Stronger growth rates under Democratic administrations

I think to adapt ONE approach is pretty stupid. Think about it, how often is our country, and the world around it, changing? Constantly. With that said, does it make sense to have a static economic policy in a dynamic country? Our country needs different policies at different times. It is the dichotomy between these 2 major parties that keeps things on an even keel. Why does no one seem to realize that there is no over-all right or wrong. There is only a right or wrong for our current situation.

You are a democrat? Oh, so democrats are ALWAYS the right answer? What would our country be like right now without lincoln? What would we be like if we hadn't gone to war?


You are a republican? I guess FDR was an idiot. Him and all those "big government" programs....Where would we be without him?

I am 21 and this will be the first year I will be able to vote. However I can't figure out why nobody seems to recognize what I've said above. People only cling to what they believe, and they assume that they are right not only then, but ALL the time! They then search for the facts that support there position, instead of simply searching for the facts. How can the country need the same leadership all the time? Through war and peace, through a booming economy and a recession? I may be naive, but I dont think it does. I think you have to look at the country right now, today, and decide what our country needs. And surprise surprise, what we need now may not be exactly what we needed 10 years ago.
 
Quote from eminitrader007:

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.
More...

To be clear I am not a republican and wont be voting for McCain.

I will say that it was Newt Gingrich and the republican overtake of congress that finally put the breaks on the spending

You can talk all day about the president in the white house but it was Democrats that controlled congress for most of the last 50 years. Year after year we saw govt spending go up and up and a deficit getting out of control.

This out of control spending was retarded for a period of time with the republicans taking over the house.

Welfare programs are almost 100% evil and worse yet they make people feel good about giving away someones money.

you never get to see all the missed economic benefits from the dollars being spent by the people who earned them. Worse yet you encourage a cycle of poverty and self made victims that "need" help.

In my opinion regardless of who is in office you will never get any control over either side as long as they have so much control over our lives from the ability to tax our labor.
 
People are puzzled by how democratic administrations consistently perform better than republican ones. And even further, that they don't have that much control over the economy anyway. I refute that. The administration controls the country and the economy in many ways other than what Congress does. This includes setting the tone, and policies, for running our country. It also sends signals to Congress and what they will accept and deny, and therefore many times Congress will tailor legislation with acceptable compromises. The administration authors the budget, controls the cabinet positions, hires workers and directs activities, set policies, all which have an effect on our country and our economy.

How much of a gap is there between a democratic and a republican administration? Check it out:

All studies I saw came to similar conclusions. I took these figures from the most comprehensive of them. Links at end.

First study 1949 to 2005 (to eliminate boom and bust of WWII and aftermath),

Real GDP Growth:

2.9% R
4.2% D

Real GDP Growth per Capita:

1.7% R
2.9% D

Unemployment Rate:

6.0% R
5.2% D

Change in Unemployment:

+ .3% R
- .4% D

Corporate Profits:

8.8% R
10.2% D

Real Value Dow Jones Index:

4.3% R
5.4% D

Real Weekly earnings:

.3% R
1.0% D

CPI Inflation rate:

3.8% R
3.8% D

http://www.boom2bust.com/2007/12/12/is-a-republican-president-really-better-for-the-economy/

Next shows these numbers, 1960 to 2005:

Federal Spending:

+ $60B/year R
+ $35B/year D

Federal Deficit:

$131 B R
$30 B D

Growth of federal deficit:

+ $36 B R
- $25 B D

Increase in GDP:

+ $165 B R
+ $212 B D

Inflation rate:

3.89% R
3.13% D

Unemployment:

6.38% R
5.33% D

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/03/opinion/oe-kinsley3

If you go back to 1929 in the first study, surprisingly, the democratic numbers get even better!

If you move your results a year either way to account for policy lags, the democrats still are well ahead.

And finally, another study shows that under democratic administrations, all income classes do quite well, but the lower classes do exceedingly well. Under republicans, only the upper classes do well.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
 
Quote from BeatingtheSP500:

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.
More...

Good catch SP

Prez is only 1/2 the story. The other half is congress. OP might want to research what happens to the stock market when Prez = Dem, Congress = R

Hint. Market has done better than with any other combo. Probably because their idiocy cancels one another out.
 
Quote from jonbig04:

I think to adapt ONE approach is pretty stupid. Think about it, how often is our country, and the world around it, changing? Constantly. With that said, does it make sense to have a static economic policy in a dynamic country? Our country needs different policies at different times. It is the dichotomy between these 2 major parties that keeps things on an even keel. Why does no one seem to realize that there is no over-all right or wrong. There is only a right or wrong for our current situation.

You are a democrat? Oh, so democrats are ALWAYS the right answer? What would our country be like right now without lincoln? What would we be like if we hadn't gone to war?


You are a republican? I guess FDR was an idiot. Him and all those "big government" programs....Where would we be without him?

I am 21 and this will be the first year I will be able to vote. However I can't figure out why nobody seems to recognize what I've said above. People only cling to what they believe, and they assume that they are right not only then, but ALL the time! They then search for the facts that support there position, instead of simply searching for the facts. How can the country need the same leadership all the time? Through war and peace, through a booming economy and a recession? I may be naive, but I dont think it does. I think you have to look at the country right now, today, and decide what our country needs. And surprise surprise, what we need now may not be exactly what we needed 10 years ago.
More...


Excellent post, kid.

Very good.
 
Quote from BeatingtheSP500:

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.
More...

Bingo. This is a really poorly reasoned argument. There are so many factors out of the view of these points. Wars, global trends, etc.

The better way to look at this is to measure the current stated policies of both candidates against the current economic situation. Otherwise you expose yourself to the long tail. There is simply not enough prior data to draw conclusions. Read Fooled By Randomness and you will see what I mean.
 
The numbers reflect the fact that the republican president left a better economy for the Democrat.

In the first year the president has no input, his is stuck with the budget of the last president. So they need to stagger the time frame by one year , start it in his second year.

If that happens the republicans do better
 
Quote from Mercor:

The numbers reflect the fact that the republican president left a better economy for the Democrat.

In the first year the president has no input, his is stuck with the budget of the last president. So they need to stagger the time frame by one year , start it in his second year.

If that happens the republicans do better
More...

Yeah sure, Bush Sr. left a perfect economy for Clinton.
 
Quote from Mercor:

The numbers reflect the fact that the republican president left a better economy for the Democrat.

In the first year the president has no input, his is stuck with the budget of the last president. So they need to stagger the time frame by one year , start it in his second year.

If that happens the republicans do better
More...


Following that rationale, what do you have to say about our current economy, which was better in bush jr's first 4 years (the ones he supposedly inherited from clinton) then his last 4 years,

It seems Bush jr left Bush jr a really shitty economy :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top