The Case for Voting Democrat
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2013, 11:19 PM
The Case for Voting Democrat
I understand that while most of the atheist community seems to be liberal, there are many on the other side. Mainly libertarians. I respect numbers and facts, and so here is my case for why you should vote democrat for president, whether you're a conservative or a liberal. I understand that Fox is not best source, but I believe that this article was well done and backs up its findings. Any thoughts here? Is this definitive proof?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/201...democrats/


Thanks to their pro-business approach and the anemic recovery, Republicans would seem to have a clear path to grab the economic mantle heading into the 2012 race for the White House.

However, history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

According to McGraw-Hill’s (MHP) S&P Capital IQ, the S&P 500 has rallied an average of 12.1% per year since 1901 when Democrats occupy the White House, compared with just 5.1% for the GOP.


Likewise, gross domestic product has increased 4.2% each year since 1949 when Democrats run the executive branch, versus 2.6% under Republicans.

Even corporate profits show a disparity: S&P 500 GAAP earnings per share climbed a median of 10.5% per year since 1936 during Democratic administrations, besting an 8.9% median advance under Republicans, S&P said.

Due to their “tax-and-spend” reputation, investors expect Democratic administrations to underperform Republican ones and be “poison to any portfolio,” Sam Stovall, chief equity strategist at S&P Capital IQ, wrote in a note. “History shows the opposite to be true, however.”

"You can stoke the economy by spending irresponsibly, but then someone else has to clean up the mess"
- Sam Stovall, chief equity strategist at S&P Capital IQ

To be sure, it’s worth pointing out there is a relatively small sample size as there were just six stretches of each party holding the White House since 1900.

“Slicing and dicing it, particularly with a small sample size, can distort it somewhat,” said Bruce McCain, chief investment strategist at KeyCorp.’s (KEY) Key Private Bank.

It’s also not precisely clear why there is such a gap in the performance under the two parties. It may have to do with the Democrats’ tax-and-spend reputation, which may translate to a greater propensity to enact stimulus measures.

McCain said his research shows the markets generate far stronger returns when Republican incumbents win two terms than when Democrats are re-elected.

Who Gets Credit?

The best stretch of market performance since 1900 occurred in 1993-2000 under Bill Clinton, who saw the S&P 500 rally an average of 19.9% per year during his presidency, S&P said.

For Republicans, the strongest market action occurred from 1981-1992 when the S&P 500 climbed an average of 13.5% each year under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

While administrations may be quick to take credit for GDP and stock-market growth, it’s not always clear who deserves credit or blame given the lag between policy and its impact on the economy.

According to Stovall, every Republican president since Warren Harding (1921–1923) has experienced a recession within the first two years of office, perhaps due to the excesses of the prior administration.

“You can stoke the economy by spending irresponsibly, but then someone else has to clean up the mess,” said Stovall.

On the other hand, since World War II there have been three two-term presidents whose administrations were bookended by recessions and all three were Republicans, said Stovall.



Spotlight on Obama’s Tenure

President Barack Obama’s economic track record is sure to come under scrutiny this week as the Democratic National Convention kicks off in Charlotte.

Under Obama, GDP has ticked up an average of just 1% each year, underscoring the anemic nature of the recovery. By comparison, GDP rose an average of 2.3% under George W. Bush and 4.2% under Clinton.

Then again, Obama came into office during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, one whose origins predated his election.

However, corporate profits have surged an average of 51.8% under Obama, the best out of any stretch of party control since 1933, S&P said. Profits increased at 12.5% per year in Clinton’s White House and 14.2% under Bush.

McCain points out that the surge in profitability in recent years “may be a little bit artificial,” driven largely by cost-cutting measures and delayed investments due to the economic uncertainty.

The S&P 500 has also climbed an average of 12.3% each year since Obama's inauguration, far outpacing the 3.3% mean return for his predecessor.

“Both prices and earnings really bounced back during the Obama Administration. I’ll leave it to the pundits to say who gets the credit for that,” said Stovall.

Who Will Win?

None of this is to say Wall Street is rooting for voters to give Obama another four years in office. Despite its early support for Obama in the last election, campaign contributions from financial-services firms have skewed heavily in favor of his opponent, Mitt Romney.

Yet the smart money continues to bank on an Obama victory: investors on online exchange Intrade see a 58.4% chance Obama is reelected, up from 55.7% when the GOP convention started last week.

Voters remain more undecided, with polls showing Obama and Romney neck-and-neck in support.

“This is a disappointing recovery but not a disastrous recovery. I think that’s part of the reason why [voters] are having a hard time making up their minds,” said McCain. “Clearly people want something better but they are grappling with whether or not a change in administrations is truly going to make that better.”

For the rest of the article go to the page.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2013, 11:48 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
Case for voting AGAINST Democrats (and Republicans):

- They could win, in which case you can't say "well I didn't vote for him" for the next few years.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2013, 01:10 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(01-12-2013 11:48 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Case for voting AGAINST Democrats (and Republicans):

- They could win, in which case you can't say "well I didn't vote for him" for the next few years.

Way to explain your position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ryanshidyak's post
02-12-2013, 08:11 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
Fine, there's no pleasing some people.
My position is that your voting system and whole 2 party thing you got going on is a load of shit and is ruining your country.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like earmuffs's post
02-12-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
I hate the 2-party system!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Colourcraze's post
02-12-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
@Ryanshidyak,

Remember the President doesn't make rules. He follows the rules which Congress makes. And when Democrats have the Presidency, usually Republicans have the Congress. So you've presented empirical data which says that when Republicans are making the rules, and Democrats are following them, then the economy does better. And you're conclusion, therefore, is that Democrats should get the credit. Naturally Republicans will look at the same data and reach the opposite conclusion.

Thus you have presented a textbook example supporting Austrian economists claim that axioms and logic are superior ways to understand a complex system because empirical data is like a Rorschach test; each side sees what it wants to see.

Case in point: the greatest growth was under Clinton's 2nd term. BUT, the Democrats predicted the economy would be terrible because Republicans had taken over Congress, refused to raise the debt ceiling, shutdown the government, and “drove the economy over the fiscal cliff”. So, Republicans would see the meteoric rise in Clinton's 2nd term is proof that Republicans were right and that we should stop raising the debt ceiling and shut the government down permanently. Regardless, what's irrefutable is that even if Democrats are responsible for the gains, they're clueless about how the economy works and it happened purely by accident since they predicted the opposite of what actually happened.

Of course, libertarians and Austrian economists dig deeper, applying logic and reason. The meteoric gain in Clinton's 2nd term was purely a bubble, which burst within a couple months of Bush taking over. So, is it fair to credit the policies of the 90's for growing the bubble, and not hold it accountable for the burst?

Also, look at Obama. The poor and middle class have been wiped out with a massive transfer of wealth to the 1% as the Fed prints trillions of dollars and dumps it in their bank accounts. Naturally, since they own the majority of stock, their wealth has exploded at the expense of the average man. But, according to your logic, this makes Obama a great leader, because stocks and corporate profits are way up. You don't give a fuck what's happening to the average Joe, to the high unemployment, to those who are struggling to survive. So the way you boast about how successful Democrats have been transferring wealth from the poor to the 1% exposes the blatant hypocrisy in the Democrat's message.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
02-12-2013, 10:02 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
Or in short...

Correlation =/= Causation

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
02-12-2013, 07:04 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(02-12-2013 08:11 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Fine, there's no pleasing some people.
My position is that your voting system and whole 2 party thing you got going on is a load of shit and is ruining your country.

I'm with Muffs. The difference between the two parties is negligible. They agree on like 95% of all issues. They talk like they don't but the main policies of the US do not change when we switch from one party to the other. The stuff that really gets us in a heap of shit is consistent with both parties.

I vote 3rd party whenever I can. I almost always vote against incumbants, as well.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
03-12-2013, 06:08 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
I can give one very good reason not to vote Democrat:

Detroit No

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Can_of_Beans's post
03-12-2013, 07:08 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(02-12-2013 09:12 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Thus you have presented a textbook example supporting Austrian economists claim that axioms and logic are superior ways to understand a complex system because empirical data is like a Rorschach test; each side sees what it wants to see.

Without addressing your wider point this is a faulty argument. It amounts to: I'll ignore what happens in the real world and keep insisting the world is as I think it must be without really ever checking. It's OK to come up with models you like but those models also must be tested. That's difficult with economic systems due to their inherent complexity, but reason alone is not sufficient to validate a particular economic model.

To quote ozmoroid discussing the origins of relativity:
""This experimental fact just put our "common sense logic and reason" in the trash""

Obviously true and well-reasoned facts are proven wrong all the time. They're proven wrong in that they do not correspond to reality because our assumptions were wrong.

[1]


10:00

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: