Economy Better Under Democrats Than Republicans?

I went to bed at 9pm and woke up super early.

Saw this nonsense on dailyKos via stumbleupon.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/14/16546/244/75/630475

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The really ridiculous thing about this (besides the tard-y comments on DailyKos— reminds me of the quote by Cicero “Only the fools are certain”) is that it sees the economic markets in a vacuum determined by 4 year presidential terms.

Here is why this is fallacious:


1. Most Presidents Presided Over An Opposing Senate

Presuming that the house and senate are the real cogs and wheels and the President is just the figurehead (as many argue/believe) than let’s take a look at a few Presidents.

Nixon and Clinton let’s say since they stick out on the graph above.

Richard Nixon, President 1969-1974

90th Congress (1967-1969)

Majority Party: Democrat (64 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (36 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

—————————————————————————————————-

91st Congress (1969-1971)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

—————————————————————————————————-

92nd Congress (1971-1973)

Majority Party: Democrat (54 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

—————————————————————————————————-

93rd Congress (1973-1975)

Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (42 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

Bill Clinton, President, 1993-2001

102nd Congress (1991-1993)

Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

—————————————————————————————————-

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).

—————————————————————————————————-

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.

—————————————————————————————————-

105th Congress (1997-1999)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

—————————————————————————————————-

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: As the 106th Congress began, the division was 55 Republican seats and 45 Democratic seats, but this changed to 54-45 on July 13, 1999 when Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire switched from the Republican party to Independent status. On November 1, 1999, Smith announced his return to the Republican party, making the division once more 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Following the death of Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA) on July 18, 2000, the balance shifted again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when the governor appointed Zell Miller, a Democrat, to fill the vacancy.

—————————————————————————————————-

If memory serves me, the real economic growth started in the mid to late 1990s. Is this proof that the Republican Congress caused this growth?

Well i’d believe that before I believed that one man (Bill Clinton) caused it.

But i’m not a simpleton idiot like those DailyKos readers. Remember the new high tech industry that exploded in the 1990′s?

Oh yeah. That.

2. Moreover, the economy— much like personal finances— does not exist in a suspended period of time.

You cannot retreat to a 1998 economy or portfolio while living in 1999.

What else happened because of the explosion of new jobs, revenue and wealth that the high tech industries brought?

Overweight and overhyped markets that led to a terrible crash.

So you cannot look at the 90′s boom without looking at the crash in 99-00. These two time periods do not exist in two seperate vacuums.

I personally think that Conservative principles are better for the economy, so I vote Republican and support the party.

Do I think they create the economy? No. People and companies and products and services do.

No politician or government agency has ever gotten me a job, showed me how to invest my money or GIVEN me any free money.

When it comes down to it, I think Democrats are more apt to believe that their party is the cause of prosperity because it’s a very core belief that the party will eventually bring them personal financial prosperity. I think it’s something that they’ve been promising for decades and haven’t delivered on (thank god) but many still truly believe it.

In that sense, the whole “who’s better for the economy” argument is one-sided. I don’t think most conservatives are dim or simplistic enough to want to take credit for an entire economy. Like most adults they probably believe that economy– like almost everything else– starts in your own home.

I’ve pinged Kos. I doubt he’ll publish it.

Random Posts

Loading…


6 Comments

on “Economy Better Under Democrats Than Republicans?
6 Comments on “Economy Better Under Democrats Than Republicans?
  1. Pingback: Universal Health Care - Page 7 - AllDeaf.com

  2. Pingback: Universal Health Care - Page 8 - AllDeaf.com

  3. 8 marvelous years of abject profligacy from the right and now the exciting prospect 4 years of the same from the left..

    Rate This Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. I just took a rough look at deficit, another interesting measure of fiscal responsibility. Increases in deficit are not correlated well with House or Senate composition, but they are with President. In fact, the rule is that deficits go up under Republican presidents and down under Democrats. The last exception for Republicans was Nixon, and the last exception for Democrats was Roosevelt. Looks like President Obama is certain to break this trend — but like Roosevelt, he has inherited an unprecidented threat to national viability.

    Rate This Comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>