Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why are so many more jobs created by Democratic presidents?
What's meant is "why does it appear that more jobs are created under Democrat presidents?"
The answer is easy...Because they refuse to count every job destroyed in the private sector for every one "created" in the bureaucracy.
In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,
Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the nights biggest applause lines.
42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?
Cuz democrats create government jobs like 5 guys standing around doing nothing while only one guy is actually needed for the job.
In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,
42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the nights biggest applause lines.
Several studies of the post-war American political economy find that Democratic presidents have been more successful than Republicans. Most recently, Bartels (2008) found that economic growth had been greater and that unemployment and income inequality had been lower under Democratic presidents since 1948. If true, these findings combined with the frequent success of Republicans in presidential elections pose a challenge to theories of retrospective voting and responsible party government. This reexamination of these findings indicates that they are an artifact of specification error. Previous estimates did not properly take into account the lagged effects of the economy. Once lagged economic effects are taken into account, party differences in economic performance are shown to be the effects of economic conditions inherited from the previous president and not the consequence of real policy differences. Specifically, the economy was in recession when Republican presidents became responsible for the economy in each of the four post-1948 transitions from Democratic to Republican presidents. This was not the case for the transitions from Republicans to Democrats. When economic conditions leading into a year are taken into account, there are no presidential party differences with respect to growth, unemployment, or income inequality.
In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,
42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the nights biggest applause lines.
Becuase Democrats use a scientific approach to economics while Republicans use more of a religious approach.
In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,
Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the nights biggest applause lines.
42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?
Becuase Democrats use a scientific approach to economics while Republicans use more of a religious approach.
Um, Jimmy Carter and Obamination have the worst job creation numbers of all-time.
Bill Clinton had the benefit of a GOP Congress.
JFK, a moderate, followed many GOP economic tenants like lower taxes.
So in the end Bill Clinton's comments are nothing but bullshit, especially given the job creation under Reagan cleaning up Jimmy Carter's mess.
I would attribute Clinton's job success more to the random tech boom that occured in the 90s.
I dont think it was any Democrat policy. Just mere coincidence. Had the tech boom occured with less government involvement, i think we could have seen much more success.
You do realize that fewer Americans are working now than in 2009?
Of course you do.
Um, Jimmy Carter and Obamination have the worst job creation numbers of all-time.
Bill Clinton had the benefit of a GOP Congress.
JFK, a moderate, followed many GOP economic tenants like lower taxes.
So in the end Bill Clinton's comments are nothing but bullshit, especially given the job creation under Reagan cleaning up Jimmy Carter's mess.
I would attribute Clinton's job success more to the random tech boom that occured in the 90s.
I dont think it was any Democrat policy. Just mere coincidence. Had the tech boom occured with less government involvement, i think we could have seen much more success.
Could be. I'm sure the tech boom helped. You don't think Clinton's policy of balancing the budget by raising taxes helped?
In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,
Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the nights biggest applause lines.
42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?
This is going to be fun, I was waiting for some idiot to bring this up.
In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,
42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the nights biggest applause lines.
The problem with this is it statement is ti is based on a deeply flawed assumptions. The truth is a bit more complex because most of the benefits of economic and policy decisions take a few years to manifest.
Several studies of the post-war American political economy find that Democratic presidents have been more successful than Republicans. Most recently, Bartels (2008) found that economic growth had been greater and that unemployment and income inequality had been lower under Democratic presidents since 1948. If true, these findings combined with the frequent success of Republicans in presidential elections pose a challenge to theories of retrospective voting and responsible party government. This reexamination of these findings indicates that they are an artifact of specification error. Previous estimates did not properly take into account the lagged effects of the economy. Once lagged economic effects are taken into account, party differences in economic performance are shown to be the effects of economic conditions inherited from the previous president and not the consequence of real policy differences. Specifically, the economy was in recession when Republican presidents became responsible for the economy in each of the four post-1948 transitions from Democratic to Republican presidents. This was not the case for the transitions from Republicans to Democrats. When economic conditions leading into a year are taken into account, there are no presidential party differences with respect to growth, unemployment, or income inequality.
http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002ffor.2011.9.1_20120105083457$002ffor.2011.9.1$002ffor.2011.9.1.1429$002ffor.2011.9.1.1429.xml;jsessionid=99734BF2FAB7808A291760A110C911C9
Um, Jimmy Carter and Obamination have the worst job creation numbers of all-time.
Bill Clinton had the benefit of a GOP Congress.
JFK, a moderate, followed many GOP economic tenants like lower taxes.
So in the end Bill Clinton's comments are nothing but bullshit, especially given the job creation under Reagan cleaning up Jimmy Carter's mess.
Nope. There were 9 million jobs created under Carter, and 332,000 (so far) for Obama.
The worst job creation numbers were for our last president - Bush. 646,000 jobs were lost during the Bush 2 years.
Edit: that's LOST, not gained.
In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,
Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the nights biggest applause lines.
42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?
Cuz democrats create government jobs like 5 guys standing around doing nothing while only one guy is actually needed for the job.
Um, Jimmy Carter and Obamination have the worst job creation numbers of all-time.
Bill Clinton had the benefit of a GOP Congress.
JFK, a moderate, followed many GOP economic tenants like lower taxes.
So in the end Bill Clinton's comments are nothing but bullshit, especially given the job creation under Reagan cleaning up Jimmy Carter's mess.
Nope. There were 9 million jobs created under Carter, and 332,000 (so far) for Obama.
The worst job creation numbers were for our last president - Bush. 646,000 jobs were lost during the Bush 2 years.
Edit: that's LOST, not gained.
In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,
42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?
Becuase Democrats use a scientific approach to economics while Republicans use more of a religious approach.
Because Democrats inherit good economies from Republicans.
Pure luck. Presidents tend to get too much credit when the economy is doing good and too much of the blame during bad economic times. The biggest private sector growth came under Clintona nd he had two massive bubbles building, plus the one that has yet to pop. It was pure luck on Clintons part and has little or nothing to do with his policies.
