Democrats Are Better For The Economy

[midcan5]

It is a simple fact, on every single economic indicator democratic presidents outperform republican presidents.

'Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants' By Tommy Mccall

"Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years."

Op-Chart - Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

It is a simple fact, republicans are worse for the economy and for America's workers than democrats. On every single item democratic presidents out perform republican presidents:

GDP growth- Since WWII the economy has grown a shocking 70% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Median income- The median income has grown 160% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Income of the wealthy- The income of the person at the 95th percentile line has grown 11% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Income of the poor- The income of the person at the 20th percentile line has grown 513% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Unemployment- Since WWII unemployment has risen by 0.36% per year under Republicans and fallen by 0.22% under Democrats.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

Deficits- Since WWII Democratic presidents have reduced the deficit by an average of $7.8 billion/year, and Republicans have increased the deficit by an average of $28 billion/year. U.S. Federal Deficits and Presidents

The stock market- The S&P 500 has grown on average at 8.9% per year under Democratic presidents, but only 0.4% under Republican presidents. Op-Chart - Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

 

[Tom Clancy]

Gee, Carter sure had everything right didn't he?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is a simple fact, on every single economic indicator democratic presidents outperform republican presidents.

'Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants' By Tommy Mccall

"Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years."

Op-Chart - Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

It is a simple fact, republicans are worse for the economy and for America's workers than democrats. On every single item democratic presidents out perform republican presidents:

GDP growth- Since WWII the economy has grown a shocking 70% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Median income- The median income has grown 160% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Income of the wealthy- The income of the person at the 95th percentile line has grown 11% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Income of the poor- The income of the person at the 20th percentile line has grown 513% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Unemployment- Since WWII unemployment has risen by 0.36% per year under Republicans and fallen by 0.22% under Democrats.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

Deficits- Since WWII Democratic presidents have reduced the deficit by an average of $7.8 billion/year, and Republicans have increased the deficit by an average of $28 billion/year. U.S. Federal Deficits and Presidents

The stock market- The S&P 500 has grown on average at 8.9% per year under Democratic presidents, but only 0.4% under Republican presidents. Op-Chart - Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

"It is a simple fact, on every single economic indicator democratic presidents outperform republican presidents."
It seems your facts aren't quite as simple as you seem to believe them to be.


The following from a WSJ article entitled "Vote Republican If You Want Equal Pay"

"I have used labor market data from the Census Bureau to study the amount and reasons for women's progress in the labor market since the 1960s. One byproduct of my study is a calculation of women's relative wage growth by presidential administration.

The nearby chart [see link] shows the results for all of the administrations since Lyndon Johnson (I pool Richard Nixon and Ford). Johnson, Carter and Bill Clinton were all Democrats, yet none of them witnessed much labor market progress for women during their administrations. Essentially all of the labor-market progress for women occurred during Republican administrations: eight years of Reagan, four years of George H.W. Bush, and six years of George W. Bush (I do not yet have the data for the last two years of the current administration).

By 2006, the gender wage gap had narrowed to 21%. The Nixon-Ford administrations were the only Republican administrations that failed to witness significant reduction in the gender wage gap during their terms."
Vote Republican If You Want Equal Pay - WSJ.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you favor letting people invest a portion of their Soc Security in the equities?

 

[manu1959]

they should look at who controlled congress....the president is a figurehead at best....not to mention the lag in policy and legislation and when the results actually hit....

bill clinton invented the dot com boom.....ya right......

 

[AllieBaba]

Is Midcan fucking retarded?

CONGRESS CONTROLS THE PURSESTRINGS.

So how does the economy do, historically, with a dem congress?

BTW, when Clinton was in power...we had a REPUBLICAN congress.

Fucking idiot.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is Midcan fucking retarded?

CONGRESS CONTROLS THE PURSESTRINGS.

So how does the economy do, historically, with a dem congress?

BTW, when Clinton was in power...we had a REPUBLICAN congress.

Fucking idiot.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc; only an ignorant person would not understand. "Fucking idiot" is the final comment of someone ignorant. Don't you agree?

 

[Toro]

So you favor letting people invest a portion of their Soc Security in the equities?

I am. I think that's a great idea.

It is true that the economy has done better under Democrats than Republicans, but I will say the same thing to Democrats as I do to Republicans when they crow about how much better they are at running the economy.

Here is a picture of the economic growth per capita from 1870 to 2006. As you can see, it pretty much goes up in a straight line, with a big deviation around the Depression. It has grown like that with a Republican President, with a Democrat President, with a Republican Congress, with a Democrat Congress. The growth of the economy has more to do with the American people than it does with whichever party is in power.

Taxes go up, taxes go down. Spending goes up, spending goes down. In the long-run, it hasn't much mattered.

 

[AllieBaba]

Is Midcan fucking retarded?

CONGRESS CONTROLS THE PURSESTRINGS.

So how does the economy do, historically, with a dem congress?

BTW, when Clinton was in power...we had a REPUBLICAN congress.

Fucking idiot.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc; only an ignorant person would not understand. "Fucking idiot" is the final comment of someone ignorant. Don't you agree?

Why no, I don't. I know plenty of educated and intelligent people who, when frustrated by the supreme stupidity and arrogance of an unworthy opponent, opt not to use their best arguments but simply describe said retards.

 

[boedicca]

Ahem.

It takes a couple of terms for a GOP president to clean up the mess created by the Democrat predecessor.

j/k

Both parties are fluxored right now - they are both just variants of Big Government. We need to get back to basics. Seriously.

 

[CMike]

It is a simple fact, on every single economic indicator democratic presidents outperform republican presidents.

'Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants' By Tommy Mccall

"Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years."

Op-Chart - Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

It is a simple fact, republicans are worse for the economy and for America's workers than democrats. On every single item democratic presidents out perform republican presidents:

GDP growth- Since WWII the economy has grown a shocking 70% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Median income- The median income has grown 160% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Income of the wealthy- The income of the person at the 95th percentile line has grown 11% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Income of the poor- The income of the person at the 20th percentile line has grown 513% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Unemployment- Since WWII unemployment has risen by 0.36% per year under Republicans and fallen by 0.22% under Democrats.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

Deficits- Since WWII Democratic presidents have reduced the deficit by an average of $7.8 billion/year, and Republicans have increased the deficit by an average of $28 billion/year. U.S. Federal Deficits and Presidents

The stock market- The S&P 500 has grown on average at 8.9% per year under Democratic presidents, but only 0.4% under Republican presidents. Op-Chart - Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

Hello???

Obama brought the unemployment rate up 30% since he took over, and it went up about 120% since the democrats took over congress.

That is the indicator that counts.

 

[CMike]

I posted this before...


This is what happened when there was a republican president and a republican congress.


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

This is what happened when there was a republican president and democrat congress
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4

This is what happened when there was a democrat president and a democrat congress

2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtih-rOXXPw]YouTube - 80's This Is Your Brain On Drugs PSA[/ame][/QUOTE]

 

[Wry Catcher]

I posted this before...


This is what happened when there was a republican president and a republican congress.


Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4

This is what happened when there was a republican president and democrat congress
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4

This is what happened when there was a democrat president and a democrat congress

2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7

YouTube - 80's This Is Your Brain On Drugs PSA

[/QUOTE]

post hoc, ergo propter hoc

 

[CMike]

Thanks for sharing

 

[midcan5]

Here is a picture of the economic growth per capita from 1870 to 2006. As you can see, it pretty much goes up in a straight line, with a big deviation around the Depression. It has grown like that with a Republican President, with a Democrat President, with a Republican Congress, with a Democrat Congress. The growth of the economy has more to do with the American people than it does with whichever party is in power.

Taxes go up, taxes go down. Spending goes up, spending goes down. In the long-run, it hasn't much mattered.

While I agree with the idea, we don't live our lives in graphs, we live as those 'people' you mention live it. In reality. And when we consider say Reagan, or Bush Jr's affect on the economy, you affect real lives, pictures aren't relevant to the person being throw out of their home or job.

I have been deep diving into the great depression, new deal, and wwII and the impact of poor policy, mostly from those who believe in slogans was deadly.



"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money." George Carlin

 

[midcan5]

Boy, reality sometimes go over like a rock. Here I thought all the republicans would be saying how great this was, but no, isn't that odd.


TaxProf Blog: CB&PP: Rich-Poor Gap Tripled Between 1979 and 2006

"New data from the CBO show that in 2006, the top 1% of households had a larger share of the nation’s after-tax income, and the middle and bottom fifths of households had smaller shares, than in any year since 1979, the first year the CBO data cover. As a result, the gaps in after-tax incomes between households in the top 1% and those in the middle and bottom fifths were the widest on record."


Grotesque inequality: corporate globalization and the global gap between rich and poor.(Grotesque Inequalities) - Multinational Monitor | HighBeam Research - FREE trial

"THERE IS SOMETHING PROFOUNDLY WRONG with a world in which the 400 highest income earners in the United States make as much money in a year as the entire population of 20 African nations--more than 300 million people.

Global inequalities persist at staggering levels. The richest 10 percent of the world's population's income is roughly 117 times higher than the poorest 10 percent, according to calculations performed by economists at the Economics Policy Institute, using data from the International Monetary Fund. This is a huge jump from the ratio in 1980, when the income of the richest 10 percent was about 79 times higher than the poorest 10 percent."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Boy, reality sometimes go over like a rock. Here I thought all the republicans would be saying how great this was, but no, isn't that odd.


TaxProf Blog: CB&PP: Rich-Poor Gap Tripled Between 1979 and 2006

"New data from the CBO show that in 2006, the top 1% of households had a larger share of the nation’s after-tax income, and the middle and bottom fifths of households had smaller shares, than in any year since 1979, the first year the CBO data cover. As a result, the gaps in after-tax incomes between households in the top 1% and those in the middle and bottom fifths were the widest on record."


Grotesque inequality: corporate globalization and the global gap between rich and poor.(Grotesque Inequalities) - Multinational Monitor | HighBeam Research - FREE trial

"THERE IS SOMETHING PROFOUNDLY WRONG with a world in which the 400 highest income earners in the United States make as much money in a year as the entire population of 20 African nations--more than 300 million people.

Global inequalities persist at staggering levels. The richest 10 percent of the world's population's income is roughly 117 times higher than the poorest 10 percent, according to calculations performed by economists at the Economics Policy Institute, using data from the International Monetary Fund. This is a huge jump from the ratio in 1980, when the income of the richest 10 percent was about 79 times higher than the poorest 10 percent."

And Democrats are doing all they can to make the USA more like an African country

Personally, I'm insulted that you would compare the USA to countries that still practice slavery and cannibalism

 

[Neubarth]

My belief is that there are just as many corrupt Republicans as there are corrupt Democrats. Statistically it would appear that the economy has grown a little bit better under Democratic administrations, BUT that pales in significance to the damage that all the corrupt politicians have brought to this once great nation.

 

[midcan5]

And Democrats are doing all they can to make the USA more like an African country

Personally, I'm insulted that you would compare the USA to countries that still practice slavery and cannibalism

Such sham outrage, do you really! We had slaves a long time and working in wal-mart today .... lol

If one thing is clear, if any party is making America a third world nation, it is the republican party especially since FDR. The statistics demonstrate that in spite of your partisan blinders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?_r=1

"The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.

As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.”

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And Democrats are doing all they can to make the USA more like an African country

Personally, I'm insulted that you would compare the USA to countries that still practice slavery and cannibalism

Such sham outrage, do you really! We had slaves a long time and working in wal-mart today .... lol

If one thing is clear, if any party is making America a third world nation, it is the republican party especially since FDR. The statistics demonstrate that in spite of your partisan blinders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?_r=1

"The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.

As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.”

I don't give a single solitary fuck about the "gap between rich and poor" It's not any of my business, it's not anyone's business

And if we had a real educational system in this country instead of a disastrous homogenized, pasteurized National Socialism system that sucked dry all the educational calories, everybody EVERY SINGLE CHILD would learn how to grow rich