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?
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
So you would say that it's "lagged economic effects"?
In other words, it's the last president who's responsible, if he left a mess for his successor?
EVERY President in our history goes into the OVAL office knowing that they are going to inherit the problems associated with their predecessor.
Most do it with DIGNITY--with the EXCEPTION of our community organizer WHINER President. The problems he has made for HIMSELF--is that he promised way too much in 2008--even making the claim that if he didn't turn this economy around in 3 years he would be a 1 term President.
And then because of Obama's inexperience--he took a chapter out of FDR's book. Road and bridge work.
The 1930's a time when we actually needed roads and bridges today we have super highways that criss/cross this nation. If we needed a bridge we built it. What permits were issued overnight in the 1930's now takes years of engineering and design and what took thousands of men with shovels in the 30's--today can be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. What was a work-force of primarily men in the 30's is now 1/2 women who don't do road and bridge work.
This is our community organizer at work. MITT ROMNEY was right when he stated: Obama keeps running down to the corner to plug quarters into a pay phone--thinking that it would revive the economy--but he forgot that we live in a smart phone century.
Last edited: