Why is our economy always better under democrat presidents?

[woolfe9998]

Because supply side economics doesn't work and Keynesian economics does? Because Republicans don't understand things like cutting government spending in the middle of a recession is the most foolish thing you can do? Because some redistribution that takes money out of the hands of those who won't spend it and puts it into the hands of those who will stimulates demand? Because democrats will tax and spend, but republicans will cut taxes and spend, making deficits worse during good economic times and hence making it harder to spend our way out of a recession?

How many more reasons are necessary to make the point? The economics of the moderate left are what works best in this country and every other first world country. I don't agree with the dems on gun control and a host of other issues, but on economics they're got it all over the clueless GOP.

 

[nickqt]

Because supply side economics doesn't work and Keynesian economics does? Because Republicans don't understand things like cutting government spending in the middle of a recession is the most foolish thing you can do? Because some redistribution that takes money out of the hands of those who won't spend it and puts it into the hands of those who will stimulates demand? Because democrats will tax and spend, but republicans will cut taxes and spend, making deficits worse during good economic times and hence making it harder to spend our way out of a recession?

How many more reasons are necessary to make the point? The economics of the moderate left are what works best in this country and every other first world country. I don't agree with the dems on gun control and a host of other issues, but on economics they're got it all over the clueless GOP.

Pretty much this.

 

[sportage]

And trickle down never has worked, never proven to work, and never will work. Yet, that is all the republicans have left. All they believe in. Who cares if it never works, thats no reason to stop pushing it. Right?
It like flooding a motor with too much gas.
Give it too much gas and it won't start.
If its flooded and it won't start, the Republican answer is to just keep pumping the peddle.

 

[Slew Foot]

Democrat in the white house, Republicans in congress seems to be the best combo. Beautiful gridlock meaning that people can get shit done.

 

[nickqt]

And trickle down never has worked, never proven to work, and never will work. Yet, that is all the republicans have left. All they believe in. Who cares if it never works, thats no reason to stop pushing it. Right?
It like flooding a motor with too much gas.
Give it too much gas and it won't start.
If its flooded and it won't start, the Republican answer is to just keep pumping the peddle.

Who cares if it works in fact, as long as it works in theory and it is adhered to 100% of the time, otherwise, RINO.

 

[trenchfoot]

All anyone has to do is to have a cursory look at the legislation the Repubs rammed through into law when the opportunity presented itself for the past thirty years to see who they wanted to bless with riches and whose wallets they wanted to ransack and loot to make it happen.

Then take look at what legislation the Repubs blocked or failing that, watered down into swill that the Dems were attempting to pass to help the middle class and the poor.

Then apply the principles of cause and effect to the compilation of that data for an answer to the OP's question.

 

[Atreus21]

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...

In honesty, I don't know. But I think it's a mistake to attribute general economic performance (the sum total of nearly 400 million citizens' individual choices) to a president.

On the other hand, (again, to be honest) you can bet that if I were a democrat, I'd be touting it as evidence of our superior economic policies.

Shrug.

 

[MagickMan]

Carter. lol

 

[thraashman]

Democrat in the white house, Republicans in congress seems to be the best combo. Beautiful gridlock meaning that people can get shit done.

It worked better under Clinton because Republicans weren't as ragingly insane then as they are now. Unfortunately nowadays "compromise" is the biggest dirty word to GOP ears. The largest problem is the tea party attitude that "government can do no good" and their major efforts to ensure that it never does good.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

The organization published the research. That means it meets its standard for scholarship and impartiality. If you're saying they knowingly publish biased research that's a startling accusation against such a prestigious organization, so you're going to need to back that up.

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.

As I said, it was published nearly a year and a half before a major election. The US has major elections every two years. Can you give me a time frame in which it should have been published so as not to be 'suspect'?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

We need more QE, I would like to see the NYSE be in the 25k to 28k range when I retire.

 

[soulcougher73]

Cause trickle down doesn't work. Just makes the rich overlords richer while trickling piss on our heads. That's the best DEM talking point i can come up with .....

 

[HomerJS]

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.

Just a few points...

Yes the tech bubble did help Clinton somewhat but Bush began the squandering of surpluses by tax cuts for the rich.

Al Gore never said he invented the internet. Can't you make an argument without lying?

Enron involved in fraud? Who was CEO of Enron, Ken Lay. Who was Kenny boy's BFF GW Bush.

Now for that triple whammy, it was an actual quintuple whammy. The last two left off were the War in Iraq and we all know there was a good reason for starting that one. Finally tax cuts for rich started the upward spiral of deficits

The events leading to the financial crash did not start in 2008, it all came to a head in 2007-2008. Lehman Bros was no longer in 2008. That didn't happen in a few weeks.

If you wanted to make a valid argument the repeal of Glass Steagall as signed by Bill Clinton was a factor in the financial crisis but that would fly in the face of GOP ideology just remove regulations from business and we would reap the benefits.

 

[xBiffx]

The organization published the research. That means it meets its standard for scholarship and impartiality. If you're saying they knowingly publish biased research that's a startling accusation against such a prestigious organization, so you're going to need to back that up.

I don't have to back up shit. Claiming that this meets a standard isn't saying much. Especially given the background of the some of the people conducting the research. Their history precludes them from being considered unbiased. Just because they put on a different suit doesn't erase their previous actions. What you are arguing is asinine. That anyone just needs to go work for a so called non partisan group and any partisanship they might have shown in the past is erased.

As I said, it was published nearly a year and a half before a major election. The US has major elections every two years. Can you give me a time frame in which it should have been published so as not to be 'suspect'?

How about they publish when they aren't siding and working to promote a current candidate. Try that for starters. For you to sit there and claim that they are unbiased when they clearly have a horse in the race is hugely laughable at best.

 

[First]

I don't have to back up shit.

We know, you're a troll.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

It worked better under Clinton because Republicans weren't as ragingly insane then as they are now. Unfortunately nowadays "compromise" is the biggest dirty word to GOP ears. The largest problem is the tea party attitude that "government can do no good" and their major efforts to ensure that it never does good.

How old are you? Did you actually pay attention during the Clinton years? Newt and Clinton were at odds all the time. Just like Pelosi and Reid were at odds with Bush all the time. Today is no worse than those times, people just forget over time and think today is much worse.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

Accuse others of your own failings much? Why did I even use a question mark, (ACCUSEES OTHERS OF HIS OWN FAILINGS!) is more like it.

 

[ivwshane]

How old are you? Did you actually pay attention during the Clinton years? Newt and Clinton were at odds all the time. Just like Pelosi and Reid were at odds with Bush all the time. Today is no worse than those times, people just forget over time and think today is much worse.

These graphs say you are wrong.

 

[piasabird]

The Press is nicer to Democrats.

 

[piasabird]

The democrats downsize our military and then we get in trouble and the republicans have to build the country back up. Right now Obama is downsizing the military and Both Russia and China are causing trouble and ISIS is on the move trying to take over the middle east. There is absolutely no reason to be downsizing the military at this time. Democrats are cowards that cut and run and republicans are war mongers that protect this country. It is like two sides to a coin.

If you would have been paying attention through history of the last 50 years you may already know this. It takes a while for people to catch on to reality.

 

[piasabird]

The last Bush also downsized the military. He got sucked into that leaner meaner army baloney and it took every single national guard and reserve unit we had to fight Gulf War II. Of course we should have just skipped the Iraq war. It served no purpose.

 

[dank69]

The last Bush also downsized the military. He got sucked into that leaner meaner army baloney and it took every single national guard and reserve unit we had to fight Gulf War II. Of course we should have just skipped the Iraq war. It served no purpose.

So what you are really saying here is that the problem wasn't lack of military power, it was that we should not have been there in the first place.

 

[piasabird]

I see nothing good coming from the Iraq war. ISIS has just about taken over the country. The politicians kept all the money we gave them to buy bullets because they are corrupt idiots.

All our brave soldiers died for nothing.

I am saying we need a strong military to defend the USA. I am also saying we don't need to be defending Muslim Terrorists.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

These graphs say you are wrong.

and? Doesn't mean things are worse now - just the methods and tactics have changed. The reason those stats went up? Maybe because they work and/or the only tool available to stop a run away majority/exec branch? Other things worked in the past but to point to a couple stats ignores the greater context.

 

[Subyman]

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.

I loled at that. Only you have the vision to see something for what it truly is. Who is on the high horse? :hmm:

And eskimospy, as usual, is an expert after skimming the research paper for 15mins. (OP's thread creation and spy's first post) :biggrin: