Dems better for economy (Forbes magazine)

[klook]

This information was originally published in July 2004, but at the suggestion of txaslftist I’m posting it here as a reminder. (Mods, if this is out of bounds, I apologize, but it seems like important info.)

According to that bastion of radical liberal economic thought, Forbes magazine, on the key benchmarks of economic vitality--GDP growth, real disposable personal income, employment, unemployment, inflation, and deficit reduction--the top three performing administrations were those of Democrats (Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy), while the bottom three were Republicans (Nixon, Eisenhower, and Bush I).

Since they're so "PC," Forbes left out Bush II, although his administration's economic performance is one of the worst in U.S. history.

Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580 /
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0927-03.htm
(I'm sure it's on the Forbes web site also, but you have to be a subscriber to see it.)

[AX10]

1. KICK

[iamjoy]

2. Well, What Do You Know (n/t)

[Cassandra]

3. I know I figured that out before they did.

Why aren't I getting the big bucks?

[iamjoy]

5. WE All Knew Dems Were Better

The surprising thing is a (conservative) finance magazine admitting it.

[Maccagirl]

4. Does Steve Forbes know about this?

After all, he campaigned against his cousin, John Kerry.

:evilgrin:

[barb162]

6. Kerry's his cousin?? No shit!

Forbes has beady little eyes and a beady little brain.

[barb162]

7. I am surprised the rich pug fucks finally figured this out

but they still don't really care as Bush gives them their huge tax breaks