Democrats outperform Republicans across the board

[tuhaybey]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:


Note that at present, we are on that green column and we're almost exactly on the average of 2.9%.

Or, consider the change in unemployment rate by the party of the president:


Or, the stock market performance by the party of the president:


Not convinced yet? How about:

Median income of red and blue states
Life expectancy of red and blue states
Gun death rates in red and blue states
Graduate degrees per capita in red and blue states
GDP growth relative to world GDP growth
Change in personal income by party of president
Patents filed per capita of red and blue states
Top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 by party
Etc., etc., etc.

So, what I am wondering is why anybody votes Republican. Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success? If so, please post them. Or, is the issue that Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?

 

[Moonglow]

shh, don't tell the right, they will just deny it...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's true, when you look at food stamps, number of people leaving the labor force, record debt and deficits, the Dems own it

 

[Moonglow]

It's not like the GOP leaders ever spend anything over budget when in control...

 

[tuhaybey]

It's true, when you look at food stamps, number of people leaving the labor force, record debt and deficits, the Dems own it

The deficit has been reduced by more than a trillion dollars in the past few years, so not sure where you're going with that one. At present, it is pretty clearly a non-issue.

More people on food stamps is a good thing. Making sure everybody has enough to eat and helping the poor get their heads above water is both a moral imperative and part of the reason that the economy performs better under Democrats- because we make it easier to get out of poverty.

The labor participation rate is mostly just a misunderstanding on the right. That is just the percentage of people between 16 and 65 years old who are working. So, everybody who is in school and everybody who retires before 65 are "non-participating." Those are the two main reasons that the rate has been steadily falling since the 1990s- baby boomers are retiring and younger people are staying in school longer. The assumption that it means people just giving up or something is false. Only a couple/few percent of the non-participating people are actually in that camp.

 

[sameech]

The deficit has been reduced by more than a trillion dollars in the past few years, so not sure where you're going with that one. At present, it is pretty clearly a non-issue.

The deficit is shrinking due to GOP austerity and Obama playing Russian Roulette by converting all bonds that come due and payable into short term lower interest payment bonds at the expense of driving up longer term interest on the bonds when we allegedly go back to 30 year treasuries on them. The growing debt will become an increasing problem. Only a hack would think otherwise.

More people on food stamps is a good thing. Making sure everybody has enough to eat and helping the poor get their heads above water is both a moral imperative and part of the reason that the economy performs better under Democrats- because we make it easier to get out of poverty.

democrats do not make it easier for people to get out of poverty. I have no problem with people who need food stamps getting them, but things like the earned Income Tax Credit reinforces poverty by discouraging people to break through the low-wage blue collar ceiling EITC creates.

The labor participation rate is mostly just a misunderstanding on the right. That is just the percentage of people between 16 and 65 years old who are working. So, everybody who is in school and everybody who retires before 65 are "non-participating." Those are the two main reasons that the rate has been steadily falling since the 1990s- baby boomers are retiring and younger people are staying in school longer. The assumption that it means people just giving up or something is false. Only a couple/few percent of the non-participating people are actually in that camp.

From what I have read, seniors are staying in the workplace longer. It is the failure of people to initially enter the workforce at younger age brackets which is the culprit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's true, when you look at food stamps, number of people leaving the labor force, record debt and deficits, the Dems own it

The deficit has been reduced by more than a trillion dollars in the past few years, so not sure where you're going with that one. At present, it is pretty clearly a non-issue.

More people on food stamps is a good thing. Making sure everybody has enough to eat and helping the poor get their heads above water is both a moral imperative and part of the reason that the economy performs better under Democrats- because we make it easier to get out of poverty.

The labor participation rate is mostly just a misunderstanding on the right. That is just the percentage of people between 16 and 65 years old who are working. So, everybody who is in school and everybody who retires before 65 are "non-participating." Those are the two main reasons that the rate has been steadily falling since the 1990s- baby boomers are retiring and younger people are staying in school longer. The assumption that it means people just giving up or something is false. Only a couple/few percent of the non-participating people are actually in that camp.

The deficit has been reduced....wow. that's an amazing. The deficit has been reduced because it was actually greater than an entire Reagan budget..

More people on food stamps is a good thing....uh huh, sure it is. We have an unbridgeable gap. You're a Communist and I'm not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's not like the GOP leaders ever spend anything over budget when in control...

The GOP Sucks, absolutely fucking useless

Democrats are just destructive

 

[rdean]

Republicans don't want the "elite". They hate smart people.

 

[tuhaybey]

You're a Communist and I'm not.

At least try to talk like a grown up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans don't want the "elite". They hate smart people.

Yes, Deany, we're intimidate by your smarts

 

[tuhaybey]

The deficit is shrinking due to GOP austerity

No, the sequester, for example, appears to actually be increasing the deficit. The reason the deficit is falling is almost entirely to expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and the economic growth.

The growing debt will become an increasing problem. Only a hack would think otherwise.

No, not really. At present, service on the debt eats up about 1% of our GDP. That isn't nothing, but it isn't a crisis either. The idle speculation that maybe interest rates will go up is just speculation, but even if they did, it isn't like suddenly it would become 4% of GDP or something, it would become like 1.2% of GDP... Don't get me wrong, I would like to start paying down the debt. I'd raise taxes on the rich and corporations to do it. But it isn't a crisiis or something.

democrats do not make it easier for people to get out of poverty. I have no problem with people who need food stamps getting them, but things like the earned Income Tax Credit reinforces poverty by discouraging people to break through the low-wage blue collar ceiling EITC creates.

EITC does not create a ceiling. It very slowly tapers off as your income goes up. There is no situation where you would lose a significant fraction of additional income you make to the EITC dropping off.

From what I have read, seniors are staying in the workplace longer. It is the failure of people to initially enter the workforce at younger age brackets which is the culprit.

Generally speaking, seniors are staying in the workplace longer. That's a long term trend over the past 5 decades or so. But, there are also way more seniors now than there were 20 years ago. The net effect is a higher percentage of the under-65 age that is retired at present.

Yeah, recent college grads are having some trouble getting work. At least the ones that graduated right during the recession. That said, a lot of what often gets presented as young people "not entering the workforce" is really more young people staying in school longer, which is a very good thing.

 

[sameech]

No, not really. At present, service on the debt eats up about 1% of our GDP. That isn't nothing, but it isn't a crisis either. The idle speculation that maybe interest rates will go up is just speculation, but even if they did, it isn't like suddenly it would become 4% of GDP or something, it would become like 1.2% of GDP... Don't get me wrong, I would like to start paying down the debt. I'd raise taxes on the rich and corporations to do it. But it isn't a crisiis or something.

It has nothing to do with a % of GDP. It has to do with a growing percentage of federal revenue, thereby decreasing discretionary spending.

EITC does not create a ceiling. It very slowly tapers off as your income goes up. There is no situation where you would lose a significant fraction of additional income you make to the EITC dropping off.

Very slowly? LOL. Once you cross minimum wage your "very slowly" is 21 cents of every dollar they earn in excess of about $1K a month.

Yeah, recent college grads are having some trouble getting work. At least the ones that graduated right during the recession. That said, a lot of what often gets presented as young people "not entering the workforce" is really more young people staying in school longer, which is a very good thing.

Going to grad school is a good thing. Taking 6-7 years to get a 4 year degree is not a very good thing. People hiding out from the real world by delaying their graduation is a very bad thing.

 

[tuhaybey]

It has nothing to do with a % of GDP. It has to do with a growing percentage of federal revenue, thereby decreasing discretionary spending.

I don't see how thinking of it as a percentage of federal revenue leads to any different conclusions that thinking of it as a percentage of GDP. Federal revenue is just the portion of GDP that we chose to dedicate to the public sector. We can change that number any time we want.

Very slowly? LOL. Once you cross minimum wage your "very slowly" is 21 cents of every dollar they earn in excess of about $1K a month.

That is not my understanding at all. Depending on how big your household is, some people get EITC all the way up to around $40k/year and it isn't a huge amount of money to start with, so I don't see how it could drop off quickly and still last up to $40k. Do you have a link to a chart or something?

Going to grad school is a good thing. Taking 6-7 years to get a 4 year degree is not a very good thing. People hiding out from the real world by delaying their graduation is a very bad thing.

The increase in the amount of education people get has been going on for like 100 years. It isn't about people taking too long to graduate or something. All the stats about the percentage of the population that has various types of degrees all steadily go up and have for a very long time. Since the dawn of human history really, but most notably in the past 100 years or so.

 

[sameech]

I don't see how thinking of it as a percentage of federal revenue leads to any different conclusions that thinking of it as a percentage of GDP. Federal revenue is just the portion of GDP that we chose to dedicate to the public sector. We can change that number any time we want.

Well, that is a very Marxist attitude. Ranks second only to the MMT idiots who think we should just print trillion dollar bills

That is not my understanding at all. Depending on how big your household is, some people get EITC all the way up to around $40k/year and it isn't a huge amount of money to start with, so I don't see how it could drop off quickly and still last up to $40k. Do you have a link to a chart or something?

What is the EITC

The Earned Income Tax Credit Raises Employment

The increase in the amount of education people get has been going on for like 100 years. It isn't about people taking too long to graduate or something. All the stats about the percentage of the population that has various types of degrees all steadily go up and have for a very long time. Since the dawn of human history really, but most notably in the past 100 years or so.

This is not about 100 years. It is about declining labor force participation in the last decade.

 

[tuhaybey]

Well, that is a very Marxist attitude. Ranks second only to the MMT idiots who think we should just print trillion dollar bills

Marxist? It just seems like an obvious statement of fact that in a democracy the people decide how much of our GDP to pool through taxation.

What is the EITC

The Earned Income Tax Credit Raises Employment

Those both seem to support or at least not contradict, what I said. The second one notes that it starts dropping off at minimum wage and isn't all the way gone until you hit $35k for a family of 4. I'm not denying that it drops off. Of course it has to. I pointed out that it drops off so slowly that it does not actually create a meaningful disincentive.

This is not about 100 years. It is about declining labor force participation in the last decade.

Well, I think I addressed that concern- its people retiring in larger numbers because of the baby boomers and people staying in school longer.

 

[mudwhistle]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:


Note that at present, we are on that green column and we're almost exactly on the average of 2.9%.

Or, consider the change in unemployment rate by the party of the president:


Or, the stock market performance by the party of the president:


Not convinced yet? How about:

Median income of red and blue states
Life expectancy of red and blue states
Gun death rates in red and blue states
Graduate degrees per capita in red and blue states
GDP growth relative to world GDP growth
Change in personal income by party of president
Patents filed per capita of red and blue states
Top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 by party
Etc., etc., etc.

So, what I am wondering is why anybody votes Republican. Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success? If so, please post them. Or, is the issue that Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?

Blah blah dog:

 

[tuhaybey]

Blah blah

So basically, this-

Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?

Right?

 

[tuhaybey]

Republicans don't want the "elite". They hate smart people.

I have to admit, there does seem to be a bit of a theme going. They don't want to fund education and are constantly railing against teachers, they aren't too fond of science, they talk about ivy league universities with a tone of disgust, they're generally suspicious of complicated explanations for things... There is some kind of emotional response that provides a common thread there that isn't pretty.

 

[rdean]

Republicans don't want the "elite". They hate smart people.

Yes, Deany, we're intimidate by your smarts

Lack of knowing anything has never intimidated Republicans. It's both part of their charm and why they fail.