um, which party is better at economics?

[daaaaave]

[coldmorning]

Let's see, who'll be the first republican on this board to claim either:
1- the president has no impact on the economy or
2- there is a 'lag effect' that should credit a republican for each democrat's economic performance

Of course the lag effect will vary in order to conveniently credit a republican for every good period and blame a democrat for every bad period. Like trying to blame Clinton for the current financial crisis.

Or better yet, Mccain who blamed Obama for the current financial crisis. That's a first.... a backward time effect?

[Reachinghigher]

It doesn't seem to me that either party is better at the moment.

[dsf23j9j2dlm]

Not saying I don't believe you, but where did you get this info?

Edit: Oh wait... I see now...

[daaaaave]

Originally Posted by mrdrinkinglysol

Not saying I don't believe you, but where did you get this info?

Edit: Oh wait... I see now...

dailykos - omg liberal blog

facts are facts

[dsf23j9j2dlm]

Originally Posted by daaaaave

dailykos - omg liberal blog

facts are facts

I'm not saying they're automatically wrong, but I'd like to know where they got these facts. Do they have any sources listed?

And more importantly, if you show any conservative an article or chart that comes from the dailykos, your argument is automatically null and void (from their perspective), regardless of how factual the information is. Best to get your facts from a source that doesn't have a political agenda.

[daaaaave]

Source: Doug Henwood, Liscio Report

liscio report appears to be for investors and is independent

[coldmorning]

The data is pretty clear and the correlation is there.

But I was being playful before and there are some good Republican arguments to explain the data. If there are some thoughtful Republicans here, I'm sure they can bring up those arguments.

[daaaaave]

i will bring up one myself - gdp is not the end-all-be-all statistic of how well the economy is doing - it is quite flawed

however, with such a strong correlation, it is hard to deny democrats are better at promoting growth

[coldmorning]

Here's a Washington monthly article about political parties and economic performance:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 006282.php

It's one of many independent publications that state democratic administrations overwhelmingly show better economic performance than republican ones. I've seen raw numbers myself it's pretty undisputed that this is the case. In fact, I don't know of any conservative groups or publications that dispute this correlation but you're welcome to search around for any.

Excerpt:

"The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations."

[daaaaave]

that is a great article and he raises a good question, "But this raises an interesting question: if 95% of the country does better under Democrats, and if economic performance is the most important factor in most presidential elections, then how do Republicans ever get elected?"

[coldmorning]

Originally Posted by daaaaave

that is a great article and he raises a good question, "But this raises an interesting question: if 95% of the country does better under Democrats, and if economic performance is the most important factor in most presidential elections, then how do Republicans ever get elected?"

You ask too many questions dave. I'm starting to question your patriotism. If you loved America as much as I did you'd vote with your heart. Instead you seem to listen to a bunch of elitist academics who think they know it all. Those liberal academics are out of touch with reality... biased and not to be trusted.

We'll have to add your rather suspicious questions to your 'file'.

[brimontz]

Originally Posted by daaaaave

that is a great article and he raises a good question, "But this raises an interesting question: if 95% of the country does better under Democrats, and if economic performance is the most important factor in most presidential elections, then how do Republicans ever get elected?"

By the same people who actually believe the Republican malarky that they are the fiscally prudent political party, despite Republicans continually giving us a budget that is so in the hole that my daughter's grandkids will still be paying for it.

Brian

[millenniumman75]

Look at the bottom. The negative pointing bar is blue. That looks to be worse than anything that has happened since Iraq began.

[dsf23j9j2dlm]

Originally Posted by millenniumman75

Look at the bottom. The negative pointing bar is blue. That looks to be worse than anything that has happened since Iraq began.

Um, do you realize that when Roosevelt took office the U.S. was at the height of the Great Depression? He had to spend his entire time in office pulling this country out of a recession, not to mention waging a world war on two fronts.

[Micronian]

Originally Posted by daaaaave

that is a great article and he raises a good question, "But this raises an interesting question: if 95% of the country does better under Democrats, and if economic performance is the most important factor in most presidential elections, then how do Republicans ever get elected?"

I think it's just the cycle of life at work. The battle of Change vs. no change.

Liberals like to change, conservatives like to stay the same. Once change happens, people like to keep it that way. Then, once the situation goes bad, they change it again. At least that's what I think.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by mrdrinkinglysol

Um, do you realize that when Roosevelt took office the U.S. was at the height of the Great Depression? He had to spend his entire time in office pulling this country out of a recession, not to mention waging a world war on two fronts.

Which is exactly the flaw of the graph. He's got the best and the worst. He took over when things were at their worst, so he could only go up from there, which is why he's at the top of the graph. In order to determine the validity of the graph, we'd need to study the economic situation when each listed president took office. Conversely, if the economy was abnormally high when a Democrat left office, it would make sense that it would decrease when a Republican took over.

So in a sense, the graph is pointless. It doesn't tell who's responsible for economic trends, but rather improvements/decline from an amorphous and poorly defined baseline.

Have a nice day,
Kelly

[millenniumman75]

The trends often straddle administrations as well. We can't blame one.

This particular financial issue (to me) has been going on almost longer than the tech boom - mid-Clinton era (1994- and possibly before that. It may depend on which area of difficutly, too.

[R]

I don't know if it is even fair to add Truman and Roosevelt. Their administrations were during just extraordinary times. Why don't they go back into McKinley's admin? Plus there are things like a changing economic platforms of both parties over that time. And like someone said, negative growth is always twice as bad as any kind of growth, if you consider it a investment. I know the stock market has grown faster under democrats then republicans.

Idk, Fascism is also good for economic growth, but I'm not a fascist.