Verified answer

Yes!

During the Clinton years there was the Technology / Internet bubble, which then burst after running its natural course in 2001, this tech bubble did drive incomes through the roof and it had little to do with Clinton and his policies.

The modern democrat party seems to be more interested in redistributing wealth in a mode that resembles the following quote "From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to his need"---Karl Marx

I heard a wise investment guru say that regardless of who the next president is there will be a boom in alternative fuels, because the free market is working feverishly to develop alternatives. For example both Honda and General Motors do have a hydrogen fuel cell car, but the infrastructure to fuel them right now is limited, because it is such a cutting edge technology in fuel. When Henry Ford rolled the first model T off the line, there weren't very many gas stations, but as the car grew in popularity gas station started to pop up because of the demand.

If we renew Bush's tax cuts, more people will have the ability to go out and earn a good living, if we allow them to expire people will have more income redistributed to them and therefore the people who create jobs will have less money to create jobs with.

The NY Times doesn't even know how to correct for monetary depreciation!

Higher income doesn't mean anything when the prices are up. Higher GDP means nothing when it's obtained by inflating the market values. Increase in reserves means nothing when the reserves of resources are being used.

Democrats go for appearance, Republicans go for substance. Take an economics class and you'll understand.

That's a very Republican way of looking at things. I support Obama because the Democrats are better when times are lean and they provide stability for lower income families.

I know that it's cliche but Republican policies mean that the rich get richer, so while it looks like the economy is growing what it actually means is that those who are at the top are growing, while those at the bottom either stay where they are or they get poorer, and so long as the rich get richer faster than the poor get poorer it looks like economic growth.

You also need to look beyond GNP, and instead to look at the average disposable income within each different socioeconomic groups. For example, if your wages go up 3 percent but your expenses go up 4 percent, then you are actually 1% poorer.

Under the Republicans costs such as health care tend to become more expensive and this often hits the poor the most. For this reason I won't be supporting McCain.

Nevermind the useless comparisons. Let's talk about the here and now. The dollar has been sinking like a stone under Bush. The cost of living has risen sharply . McCain wants to continue Bush's economic policies. How will that improve anybody's economic picture?

Contrary to what your numbers say, I invariably have less money under a Democrat that I do under a Republican. I have all of my old tax returns that bear this out. I hate to see a Democrat in office because I know my taxes will go up and my income will go down.

No. What a pitiful analysis that disregards laws of economics and basic knowledge of how our government functions.

Because the VALUE of the dollar goes to sh**.

Standard of living goes down and 100K, now well-off, will be middle class to barely making it under Obama.

Well, lets see. Over 600,000 jobs lost this year...yes, very much so.

Democrats usually pull us outta holes that republicans put us in