Why does America's economy always suffer under the Republicans

[#juan]

I didn't know this before, but I ran across an article this morning that clearly showed that under the Republicans, the economy falls, the value of the dollar drops, jobs are lost, and debt rises. What it showed just as clearly was that under the Democrats, the economy rises, jobs are created, the debt is paid off. This is not a joke. It just seems that there is a simple lesson to be learned here. Don't elect Republican presidents.


Chart of the day: Economy under past presidents - FP Posted

Who Builds the Economy? Democratic Presidents Do! | The LA Progressive

 

[Avro]

I didn't know this before, but I ran across an article this morning that clearly showed that under the Republicans, the economy falls, the value of the dollar drops, jobs are lost, and debt rises. What it showed just as clearly was that under the Democrats, the economy rises, jobs are created, the debt is paid off. This is not a joke. It just seems that there is a simple lesson to be learned here. Don't elect Republican presidents.


Chart of the day: Economy under past presidents - FP Posted

Who Builds the Economy? Democratic Presidents Do! | The LA Progressive

Why?

.....because cons are idiots who talk the talk but never walk the walk, even in our own case as we slip closer and closer to recession and deficit spending.

Makes you wonder if con supporters are actually retarded in some way.:roll:

 

[EagleSmack]

I didn't know this before, but I ran across an article this morning that clearly showed that under the Republicans, the economy falls, the value of the dollar drops, jobs are lost, and debt rises. What it showed just as clearly was that under the Democrats, the economy rises, jobs are created, the debt is paid off. This is not a joke. It just seems that there is a simple lesson to be learned here. Don't elect Republican presidents.


Chart of the day: Economy under past presidents - FP Posted

Who Builds the Economy? Democratic Presidents Do! | The LA Progressive

Always or sometimes? Look at your own charts...how did Carter do? How did Reagan do?

 

[#juan]

Always or sometimes? Look at your own charts...how did Carter do? How did Reagan do?

Both Reagan and Carter are shown in the first link I posted in the OP

The Washington Monthly

 

[darkbeaver]

Who would like to bet on a repeat of the cycle Juan sees?

 

[#juan]

Who would like to bet on a repeat of the cycle Juan sees?

One of the sites I looked at this morning had a chart going back to the first world war and republicans have always put the nation in debt, slowed the economy, and raised the numbers of unemployed, while the Democrats paid off the debt, spurred the economy, and generated jobs. I would bet on the cycle continuing.

 

[darkbeaver]

One of the sites I looked at this morning had a chart going back to the first world war and republicans have always put the nation in debt, slowed the economy, and raised the numbers of unemployed, while the Democrats paid off the debt, spurred the economy, and generated jobs. I would bet on the cycle continuing.

Are you sure you want to bet Juan you know nothing works forever, I'v seen those charts and I'v also seen many articles that point to the unlikely recovery of the US economy, one difference I believe is that they cannot sucessfully run a deficit to finance reconstruction of infrastructure as they did last depression (which was ineffectual and late anyway) they have just bailed out the crust of the financial community the cupboards are bare. Those assets could have eased the transition for the common person maybe, now we'll never know.

I'll take your bet.

 

[EagleSmack]

Both Reagan and Carter are shown in the first link I posted in the OP

The Washington Monthly

I know...Carter's numbers sucked and Reagan's didn't. That is why I asked "sometime or always". That only goes back to the JFK years.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Juan, this isn’t exactly news, it has been known for a long time now. I remember a few months ago James Carville suggested that Democrats make frequent use of this argument in the campaign. Carville, mentioned a study, some non partisan institute has conducted a study as to how the economy fared under Democratic and Republican presidents. I am not sure if Obama raised this argument or not.

They found that by all economic indicators, unemployment, stock market, budget deficit etc. economy clearly performed better under Democratic presidents, compared to Republican presidents.

In only one criterion (I think it was the inflation, but I am not sure), Republicans came out slightly ahead. Other than that, economic performance was much better under Democratic Presidents rather than under Republican presidents.

 

[TenPenny]

Nobody has mentioned the lead/lag factor. This whole idea is dependent on the idea that the policies of the President and the performance of the economy are coincident.

I don't think that anyone seriously believes that the economic policies of Obama will have an impact on the US GDP the day after he takes office. In order for any of this to be meaningful, you'll have to come up with a rational explanation of how much of a lag factor the Dow index, GDP, etc have trailing economic policies, then you'll have to revise the whole shebang based on those factors.

Give us a ring when you've got it figured out.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I know...Carter's numbers sucked and Reagan's didn't. That is why I asked "sometime or always". That only goes back to the JFK years.

The study I mentioned looked at all the presidents up to and beyond FDR, and averaged out the performance. No doubt one could find a Republican president under whom the economy outperformed compared to a Democratic president. However, overall, look at all the Democratic presidents and all the Republican presidents, and economy under Democrats outperforms the Republicans by a big margin.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I know...Carter's numbers sucked and Reagan's didn't. That is why I asked "sometime or always". That only goes back to the JFK years.

EagelSmack, Carter’s numbers sucked, agreed. But Reagan’s didn’t? Have you been listening to the Republican propaganda?

Reagan made a royal mess of the economy. Sure, economy prospered under him, unemployment, inflation etc. were low. But how did Reagan achieve that? By going on a spending spree with borrowed money. Reagan stimulated the economy with huge amounts of borrowed money; he racked up huge deficits and huge debt.

What Reagan did was comparable to a family going on a spending spree using the credit card. Sure, family can afford to buy a new car, maybe a vacation, the wife can buy a fur coat, all the signs of prosperity are there. But is that real prosperity? They will have to pay the credit card bills at some stage and they will soon come into huge trouble, the interest payments alone would be horrendous.

Reagan made a royal mess of the economy, and Bush continued the Reagan tradition. It took Clinton to sort out the huge mess left by Reagan and Bush. Clinton converted huge deficits into a health surplus (same as in Canada, Liberals converted 40 billion $ Mulroney deficits into 10 billion $ surplus).

Clinton cleaned up the gigantic mess left by Reagan/Bush, rescued the economy and sent it roaring ahead. Then Bush came along and promptly drove it back into the ditch.

 

[#juan]

Here is another indicator: How the debt climbed under successive presidents.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

 

[EagleSmack]

EagelSmack, Carter’s numbers sucked, agreed. But Reagan’s didn’t? Have you been listening to the Republican propaganda?

I guess you've been listening to just as much Democratic propaganda.

Reagan made a royal mess of the economy. Sure, economy prospered under him, unemployment, inflation etc. were low. But how did Reagan achieve that? By going on a spending spree with borrowed money. Reagan stimulated the economy with huge amounts of borrowed money; he racked up huge deficits and huge debt.

And then we can say that every successive Democrat President prospered because of the Republican before him.

What Reagan did was comparable to a family going on a spending spree using the credit card. Sure, family can afford to buy a new car, maybe a vacation, the wife can buy a fur coat, all the signs of prosperity are there. But is that real prosperity?

It was very prosperous and there was only a slight hiccup while Bush Sr. was in office. Bill Clinton's prospered from the .com boom and nothing more. We all know that was based on absolutley ZILCH. But he was the President and should get every credit for that.

They will have to pay the credit card bills at some stage and they will soon come into huge trouble, the interest payments alone would be horrendous.

Did we suffer in the 90's? Hardly. It was a great economy save for the first couple years.

Reagan made a royal mess of the economy, and Bush continued the Reagan tradition. It took Clinton to sort out the huge mess left by Reagan and Bush. Clinton converted huge deficits into a health surplus (same as in Canada, Liberals converted 40 billion $ Mulroney deficits into 10 billion $ surplus).

No...Clinton benefitted from it long term. Did you notice that Nixon paid down the deficit as well? The one LBJ ran up because of the Democrat started Vietnam War?

Clinton cleaned up the gigantic mess left by Reagan/Bush, rescued the economy and sent it roaring ahead. Then Bush came along and promptly drove it back into the ditch.

I agree that Bush Jr. drove it into the ditch with a little help from Democratic pressure to give loans to people who had no business recieving loans.

 

[EagleSmack]

Mind you I am not hoping for Obama to fail. I hope he can clean up this mess. I am not like a liberal Democrat that would rather have a Republican fail and the country suffer just so they can get their guy in at all costs. That is the difference between us and them. They want our country to suffer and fail while the Republicans are in charge and give absolutley no credit whatsoever to them. Liberals are a nasty lot.

So I hope Obama is a successful President and does well.

 

[#juan]

Mind you I am not hoping for Obama to fail. I hope he can clean up this mess. Would you say the current mess was caused by the Republican administration of GW Bush?

. I am not like a liberal Democrat that would rather have a Republican fail and the country suffer just so they can get their guy in at all costs. That is the difference between us and them. They want our country to suffer and fail while the Republicans are in charge and give absolutley no credit whatsoever to them. Liberals are a nasty lot.

Some of the comments by the Republican candidate during the election campaign would not appear to prove you out.

Was it "nasty" to start anothe useless, expensive, war and drag the country into debt?

So I hope Obama is a successful President and does well. You appear to wish Obama well, but what do you think of the job Bush did on the country?

 

[darkbeaver]

Nobody has mentioned the lead/lag factor. This whole idea is dependent on the idea that the policies of the President and the performance of the economy are coincident.

I don't think that anyone seriously believes that the economic policies of Obama will have an impact on the US GDP the day after he takes office. In order for any of this to be meaningful, you'll have to come up with a rational explanation of how much of a lag factor the Dow index, GDP, etc have trailing economic policies, then you'll have to revise the whole shebang based on those factors.

Give us a ring when you've got it figured out.

Can't we see the results of the bailouts right now in the markets?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And then we can say that every successive Democrat President prospered because of the Republican before him.

EagleSmack, in a way you are right. Both Reagan and Bush spent money like drunken sailors, ran up huge debt, huge deficit like there was no tomorrow. Clinton cleaned up the gigantic mess left by Reagan/Bush, so you could say indirectly Reagan/Bush were responsible for making Clinton look good (by comparison).


After all, if Clinton had inherited a booming economy and left office with a booming economy, it could hardly be said that he turned the economy around. However, since Reagan/Bush had left him huge deficits, tanking economy, Clinton was able to show his skills, was able to show what he could do with the economy. That is why he left office with booming economy, with approval rating in high 60s, in spite of the highly partisan political attempt of impeachment by the Republican Congress.

So in a way you make sense, if Regan/Bush had not left the gigantic mess behind, Clinton would not get to clean it up and show people how adept he was at handling the economy.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Did you notice that Nixon paid down the deficit as well? The one LBJ ran up because of the Democrat started Vietnam War?

EagleSmack, is this the same Nixon who declared a wage and price freeze? During Nixon’s watch, economy tanked big time, we had the theoretically impossible situation of high inflation and high unemployment at the same time (stagflation).

I was living in USA in the 70s. I remember during the 1972 election, economy was in the tank. Unfortunately Democrats nominated a very liberal candidate (McGovern). That in itself would have been OK (Obama is more liberal than McGovern). However, McGovern ran a terrible campaign, he committed several blunders. So instead of wining, he lost by a landslide.

However, the economy continued going downhill and Ford inherited a tanking economy from Nixon. Another Republican who could not manage the economy. No surprise there.

Poor Ford was left holding the bag. Remember the WIN buttons (Whip Inflation Now)?

 

[Avro]

Did you notice that Nixon paid down the deficit as well? The one LBJ ran up because of the Democrat started Vietnam War?

EagleSmack, is this the same Nixon who declared a wage and price freeze? During Nixon’s watch, economy tanked big time, we had the theoretically impossible situation of high inflation and high unemployment at the same time (stagflation).

I was living in USA in the 70s. I remember during the 1972 election, economy was in the tank. Unfortunately Democrats nominated a very liberal candidate (McGovern). That in itself would have been OK (Obama is more liberal than McGovern). However, McGovern ran a terrible campaign, he committed several blunders. So instead of wining, he lost by a landslide.

However, the economy continued going downhill and Ford inherited a tanking economy from Nixon. Another Republican who could not manage the economy. No surprise there.

Poor Ford was left holding the bag. Remember the WIN buttons (Whip Inflation Now)?

Not to mention Nixon was a crook.