Average balance of power of all three branches.

[Brian37]

Look at the following chart, if you still think GOP economics are good, you are one delusional idiot.

The only thing I can blame my party for is voter apathy and too much compromise by our politicians.

But the data is in since Reagan started deregulation, THE GOP on average has held the majority of all three branches in that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...Senate.png

ALL THAT BLUE you see was the economic boom before Reagan.

[Tiberius]

Wait, so you're saying Trump isn't going to MAGA?

[Crossless2.0]

Look at the following chart, if you still think GOP economics are good, you are one delusional idiot.

The only thing I can blame my party for is voter apathy and too much compromise by our politicians.

But the data is in since Reagan started deregulation, THE GOP on average has held the majority of all three branches in that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...Senate.png

ALL THAT BLUE you see was the economic boom before Reagan.

Correlation =/= causation.

While I agree that 'Reaganomics' and deregulation has been a long-term disaster, the graph you reference really doesn't make a strong case that the Democrats, while in power in Congress, were necessarily anything other than the political beneficiaries of a sudden boom in production during the war years, followed by a nearly unprecedented period during which the U.S.'s only serious European and Eastern Asian economic competitors were struggling to put their shattered economies and societies back together after the war, from which America had emerged nearly unscathed.

But if the Democrats are to reap the praise for the economy during the '50s and '60s, is it also the case that they are to blame for the stagnating economy of the '70s? I would argue that the reasons for that decline -- like the reasons for the successes of the previous two decades -- had much to do with developments overseas, in this case the oil embargo, and cannot be tied in a simple one-to-one, cause-and-effect relationship to specific economic policies the party adopted.

[Tiberius]

Correlation =/= causation.

While I agree that 'Reaganomics' and deregulation has been a long-term disaster, the graph you reference really doesn't make a strong case that the Democrats, while in power in Congress, were necessarily anything other than the political beneficiaries of a sudden boom in production during the war years, followed by a nearly unprecedented period during which the U.S.'s only serious European and Eastern Asian economic competitors were struggling to put their shattered economies and societies back together after the war, from which America had emerged nearly unscathed.

But if the Democrats are to reap the praise for the economy during the '50s and '60s, is it also the case that they are to blame for the stagnating economy of the '70s? I would argue that the reasons for that decline -- like the reasons for the successes of the previous two decades -- had much to do with developments overseas, in this case the oil embargo, and cannot be tied in a simple one-to-one, cause-and-effect relationship to specific economic policies the party adopted.

ARE YOU SAYING THE REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE GOOD THINGS?!?!?

[Brian37]

Look at the following chart, if you still think GOP economics are good, you are one delusional idiot.

The only thing I can blame my party for is voter apathy and too much compromise by our politicians.

But the data is in since Reagan started deregulation, THE GOP on average has held the majority of all three branches in that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...Senate.png

ALL THAT BLUE you see was the economic boom before Reagan.

Correlation =/= causation.

While I agree that 'Reaganomics' and deregulation has been a long-term disaster, the graph you reference really doesn't make a strong case that the Democrats, while in power in Congress, were necessarily anything other than the political beneficiaries of a sudden boom in production during the war years, followed by a nearly unprecedented period during which the U.S.'s only serious European and Eastern Asian economic competitors were struggling to put their shattered economies and societies back together after the war, from which America had emerged nearly unscathed.

But if the Democrats are to reap the praise for the economy during the '50s and '60s, is it also the case that they are to blame for the stagnating economy of the '70s? I would argue that the reasons for that decline -- like the reasons for the successes of the previous two decades -- had much to do with developments overseas, in this case the oil embargo, and cannot be tied in a simple one-to-one, cause-and-effect relationship to specific economic policies the party adopted.

Nobody is or should claim one party is perfect. BUT the data is in, you look at deregulation as a concept it created bad gambling habits long term.

I do however think BOTH parties get stuck in either or propositions when it should not be gang warfare but adjusting to change. BUT as far as ideas of more stability and better education long term, when you have less of a gap and more people stable long term everyone benefits. BUT right now what we have is one global market that is being used as a giant casino which is sucking the money up to the top. Profits that simply sit in an account do nothing and after a certain point become counter productive.

[Crossless2.0]

ARE YOU SAYING THE REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE GOOD THINGS?!?!?

I don't know your sense of humor, so I can't be sure if you're fucking with me or not.

For the record, the Reagan Kool-Aid was not and is not a good thing.

[Tiberius]

ARE YOU SAYING THE REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE GOOD THINGS?!?!?

I don't know your sense of humor, so I can't be sure if you're fucking with me or not.

For the record, the Reagan Kool-Aid was not and is not a good thing.

Not to worry, I was fucking with you.

[Brian37]

Correlation =/= causation.

While I agree that 'Reaganomics' and deregulation has been a long-term disaster, the graph you reference really doesn't make a strong case that the Democrats, while in power in Congress, were necessarily anything other than the political beneficiaries of a sudden boom in production during the war years, followed by a nearly unprecedented period during which the U.S.'s only serious European and Eastern Asian economic competitors were struggling to put their shattered economies and societies back together after the war, from which America had emerged nearly unscathed.

But if the Democrats are to reap the praise for the economy during the '50s and '60s, is it also the case that they are to blame for the stagnating economy of the '70s? I would argue that the reasons for that decline -- like the reasons for the successes of the previous two decades -- had much to do with developments overseas, in this case the oil embargo, and cannot be tied in a simple one-to-one, cause-and-effect relationship to specific economic policies the party adopted.

ARE YOU SAYING THE REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC POLICIES ARE GOOD THINGS?!?!?

Not right now no. The parties flipped over time.