What is Digg?65 Comments
- inactive, on 07/13/2008, -7/+32Here is a nice but dated analysis of US economics by presidential party:
http://www.sideshow.connectfree.co.uk/JustForTheRe ...
"We looked at the forty years of Kennedy through Clinton. Consider the following:
1) Economic growth averaged 2.94% under Republican Presidents and 3.92% under Democratic Presidents. See this post.
2) Inflation averaged 4.96% under Republicans and 4.26% under Democrats. See this post.
3) Unemployment averaged 6.75% under Republicans and 5.1% under Democrats. See this post.
4) Total federal spending rose at an average rate of 7.57% under Republican Presidents and at an average rate of 6.96% under Democratic Presidents. See this post.
5) Total non-defense federal spending rose at an average rate of 10.08% under Republicans and at an average rate of 8.34% under Democrats. See this post.
6) During the forty-year period studied, the National Debt grew by $3.8 trillion under budgets submitted by Republican Presidents and by $720 billion under budgets submitted by Democratic Presidents. Stated differently, the average annual deficit under Republicans was $190 billion; and, while under Democrats, it was $36 billion. See this post.
7) During the period studied, under Republican Presidents the number of federal government non-defense employees rose by 310,000, while the number of such employees rose by 59,000 under Democrats. See this post.
Those facts make it difficult to argue that Republican Presidents have done a better job than Democratic Presidents in managing the economy. Indeed, if someone will suggest a measure of economic performance in which Republican Presidents have done better than Democratic Presidents, we will be happy to look into the issue. Surely there must be some measure of economic performance that favors the Republicans; however, we have been unable to locate it." - repins, on 07/14/2008, -2/+11Congess has far more control over economic policy than the President does, who was in control of Congress during those same times?
- DaDrake, on 07/14/2008, -6/+15First, the president gets way too much credit for the economy; after all, the budget is set by congress. Secondly. the large stock market gains during the Clinton administration had republicans under control of the congress and Cliton's early economic policies were rejected by congress early on.
So this trend, if anyone believed it, would actually support republicans. Right now the US economy and doing poorly and the democrats are in control of congress; but honestly, one would have to be a fool to think either party is responsible for the housing market. (Housing market downfall a mix of irresponsible loaning and Americans taking on an unhealthy amount of debt). - Aliwalla, on 07/14/2008, -0/+9There are sooo many intervening variables that this research is almost useless. Did a bad economy cause a republican win? Did high inflation cause a democratic win? It goes on and on and on and on.
- pinchduck, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7The question also assumes that the stock market index is a decent guide to how well the economy is doing. With a lot of manufacturing shifting around the world, it may be a more accurate guide to how production in China is going.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -1/+7That is why I bought loads of stock call options for after the election.
- pinchduck, on 07/14/2008, -1/+6Yeah, there is a lag, but it is a few months, not 5 years. There was a long boom under Reagan that the Republicans took credit for. Are you now going to tell us that the boom in the mid 80's was caused by Carter's fine economic stewardship? Reagan's boom was due in part to his brash optimism (a trait he shares with Obama) and in large part to his debt-fueled military expansion. The boom helped in the 80's, the debt now threatens to swamp us. GHWBush pretty much sucked. Clinton had the benefit of the internet bubble, and he balanced the budget. He didn't stop the debt, though. There were still thousands of debt auctions on his watch. I think that I now have enough perspective and data to conclude that W sucks as well. Hopefully the next president (Obama, I'm guessing) will balance the budget and reduce our massive debt load.
- londubh, on 07/14/2008, -2/+6Yeah, Herbert Hoover proved how good the stock market could be under a Republican president. And If you retards are too lazy to google, I'll give you a hint: 1929.
- o0joshua0o, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5Yeah, it's not like the President has any say in the annual President's Budget, or anything.
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/6-8/government/national/b ... - floorman56, on 07/14/2008, -4/+7I just can't wait for Jimmy Carter's 3rd term
Carter didn't get a second term ... But you are probability right about the other stuff which is why you are being dugg down - BotchaMcCoola, on 07/14/2008, -5/+8The US economy has a great deal of inertia with long time delays. The
good economic impacts of the actions in the Reagan years did not
start showing up until Clinton days. Politicians try to get the pinheads
to believe they can change things just after an election. - dubhousing, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3petrodollar: exactly. People here seem to love to bash various layers of government without realizing how they benefit from it.
as for california: a popular perception for people from ~outside~ the state, but also not true. property taxes have been artificially held down as a result of proposition 13 here. ~corporate~ taxes are high, but personal taxes are not. - DaDrake, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5Well Reaganomics was more of a policy against the USSR then a policy for the American policy. While the policy was successful in helping further destabilize the USSR, it shouldn't be confused with an economic stimulus policy to encourage growth. You should look at who sets the budget during each administration.
- Elranzer, on 07/14/2008, -2/+4But... but... but... Republicans are fiscally responsible and Democrats are SPENDocrats!!
/sips more Kool-Aid - inactive, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2dot.com bubble > housing bubble
- Seldon2639, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2This kind of study gives the government way too much credit for influencing the economy. Trade deals, taxes, and spending all have some effect, but any capitalist economy goes through cycles of high growth and either lower growth, or contraction. It's the Kondratiev long-wave cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave
This kind of analysis ignores other explanations for the correlation (and correlation does not inherently indicate causation). For instance, it could be that during relatively good economic times, we’re more willing to elect Democrats based on our beliefs in the broader social good they represent, while in poorer economic times, we are more inclined to elect Republicans because they represent “giving us more money back”.
Neither, of course, is necessarily related to the reality of the situation, but I digress. The stewardship of the President, or even the congress, is largely unrelated to the economic movements of the time. Reagan and Bush were presidents at the end of the electrical engineering/chemical boom, while Clinton was president at the beginning of the Information Technology boom.
A capitalist economy is based on what Shumpeter called “a whirlwind of creative destruction”. As the economy becomes saturated with old innovations, new technologies must come to replace them. This cycle (there’s that word again) defies any attempts on the part of the government to stop. It’s the natural evolution of a market economy.
I am, incidentally, a Democrat, but this kind of data analysis is just sloppy. - ramiro, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Democrats party irresponsibly and make a mess. Then Republicans have to remove the punch bowl and start the clean up so the impression that stocks perform better under Dems seems plausible. See the dot com bubble: created entirely under Clinton and popped under Bush so he gets the blame.
Why so many Wall Street type groups vote and donate so much money to Hillary and Obama? They get to benefit from Dems once in power with their irresponsible, bubble-prone policies. - pauldy, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1The only people who would digg you down are the ones who don't pay taxes.
- theman8221, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I believe both parties will be useless. Congress is far too left wing for McCain and will refuse to pass anything that would make a republican look good, they have proven this so far by not even voting on issues for bush (go 9% approval ratings for congress)
Also I bet Obama's left wing policies will fly though congress, which would hurt the economy, while his moderate policies will not get anywhere at all.
It seems to me that the left wing congress hates republicans and bush more than they love america, and seeing this country excel. - Elranzer, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3"some credit Reaganomics for the success of the stock market during the Clinton administration"
We have a word for those people... uneducated. - tantive5, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3Trust Bush to cause decades worth of damage to not just the US, but the World economy
- snoogit, on 07/14/2008, -3/+4No they don't.
Would you seriously blame the Clinton administration for them mess we are in now? That's ludicrous.
The best argument to make is that Bill Clinton set the economic slate early in his presidency when he was able to more effectively fix the problems that the last 12 years exacted on the country. After 1994, he couldn't accomplish much as president.
Reaganomics can explain the recession of 1987. That I'd accept as possibility, but affecting economic policy 15 years later? that's B.S.
Now did the current president ride on the last fumes of good economic policy, before he trashed it? you betcha. Most of the problems we are having now is because of the tax cuts that were put in place at the beginning of Bush's administration. - BDOUG, on 07/14/2008, -7/+8Hard as it is for many to believe: higher taxes aren't always bad for the economy, either. It really depends on what the taxes are being spent on. States with the lowest taxes (MS, AL, LA, etc) have the worst economies. Businesses suffer greatly from poor schools, poor roads, poor safety, and high crime.
- ramiro, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1No, not equally. They give way much more money to Dems.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2"most of the education and road budget still comes from the Fed."
Wrong.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/budget/images/b21 ...
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Road_Funding_US.ht ... - theman8221, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Where to begin....
Presidents rarely have much control over the market, only when regarding taxes and trade policy does the president effect the market. The federal reserve on the other hand could be blamed for the recent decline in the market, not bush. Now i know this angers a lot of people that would otherwise blame bush for a parking ticket, cavity, of cloudy day but bush has actually done as well as he can to push the markets higher. The federal reserve, on the other hand, can be blamed for the current downturn in the market. With a weak US dollar (100% federal reserves department) you can expect the decline in values of everything owned in dollars, such as our companies. And you will start to see more takeovers of American companies as their value declines, such as Anheuser. So everyone who is here bashing one presidency or another for a poor market is doing nothing more than throwing a partisan temper-tantrum.
also you guys must understand that the stock market predicts the future. This means that if the market thinks a democrat will win (which it does) it will discount (sell) the market before hand. So a small part of the decline in the market has to do with people predicting a democratic white house. No offense to the democrats but wall street and democrats have never gotten along.
so blame poor markets on the fed, unless taxes are raised sky high, then blame the president and congress. - BotchaMcCoola, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Yes and so does McCain. Now do you know what to do? Sorry, just a little friendly IQ test.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2hey Petropeso.................are you denying that the Fed has more influence than the president? Get a book and read about the Fed. Just because they are nominated and confirmed by the president and senate, doesn't mean they wield no power. The Fed is (as I said before) the Achilles heal of this economy. You think without the Fed, we would be worse off? If so, you are the idiot.
- Acolyte357, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2Might want to drop the Clinton example sense all his "success" in the economy was from the Dot.com bubble.
- DaDrake, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1WSJ been reporting both candidates will increase the capital gains tax likely, but Obama by a much larger amount (still not sure how they got this conclusion, since McCain been vocal against increasing the capital gains tax). Either way, if Obama is elected president and he does pursue his desire to increase capital gains tax, the stock market will undoubtly go down significantly; even Obama has admitted this. But most likely, Obama would face the challenges Cliton faced. Despite Obama being one of the most progressive Senators, most of the house and the Senate will stop big tax hikes in their tracks.
- katich, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0Dinneen et. al. are referring to the $0.54 per gallon tariff enacted by Congress in 1980 that would offset any incentive for imported ethanol to benefit from a $0.54 per gallon tax credit for ethanol blended fuel.Get updated at http://tiny.cc/7jsyy .
- dupswapdrop, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Yes the stock market is doing great with bush in office we have seen more companies go out of business and more stock scandals then ever. You have to be a real tard to invest in stocks today.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0And before Bush, Republicans were usually good for stocks. I am
getting some oustanding gains from war industry stocks but sadly not
enough to offset all my other losses. - DaDrake, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Actually ramiro they donate to both parties equally .... its the whole, if I give money to them (who ever wins) hopefully they won't ***** me over. But it pritty much go without saying that wallstreet wants a republican or democratic congress with the opposite party leader. That way, nothing changes and the market can predict what will happen.
- ZenMojo, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Actually, every Republican has introduced us into one or more recessions in the last 50 years. I wouldn't be surprised if they invented the term "economic cycle" to explain this coincidence.
- jonnyboy1544, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1That's rubbish. The tax cuts have very little to do with where we are now. Putting money in people's pockets is not the problem. Maybe a lack of regulation on banks did it but it's not the tax cuts.
And yes, some do. Exactly how I stated it. - oldman, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Funny thing that.. When Boosh took office he was all about how the government really has little control on the market, which I believe for the most part. However W has never failed to take credit for any perceived uptake in the economy NOT ONCE!
And though it is true that the president is not so responsible for the economy, to say that congress is isn't a respectable position either. and to blame solely one party or the other is even more ridiculous.
Congress passes laws, some of which have effects on some businesses and lesser on others. and contrary to the beliefs of many, the party you favor is not always right. and if you could identify a specific law or policy that you are sure had an impact on the economy who is going to find out which parties were the more responsible for its passage? It is never as simple as the party in control.
As for the congress' spending.. Although I don't think I am willing to go through the mounds of bills, I would be willing to bet that R's are at least as spendthrift on average as Ds, there may be some differences on what they are likely to spend on, but it should be obvious that they do spend it and too often stupidly. (Ted Stephens anyone?) - DaDrake, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Are you being serious? The stock market has ALWAYS have bad sectors and good sectors. Today, natural gas, health care companies (not HMOs), entertainment, and food processing companies are doing great; in contrast, oil-distribution companies (like gas stations), mortgage companies, and technology sector companies (With the exception of google) are doing poorly.
There is always a profit in the stock market. It seems to be that you don't invest or understand the stock market; instead you try to justify your fears by saying anyone who enters it is a fool. In reality, you are the fool because you can't recognized a good opportunity when it hits you in the face. - inactive, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3I agree with you. And those with the most influence on the economy are the Federal Reserve board members. They are in fact the Achilles heal of this economy.
- DaDrake, on 07/14/2008, -5/+5That is bull ***** --- First, most of the education and road budget still comes from the Fed. Secondly, how about states like Virginia and FL? And then, CA has high taxes and they barely can maintain their infrastructure and their school and hospital system is consider the worst in the USA.
Then look at MI and IL who tried to raise taxes after the surplus of money ended in 2002 .... and as a result, they gather LESS money (with more taxes) because the economy sunk further (much greater than any other state). A lot also depends WHEN you enact the taxes and right now would be horrible (we are almost in a bear market). - snoogit, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3Actually you COULD go back even further and find the same results.
1921-1929 - Calvin Coolidge (R) Similar economy to what we are in now. Terrible for the poor and middle class, but opulent for the Rich. Stocks grew artificially, based on factors that shouldn't affect a stock price.
Followed by: 1929-1933 Herbert Hoover (R), and we all know what he presided over (and really, he inherited the Great Depression from Coolidge)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) 1953-1961 Created some of the biggest problems we have in modern times. Presided over the worst period in American History: McCarthyism - The only thing more useless to blow taxpayer money on then the Interstate Highway system.
There is really only a single Republican President that actually helped the economy, and he was of the "Trust Busters" Era. The only good Republican President is in fact Teddy Roosevelt. The rest have been mediocre to awful. Lincoln included. - ZenMojo, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1"Good economic impacts of the actions in the Reagan years." You mean how he tripled the national debt in four years? WTF are you smoking?
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1That's why even Republicans are embarasses by Bush.
This doesnt mean they are all like him, or favor his national policies.
Most do not! - ZenMojo, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Interesting choice, using no evidence to argue your point. Is that an effective means of debate in insular circles where everyone agrees with you?
- thatguy77, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0Be assured the liberal media will run stories like this until Obama wins.
High Taxes on high earners = Punishment of success
When success is punished, less people try to achieve it.
Matt
http://www.Microcapmillionaires.com - jfreeman, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Yes. We need some analysis on Republican vs Democratic vs Neocon Congresses.
- ObamaSuhks, on 07/14/2008, -1/+0ObamaSuhks.
-
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 