I used to be a republican when I was younger, back when they talked mainly about fiscal responsibility. But I left when I realized that they weren't, in fact, fiscally responsible. And right about that time they started amping up the crazy re: social issues. So now I am a democrat.
The irony is this - when I was a repub, I ran through money like water. Spent everything I had and then some. Nowadays I am all about cutting costs and savings, and am a Dem. Which is not all that surprising, I guess, when you consider that dems have better fiscal policy/results than Repubs do.
Don't believe it? Well, neither did I, for a long time. As someone raised in a very conservative household in a very conservative state, I always thought "Of course the Republicans are better at $$, that's their whole platform!". But then I saw that data, and the data did not match up. Eventually I realized that (counterintuitively) that the Dem's policies just work better for the economy.
Still don't believe me? Well check out some of these facts:
https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/21-TruthsThat-Prove-Republicans-Have-Been-Wrong-About-Everything
Those aren't facts. Mostly there just opinions staged as facts, some of them are attacking straw men, and some are just flat out wrong.
Well more have sources attached, do have sources that disagree with those? Which ones do you say are opinions, which are attacking strawmen?
This is more effort than that "article" deserves, but:
(1) I'm not sure what Republicans claimed about Medicare in the 1960's (and they don't provide a source), but the claim isn't really relevant to anything. We've had a large working population compared to medicare eligible population, and that has allowed us to tax younger workers to pay for elder health care and it be very manageable. Now that our medicare eligible population is growing, we'll see how it goes. As far as its impact on freedom, it does curtail freedom. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad program depending on what your values are, but even if you are concerned about curtailment of freedom, the real concern will be what happens when we can no longer pretend that the medicare tax is enough to pay for the program.
(2) & (3) attack the same straw man and employ the same logical fallacy. Nobody (or nobody serious) claims that small changes in marginal tax rates are the sole determinant of the direction of the economy. And nobody that understands logic would claim that just because a tax rate change came before an economic uptick or downturn, it caused the uptick or downturn.
(4) the Brade bill had pretty much no impact on crime. Crime was dropping before the ban and continued after it expired. This isn't really controversial and the fact that they are trying to sell the Brady Act as responsible for the drop in crime from the 90's on shows that the author is not even attempting to be intellectually honest.
(5) & (6) are unsourced and I'm not going to try to track them down. I think the vast majority of people would agree that with hindsight, Iraq was a mistake. I don't think there is as much agreement as to what the credible evidence showed at the time as far as WMDs.
(7) is purely opinion. Some people think enhanced interrogation provides more benefits than costs; others don't. Producing one anecdote in what is intended to be a persuasive writing seems almost worse than providing none, especially when the anecdote reflects a possibility that all advocates of enhanced interrogation would recognize as a risk/draw back to the method.
(8) Cheney's statement isn't sourced, but one errant prediction doesn't tell much about the parties. And it's especially dense to talk about no deaths on American soil from Al Qaeda while ignoring the deaths from Islamic terrorism. People really weren't concerned that they are going to be killed by Al Qaeda as opposed to ISIS or a lone-wolf islamic terrorist. I feel confident that the vast majority of people are concerned about they or their loved ones being killed by terrorism period.
(9) Straw man. Generally, people don't doubt that stimulus can increase GDP in the short run (I'm not even sure that proponents of Ricardian equivalence think stimulus can't increase GDP in the short run). The question is whether the stimulus is worth the costs, both in future taxes and in moral hazard.
(10) I'm fairly certain most republicans did not say Obama should be impeached for Benghazi. I also don't think a house report is worth very much when you're talking about clandestine operations. I would not put much stock in the claim that the CIA wasn't shipping arms through benghazi.
(11) This isn't even an argument. I could just as easily say Democrats said increased government spending wouldn't harm the economy, but then we had the Savings and Loan crisis. But regardless, neither Savings and Loan nor banks were lightly regulated. They were heavily regulated and regulated in a way that encouraged regulatory arbitrage and everybody managing risk in the same way, which caused systemic instability.
(12) The same logical fallacy. The fact that the economy grew doesn't mean that obamacare didn't hurt the economy. I think it's pretty much a consensus that obamacare costs some jobs. The CBO projects it as something like the equivalent of 2.3 million jobs of hours not worked due to obamacare. Whether you think it's worth it depends on how many jobs you think it cost and what the benefits are.
(13) Kind of a silly prediction to begin with (if you know what impact a politician is going to have on gas prices, you should bet the market, not play politics), but they were attacking things that Obama supported that will generally increase the price of gas. Luckily fracking exploded and had a big enough impact to make other gov't policies more or less moot in the short term.
(14), (15) Another statement that ignores the counterfactual (or lack thereof).
(16) Obama being not being able to politically raise taxes doesn't mean he doesn't want to raise taxes. And Obama did manage to raise taxes on most americans through Obamacare.
(17) Republicans have never claimed anything regarding "trickle down" to my knowledge. That was a derogatory term made up by democrats. Also ignoring the counterfactual.
(18) If anybody thought the keystone pipeline by itself would move gas prices sky high, they didn't know what they were talking about. Not approving it was bad (both for the economy and the environment), but it was a relatively minor thing. It's like the import export bank; the harm isn't that big, it's just such a terrible sign that we can't get the easiest of policies right.
(19) Ignores two branches of government. Historically (at least before Obama, not sure since then), the economy has done best with republican congress and senate and a democrat president. But even that doesn't tell you that much because there are such large lags between policy enactment, implementation, and results. I think there's going to be even less correlation in the future as there is so much dead weight encompassed in regulations and bureaucracy that are not easily eliminated.
(20) They are just flat out wrong on what the evidence on minimum wage shows. The evidence largely shows that small increases of minimum wage results in small decreases in low wage employment. There are a couple of outliers, but the evidence is largely consistent with the theory.