Economies do better under Democrats?

[Xiangshu]

Republicans VS Democrats
Economies

I have just stumbled across a poll that says this:
Hillary Clinton claimed that the US economy has done better under the Democratic party than under the Republican Party;
Politifact: 'A 2012 report by CMC Markets found that since 1900, the US stock markets have posted an average annual return of 15.31% under Democratic Presidents compared o just 5.34 under Republicans'

'Another study from 2012 by adviser perspectives newsletter found that since 1900 the Dow Jones Industrial average has gained 8.7 annually under a Democratic President, Compared to 5,7% under republicans.

'Calculations by the Economist found that the Barclays U.S equity index gained a cumulative 300% under Democratic presidents between 1929 and 2011, compared to about 0 under republican presidents.'

'Since 1945, the markets gained 11.2% under Democratic Presidents and 6.3% under Republican Presidents.'

We can go broader.

National Bureau of Economic Research : 'The U.S economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures ,during the Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate , generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics'


Soooo, i guess... #BernieSanders2016?

[Alyakia]

yeah republican economic strategy is actually dumb as fuck and all the "we're better with the economy" stuff is just an example of how if you keep repeating a lie long enough people will start believing it's true

[Caltarania]

yeah republican economic strategy is actually dumb as fuck and all the "we're better with the economy" stuff is just an example of how if you keep repeating a lie long enough people will start believing it's true

Yes, it's something I find is repeated across parties which are generally more conservative and right-wing in scope; they feign that they are professionals in economic terms, who know exactly how to run an economy, while purporting that the main opposition to them are unreliable and not good at running the economy, and I find that people believe them because they are more established/traditional than the alternative, which gives them an aura of economic reliability.

[Kalatun]

Republicans are feeling the Bern right now.

[Xiangshu]

yeah republican economic strategy is actually dumb as fuck and all the "we're better with the economy" stuff is just an example of how if you keep repeating a lie long enough people will start believing it's true

yeah republican economic strategy is actually dumb as fuck and all the "we're better with the economy" stuff is just an example of how if you keep repeating a lie long enough people will start believing it's true

Yes, it's something I find is repeated across parties which are generally more conservative and right-wing in scope; they feign that they are professionals in economic terms, who know exactly how to run an economy, while purporting that the main opposition to them are unreliable and not good at running the economy, and I find that people believe them because they are more established/traditional than the alternative, which gives them an aura of economic reliability.

Serving the rich has never been a good economic strategy

[Deanson]

If we are being fair under this issue, the country under Clinton was in the midst of the unrelated dot com economic burst whilst 9/11 did not help much when it came to Bush's presidency. However, on the whole I agree; the whole idea that somehow conservatism = a better economy is absolutely ridiculous IMO, and there are plenty of examples of economies doing well with fairly liberal/leftist policies as long as they are well implemented, which is a key factor. If you can execute things like universal education and healthcare in a cost effective manner, the nation's long term economic growth is going to rise hugely as our people will improve as a whole.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Using the figures from Snopes, and only taking presidents who served two terms for a fairer comparison, modern Republican Presidents don't look that good on public debt.

Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218%

Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%

George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%

[Xiangshu]

Using the figures from Snopes, and only taking presidents who served two terms for a fairer comparison, modern Republican Presidents don't look that good on public debt.

Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218%

Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%

George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%

This is interesting [especially the George Bush one]
It is a perfect example of Democratic vs Republican economies fails in recent history :c

[Grave_n_idle]

Republicans VS Democrats
Economies

I have just stumbled across a poll that says this:
Hillary Clinton claimed that the US economy has done better under the Democratic party than under the Republican Party;
Politifact: 'A 2012 report by CMC Markets found that since 1900, the US stock markets have posted an average annual return of 15.31% under Democratic Presidents compared o just 5.34 under Republicans'

'Another study from 2012 by adviser perspectives newsletter found that since 1900 the Dow Jones Industrial average has gained 8.7 annually under a Democratic President, Compared to 5,7% under republicans.

'Calculations by the Economist found that the Barclays U.S equity index gained a cumulative 300% under Democratic presidents between 1929 and 2011, compared to about 0 under republican presidents.'

'Since 1945, the markets gained 11.2% under Democratic Presidents and 6.3% under Republican Presidents.'

We can go broader.

National Bureau of Economic Research : 'The U.S economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures ,during the Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate , generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics'


Soooo, i guess... #BernieSanders2016?

The GOP runs on two main agenda items - fiscal responsibility and small government. They're both demonstrably untrue, but the audience they are selling to just want their beliefs reinforced - they're not interested in objective support for any of those claims.

[Teemant]

Using the figures from Snopes, and only taking presidents who served two terms for a fairer comparison, modern Republican Presidents don't look that good on public debt.

Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218%

Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%

George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%

This is interesting [especially the George Bush one]
It is a perfect example of Democratic vs Republican economies fails in recent history :c

Then why is debt 18 000 billion dollars now if this only Republican thing?

[Teemant]

Republicans focus more on long term growth so it might be that their policies might actually start to pay off when new president is already in office.

[Napkiraly]

Republicans are feeling the Bern right now.

The Grand Sand Band.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Then why is debt 18 000 billion dollars now if this only Republican thing?

The Republicans are the ones claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility and small government.

Republicans focus more on long term growth so it might be that their policies might actually start to pay off when new president is already in office.

Is that the sound of straws being grasped?

[Oranje Nassau]

The government cannot fully influence the economy. So it hard to say that a democrat president leads to a better economy.

Also the economy was far better under Reagan than Carter.

[Yorkvale]

It's actually fairly sperratic and unpredictable. I don't remember where but there was a chart John green had that explained it perfectly and showed the the economy usually never gives a fuck about who is president at the time.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's actually fairly sperratic and unpredictable. I don't remember where but there was a chart John green had that explained it perfectly and showed the the economy usually never gives a fuck about who is president at the time.

Which may well be true.

SO carry that with you to the booth, when you vote - because teh GOP are going to be promising you a better economy and a smaller government.

[Grave_n_idle]

The government cannot fully influence the economy. So it hard to say that a democrat president leads to a better economy.

Also the economy was far better under Reagan than Carter.

Only if you take Cato Institute opinion as fact.

Looking at the main metrics - public debt almost doubled under Reagan, the deficit [i[did[/i] double, before returning to a value slightly higher than before Reagan, federal government spending increased by about 10%, average federal revenue dropped - while spending increased - and yet Republicans claim it's Democrats that tax and spend.

Don't believe the Reagan hype. Some of us lived through it - some of us remember Reagan saying that the massive increase in homelessness was because people were 'choosing' to live on the streets. Some of us remember Reagan taking credit for the boom part of a boom-and-bust cycle.

[The Serbian Empire]

yeah republican economic strategy is actually dumb as fuck and all the "we're better with the economy" stuff is just an example of how if you keep repeating a lie long enough people will start believing it's true

While I believe that it's the nature of the fickle US election cycle and a couple very dramatic recessions in 1929 and 2008 that skew these results. In other words, the Democrats have been lucky to not be in power at the peak of a market when the bottom falls out.

[Grave_n_idle]

yeah republican economic strategy is actually dumb as fuck and all the "we're better with the economy" stuff is just an example of how if you keep repeating a lie long enough people will start believing it's true

While I believe that it's the nature of the fickle US election cycle and a couple very dramatic recessions in 1929 and 2008 that skew these results. In other words, the Democrats have been lucky to not be in power at the peak of a market when the bottom falls out.

Possibly. Then again, is it 'luck' if it happens every time?

Indeed, is it 'luck' if you're always the party left tidying up after the previous party's horrible term?

[The Serbian Empire]

While I believe that it's the nature of the fickle US election cycle and a couple very dramatic recessions in 1929 and 2008 that skew these results. In other words, the Democrats have been lucky to not be in power at the peak of a market when the bottom falls out.

Possibly. Then again, is it 'luck' if it happens every time?

Indeed, is it 'luck' if you're always the party left tidying up after the previous party's horrible term?

The recession severity is more like a wheel of misfortune. The Democrats have rarely seen a severe recession after a five to ten year bull run in the stock market as bull runs of that extent don't happen under Democrat policies without a GOP controlled Congress.

[BK117B2]

About two years ago, I went back and compared economic growth under different American governments. It was just a quick look at growth DURING the years those governments were in power, not an in-depth look at the obvious delays between changes in law and policy and any effect in economy.

The highest economic growth occurred when the Democrats controlled the executive branch but did NOT control the legislative branch. If I remember correctly, the very highest was with a split-legislative branch (Dems controlling one house, Repubs the other).

The lowest growths occurred during the times when either the Dems or Repubs controlled both the executive branch and both houses.

[The Serbian Empire]

About two years ago, I went back and compared economic growth under different American governments. It was just a quick look at growth DURING the years those governments were in power, not an in-depth look at the obvious delays between changes in law and policy and any effect in economy.

The highest economic growth occurred when the Democrats controlled the executive branch but did NOT control the legislative branch. If I remember correctly, the very highest was with a split-legislative branch (Dems controlling one house, Repubs the other).

The lowest growths occurred during the times when either the Dems or Repubs controlled both the executive branch and both houses.

Indeed, I was going to mention that at some point that the most rapid growths are seen in split branches with the executive having a different party than the legislative.

[New Werpland]

Yes! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy#Economic_growth_and_financial_crises

[United States Kingdom]

I am not really sure about this but didn't the Republican Party lower taxes, but increase government spending?

[Skaaneland Continued]

Cummunists against other communists?