Republican and Democratic Presidents' Impacts on the Economy

[finnbow]

I pretty much knew that the conventional wisdom of Republicans being better for the economy was false, but I didn't realize just how false it was.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhart...vote-democrat/

[Rajoo]

I remember reading this before last year's general election.

Which party is best for the economy? It's not even close
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ot-even-close#

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I pretty much knew that the conventional wisdom of Republicans being better for the economy was false, but I didn't realize just how false it was.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhart...vote-democrat/

Yeah, and nobody escaped from the joint while I worked there. And I never even had to draw my weapon.

I suppose I should be ranked as one of the greatest prison guards ever!!!

On a more serious note, I've known for some time that the economy generally does better under a Democratic president, for whatever the reasons.

But to see Carter ranked as high as he is tends to cause me to have some doubt in the authors statistical analysis. Besides, I always figured that the POTUS was basically along for the ride. Might get lucky, might not.

Chas

[mpholland]

I might have to get that book and read it. I can believe the general economic notion, but I would be interested in knowing the dates and timelines used. The economy has always been cyclical, and the causes and effects often are started before a person gets into office or a policy may have an affect from a term quite a while after a person has left office. Many of these policies may stem from a Republican dominated House and/or Senate while a Democrat is incumbent. I am not saying they are wrong, and it would make a good read, but I would have to study it myself before I took it for gospel.

[mpholland]

On a side note, it would be nice to see a Democrat cycle that lets the people keep some of their money instead of having to tax the hell out of us to pay the Republican spending.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by mpholland

On a side note, it would be nice to see a Democrat cycle that lets the people keep some of their money instead of having to tax the hell out of us to pay the Republican spending.

Well, that wagon's done rolled out of town.

Chas

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by mpholland

On a side note, it would be nice to see a Democrat cycle that lets the people keep some of their money instead of having to tax the hell out of us to pay the Republican spending.

Somebody has to pay for the corruption endemic in Republican circles. Who else but the hardworking democrats can do it?

[icenine]

Since the New Deal both parties have been pretty similar in policy if not in tone. The recent radicalization of the GOP has really sort of destroyed the system as it were.

I expect more Democratic Presidents. Christie may win the nomination however he is going to be the third moderate nominated by a GOP that is starting to hate moderates.
I think Hillary with a Latino on her ticket could flip Texas if Christie is the opponent.
Hillary may have a harder time in the Northeast but Christie may be a hard sell for some women voters.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by mpholland

On a side note, it would be nice to see a Democrat cycle that lets the people keep some of their money instead of having to tax the hell out of us to pay the Republican spending.

Note that the article said Obama spent the least, the defecit we have now is due to two wars on the credit card, tax cuts for the rich, and interest on the debt the GOP ran up. Still we are the least taxed industrial nation.

Has it never occured to anyone that spending, like population, will rise hand in hand?

[piece-itpete]

Interesting conclusions, too bad we have no idea how they arrived at that...

And also interestingly I can't find much bio info on those guys.

Pete