.. Posted March 15, 2008 Report Share Posted March 15, 2008 Just looking at $$, it makes no sense. I have always done better personally under Dem admins, but that's anecdotal. But then there was the Bush whinge of the White House receiving little credit for the nation's "strong economic performance" because of public discontent about the Iraq war. 55555555555 After I finished laughing, I decided to look up the numbers. The question is, which presidents, exactly, would Bush's record of growth be the envy of? This research led me to this article by Dean Baker, who has collected the data on growth rates since Kennedy. Here it is, average annual GDP growth since 1960: Kennedy-Johnson -- 5.2% Clinton -- 3.6% Reagan -- 3.4% Carter -- 3.4% Nixon-Ford -- 2.7% Bush II --2.6% Bush I --1.9% As you can see, the only recent president who's presided over a more anemic economy than George W. Bush is...George H.W Bush. And it may indeed be the case, as Abramovitz implies, the Bush 43's economic record is the envy of Bush 41. But that's not "most," just one. And it's really not clear why Bush's growth numbers would be the envy of all these other presidents who saw more rapid expansion under their leadership. And even more interesting is that Dems outpeformed Reps, save for Raygun who only tied Carter! Funny how numbers kill the propaganda that the GOP spews. But this doesn't surprise me at all. I'm actually surprised that Reagan apparently ekes out a lead over Carter. Back in the 2004 election, I was fond of repeating the sound bite that every Democratic administration since Roosevelt beats every Republican administration in job growth. I had thought economic growth was the same, but apparently not. But wait, you say, this is meaningless as it is not adjusted for inflation. Funny enough, I came across this link to historical (real, inflation-adjusted) GDP data and popped it into Excel. Unless I did something wrong, here is how it comes out, in terms of average annual GDP growth over the term of their presidencies (i.e., like up until Kennedy was shot and Nixon quit): JFK 5.14% LBJ 4.80% Clinton 3.57% Carter 3.44% Reagan 3.41% Ford 3.40% Nixon 2.64% Bush II 2.63% Ike 2.33% Bush I 1.92% (Bush II's numbers are up to the 3rd Q of 2006, so they may be overly optimistic) LOL, Dems win again. And Carter beats Raygun, too. To those who doubt that presidents matter: what are the odds that job growth or economic growth would be almost universally better in administrations run by one party just by chance? Granted, Congress matters too, sometimes more than Presidents. It would be interesting to create a model that took as its two independent variables the ruling congressional party and the party of the president, and assigned weights to these variables as factors in economic growth.Then create other models for job growth, stock market growth, etc. Of course, no measured relationship is static in political economy and the weights would not tell us what is going to happen in the future...but if you were to make a bet, you shouldn't bet against those trends unless you have good reason to believe something fundamental has changed about the respective economic policies. Democrats consistently miss opportunities to sell their overall economic superiority. It's amazing how little this overwhelming fact has sunk in to the popular consciousness... Cheers, SD -- excitedly waiting for Yammy & Hugh to say "yo momma!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AF16 Posted March 15, 2008 Report Share Posted March 15, 2008 Could it be natural fluctuation? Lets say that people are inclined to vote republican when the times are good and vote Democrat when times are though. It would mean the Democrats comes in when the shit is up the creek and can ride the turnaround , while the republicans gets the power when times are good and get to ride the turnaround to worse times. Just throwing something out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rchapstick Posted March 15, 2008 Report Share Posted March 15, 2008 SD You keep forgetting that Dubs has "saved" us from gay marriage. Gets my vote every time. Praise Jesus! p.s. Yo Momma's Momma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Never mind Chappy, you can still live in sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 There are likely 100,000 KBR and 100,000 Halaburton employees among others that have made more money under Bush than at any other point in their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted March 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Could it be natural fluctuation? Lets say that people are inclined to vote republican when the times are good and vote Democrat when times are though. It would mean the Democrats comes in when the shit is up the creek and can ride the turnaround , while the republicans gets the power when times are good and get to ride the turnaround to worse times. I covered the natural fluctuation bit. I said "what are the odds that job growth or economic growth would be almost universally better in administrations run by one party just by chance?" I think that the odds are astronomical. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Your latter bit just further proves my point IMHO. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Figures are figures and figures are manipulative. Under Bush II, money coming in has decreased and money going out has increased for me. Worst administration in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AF16 Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Could it be natural fluctuation? Lets say that people are inclined to vote republican when the times are good and vote Democrat when times are though. It would mean the Democrats comes in when the shit is up the creek and can ride the turnaround ' date=' while the republicans gets the power when times are good and get to ride the turnaround to worse times.[/quote']I covered the natural fluctuation bit. I said "what are the odds that job growth or economic growth would be almost universally better in administrations run by one party just by chance?" I think that the odds are astronomical. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Your latter bit just further proves my point IMHO. Cheers, SD I don't think you got my drift. The odds are not astronomical _ if _ there is a pattern. If the pattern is that when economics is down the slump you vote democrats who wants a bigger safety net, and when the economics are good you don't give a rats ass about the safety net you just want to keep your paycheck for your self. That means that the democrats, trough no fault of their own always take the helm at the low point and get a free ride to the top, while the Republicans take the helm at the hight point and through no fault of their own gets to be there when the downside come. I'll leave Bush II out of it because he is actually so incompetent that he can bring on an economic slump all by him self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted March 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Ahhh, I get your point now. Could be ... Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Could it be natural fluctuation? Lets say that people are inclined to vote republican when the times are good and vote Democrat when times are though. It would mean the Democrats comes in when the shit is up the creek and can ride the turnaround ' date=' while the republicans gets the power when times are good and get to ride the turnaround to worse times.[/quote']I covered the natural fluctuation bit. I said "what are the odds that job growth or economic growth would be almost universally better in administrations run by one party just by chance?" I think that the odds are astronomical. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Your latter bit just further proves my point IMHO. Cheers, SD I don't think you got my drift. The odds are not astronomical _ if _ there is a pattern. If the pattern is that when economics is down the slump you vote democrats who wants a bigger safety net, and when the economics are good you don't give a rats ass about the safety net you just want to keep your paycheck for your self. That means that the democrats, trough no fault of their own always take the helm at the low point and get a free ride to the top, while the Republicans take the helm at the hight point and through no fault of their own gets to be there when the downside come. I'll leave Bush II out of it because he is actually so incompetent that he can bring on an economic slump all by him self. So it's just been bad luck over and over and over and over again...maybe they should hire astrologers, works for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.