Study shows economy consistently grows more under Dem president

[finnbow]

The U.S. economy has performed better when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we concentrate), the performance gap is both large and statistically significant ...

http://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/pa...on_Nov2013.pdf

Though the causes seem to be more luck than policy, it's also demonstrably true that the economy doesn't do better under the GOP, though they (and conventional wisdom) would have you believe otherwise.

[JCricket]

The argument I always get when I make that point:
The democratic presidency often follows a GOP presidency. The GOP fixed the economy and then it started to grow. After the dems mess it up again, it goes back into the hands of the GOP, where they fix it again and then the dems get credit again.........

and so on and so forth
They always have a reason and a way to blame us and take credit too. I think once in awhile, they are even correct, but not often.

[4-2-7]

I feel timing is a big factor.

Our tech boom was though the Clinton administration.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by JCricket

The argument I always get when I make that point:
The democratic presidency often follows a GOP presidency. The GOP fixed the economy and then it started to grow. After the dems mess it up again, it goes back into the hands of the GOP, where they fix it again and then the dems get credit again.........

and so on and so forth
They always have a reason and a way to blame us and take credit too. I think once in awhile, they are even correct, but not often.

Interestingly, those who make this argument also argue that the economy became "Obama's economy" immediately after he was elected in order to absolve Dubya for his contribution to the economic downturn. You can't have it both ways.

[BlueStreak]

I believe structural changes made under any administration, can affect the economy for decades into the future. That the true measure of whether or not policy worked lies in long term trends, "The New Deal", "The Great Society", "Trickle Down Economics", etc., ect.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Interestingly, those who make this argument also argue that the economy became "Obama's economy" immediately after he was elected in order to absolve Dubya for his contribution to the economic downturn. You can't have it both ways.

You noticed that too, Huh?

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Like Vietnam became Nixons?

A GREAT article Finn, thanks. It lost me in some of the methodology math so I assume it to be accurate. Seemed very fair.

It doesn't look at gas prices lowering, and think about it - if gas went below $2/gl bet we'd start booming soon? And I remember gas hitting $.89/gl in 97-98 which was very low even then.

Minor though I think. There is a great deal of excellent stuff in there that challenges our perceptions imo. This stood out:

"However, we next offer a simple piece of empirical analysis that suggests little difference between Democratic and Republican presidents in their discretionary fiscal reactions to economic activity."

Whoa.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Right. You've said it yourself, Pete; That Obama just seems to be using Bushs policies.

Dave

[Rex E.]

Originally Posted by JCricket

The argument I always get when I make that point:
The democratic presidency often follows a GOP presidency. The GOP fixed the economy and then it started to grow. After the dems mess it up again, it goes back into the hands of the GOP, where they fix it again and then the dems get credit again.........

and so on and so forth
They always have a reason and a way to blame us and take credit too. I think once in awhile, they are even correct, but not often.

All you have to do is share the old "Two Santa Claus" theory with them.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Rex E.

All you have to do is share the old "Two Santa Claus" theory with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_San...a_Claus_Theory