首页 伊甸情园 很多华人为什么不希望Obma当选？
发帖
查看：18306|回复：459
When you buy via links in posts, huaren.us may earn a commission

很多华人为什么不希望Obma当选？

头像
0操作401 #
头像
401 #
0
08-09-11 12:05操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用龙小猫在2008-9-11 11:19:00的发言：

其实共和党就布什一家子爱打仗
想想当年的里根兵不血刃搞垮了苏联

是不是叫和平演变来着,

头像
0操作402 #
头像
402 #
0
08-09-11 12:33操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用ratzinger在2008-9-11 12:01:00的发言：

找你的说法，美国应该马上打伊朗。这样把两仪彻底解决掉。

 

刚才还讲退税，原来是为了石油。每月10 Billion，不知道打仗的钱哪里来的？让fed多印一点纸币，每人人都是百万富翁。共和党的功劳就更大了。

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-11 12:12:39编辑过]


美国肯定会打伊朗的，美国在中东都经营了那么久了，怎么会因为现在这点问题就放弃了。现在不过是时机的问题。
美国现在经济是不行，所以要打仗。不打仗，美元崩溃了，美国这才是真正的玩完了。
说起功劳，其实卡特时期的经济那才叫吓人，那样都熬过来了，现在比起来实在不算什么非常糟糕。
头像
0操作403 #
头像
403 #
0
08-09-11 12:43操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用vinobianco在2008-9-11 12:33:00的发言：


美国肯定会打伊朗的，美国在中东都经营了那么久了，怎么会因为现在这点问题就放弃了。现在不过是时机的问题。
美国现在经济是不行，所以要打仗。不打仗，美元崩溃了，美国这才是真正的玩完了。
说起功劳，其实卡特时期的经济那才叫吓人，那样都熬过来了，现在比起来实在不算什么非常糟糕。

why ??? a big chunck of our tax payer's money goes to war, and not much left for education and health care. Say universities could not get funding, then could not attrack students. then, it is really a bad thing

头像
0操作404 #
头像
404 #
0
08-09-11 13:01操作
只看TAAA分享
ò???ê?òyó?龙小猫?ú2008-9-11 11:58:00μ?·￠??￡o

这是谁写的啊
里根执政八年间的丰功伟绩怎么一点都不提

 


ALthough Reagan is a Republican, he supported tax increase as well. He signed several bills to increase taxes including social security tax rate, which we are using today. Look at two greatest economic expansion in recent 40 years (Reagan and Clinton), both increased tax.

头像
0操作405 #
头像
405 #
0
08-09-11 13:03操作
只看TAAA分享

Lao La, your data confuses me. Let's look at this meta-analysis done by economists


 


DATA TABLE. 

Acronyms: BLS = U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; BEA = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis























































































MetricSource of data/
analysis		Average under
Democratic 
Presidents/
Administrations		Average under
Republican 
Presidents/
Administrations		Who measured better 
on this metric?
(See critiques page)
Average Ranking (lower the 
number the better) for 
highest GDP growth,
real disposable personal 
income, employment/
unemployment, deficit reduction
1953-2001		Average rank calculated 
from ranking data from 
Dan Ackman, Forbes.com		Overall rank: 4.58 
(top 3 are Democrats)

GDP rank: 3.8


Real Disposable 
Personal Income 
rank: 5.0


Employment rank: 4.6


Deficit Reduction 
rank: 4.2

Overall rank: 6.44
(Reagan is #4)

GDP rank: 7.2


Real Disposable 
Personal Income 
rank: 6.0


Employment rank: 6.4


Deficit reduction 
rank: 6.38

Democratic 
Presidents

[Also see this data 
comparison from Michael
Kinsley in the 
Washington Post]

Real Disposable Personal 
Income Growth per year
1953-2001		Dan Ackman, Forbes.com3.65%3.08%Democratic 
Presidents
Employment gains per year
1953-2001		Dan Ackman, Forbes.com1.684 million/year1.279 million/yearDemocratic 
Presidents
Unemployment: 
1962-2001		P.L.A., using data 
from the BLS		5.1 %6.75 %Democratic 
Presidents
Unemployment: 
1947-2001
Assuming that each President's 
policies took effect 1 year after 
his inauguration		Larry Bartels, Los 
Angeles Times		4.8 %6.3 %Democratic 
Presidents
(trend similar if 2
year shift assumed)
Unemployment:
1948-2001
Assuming Presidents are also
responsible for economic 
performance 3-5 years after 
they leave office		CalPundit, using 
data from the BLS		3-yr lag: 5.06 %

4-yr lag: 5.04 %


5-yr lag: 5.01%

3-yr lag: 6.16 %

4-yr lag: 6.18 %


5-yr lag: 6.21 %

Democratic 
Presidents
Average After-Tax Return on 
Tangible Capital:
Jan 1952 - June 2004		Roger Altman, 
Wall Street Journal
(data from Federal Reserve)		4.3%3.2%Democratic 
Presidents
[For a Bush I + Bush II
vs. Clinton comparison,
see here]
GDP growth: 
1962-2001		P.L.A., using data 
from the BEA		3.9 %2.9 %Democratic 
Presidents
GDP growth:
1948 - 2001
Assuming Presidents are also
responsible for economic 
performance 3-5 years after 
they leave office		CalPundit, using 
data from the BEA		3-yr lag: 3.56 %

4-yr lag: 3.78 %


5-yr lag: 3.71 %

3-yr lag: 3.35 %

4-yr lag: 3.16 %


5-yr lag: 3.21 %

Democratic 
Presidents
GDP growth: 
1930-2000		Carol Vinzant 
in Slate		5.4%1.6 %Democratic 
Presidents
Inflation: 
1962-2001		P.L.A., using data 
from the BLS		4.26 %4.96 %Democratic 
Presidents
Inflation:
1948-2001
Assuming Presidents are also
responsible  for economic 
performance 3-5 years  after 
they leave office		CalPundit, using 
CPI data from 
Economagic		3-yr lag: 3.33 %

4-yr lag: 3.07 %


5-yr lag: 3.20 %

3-yr lag: 4.36 %

4-yr lag: 4.60 %


5-yr lag: 4.48 %

Democratic 
Presidents
Percentage growth in
Total Federal Spending:
1962-2001		P.L.A., using data 
from the U.S. Govt.
Budget 2003		6.96 %7.57 %Democratic 
Presidents if lower 
Govt. spending is 
better; Republican 
Presidents if higher 
spending is better

Note, however, that 
total spending other
than for Medicare and
Social Security has 
been dropping since
1983 (CalPundit using
U.S. Govt. Budget
data). The decrease
was more significant
in the 90s under Clinton.

头像
0操作406 #
头像
406 #
0
08-09-11 13:04操作
只看TAAA分享























































Percentage growth in
Non-Defense Federal Spending:
1962-2001		P.L.A., using data 
from the U.S. Govt.
Budget 2003		8.34 %10.08 %Democratic 
Presidents if lower 
Govt.  spending is 
better; Republican 
Presidents if higher 
spending is better

Note, however, that 
total spending other
than for Medicare and
Social Security has 
been dropping since
1983 (CalPundit using
U.S. Govt. Budget
data). The decrease
was more significant
in the 90s under Clinton.

Non-defense Federal 
Government Employees:
1962-2001		P.L.A., using data 
from the U.S. Govt.
Budget 2003		Rose by 59,000
(16 % of total rise
over 40 years)		Rose by 310,000
(84% of total rise 
over 40 years)		Democratic 
Presidents
(assuming smaller 
Govt. is better)
Yearly budget deficit:
1962-2001		P.L.A., using data 
from the U.S. Govt.
Budget 2003		$36 billion$190 billionDemocratic 
Presidents
Increase in National Debt:
1962-2001		P.L.A., using data 
from the U.S. Govt.
Budget 2003

See follow-up by P.L.A.
solidifying the 
conclusions

Total debt 
increased by 
$0.72 trillion
(20 years)		Total debt 
increased by 
$3.8 trillion
(20 years)		Democratic 
Presidents
Annual stock market return:
1927 (through) 1998		Pedro Santa-Clara and 
Rossen Valkanov
Research Paper, UCLA 
(via Atrios)
Results are "statistically 
significant" 

Also reported by 
CNN Money

~ 11%
(value weighted CRSP 
index minus 3 month 
Treasury Bill)		~ 2%
(value weighted CRSP 
index minus 3 month 
Treasury Bill)		Democratic 
Presidents

(Delta increases to 16% for 
equal-weighted case)


The study says:
"The difference comes from 
higher real stock returns and 
lower real interest rates, 
is statistically significant, 
and is robust in subsamples. 
The difference in returns is not 
explained by business-cycle 
variables related to expected 
returns, and is not concentrated 
around election dates. There 
is no difference in the riskiness 
of the stock market across
presidencies that could 
justify a risk premium."

Annual stock market return:
(1900) 1927 - 2000		Carol Vinzant 
in Slate		12.3 % (S&P 500)8.0 % (S&P 500)Democratic 
Presidents
Annual stock market return:
(1900) 1927 - 2000		Carol Vinzant 
in Slate		Democratic Senate 
10.5 % (S&P 500)
Democratic House 
10.9 % (S&P 500) 		Republican Senate 
9.4 % (S&P 500)
Republican House 
8.1 % (S&P 500)		Democratic 
Senate or
House (but see article
for qualifications)
Annual stock market return:
(1900) 1927 - 2000		Stock Traders' Almanac 
as reported by 
Carol Vinzant in Slate		13.4 % (Dow)8.1 % (Dow)Democratic 
Presidents
Rankings for highest GDP growth,
biggest increase in jobs, biggest 
increase in personal disposable 
income  after taxes, biggest rise in 
hourly wages, lowest Misery Index 
(inflation  plus unemployment), etc. 
(until 2001)		Arthur Blaustein, 
Mother Jones		N/A.
But all these best case 
metrics were under
Democratic Presidents		N/ADemocratic 
Presidents
头像
0操作407 #
头像
407 #
0
08-09-11 13:11操作
只看TAAA分享
大家怎么不提冷战期间的巨额赤字。。。美国的国债都是那时候积累起来的。。。。什么和平演变，花的钱更多。

其实说到底美国真正花自己的钱（就是大家的税钱）去打仗的金额并不大，大部分都是国债，我们中国纳税人的钱占了大部分。。[em58]
头像
0操作408 #
头像
408 #
0
08-09-11 13:14操作
只看TAAA分享
啥叫american dream...britney 还说自己是Miss American Dream呢。

我觉得american dream不是一个统一的概念，每个人的都不一样。这样才最符合american dream的精神。
最小政府干涉的自由竞争我相信也是很多人来到美国发展的motivation一部分。[em55]

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-11 13:20:56编辑过]

头像
0操作409 #
头像
409 #
0
08-09-11 13:49操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用龙小猫在2008-9-11 11:19:00的发言：

其实共和党就布什一家子爱打仗
想想当年的里根兵不血刃搞垮了苏联

关键美国死一个人，国内叫得不行，媒体又都很左。其实战争哪能不死人的。


而且，bush打得不聪明，应该美国提供装备，地方组织力量，提供人力。

头像
0操作410 #
头像
410 #
0
08-09-11 13:56操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用龙小猫在2008-9-11 11:58:00的发言：

这是谁写的啊
里根执政八年间的丰功伟绩怎么一点都不提

well, he was the cold war hero that was completely against China's interest. Why on earth would a Chinese media write anything to praise Reagen? :)
Don't take foreign reports seriously and the rule applies to all countries =)
头像
0操作411 #
头像
411 #
0
08-09-11 13:58操作
只看TAAA分享
the fundamental flaw of those economics analysis is that it ignored economic cycles as well as the power of congress and the supreme court.
头像
0操作412 #
头像
412 #
0
08-09-11 14:02操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用Caffeine在2008-9-11 13:58:00的发言：
the fundamental flaw of those economics analysis is that it ignored economic cycles as well as the power of congress and the supreme court.

现在高院是共和党的
国会制民主党的
最好选个中间派的总统,independent party[em59]
头像
0操作413 #
头像
413 #
0
08-09-11 14:06操作
只看TAAA分享
[em58]以下是引用purpleturtle在2008-9-11 13:11:00的发言：
大家怎么不提冷战期间的巨额赤字。。。美国的国债都是那时候积累起来的。。。。什么和平演变，花的钱更多。

其实说到底美国真正花自己的钱（就是大家的税钱）去打仗的金额并不大，大部分都是国债，我们中国纳税人的钱占了大部分。。

这个中国纳税人的钱那是中国的事情啊。共和党粉丝认真是考虑美国的事情的。提中国的事情，小心人人说你思维有问题。图片点击可在新窗口打开查看


 

头像
0操作414 #
头像
414 #
0
08-09-11 14:09操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用Caffeine在2008-9-11 13:58:00的发言：
the fundamental flaw of those economics analysis is that it ignored economic cycles as well as the power of congress and the supreme court.
就算计算出来民主党更善于搞经济，但不等于obama更善于搞经济。反对他的，不见得是反对民主党一贯的理念，更多的是不信任他。我支持麦肯也有很大的原因是他的主张更接近民主党右派。
头像
0操作415 #
头像
415 #
0
08-09-11 14:11操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用greenflower在2008-9-11 14:02:00的发言：

现在高院是共和党的
国会制民主党的
最好选个中间派的总统,independent party图片点击可在新窗口打开查看

me, me! I'm from the best school and I'm a minority. Caffeine for President! [em63]
头像
0操作416 #
头像
416 #
0
08-09-11 14:13操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用angeliali在2008-9-11 14:09:00的发言：
就算计算出来民主党更善于搞经济，但不等于obama更善于搞经济。反对他的，不见得是反对民主党一贯的理念，更多的是不信任他。我支持麦肯也有很大的原因是他的主张更接近民主党右派。

Obama should have been eliminated in the resume review process. He shouldn't have got an interview [em63]
头像
0操作417 #
头像
417 #
0
08-09-11 14:15操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用Caffeine在2008-9-11 14:11:00的发言：

me, me! I'm from the best school and I'm a minority. Caffeine for President! If
If you go tan your skin, then i will vote for you.[em63]
头像
0操作418 #
头像
418 #
0
08-09-11 14:17操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用angeliali在2008-9-11 14:15:00的发言：
If you go tan your skin, then i will vote for you.

if that's the condition, I won't run then [em62]
头像
0操作419 #
头像
419 #
0
08-09-11 14:19操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用Caffeine在2008-9-11 13:58:00的发言：
the fundamental flaw of those economics analysis is that it ignored economic cycles as well as the power of congress and the supreme court.

统计上讲，的确是民主党总统经济搞得好。 但是对每个总统来说， 近代经济搞得最差的是民主党的卡特， 搞得最好的是民主党克林顿， 生活在小克世代当然不错，可是赶上卡特，就倒霉了。 不知道会不会有人真的看这张表格投票。

头像
0操作420 #
头像
420 #
0
08-09-11 14:19操作
只看TAAA分享
以下是引用Caffeine在2008-9-11 14:17:00的发言：

if that's the condition, I won't run then

that is the factor that weighs most.[em63]

发帖回复
查看：18306|回复：459
首页 伊甸情园 很多华人为什么不希望Obma当选？
转到桌面版