their belief system and ideology. So that means you can disprove it? Still waiting...

If you were actually paying attention, you'd notice that Trump's tax cuts were across the board. Many companies were able to give bonuses to their employees, or even reduce what they charge their customers because of the tax cuts. Before you tell me to prove that, I'll tell you the data is out there.

I believe if everyday Americans, of all economic classes, have more money in their pockets, it's better for the economy. You can ignorantly call that trickle down economics, but I call it common sense. So stop complaining about the so called rich not paying their fair share. We all know the rich are a small percentage of the overall tax paying population, but they pay the vast majority of taxes.

I'll do something for you, so you too can learn something: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-income-tax-returns

Republicans are more likely to be war mongers? Democrats started Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, WW1, WW2, Libya, Syria, and more.. Republicans started.. panama, afghanistan(unless you consider that started by the terrorists), and iraq. Congrats on your information being absolutely retarded. More so.. of the wars they've started, the ONLY ones the democrats have ended are the world wars. Republicans have to make peace for your warmongering party nearly every time.

Ok maybe the war mongering was a bit much.
But all the others stand up. Republicans just can't stand it that the Democrats are better stewards of the economy. The data backs it up.
The best economies are when there is a democrat president and a republican senate. Idiots that think one party has all the answers usually get what they deserve in the end.

What does who is in office have to do with it? Are there not processes that are longer than presidential terms? Was Obama to blame for everything that happened when he was in office? How about Bush? Is it possible that every presidency gets credit and blame for things it had no control over? Is the same true of Congress?

Here is Trump stock market returns for DIA,SPY,MDY,SLY which covers large cap, midcap, and small cap stock universes.
DIA 30.28
SPY 22.08
MDY 11.35
SLY 14.66

Here is Obama's results for the same tickers and the same number of days in office:
DIA 56.72
SPY 67.42
MDY 95.59
SLY 106.92

Here is a video of 45 stating the economy does better under democrats in 2004.
https://youtu.be/rRndMiVIB-w

It could go either way. Its a lot like saying that Democrats are horrible because Democratic cities have so much crime. as for your website, policies have much more to do with the economy that Nicolas cage has to do with drowning, though the president has admittedly little to do. Funny website

Where's the data to support your version favoring something which did not occur to begin with?

Btw, my retirement accounts have soared since Trump has been in office. I am not a 1 percenter, nor even close. That should not be interpreted as a ringing endorsement of everything Trump has done, or even credit due to him. It may be only a correlation. But, when Obama was in office, my personal economics suffered.

How are they invested?
The stock market was better under Obama.

The most successful of them is a 457b fund loaded primarily with stocks for portfolio growth.

How do you mean "better?" I mean, by what measure? You may be right that the market was "better" by some measures.

Stocks performed better under Obama than Trump. Look above at the numbers.
I am willing to bet you don't even know how to compare to two. Also you may have been in cash for the Obama years in which case yu missed out on the 2nd best presidential stock market returns since at least the 60'S.

"Better" isn't a blanket term, and numbers don't always tell the story. Some markets are better than others, but who they are better for varies. You're looking at broad based numbers that affect only a portion of society. I'm looking at my account, which have been set the same way for over twenty years, with only minor changes for rebalancing. My accounts have exploded, making large gains over a short period. Under Obama, it was a long, slow slog. I also saw my healthcare get raided. Life under Obama was a long period of economic misery for me. Others report similar tales. So call it whatever you want. I'll take Trump's performance over Obama's better performance any day, because I'll be less miserable.

Numbers do tell the story with regards to the stock market. I call bs. What were your returns for Obama's first 2 years and th past 2 years?

That's exactly what I mean! Numbers may a tell _a_ story but not the whole story. Any fool can look at digits and determine that one is higher than another, but that does not translate automatically into prosperity for a specific person. Economists can declare an economic recovery whenever they want, but unless and until you feel it in your wallet, there is no real recovery. You're watching a needle jump and assuming the effect is the same for everyone. It isn't.

You are afraid of doing the calculations for fear of it not confirming your bias.
Show me the numbers or it didn't happen.

I know full well it happened, and I won't be trolled into giving out personal information. I will say that after subtracting my contributions, my accounts earned more both in terms of percent gain and amount gained since Trump has been in office. I can read a graph. I can read a table. During the Obama years there were some very good years, but they were cancelled out by losses. Overall, my accounts have realized the same returns (amount and percentage), during the Trump years the gains took about 1/4 the time. If it didn't do the same for you, perhaps you don't know as much as you think.

This is your words:

"Overall, my accounts have realized the same returns (amount and percentage), during the Trump years the gains took about 1/4 the time"

What is your percentage gain over the last 24 months then?

You still claiming you have over a 176% return for the past 24 months?

That's your claim. I said that,
when you subtract the contributions that I made to the account,
the dollar amount and the percentage that I have earned since Trump has been in office
Is more than I earned when Obama was in office.
The amounts were similar, but in the more recent case took only 2 years as opposed 8.
I am not crediting Trump. I am as surprised as anyone. One difference between Trump and Obama, for me, is that the Obama years were an economic nightmare. This is what I said.

Obama S&P 500 return over 8 years was 176%
Trump same index up only 17% over first 2 yrs.
And you are telling me you have made 176% in the last 2 years?
Possible sure, but if you think most wouldn't be skeptical of that claim you are crazy.

It all depends on how you measure, and what measures you value.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4223417-best-stock-market-returns-u-s-president-since-obama