Why is our economy always better under democrat presidents?

[brainhulk]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-...has-grown-faster-under-democratic-presidents/

Hmmm these findings are kinda peculiar since republicans are supposed promote business, decrease taxes, and curb handouts...

 

[xBiffx]

Why is our economy always better under democrat presidents?

Not sure, neither are the researchers apparently. But I did find this interesting.

....according to a new study from the strictly non-partisan National Bureau for Economic Research.

Yes, a Democrat sparked this research. And not just any Democrat. Alan Blinder served on the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton, who then appointed him vice chair of the Fed. Blinder also advised the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry.

So which is it?

 

[saratoga172]

Read something interesting about economic policy and the time it truly takes for presidential direction to really take hold. The big take was that it generally takes a few years before the positive or negative effects are seen. In many ways the perceived success or failure can be partially the result of the prior president.

For all of clintons flaws he did do well for the economy and our national deficit. That carried over partly into bush's term. I've never really studied much beyond Clinton so I can't say that's always been the case or it was a coincidental assumption for what I read.

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure, neither are the researchers apparently. But I did find this interesting.

So which is it?

It's both. NBER has people who work for it that are both Democrats and Republicans, but the NBER itself is nonpartisan as are the pieces it produces. It's sort of like how the CBO is nonpartisan despite the fact that all the people employed by it have a political leaning of some sort.

It's a different vetting process. Places like Cato, the Heritage Foundation, or CBPP are looking to produce research that conforms to ideology. NBER is attempting to produce research for insight. It doesn't mean that every paper they publish is either right or free from bias, but they make a strong attempt to keep bias out.

 

[fskimospy]

Read something interesting about economic policy and the time it truly takes for presidential direction to really take hold. The big take was that it generally takes a few years before the positive or negative effects are seen. In many ways the perceived success or failure can be partially the result of the prior president.

For all of clintons flaws he did do well for the economy and our national deficit. That carried over partly into bush's term. I've never really studied much beyond Clinton so I can't say that's always been the case or it was a coincidental assumption for what I read.

A few years is debateable, but the researchers ran their results with a variety of lag variables up to a year and the results were broadly similar.

 

[cubby1223]

Blinder is currently helping promote Hillary's campaign in a variety of ways. Of course this "research" is biased.

Under the Clinton years, the tech industry exploded. Of course the economy was great. But while Al Gore claims ownership over inventing the internet, it was coincidental that Clinton was in power as these technologies finally matured to the point of mass adoption.

You also had some of the most massive frauds going on during the Clinton years, such as Enron, Worldcom & Tyco, cooked books that helped give the illusion of a better economy, people believed they had more money than they actually did.

So when Bush took office, he was hit by a triple-whammy, the 9/11 attacks, the tech boom falling back to reality, and the frauds unraveled.

None of these things were Presidential-related, and it's difficult to pin-point if they were politically-related at all.

And we have to go into arguing what led up to the housing crash. Oh, and certainly let's not forget that the major starting events of the financial crash occurred just a few months before the 2008 elections. If it happened in 2005, Bush's overall performance is better, and Obama's is worse. What caused the crash to occur exactly when it did and not earlier?


When you just run the numbers and say the Democratic Party is better because GDP rises more when a Democrat holds the Presidency, it's a biased report meant to influence the upcoming election.

 

[xBiffx]

It's both.

During election season, it's not.

 

[QuantumPion]

Because democrat presidents are so incompetent that they drive the voters to immediately vote in overwhelming numbers of republicans at the next midterm election for congress, which is much more directly responsible for economic factors than the president whom can do little to directly affect the economy.

Instead of looking at economic strength vs president's party, try looking at economic strength vs congress' party.

 

[fskimospy]

During election season, it's not.

Interesting. You're impugning the credibility of one of the most prestigious economic organizations on the planet for publishing a piece of research almost a year and a half before a presidential election?

You have to be joking. Can you tell me what time periods are acceptable for publishing this research? Considering that we have major elections every two years you seem to be leaving a very small window.

 

[fskimospy]

Because democrat presidents are so incompetent that they drive the voters to immediately vote in overwhelming numbers of republicans at the next midterm election for congress, which is much more directly responsible for economic factors than the president whom can do little to directly affect the economy.

Instead of looking at economic strength vs president's party, try looking at economic strength vs congress' party.

Lol. Quoted for self ownage.

They did exactly that too and found no statistically meaningful difference between what party controlled congress.

I'm interested to see what the next convenient fiction you will tell yourself is though.

 

[glenn1]

Would be nice if they normalized GDP performance against inflation, which the paper did not do. It's one thing to have a 6% growth rate like Truman's second term, but that's less impressive when inflation makes that flat or even negative real growth. That's not saying the paper isn't correct but it's important context.

 

[BoberFett]

Because democrat presidents are so incompetent that they drive the voters to immediately vote in overwhelming numbers of republicans at the next midterm election for congress, which is much more directly responsible for economic factors than the president whom can do little to directly affect the economy.

Instead of looking at economic strength vs president's party, try looking at economic strength vs congress' party.

I skimmed it, but I'm pretty sure that was addressed in the article.

 

[First]

lol. NBER, biased. I've heard it all. I bet you NASA and Frontline are in-the-tank for party politics too!

 

[fskimospy]

Would be nice if they normalized GDP performance against inflation, which the paper did not do. It's one thing to have a 6% growth rate like Truman's second term, but that's less impressive when inflation makes that flat or even negative real growth. That's not saying the paper isn't correct but it's important context.

This is also false. The paper focused on real GDP growth, which accounts for inflation.

 

[xBiffx]

Interesting. You're impugning the credibility of one of the most prestigious economic organizations on the planet for publishing a piece of research almost a year and a half before a presidential election?

You have to be joking. Can you tell me what time periods are acceptable for publishing this research? Considering that we have major elections every two years you seem to be leaving a very small window.

I think you need to come down off the high horse. It's obvious the guy running this research is biased even if you want to claim that the organization isn't.

That's not saying the study is biased but the timing sure is suspect. Of course, I could continue leaving my head up my ass and act like it isn't, like you. It's not like he is just any old Democrat. No, this guy has been active in several of the last presidential campaigns.

Feel free to believe what you want, as will I. But don't get all high and mighty when someone sees something for what it is.

 

[cubby1223]

During the Bush years, oil prices shot up very high. Why? I don't know. But the prices shooting up so high gave oil companies the money to go out and fund new drilling, drill in places that previously were unprofitable. It also gave alternative energy sources the push to get past initial startup costs. And now under Obama the vastly increased energy production has tanked prices. Hurt for Bush, aid for Obama.

Why did the timing occur like it did?

 

[cubby1223]

Interesting. You're impugning the credibility of one of the most prestigious economic organizations on the planet for publishing a piece of research almost a year and a half before a presidential election?

You have to be joking. Can you tell me what time periods are acceptable for publishing this research? Considering that we have major elections every two years you seem to be leaving a very small window.

The primary author has been a long-time campaign adviser for Democrats, connected with the Clintons, and has already promoted Hillary's campaign in several ways. You are the fool if you continue to sit there and say there is no political motivation behind this author conducting this research.

 

[kia75]

It's because trickle-down economics doesn't work, while trickle-up economics does.

Republicans tend to cut or freeze social spending, resulting in the people most likely to spend money having less of it. They also cut taxes for the rich, resulting in the people less likely to spend money having more of it.

Democrats do the opposite, they tend to increase social spending and raise taxes on the rich. As a result more money is actually spent and goes through the economy.

Trickle up works, Trickle down doesn't.

 

[IGBT]

liberals are more apt to use smoke / mirrors / numbers juggling / fraud.. thus the low information base is happy.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Easy peasy.

Democrat Presidents manipulate the various economic indicators to make things look positive.

Unemployment is 9%? Oh no fella, it's actually 70%. I don't have a source, but, trust me - 70% is totes legit.

And, when republican Presidents have a shitty economy under their rule, it's the liberals holding back all their money to stifle spend and growth.

 

[dank69]

liberals are more apt to use smoke / mirrors / numbers juggling / fraud.. thus the low information base is happy.

Conservatives are more apt to claim conspiracy against them in the form of smoke / mirrors / numbers juggling / fraud / bias rather than admit their policies don't actually work in the real world even though they sound real good to their low information base.

 

[nickqt]

liberals are more apt to use smoke / mirrors / numbers juggling / fraud.. thus the low information base is happy.

Keep on projecting!

How you likin' the new CBO scoring method that Enron used so effectively?

Dear God are you delusional.

Seriously. Seek help.

 

[Conroe]

FWIW I was much better off 8 years ago, even 20. Inflation is killing me and my wages are down too. If I thought the president has much responsibility for the economy I'd blame Obama. I lived better from Bush to Bush.

 

[JSt0rm]

Keep on projecting!

How you likin' the new CBO scoring method that Enron used so effectively?

Dear God are you delusional.

Seriously. Seek help.

ICBM is too far gone. There's no way back.

 

[K7SN]

I don't see any 21st Century Presidents touted but I think when you take office with a pending economic disaster (Herbert Hoover Republican and Barack Obama Democrat) the likelihood of success through your term(s) of office is slight.

I quote the line attributed to Disraeli by Orion Clemens' brother Sam but probably not by Disraeli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics that sometimes good opportunity make for bad statistics and sometimes not recognizing all the contributing factors make quotes like "the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is flawed statistics". PS the word Flawed is added by myself who has published in Statistical journals and hope to heck I know between conclusions drawn from incomplete or flawed statistical work and good mathematical application of statistical analysis. I would say that given the changing nature of both political parties and the limited amount of data (1945 to 2015) no conclusion could be drawn with any reasonable degree of certainty.