Stronger growth rates under Democratic administrations

[eminitrader007]

Quote from runningman:

You people crack me up! Bush has spent more than every single president before him--COMBINED and inflation has taken off under his watch. But of course he gets a pass, after all he's the MBA President with Business Experience! You republicans all know, if you want to admit it or not, if these numbers were opposite, you would hear about them every single day on CNBC and you would be trumpeting them at every chance.

Exactly, the last president that had a budget surplus was a Democratic president. Regan ran $200 billion deficit, George HW ran $300 billion deficit and W...I don't know I stopped keeping track.
The other thing that I usually hear from conservatives is how the growth in Clinton years was because of Regan and the current situation is because of Clinton.
It's absolutely amazing how the conservatives do not let the facts come in the way of a good story.

 

[pepper_john]

If there is any difference, it's probably because of the Clinton era.


Clinton's economical policy was more republican than democratic: small government and less government intervention, reduced well-fare and more incentive to work, conservative fiscal policy. He was also a strong supporter of globalization, very unlike Obama.

Obama promises more government intervention, more well-fare for the poor, bigger spending, which are quite different from Clinton's policy.

 

[eminitrader007]

Quote from pepper_john:

If there is any difference, it's probably because of the Clinton era.


Clinton's economical policy was more republican than democratic: small government and less government intervention, reduced well-fare and more incentive to work, conservative fiscal policy. He was also a strong supporter of globalization, very unlike Obama.

Republicans have been talking a lot about small government and less spending but the last Republican president to do so was Nixon. Regan talked about small government and ran huge deficits. As a percentage of GDP Regan spent more on government than FDR without the social programs.
There is no republican economic policy.....it's a myth.

Regarding welfare, I have few republican friends that are against it but they take the govt. subsidized student loans...Aren't student loans a form of welfare?

 

[BeatingtheSP500]

Quote from nkhoi:

fact: 1948 to 2007 = 59y

fact: Life expectancy: 77.8 years
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm

let's say you wait for another 30y (about 50% of about 59y) to get some logical conclusion. Since 59 + 30 = 89y then you will be expire long before you reach the 'logical' conclusion.

I won't accept the idea that, in the future, a dem president will be better for the economy. 59 years of study be damned. Though it may hold to be true, the study does not contain enough reasoning for me.
How about a study of congress instead? The prez doesn't have the authority to spend a dime.
Or perhaps adjusting the results to account for what the then president started with, or had to deal with, positive or negative. Start with those and you'll find very little statistical evidence to support the conclusion.

 

[Robert Weinstein]

Quote from eminitrader007:

No matter how you slice it, historically Democratic administration has been better for the economy and the stock market.

I would like to slice it by going back a few years. How about with FDR. See how your numbers look after you "add" in the negative numbers during his time.

Not a big surprise that you would use 1948.

I guess we should also ignore the fact that under FDRs programs and Johnsons great society we are now facing a BK America that owe give or take 100K+ for every man woman and child.

Regardless if the Dems have made life better than the Reps, The Dems sold out our childrens future to do so. For those in office that will sell out our future with more and more entitlement programs and promises of free health care with borrowed money I say shame on you.

If you think health care is expensive now and unaffordable wait until you see how expensive "FREE" is.

 

[gastropod]

Reminds me of the Woody Allen movie "Bananas" where two policemen are debating, "Will you vote for the Red dictator or the Blue dictator?" and one of them says, " I am ready for change, this time I will vote for the red dictator." (or something similar - the point is the same) BTW, the red dictator and the blue dictator were one and the same person...so, either vote meant nothing - they still ended up with the same dictator. This is the present situation in the US - both Mohammed Obama and John ManchurianCandidate are propped up by the same loons who want to destroy America.

 

[colewave]

I want to see this study done for time periods when the President is a Democrat and he has a filibuster proof democratic congress. I think that is the main concern with this election.

 

[Arnie]

Regarding the article cited in the OP. There is another way to look at this. In a capitalist sytem, those at the top should be expected to do better than those at the bottom, especially when the economy is growing. Why would it be different? The ones at the top have the capital and knowledge/skill to take advantage of new opportunities. So in a way, the fact that you have the higher income people outperforing the lower income people is really a sign that the economy is working as its designed. In fact, just looking at the income numbers for Dems you see the exact opposite of what you would expect. The lower income groups grew FASTER than the higher income groups, the exact opposite of the numbers during Rep adminstrations. Maybe part of this is due to Dem spending more on welfare, which would inflate the income for the lowest percentiles. Maybe part is due to Reps favoring tax reflief for those that actually pay taxes. But overall, you would expect to see the top income groups do better that the lower income groups.

For the author to conclude that this means Dems are better for the ECONOMY is a stretch. Now if wants to make the point that Dem policies favor the working class, I think that would be correct.

 

[eminitrader007]

Quote from 1Reason:

I would like to slice it by going back a few years. How about with FDR. See how your numbers look after you "add" in the negative numbers during his time.

Not a big surprise that you would use 1948.

I guess we should also ignore the fact that under FDRs programs and Johnsons great society we are now facing a BK America that owe give or take 100K+ for every man woman and child.

Regardless if the Dems have made life better than the Reps, The Dems sold out our childrens future to do so. For those in office that will sell out our future with more and more entitlement programs and promises of free health care with borrowed money I say shame on you.

If you think health care is expensive now and unaffordable wait until you see how expensive "FREE" is.

The point I was trying to make is that the republicans are NOT the fiscal consevatives that they claim to be. Their actions are similar to the head of a bank security department getting involved in the bank robbery. During W's presidency there was republican congress too and I don't understand why they did not get rid of all the unnecessary spending and balance the budget.

FDR's New Deal did increase the deficit but we were in a Great Depression and WWII. The per person spending increase was $222 per year during that time and currently it is more than $250 per year.....and the $222 is adjusted for inflation.

If we are going to spend money we might as well spend it on social programs.

 

[gnome]

Quote from eminitrader007:

".. During W's presidency there was republican congress too and I don't understand why they did not get rid of all the unnecessary spending and balance the budget.

Because they didn't WANT to. Not then, not now, not EVER!

"Things" in America are going EXACTLY the way the politicos want them to go... no changes planned.