If You Need to Vote Your Pocketbook, Vote Obama

(MISSOULA, Mt.) - The three great stock market crashes (1929, 1987 and 2008) have happened at the end of long periods of Republican presidencies. 1929 happened at the end of eight, 1987 after six, and 2008 after seven years of Republican rule. So it's hard to argue that Republicans have some magical touch when it comes to the economy.

The problem, as former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan acknowledged recently to Congress, is that banks and investment houses don't automatically act to ensure the safety of their investors. So, with regulation loosened or missing as it has been during several Republican presidencies, some financial institutions exploited public trust with greedy and fiscally unsound schemes that worked only for salespeople and corporate officers—like, oh, say, $516 TRILLION dollars in outstanding derivatives worldwide.

On the other hand, since WWII, Democratic Presidents have presided over the greatest increases in Gross Domestic Product, jobs, personal disposable income, industrial production, and hourly wages.

Democrats also achieved the lowest misery Index (lowest inflation unemployment.), lowest inflation and the greatest reduction in the Federal Budget Deficit-- as political economist Arthur Blaustein recently pointed out in an article in Investment News. Investment News: Democrats rate as economic stewards

Democrats are also much better for workers and wages. Princeton's Larry Bartels points out that from the late 1940s onward, unemployment has been almost one-third higher under Republican Presidents--6.3 percent to the Democrats' 4.8 percent.

A final dagger in the myth of Republican economic superiority is that Middle Class incomes have grown almost twice as fast under Democrats during that time, and, for lower income Americans, incomes have grown almost six times as fast under Democrats as Republicans. Christian Science Monitor: Why the economy fares much better under Democrats

Salem-News.com Top Stories

How Fair Was It to Label Hamas Terrorists?

Cannabis Dispensaries and Medical Patients at Risk

Closing Gitmo in the American Heart

The Promise of America and the Demise of Foreign Aid

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark November 7, 2008 8:11 am (Pacific time)

O.B.: You wrote: "A different time with different needs." We can surely agree on that point, sir, and Nov. 4 mandate also surely indicates some inevitable directions. Your civil participation is truly appreciated; please keep coming with relevant points demanding dialog. This nation will only thrive again when enough of us keep on conversing to build the diversity-tested decision-making power that democracy confers, when truly appreciated and allowed to operate on Constitutional principles. Thank you and best wishes.

Owen Blankenship November 3, 2008 5:51 pm (Pacific time)

HR this UCLA study is all over the news and several of my friends who teach economics/marketing,accounting and behavioral science on the university level will be discussing it with their students in the future as per my recent exchanges with them. It is a SIGNIFICANT STUDY WITH SIGNIFICANT CONCLUSIONS. I am not an expert in this field (few are it seems), but UCLA is a major university so I imagine they will see their studies get far more credible peer review coverage than say partisan's who are offering their partisan version. I'm sure that you like most Americans want our decision makers to use the best available information when they are designing future economic policies. My observation is that FDR as well as LBJ have not provided the successful type of template that we want to use at this time for our current economic woes. A different time with different needs.

Henry Ruark November 3, 2008 11:06 am (Pacific time)

O.B.: Yr link, copied precisely by computer action, took me to UCLA Newsroom clearly so designated. Skilled edit/read of what I found brought my summary, dead accurate for where you sent us. Yr other link turned up UNfound by computer action, so consider that suspicious too since address right on by check. IF you qualified, why not cite with institution, year, etc., to permit accountability check here. Far too easy to claim without documenting, as shown already far too often here. "Theory"not "bad word", but depends on acceptance by foremost authorities as for yr example of "gravity". Most people accept simple proof for that one - UNsupport something and it collapses...all too familiar with dissenters, even at Economics Dept. - Chicago School currently fine example for that kind of collapse, given economic system impacts ever since Reagan and "supply side" and dereg. and privatization, et al, et al. Globalization, often cursed, really longterm worldwide trade development with strong impacts, both painful and benign. DISinformation easily accomplished by careful choice, so if you qualified for your statements, tell us your background. Otherwise we left out on limb re credibility and responsibility for honest, open dialog, as sought here for democratic sharing purposes. Speak up and out, friend, so we can know and accept OR reject what you claim. That's rule of game here, if you wish to be heard and believed. You chose to take part, so finish by doing so. Action otherwise proves up point of seeking close check.

Owen Blankenship November 2, 2008 9:39 pm (Pacific time)

HR the below was not a link to a UCLA newsroom, but to a top flight university study (Economics Department) and I'm quite sure it has nothing to do with the upcoming presidential election, but is topical to the above article. I have somewhat of a background in economics , and am familiar with a number of popular theories. I know enough that they are theories, like all social sciences (even "gravity" is a theory). For many years I have heard about studies/opinions that addressed FDR's policies as prolonging the depression. So I am also concerned when I hear others saying we should adopt similar policies as to what is happening now.

Henry Clay Ruar November 2, 2008 5:46 pm (Pacific time)

O.B.: Yr link to UCLA Newsroom turns up dissidents debating one theory, unproven except for their interpretation, vs whole slew of Nobel winner economists like Stiglitz and Keynes. Also flies in face of public record showing great gains for middle class, created in part by FDR New Deal, as analyzed by wide range of historians, also, incluidn Beard, Zinn, et al. SO what you show is simply more economic sands sifting slowly through academic process, does not as yet constitute more than theory. But you claim proof...one more mirror-umage of standard neocon techniques. FYI, same theory proposed for War I, too, with same dissent from same group of economists. Chicago Boys led by Milton Friedman once took off in same directions, but thought better of it later. See if you can find something new, rather than already discredited academic theory once more promoted right in time for payoff in election impact.

Henry Ruark November 2, 2008 11:23 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" link from John Dean, surely highly experienced with GOP: (Excerpt from ICH) "In my book Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches, I set forth the facts regarding the consequences of the Republicans' controlling government for too many years. No Republican -- nor anyone else, for that matter -- has refuted these facts, and for good reason: They are irrefutable. The McCain/Palin Ticket Perfectly Fits the Authoritarian Conservative Mold During the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican candidates, have shown themselves to be unapologetic and archetypical authoritarian conservatives. Indeed, their campaign has warmed the hearts of fellow authoritarians, who applaud them for their negativity, nastiness, and dishonest ploys and only criticize them for not offering more of the same. The McCain/Palin campaign has assumed a typical authoritarian posture: The candidates provide no true, specific proposals to address America's needs. Rather, they simply ask voters to "trust us" and suggest that their opponents - Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden - are not "real Americans" like McCain, Palin, and the voters they are seeking to court. Accordingly, McCain and Plain have called Obama "a socialist," "a redistributionist," "a Marxist," and "a communist" - without a shred of evidence to support their name-calling, for these terms are pejorative, rather than in any manner descriptive. This is the way authoritarian leaders operate. In my book Conservatives Without Conscience, I set forth the traits of authoritarian leaders and followers, which have been distilled from a half-century of empirical research, during which thousands of people have voluntarily been interviewed by social scientists. The touch points in these somewhat-overlapping lists of character traits provide a clear picture of the characters of both John McCain and Sarah Palin." ------------------ Unless YOU have deeper, wider GOP experience than Dean, YOU can hardly question his pained expression of what he learned, set forth publicly in 2 famed books.

Owen Blankenship November 2, 2008 10:52 am (Pacific time)

Vic am not a kool aid drinker, just looking at the data. This election will generate many years of research no matter the outcome. New tactics and strategies are probably already being implemented for 2010. Day 21: IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll Nov 2,2008: The race tightened again Sunday as independents who'd been leaning to Obama shifted to McCain to leave that key group a toss-up. McCain also pulled even in the Midwest, moved back into the lead with men, padded his gains among Protestants and Catholics, and is favored for the first time by high school graduates. Note: The most significant number is that Obama has fallen below 47%. This pollster was the most accurate in the last two elections, less that .01% off. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series13.aspx?src=POLLTOPN

Owen November 2, 2008 8:57 am (Pacific time)

I often find the study of economics to be pretty elusive stuff, like trying to hold sand or water in your hands. The below recent major university study puts certain economic realities into a clearer perspective. It's overlay read (linked) is a few minutes and may be benefical for those who appreciate an objective analysis, which empirical research provides. "FDR's policies prolonged "Depression" by #7 years, UCLA economists calculate. Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years... " http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx Please note that each administration comes with it's own unique characteristics that made it what it was. For example LBJ's Great Society has spent trillions over the years, but we still have about the same number in poverty and the illigitimate birth rate has gone from around 20% to approx. 70% for some groups. So do some entitlement programs make it worse by creating even more dependency? Which ones? A lot of 3rd rails out there that need to be examined more closely.

Henry Ruark November 2, 2008 7:43 am (Pacific time)

O.B.: What you prophesy might possibly happen, but very unlikely unless you have mystical insights beyond most human capacity. BUT what yu write is entirely irrelevant to historical facts strongly reported and irrefutable by meaningless statements overlooking all the other causes for the wars you mention. Do you really expect us to accept your political pander of assigning sole blame to the Dem. President who was on deck at the time of any one war ? Your insights being so powerful I wonder from whence them cometh...might be a fine strong new product for street and covert sales. For any undecided, read the main story, not the p/p pile of personal fantasy, and vote what your own mind tells you is best for you, family, and nation.

Dan November 2, 2008 6:58 am (Pacific time)

Quick, before the election, can someone post a list of Senatorial accomplishments of Mr. Obama for me? Thanks!

Vic November 2, 2008 5:38 am (Pacific time)

Owen...keep drinking the Kool-Aid. The only way McCain will win is if Diebold hands the election to him...and if that happens, I hope the American people have the balls to rise up and take our country back from the Neo-Nazi racist warmongers that call themselves "Republicans". If not, then we deserve everything we get.

Anonymous November 2, 2008 1:04 am (Pacific time)

Obama is going to destroy this Country, financial and any other way. When do people wake up that Obama is nothing else but anti American, a Racist and a Socialist.

G.May November 2, 2008 1:31 am (Pacific time)

And let me guess, the leftist media here would bristle at the charge of bias? This utterly simplistic (and quite frankly wrong in several areas) look at the economy and historical trends is just more dumbing down by leftist media drones. The first citation is from a UC Berkeley Professor who was an economic advisor to Carter? And this is supposed to be taken seriously?? Carter presided over one of the most economically inept presidencies of the modern era. As Mr. Ruark is fond of saying - this is "simple fact". The entire credibility of anything written after the credentials of the "researcher" are established is called into severe question, but let's take a crack at it shall we? Truman - Any President during those years would have been able to be successful - again, simple fact. The end of WWII was more than fertile ground for economic growth. Johnson - economically presided over ballooning deficits and a large spike in the CPI, then tried to raise taxes further to offset it. I love how biased folks conveniently gloss over inconvenient truths. And Clinton couldn't have reduced the deficit without the Republican controlled congress. Again, just a simple, inarguable fact. The Congress is FAR more responsible for the budget and the economy than the President. This is simple high school level government and economics and it's what basically derails the CSM article's argument regarding Clinton and what he was responsible for. As for Mr. Corrick's assertion that today's mess is apparently solely the fault of several Republican presidencies and their deregulatory policies, clearly he is unfamiliar with the CRA of 1977 and just how far it was expanded during the Clinton years, and its lingering impact on this economic crisis. Of course, it all comes down to the congress again mainly and the point is - dems and repubs are ALL responsible for this mess we're in. That, too, is historic fact. Clearly the unabashed bias and favoritism the press/media shows for democratic/leftist platforms is also at the small town level as well. What a surprise.

Owen Blankenship November 1, 2008 6:25 pm (Pacific time)

It seems that republican presidents have been in power when these above events happened, just like democratic presidents have been in charged when major wars have happened. What has hurt us more? Congratualation Sen. McCain. These are words that are, actually, somewhat difficult for me to say. John McCain wasn't my favorite candidate in the primaries. For the better part of eight years, he's been on the wrong side of many crucial issues. So I am not making this prediction based on any love of my former Arizona senator. I asserted to friends that the numbers in the early voting were not sufficient for Obama to win---not in Colorado, not in Florida, and at this time, barely enough to carry California. Since then, the numbers in CO have improved for Obama, but in my view not nearly enough. The numbers in Florida remain daunting for him, and California still is stunningly close in terms of Democrat/Republican splits. Based on that, and some other factors, I predicted there would be no Obama victory, and no Obama "Swag-Bag." (Did anyone see the Obama voter who said Sen. Obama would pay off her mortgage and pay for her gas!?). With independents breaking at a far higher rate for McCain than Obama, and with large segments of the Democrats voting Republican, you are likely to see both a very high level of Republican support for McCain (probably in the 90s), combined with a significant level of Dem support and late breaking independents. That breaks down to: *CO will be Republican by about 2 points. *NV will be a 2 point or better final for McCain. *MO will be a 4 or 5 point McCain win. *NM will end up a 2-point McCain loss. *McCain will bring in OH at 2 or 3 points---better than Bush did in 04. *FL will be a double digit McCain lead. GA and NC won't be that close. *Here's the clincher: the southern part of VA, combined with the west, will give McCain a 1- to 2-point win in the Old Dominion. *I won't predict NH, IA, or PA. These are very, very close. If I had to guess, I'd say McCain wins NH, loses PA by razor thin margins---but there's that darned "Bradley Effect," and it is real, and it may well bring PA along. High numbers of undecideds remain in the major polls. An undecided has already decided not to vote for Obama. It's all about what is called the 'death line' of 48% for Obama. In only a couple of polls, with drastic manipulations involving oversampling of Democrats, has Obama crossed that line. It will be a close election, but the msm will call it for McCain by 1:00 AM EST.

Henry Ruark November 1, 2008 4:15 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Can confirm and also document from files over past 50 years every word of what Conick reports here. In addition, as longtime reader of CSMonitor for much of that time, can also verify that they published a number of articles on this simple ongoing historic fact - that Dems do better for most of us than GOP ever did. It is mystifying situation that certain segments of the American public have been deluded by GOP noise machine over years into voting against their own economic interests. That, too, is historic fact. Make it move into reverse if you still have any doubt about this transforming election: VOTE FOR OBAMA and BIDEN !!

[Return to Top]

If You Need to Vote Your Pocketbook, Vote Obama

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News