I just read this on another forum. It says every time a recession or worse hits a Republican

administration is in charge. Can any history buffs extol the truth of this because I'd like to send it around my email list but I don't want to be mistaken.

Every time our economy begins to falter, a Republican is President!

Herbert Hoover - Great Depression
Dwight Eisenhower - 1957 Recession
Richard Nixon - 1971 Recession
Gerald Ford - stagflation in 1973
Ronald Reagan - "Black Monday," Oct. 19, 1987
George H. W. Bush - 1991 Recession
George W. Bush - right now!

We deserve a change.
Vote Barack Obama

Fucking up economies for slave labor oh yeah they are very good at that! :woohoo: :applause: :puke:

"Gets his wings."

It would have been hilariously appropriate.

might be worth mentioning his failed Whip Inflation Now campaign, though.

The rate goes up whenever they take office!

was disrupted by the revolution.

Recessions are good for the robber barons. It puts power into the hands of the employer, and takes power from the worker. Workers become more compliant too, knowing their jobs hang in the balance.

It's kind of a "kinder gentler" shock doctrine.

Then need to bring Democrats in to clean things up.

Unless you're Ronald Reagan. Then it takes 16 years.

And unless you're Bush Senior. Then it takes 12 years.

It works for Bill Clinton. It took almost exactly eight years for his shitty economy to bloom on his successor. All the positives were the result of Reagan. Of course, all the negatives were the instantaneous effects of his own policies.

And of course, if you're GW Bush it's instantaneous. Unless that's inconvenient. Then it takes 12 years.

The great economy under Clinton was thanks to Bush Sr... the poor economy under Dubya was all Clinton's fault... the hilarity never ends when you're talking to a right wing "moran".

The number you add, subtract, multiply or divide the number you got to get the number you want. So, it takes (x) number of years for policy to effect the economy, where (x) equals the number of years we can blame a Democrat for bad news and credit a Republican for good news.

So, the recession of 91-92 was Carter's fault, because in that case (x)=11 years, and the recession of 2002 was Clinton's fault because (x)=2 years. Meanwhile, the boom of the mid 1980's was Reagan's credit, because (x)=0 years, and the boom of the mid to late 90s was to Bush (senior)'s credit because (x)=6 years.

(sung)
New Math!
Ne-e-e-ew Math!
It won't do you a bit of good to review Math!
It's so simple, so very simple,
That ONLY a child can do it!
(Tom Lehrer)

The economy tanks during periods of low taxation




The real point of progressive taxation is not producing more tax revenues, the point is having a large and vigorous middle class that can participate as citizen legislators,& send its kids to college, so those kids can invent lots of cool stuff for the corporations to make money off of. Consider kids as assets. How do you make best use of those assets? Educate those assets of course. Regressive taxation taxes the Middle and Working classes out of the economy, Progressive taxation engages the Middle and Working classes in the economy and are better to take care of their own. This means a more stable family.

taxes being collected better in an expanding economy where the jobless rate is close to 4%. It would seem with more people working, the base is spread out and the total collected would be more. Not the standard, top 1% pay the most taxes rhetoric we hear from the rw.

:applause:

spending on infrastructure grows the economy. it can be so invisible, tho. people tend to not notice when bridges don't get maintained and repaired. but then you have a couple of collapses, and much commerce grinds to a halt.
and the good jobs in construction disappear if there is no investment in public works.
and on and on in a swirling cloud of money too complicated for republicans to understand.

"trickle-down", or "supply-side", or Austrian School, or whatever-new-name-they-can-come-up-with-because-it-failed-so-miserably-last-time.

Some one needs to tell them not to pee on our shoes and tell us its raining.

it's a "get out of jail free" card you never have to surrender.

That not only do progressive taxes help a strong middle class, but the top 1% doesn't do worse in dollars earned because of the economic gain from a thriving economy.

Recent guest on the Colbert Report wrote a book on it.

-Hoot

Hartman known for, amoung other things, quoting Jefferson, continues,

"Progressive taxation has a long history: As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." Hartman concludes, "Progressive taxation has helped create every middle class in the First World, and without it the middle class will vanish."

Jefferson started the University of Virginia with the intent to provide the yeomanry with a free education so as to be prepared to take part in the Government, the citizen legislaters if you will.

The current war on the middle class started with less progressivity in tax rates, then union busting. More recently, tax breaks for corporations to move our jobs overseas, increasing illegal immigrantion to enlarge the labor pool, which drives wages down. The Bush Jr. tax policy is regressive while Bill Clintons tax policy was much less regressive and was moving to true progressivity. Additionaly we've seen 20 billion in cuts from student aid during the last 2 years. This is warfare my friends, the Aristocracy has attacked us, and we must defend ourselves.

More background

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/24/185917/30/822/274787

Clinton years. Began at around 3,500 points. finished at 10,800 points. Increase, well over 300% in eight years.

Bush 43. Began at 10,800 points. now at 11,100 points. Increase of 300 points. Increase, under 3% over 8 years or less the 4 tenths of a percent per year. Their's a good chance, in fact, when all is said and done, that the market is a net loss.

The rethugs deliberately maneuver to keep the masses poor and stressed and indebted and downtrodden so they don't have time to educate themselves, to think about what's really going on, to protest or to dare to walk off their jobs - because every spare second has to go toward simply surviving. If your shitty minimum-wage job (or not-so-minimum-wage job balanced by monstrous debt) is all that stands between you and your family's starvation, you'll keep your head down and your mouth shut and do as you're told. That's exactly what the rethugs want. Meanwhile the corporations get richer on the backs of the people.