APP - Democrats Are Better For The Economy

M

midcan5

Member
It is a simple fact, republicans are worse for the economy and for America's workers than democrats. On every single item, democratic presidents outperform republican presidents:

'Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants' By Tommy Mccall

"Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html

And more.

GDP growth- Since WWII the economy has grown a shocking 70% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Median income- The median income has grown 160% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Income of the wealthy- The income of the person at the 95th percentile line has grown 11% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Income of the poor- The income of the person at the 20th percentile line has grown 513% faster under Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1

Unemployment- Since WWII unemployment has risen by 0.36% per year under Republicans and fallen by 0.22% under Democrats.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

Deficits- Since WWII Democratic presidents have reduced the deficit by an average of $7.8 billion/year, and Republicans have increased the deficit by an average of $28 billion/year. http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

The stock market- The S&P 500 has grown on average at 8.9% per year under Democratic presidents, but only 0.4% under Republican presidents. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html
 
:rofl:

Tell that to all the people standing in line for unemployment & welfare checks.

I believe my state (CA) is still hovering around 12.6% unemployment rate.

Do you also believe in the tooth fairy and unicorns?
 
webbway said:
Tell that to all the people standing in line for unemployment & welfare checks.
Click to expand...

Obama is also doing better than Reagan. Curiously a better performance by a democrat gets criticism while Reagan is worshiped.

Unemployment figures:

Begin September 1981:
7.6...7.9...8.3...8.5...8.6...8.9...9.0...9.3...9. 4...9.6...9.8...9.8...10.1...10.4...10.8...10.8... 10.4...10.4...10.3...10.2...10.1...10.1...9.4...9. 5

Beginning January 2009:
7.7...8.2...8.6...8.9...9.4...9.5...9.4...9.7...9. 8...10.1...10...10...9.7...9.7...9.7...

"Reagan was in office 9 months before the recession started.

Obama took office in the middle of a complete meltdown.

Reagan had unemployment exceeding 10% for 10 months. Obama 3 months.

From similar starting points to ending points Reagan took 24 months to Obama's 15 months."

This information was posted on another politics site but it demonstrated in the links above.

So will the conservatives now start praising Obama or will they wonder if their ideas about Reagan are all wrong? Which is it?
 
Midcan's figures for Obama are measuring the percent of folks who are still looking for employment or on the unemployment insurance dole. The real rate is far higher. 10% unemployment is now "the new normal". As usual, he blasts Reagan and worships the Democrat.
 
Kodo's for posting the stats mid. I've been saying the stock market is better under dems and you posted the proof.
 
Last edited:
It's widely known outside the rightwing backwaters of the interwebs, and empirically demonstrated over and over.


Despite 'market friendly' Republican policies, stocks rise more and volatility dips under Democrats.

January 22, 2004: 2:11 PM EST
By Alexandra Twin, CNN/Money Staff Writer


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Plenty of Wall Streeters are Republicans. The party's policies are seen as better for big business and therefore better for the stock market.

"Democrats are seen as being pro-regulatory, and more willing to enact laws against Wall Street and laws against CEOs," said Don Luskin, chief investment officer at Trend Macrolytics.

But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

On average, value-weighted portfolios returned 9 percent more under Democrats than Republicans during the 72 year period, while equal-weighted portfolios returned 16 percent more under Democrats.

The study examined a variety of reasons that might have caused this discrepancy. One particularly interesting finding was that markets seemed to show more surprise in reaction to economic or stock-related decisions made by Democratic administrations.

"It thus seems that the difference in realized returns can be attributed to the market being systematically positively surprised by Democratic policies," the professors wrote.

According to their study, the difference in stock returns becomes gradually obvious through the course of a presidency, rather than in the period immediately surrounding an election.
Volatility down under Dems, too

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/
Click to expand...
.

The Democratic Dividend

The stock market prefers Democratic presidents to Republicans.

Democrats, it turns out, are much better for the stock market than Republicans. Slate ran the numbers and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return. In 2000, the Stock Trader's Almanac, which slices and dices Wall Street performance figures like baseball stats, came up with nearly the same numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent) by measuring Dow price appreciation. (Most of the 20th century's bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of '29, the early '70s oil shock, the '87 correction, and the current stall occurred under GOP presidents.)

According to almanac editor Jeffrey Hirsch, the presidential party figures are among the most significant he's found. If the stock market were random, we'd expect such a result only one-quarter of the time. "I don't know why people are convinced Republicans are good for the stock market," Hirsch says.

Nor does having a Republican Congress help the market. A Democratic Senate showed returns of 10.5 percent (versus 9.4 percent for a GOP upper chamber), and a Democratic House returned 10.9 percent versus 8.1 percent for the Republicans.

When both houses of Congress opposed the president, the return was a stellar 12.9 percent. Libertarians may celebrate this as proof that the market likes gridlock and government inaction. But the market likes steamrollers nearly as much: The S&P performs almost as well—returning 11.8 percent—when the presidency and both houses are held by the same party. The only situation Mr. Market dislikes is what we have now: one house for each party. Those years have a -0.9 percent return.

Republicans are no doubt muttering that that's just the stock market, not the whole economy. But real GDP growth follows the same pattern. Since 1930 (the first year decent data is available), GDP growth was 5.4 percent for Democratic presidents and 1.6 percent for Republicans.
http://www.slate.com/?id=2071929
Click to expand...

.
 
Southern Man said:
Midcan's figures for Obama are measuring the percent of folks who are still looking for employment or on the unemployment insurance dole. The real rate is far higher. 10% unemployment is now "the new normal". As usual, he blasts Reagan and worships the Democrat.
Click to expand...
Yes but unlike you Midcan has backed his claim up with numbers and independently verified sources, where as you are just giving an unvalidated and wholly subjective opinion.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes but unlike you Midcan has backed his claim up with numbers and independently verified sources, where as you are just giving an unvalidated and wholly subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

however, there is some reason to question the Times insistence that the Standard and Poor Index demonstrates a difference between Republican and Democrat presidents when the actual S&P Index chart looks like this?....

_gspc
 
Why don't one of you smart guys figure it out using Democrat and Republican controlled Congresses....
Presidents are irrelevant to the economy for the most part, Congress is not.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you aren't going to get away with that in front of anyone actually alive during the Carter administration.....we all know when the problems started and who ended them......
Click to expand...
Obviously you don't. Carter inherited a period of stagflation for which his predecessor Nixon was largely responsible. It was policy implemented under the Carter administration by the Fed via Paul Volkler, which Reagan also sustained (to his credit) that ended the period of stagflation.

Try sticking to facts and actual history instead of Reagan mythologies.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Obviously you don't. Carter inherited a period of stagflation for which his predecessor Nixon was largely responsible. It was policy implemented under the Carter administration by the Fed via Paul Volkler, which Reagan also sustained (to his credit) that ended the period of stagflation.

Try sticking to facts and actual history instead of Reagan mythologies.
Click to expand...

If you think the problem of Carter's era was stagflation you either didn't experience it or you've chosen to ignore reality......double digit interest rates and inflation are not "stagnation"......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you aren't going to get away with that in front of anyone actually alive during the Carter administration.....we all know when the problems started and who ended them......
Click to expand...

We do and if you are honest it was during Nixon Ford. Stagflation, you remember that don't you. I see Mott answered already.

"On October 6, 1973, the Yom Kippur War began when Egypt and Syria attacked Israel from two sides.
The US airlifted supplies to Israel, prompting OPEC to levy an oil embargo against Israel's allies that lasted until March 18, 1974." The primary reason the high interest rates imo.

Carter may not have handled this with the best choices but he certainly did not lead the nation down the road to bankruptcy Reagan and Bush Jr have caused.
 
Last edited:
a major flaw with this and most of the OP is it focuses basically only on presidents....ignoring who runs congress

also, many of the stats are big IF stats....IF this continued for 8 years....IF this....
 
Republicans are no doubt muttering that that's just the stock market, not the whole economy. But real GDP growth follows the same pattern. Since 1930 (the first year decent data is available), GDP growth was 5.4 percent for Democratic presidents and 1.6 percent for Republicans.
http://www.slate.com/?id=2071929
Click to expand...

Yeah, and picking 1930 has nothing at all to do with finding the lowest starting point possible. This data is worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top