Fun With Republicans

[heathen]

http://www.politicususa.com/en/party-picker

 

Some hard facts about how the two parties have performed. Now I'm not an expert on american politics, but the numbers seem legit. What do you more conservative (even republican?) members of this? A bunch of hooey? Leftist propaganda?

 

snippet:

 

Economy

 

Jobs: Since 1960, each of the A Party administrations has delivered higher rates of jobs creation than any of the B Party administrations.

Deficit: Since 1960, the deficit each of the A Party administrations has passed to its successor was lower than the one it inherited, while each of the B Party administrations has increased the deficit. The average yearly deficit under the B Party administrations was 277 percent higher than the average deficit under the A Party.

Productivity: The gross state product of the 20 states that voted for the A Party candidate at least 5 times out of the last 8 elections (let

[Monte Carlo]

89.7% of all statistics are made up.

[heathen]

89.7% of all statistics are made up.

 

About the response I expected.

[Monte Carlo]

You post 'hard facts' from a partisan political website to bait the right-of-centre forumites then get all pissy when somebody makes a joke?

 

Gimme a break.

[Hurlshort]

Does this take into account which party controls congress during those times as well?

 

I'm a moderate. Party lines are lame.

[Kaftan Barlast]

The goal of the right wing is not, nor has it ever been, to make life better for the majority of the people. It's about making sure that the wealthy can hold on to their wealth, and generate even more wealth. But the term "wealthy" is relative, it can be anything from the middle class and up depending on the situation.

 

 

-Unemployment is good because it makes people desperate enough to accept low wages and poor working conditions

-Deficit is good because the money the goverment borrows and spends increases bussiness output, and they debt is the goverments problem

-Productivity is not important, profits are important

-Poverty is good because it lowers the cost of labour, thus making production cheaper and profits larger.

-Health insurance for everyone is bad, because poor people get sick often and cant afford to pay the high premiums

[Monte Carlo]

^ Do you honestly think that there is a coherent 'Right Wing' in the first place? It's about as useful as saying that the 'Progressive' (LOL) Left believes in nothing but statist solutions, nationalisation, punitive taxation and creating client voting groups to be bribed with taxpayer's hard-earned money.

 

Because the left is bigger and more diverse than that to the factor of a hundred, and so is 'the Right Wing.' You'd be laughed out of a politics class. Are you an economist, perchance?

[Oblarg]

89.7% of all statistics are made up.

 

This.

 

And I'm not a republican.

 

Give me legitimate sources or gtfo.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Cherry picked statistics without historical context. For example, the richest states historically are Northeast and California, which are more liberal. The conservative South has always been more rural and less industrialized.

[Purkake]

Nothing like hard facts in the morning.

[LadyCrimson]

I prefer my facts soft & fuzzy. Easier on the skin.

 

'Hard facts' like these don't mean a whole lot to me. It may be true that there are certain long-term trends when Democrats are in 'power' for a long while vs. when Republicans are, but imo they both produce f***ed up things in equal measure, even if they're different things. Improvement here, but worse there, bouncing back and forth. That's politics.

 

....and I'm neither Democratic or Republican. I vote for whomever/whatever seems to stand for more of what I believe in, not because of Party loyalty.

Edited September 16, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Oblarg]

I prefer my facts soft & fuzzy. Easier on the skin.

 

'Hard facts' like these don't mean a whole lot to me. It may be true that there are certain long-term trends when Democrats are in 'power' for a long while vs. when Republicans are, but imo they both produce f***ed up things in equal measure, even if they're different things. Improvement here, but worse there, bouncing back and forth. That's politics.

 

....and I'm neither Democratic or Republican. I vote for whomever/whatever seems to stand for more of what I believe in, not because of Party loyalty.

 

Really, people, if you don't know the difference between who and whom, just don't use the latter.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Oblarg

[LadyCrimson]

Really, people, if you don't know the difference between who and whom, just don't use the latter.

I saw all three of your versions.

 

Really, if nitpicking grammatical error is the only response you have, why respond at all. We're not in English class here.

 

...and I never said my political/voting stances/decisions were easy for me.

[Tale]

Lady, you want I should rough him up a little? I've got my e-thuggery right here.

[Oblarg]

Really, people, if you don't know the difference between who and whom, just don't use the latter.

I saw all three of your versions.

 

Really, if nitpicking grammatical error is the only response you have, why respond at all. We're not in English class here.

 

...and I never said my political/voting stances/decisions were easy for me.

 

It took me a while to decide whether or not I should nitpick the grammar, but the compulsive side of me won out in the end. It's a pet peeve of mine.

[LadyCrimson]

It took me a while to decide whether or not I should nitpick the grammar, but the compulsive side of me won out in the end. It's a pet peeve of mine.

Heh....understood. It & spelling was a pet peeve of mine when I was younger. Then I spent years on the internet & stopped caring. Not to mention, I started forgetting stuff. It happens to some of us as we age/stop doing certain things a lot, haha. The only time I become annoyed with it now is if I see it in professional/published novel/magazines or similar.

 

ps I also edit my posts a lot.

Edited September 16, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Rostere]

http://www.politicususa.com/en/party-picker

 

Some hard facts about how the two parties have performed. Now I'm not an expert on american politics, but the numbers seem legit. What do you more conservative (even republican?) members of this? A bunch of hooey? Leftist propaganda?

 

snippet:

 

Economy

 

Jobs: Since 1960, each of the A Party administrations has delivered higher rates of jobs creation than any of the B Party administrations.

Deficit: Since 1960, the deficit each of the A Party administrations has passed to its successor was lower than the one it inherited, while each of the B Party administrations has increased the deficit. The average yearly deficit under the B Party administrations was 277 percent higher than the average deficit under the A Party.

Productivity: The gross state product of the 20 states that voted for the A Party candidate at least 5 times out of the last 8 elections (let

[Guard Dog]

Does this take into account which party controls congress during those times as well?

 

This is dead on correct. Plus is does not take into account the world events going on in the background that have a real economic impact, were we at war or peace, or any of the millions of details that can affect his example. This is not a good analogy even if his stats are correct and unbiased (cherry picked) and since he does have politcal axe to grind it would be easy to believe they are not.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Guard Dog