The Republican Record

Discussing all things political in NW Arkansas and beyond.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

The Republican Record

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
A little letter I am sending around:

*****************
As a Canadian who recently became a citizen, I am, along with my eighteen year old son, very much looking forward to voting for the very first time. Like many citizens, I am interested in supporting the party with the best track record on the economy, job creation, small government and fiscal responsibility. Setting aside all of the political chatter and what each side claims about their record I thought I would look into this. Here is what I found.

Which party is better for the stock market? Slate magazine checked the numbers (in 2002) and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500 compared with an 8% return from the Republicans. Stock Trader's Almanac examined Dow appreciation and found similar numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent). [1]

Just weeks ago the New York Times examined how an investment of $10,000 would have grown under each party during this time. They found that a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. 500 would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only. If we exclude Herbert Hoover's disastrous depression numbers the growth rises to $51,211. The same investment made during Democratic presidents only, would have grown to $300,671.[2]

Does having a Republican Congress help the market? No, the record shows that a Democratic controlled Senate provided a higher return and a Democratic controlled House also enjoyed a higher return. [3]

How about growth of GDP? American Gross Domestic Product has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans. Since 1930, the annual mean growth in real GDP under Republican Presidents has been 1.8 percent; under Democrats, 5.1 percent. [4]

Which party has had the largest annual deficits? Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion. [5]

How about job creation? James Carville put it this way: "In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…” [6]

How about poverty? With the exception of president Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since 1961, it fell. [7]

Which party is better at “small government” and keeping federal spending down? Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. So it’s no surprise to find Republican presidents have increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats. And this is not even counting the second term of G.W. Bush. [8]

There are many more categories to consider, inflation, unemployment, income gain. I found they all trend in favor of the Democrats and like the above it’s usually not even close. And the trend holds up even if lag factors are figured in.

It’s curious how effective false advertising has been for the Republican party. Contrary to the story they have sold nearly half the country, America has done very well under Democratic presidents, and in fact far better than under Republican presidents.

Darrel [...]
Fayetteville, Arkansas

[1] Slate magazine, http://slate.msn.com/id/2071929/
[2] Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants,
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008 ... CHART.html
[3] Slate magazine, http://slate.msn.com/id/2071929/
[4] George Mason’s University, History News Network, http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html
[5] ibid
[6] “We're Right, They're Wrong,” (1996) James Carville, pg. 13
[7] Census poverty data, see: http://democraticshortlist.com/compare.htm
[8] Michael Kinsley, Washington post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Apr1.html

Bonus: Republican Governors associated with lower growth:

viewtopic.php?p=23882#p23882
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: The Republican Record

Post by L.Wood »

OUTSTANDING! I've sent it around to several active in the Democratic Party.

Hope you get it published.

.
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: The Republican Record

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
Bartcop posted my letter today:

http://www.bartcop.com/voting-darrel.htm

Shoot, I should have got him to plug our website.

D.
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: The Republican Record

Post by L.Wood »

The website will get plugs. RIght now I think everyone should send this to every blogger they know. I have a hunch it
may catch on. During these times of low-information rants Dar's letter really stands out.

.
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: The Republican Record

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
I also sent it to Daily Kos and Crooksandliars. I sent it to an acquaintance and she said she had already received a copy from her husband, a newspaper editor. I think it's going viral.

D.
User avatar
Betsy
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:02 am

Re: The Republican Record

Post by Betsy »

The guest editorial in today's NWA Times is by a British expatriate who is voting for the first time in this election.
James

Re: The Republican Record

Post by James »

JAMES
"Excellent points. One thing that really bothers me about the GOP is that the GOP loves labeling Democrats 'Tax and Spenders.' I guess that makes the GOP 'barrow and spenders.' Why the Democrats never call them on that bothers me - It's a simple concept that negative spending is still a kind of spending. Making unfunded tax cuts, such as W's insane tax cuts for the top 5% of national incomes while simulatiously fighting two wars and increasing spending, drove the budget deficit to record levels (reset annually, just like in the Olympics) - now totaling nearly $5 trillion since Bush took office. And of course negative spending costs more than conventional spending, since we have to pay interest on the debt. Interest currently costs the cost 9% of our total annual budget - if this were a household income, we'd be watching those idiotic Tax Relief USA infomercials hoping for somebody to hand us a brain since we so obviously lack common sense.

But, that's one major gripe against our electorate - to paraphrase Winston Churchill the best argument against democracy is a ten minute conversation with the average voter. The trouble here is that low information voters don't seem to be able to understand that there is no difference between microeconomics and macro - Uncle Sam's budget works the exact same way that my household budget does, it's just got a whole lot more zero's in it.

If you told Joe the Voter (not to be confused with the right-wing zealot from Ohio) "the Republicans have cut taxes and not cut spending, and have been charging the difference off on the national credit card amazing an enourmous debt, so enourmous it boggles the mind, so that your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to pay for our debts for decades to come. They've given us an illusion of prosperity for twenty of the last twenty-eight years, mortagaged at the expense of future generations. Common sense says that just isn't sustainable or sensible." You'd think this would be a no-brainer, yet the GOP seems to have low-information voting idiots stills eating out of their hands - distracted by non-issues such as gay marraige, abortion, etc.

The amazing thing to me, dispite two wars (one totally unjustified - the rational having been false), $10 trillion in debt (over 90% accumulated while on the GOP's watch), a shrinking middle class, rising inflation, outright assaults on our Constitution, legalized torture, deregulation driving the economy off the rails, failed responses to natural disasters, alienation from our closest allies due to bad diplomacy, failed trade agreements, failures to protect American jobs, failure to develop a comprehensive energy policy nearly thirty years after we clearly needed one, failure to reform healthcare (and interference with DNC efforts to do so) etc etc - we still have a nation full of morons who continue to vote for these irresponsible incompetent warmongering clowns, and we still have a few folks who won't vote for Barack Obama, generally over trivial reasons (his media was mean to poor Hillary...).

Fortunately, I think reason will finally prevail next Tuesday, but this is going to be much closer than it should be."

James (son of Dr. Cherry), [posted by Dar, with permission]
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: The Republican Record

Post by L.Wood »

.
"Excellent points. One thing that really bothers me about the GOP is that the GOP loves labeling Democrats 'Tax and Spenders.' I guess that makes the GOP 'barrow and spenders.'
Almost but no cigar. The GAY OLD PERVs are actually "Borrow and Concentrate."

Check the record. Deficits rise when Gay Old Pervs take office. Income distribution becomes more concentrated in upper income levels...lower level incomes decrease.

Guess who buys most of the T-Bills (debt) when Rs run our asses into unbelievable debt? Bankers and investors.
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
User avatar
Betsy
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:02 am

Re: The Republican Record

Post by Betsy »

this might interest you:

In today's Morning News (11/3/08) the Op/Ed section put out a call for guest columnists:

"Calling All Columnists"

Writer's Block is a regular publication of the Morning News and offers readers a chance to write a guest column for the newspaper. Readers may submit columns for consideration by the paper's Editorial Board for publication. Submissions which meet the following guidelines are welcome:

-- columns must deal with timely topics of local, regional, state and national interest. Columns about political candidates or personal disputes will not be published.

-- columns should not exceed 1,000 words. Submissions must be typed and double-spaced.

-- columns may be submitted electronically.

-- writers must submit columns under their own names.

If selected, their names will be published with the column. Submissions must include a telephone number, mailing address and e-0mail address for verification purposes. That information will not be published.

-- The Morning News reserves the right to edit for content, grammar and accuracy.

-- The Morning News reserves the right to reject any submission ablished (sic) items from each contributor.

(note from betsy: apparently the typist screwed up that last sentence)

--Columns may be mailed to "Writer's Block" in care of the Editorial Board, The Morning News, PO Box 7, Springdale AR 72764, or emailed to news@nwaonline.net ATT: Writer's Block.
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: The Republican Record

Post by L.Wood »

Yes that is a good service in the Morning News.

George Patterson, Md. and member of our letter writers group recently had a column there. Bill Orton had one a few months ago.
Henry Griffith has one submitted.

Don't expect a quick turnaround. But I think Darrel's letter is outstanding in its simplicity and directness. Dr Patterson's letter
required two months to get published. But, according to one person I know at TMN the column is widely read.

Go for it Dar and thank you Betsy. Keep in mind the paper's owner, Warren Stephens, is a hard RW billionaire.

.
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: The Republican Record

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
An acquaintance of a friend sent along this reply to my letter. I'll respond in the next post.

****
1) Stock market. Four of the five top Presidents for stock market growth are Republicans. The only democrat in the top 5 is Clinton. All that growth happened during the years republicans ran Congress (500 point on the DOW the first two years, 7000 points the last six...feel free to look that up). Those exact policies were free trade, balanced budget, and a tax decrease. All republican issues, and none of those are supported by Obama or the Dems today). So, looking at YOUR data, I see the stock market as better under Republicans.

2) Economic growth. First the citation used includes Hoover, which I think is a stretch. As I pointed out I believe Clinton's last six years, based on enacted policies, were Republican Congress policies not Presidential preference policies. Under those circumstances (using your data) the Republicans, since 1968 would come out better. Again I would point out what POLICIES caused economic growth. The only democratic growth that is above average in the last 40 years (again, by your citations) comes during the Clinton years. As for GDP growth I see it better off under Republican policies.

3) Deficits. Based upon the data cited in the OP there is no way to tell. They used real dollars, not adjusted for inflation. That clearly is NOT the way to measure this metric. During WWII (under a Dem) the deficit was 44% of GDP. Clearly MUCH bigger than it is right now as a percentage, but a small amount in dollars as compared to right now. Since they don't analyze the numbers correctly it is impossible to say (without more research) which party is better on this (and we would have to figure out how far back to go).

4) Job creation. "James Carville put it this way: "In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…”" James Carville must have gone to public school, because he's horrible at math. If you have 10 random events (coin tosses, President party affiliations), there is a 1 in 32, still not bad, but the data is skewed. That statement was made in 1996. It would have included Truman years and years that included the draft during a world war, and the draft during Kennedy and Johnson for Viet Nam. I can only assume (since there is no data cited) that he is including draft data in his "jobs" number. I think this counts as a "null" since the numbers cannot be verified.

5) Poverty. I see how they are analyzing the numbers, and I challenge it. There were minute drops under several Democratic Presidents and minute increases under Republicans. But if you look at the AVERAGE rate you will see a serious difference. GWB is slightly better than Clinton, who is slightly better than Reagan. But the HUGE difference is under Kennedy, where the poverty rate is double that of almost any other President since him. If you look back as far as this data goes (Kennedy) and ask "who had the highest poverty?" it would be Kennedy, then Johnson, with GWB coming in the lowest. I would also suggest that under FDR, or Truman the poverty would skyrocket. Based on this analysis I would give the Republicans the better score.

6) Spending. This is where I believe the President has less influence than Congress. I will add one additional data point here;

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_aw ... %20GDP.GIF

If you look at the chart you will see that the ONLY significant time since 1977 that the congress slowed down their spending was when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. But, I like the way YOUR data puts it. "The party with the best record of serving Republican economic values is the Democrats. It isn't even close." Unfortunately Kinsley uses the "apples to oranges" comparison of numbers in vastly different years (decades) to make his point, and thus the numbers are not usable. In this case I find the point a draw, since the Republican Congress went astray in the last six years of its existence.

So, where does this leave us? The six points of the article and how I look at the EXACT same data (with some addition for #6).

1) stock market. False
2) GDP growth. False
3)larger deficits. Cant Tell
4) job creation. Cant Tell
5) poverty. False
6) Federal spending. Draw

So, as I said earlier, the entire premiss revolves around those six things are better under Democratic Presidents. Looking at the SAME data, I come to completely different conclusions. Thus I declare your premiss denied (QED).
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: The Republican Record

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
In reply to the above rebuttal to my letter (top of thread). I don't know this person but since they are a republican apologist I'll use the name tag "REP."

****
REP
1) Stock market. Four of the five top Presidents for stock market growth are Republicans. The only democrat in the top 5 is Clinton.

DAR
That's nice, but you forgot to bring along any evidence whatsoever for your assertion. I have provided multiple lines of evidence showing otherwise and have others I didn't include due to space. You provide a mere assertion.

REP
All that growth happened during the years republicans ran Congress (500 point on the DOW the first two years, 7000 points the last six...feel free to look that up).

DAR
Why? It's not relevant to my thesis which is that these seven or so variables had better results under Democratic Presidents. What happened under the various Congressional rule is an interesting question and one worth exploring but it does not address my claim (except my #3 which refutes your unsupported claim).


REP
Those exact policies were free trade, balanced budget, and a tax decrease. All republican issues, and none of those are supported by Obama or the Dems today). So, looking at YOUR data, I see the stock market as better under Republicans.

DAR
I am not interested in what you can "see" but in what you can show, and your #1 shows nothing because it contains nothing beyond mere assertion.

REP
2) Economic growth. First the citation used includes Hoover, which I think is a stretch.

DAR
If you read my citation carefully you would know that the numbers for "investment growth" (not "economic growth") were also calculated with Hoover removed and the Demo's still performed 6x better.


REP
As I pointed out I believe Clinton's last six years, based on enacted policies, were Republican Congress policies not Presidential preference policies.

DAR
You may wish to believe that but it does not address my thesis which is an examination of a comparison of presidents.

REP
Under those circumstances (using your data) the Republicans, since 1968 would come out better.

DAR
Show this. Since you don't even state my #2 correctly I am not confident you have looked at this one carefully.

REP
Again I would point out what POLICIES caused economic growth. The only democratic growth that is above average in the last 40 years (again, by your citations) comes during the Clinton years. As for GDP growth I see it better off under Republican policies.

DAR
In my #4 reference I have provided evidence showing GDP growth has been better Democratic Presidents. This is an objective claim that can be measured and shown to be true or false. Again, the claim was, with regard to Presidents:

"American Gross Domestic Product has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans."

The data shows this is clearly true but rather than admit this you want to give credit to some undefined and unmeasurable category of "republican policies." This does not address my claim and curiously you don't even attempt to support your claim. And it's not clear you understood the claim of my #2. Perhaps read it again. It refers specifically to "investment growth."

REP
3) Deficits. Based upon the data cited in the OP there is no way to tell. They used real dollars, not adjusted for inflation.

DAR
Inflation happens in all presidential terms. The rate goes up, the rate goes down. I have provided evidence showing that the average annual republican deficit is four times larger than under Democratic Presidents. The idea that this difference can be made up by a difference in inflation, is laughable.

REP
That clearly is NOT the way to measure this metric.

DAR
Show this.

REP
During WWII (under a Dem) the deficit was 44% of GDP. Clearly MUCH bigger than it is right now as a percentage, but a small amount in dollars as compared to right now.

DAR
Then the large deficits of that time period should have really hurt the average annual deficit numbers for the Democrats. Curiously you want special consideration for Hoover but want Democrats to be credited with the cost of WWII! And that's okay, because Reagan/Bush spent so much (and Clinton paid down the debt) the republicans still end up the far bigger spenders. To avoid dealing with this bad result the constant dollar measurement provides you appeal to inflation. When that doesn't work you want to calculate the deficit relative to GDP. I remember when Republicans used to hate that trick.

This may be useful here:

http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-perce ... -years.png

REP
4) Job creation. "James Carville put it this way: "In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…”" James Carville must have gone to public school, because he's horrible at math. If you have 10 random events (coin tosses, President party affiliations), there is a 1 in 32, still not bad, but the data is skewed.

DAR
If you are going to insult someone's math abilities and where they may have attended school it's best to have your numbers straight. You don't. Simply put, Carville is right, you're wrong (note the title of his book!). Perhaps your private school tuition could have been better spent elsewhere. If "you have 10 random events" or "coin tosses" as you say, this gives you odds of one in 252. Five gives you 1 in 32.
But this is incidental and a distraction from my point which is in fact true, the presidents with the top job growth numbers have been Democrats.


REP
That statement was made in 1996. It would have included Truman years and years that included the draft during a world war, and the draft during Kennedy and Johnson for Viet Nam. I can only assume (since there is no data cited) that he is including draft data in his "jobs" number. I think this counts as a "null" since the numbers cannot be verified.

DAR
The Nobel Prize winning Krugman does a comparison similar to Carville's except it is from July. Perhaps this is a chart from his book. Demo's hold the top four spots. GW Bush, is of course last.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... talking-2/

This is better:

"The Simple Arithmetic of Employment: Job Growth Is Always Higher When a Democrat Is In The White House"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fid ... 24510.html

An excerpt:

"Remember the last time the number of jobs grew more rapidly under an Republican president? John McCain can't. Because he wasn't born yet. Over the past 75 years, one trend has held constant. Rapid job growth only occurs when there's a Democrat in The White House.

No Republican President -- not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not Reagan, not Bush -- has ever created more jobs, or created jobs at a faster rate, than his Democratic predecessor. It's not even close. The contrast has been especially stark over the past 16 years, when 23.1 million jobs were created under Clinton and less than 5 million were created under Bush. On average, job growth under Democrats is more than twice that under Republicans.

Whatever benchmark you use, the difference is dramatic. Since Truman was elected in 1948, 53.2 million new jobs were created during the 24 years when Democrats held The White House, and 38.3 million were created during the 36 years of Republican administrations."

--Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, seasonally adjusted non-farm payrolls.

DAR
This fellow examines the last 13 presidents. He also examines the record during Congress. Democratic Presidents hold the top six slots.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/08 ... idents-do/

REP
5) Poverty. I see how they are analyzing the numbers, and I challenge it.

DAR
Finally, a challenge!

REP
There were minute drops under several Democratic Presidents and minute increases under Republicans.

DAR
Well you gave up that challenge rather quick. I'll take it.


REP
But if you look at the AVERAGE rate you will see a serious difference. GWB is slightly better than Clinton, who is slightly better than Reagan. But the HUGE difference is under Kennedy, where the poverty rate is double that of almost any other President since him. If you look back as far as this data goes (Kennedy) and ask "who had the highest poverty?" it would be Kennedy, then Johnson, with GWB coming in the lowest. I would also suggest that under FDR, or Truman the poverty would skyrocket. Based on this analysis I would give the Republicans the better score.

DAR
Of course you would. But none of this refutes or even addresses my claim, which is specifically:

"With the exception of president Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since 1961, it fell." Address the claim, don't change it.

REP
6) Spending. This is where I believe the President has less influence than Congress.

DAR
That's nice. Perhaps in my next letter I will examine the record of Congress. This letter is addressing the record of US Presidents.

REP
I will add one additional data point here;

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_aw ... %20GDP.GIF

If you look at the chart you will see that the ONLY significant time since 1977 that the congress slowed down their spending was when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994.

DAR
Reagan didn't sign those spending bills? Amazing. Did Reagan ever submit a balanced budget?

Let's ask leftwinger Joe Scarborough (just kidding, he's a rightwing conservative Republican) to do some comparisons. This from his 2004 book:

"The White House's own numbers best illustrate how
shamefully the Party of Reagan has misspent our tax
dollars over the last ten years. When comparing its
fiscal record to that of the Clinton administration,
George W. Bush's White House loses in a landslide."
-- Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day, pg. 27

"Using the Bush White House's own numbers, the federal
government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate
of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under
George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the
federal government has grown at a staggering rate of
10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that... George
Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill." --Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29


REP
<Snip> In this case I find the point a draw, since the Republican Congress went astray in the last six years of its existence.

DAR
The point "is a draw" because the Republicans did what I claim they do? Again, amazing.

Here is a very interesting chart:

Image

And he notes: "Interestingly, since Johnson, every Democrat has increased revenue more than spending. However in the opposite case, under all five Republican Presidents, since Nixon, government revenue has decreased and spending has increased."

I must keep this link, he makes my case over and over:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

REP
So, where does this leave us? The six points of the article and how I look at the EXACT same data (with some addition for #6).

1) stock market. False
2) GDP growth. False
3) larger deficits. Cant Tell
4) job creation. Cant Tell

DAR
You forgot to provide a drop of evidence for #1. You completely changed the subject on #2. As I have shown the Republican deficits are twice as large in constant dollars without even considering Bush II (#3). Krugman supports my job creation claim so we actually "can tell" and, unlike your near complete lack of references I provide two more and have several other sources supporting this claim as well.

REP
5) poverty. False

DAR
You already conceded #5 is true. Your words: "There were minute drops under several Democratic Presidents and minute increases under Republicans."

REP
6) Federal spending. Draw

DAR
I provide data showing Republican spending is almost double, you provide... "the Republican Congress went astray." Well yes they did, and that is the point in question isn't it? Where I went to public school, that wasn't a draw. Maybe your private schools operated differently?

Another useful chart on federal spending:

Image

ibid

REP
So, as I said earlier, the entire premiss revolves around those six things are better under Democratic Presidents. Looking at the SAME data, I come to completely different conclusions. Thus I declare your premiss denied (QED).

DAR
That's a little premature to say the least. When you did address the actual premise, you didn't support your conclusions. Almost without exception you provide no references supporting your claims and most of the time you stray from engaging my actual claim. Maybe you will try again. I hope so. And do remember the premise which is that these categories are better under Democratic presidents. Appeals to Congressional records would be interesting (see my footnote #3 which addresses this) but not relevant to this actual premise.

regards,

Darrel
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: The Republican Record

Post by L.Wood »

.
Interestingly, since Johnson, every Democrat has increased revenue more than spending.
That's why so many corporations lined up with Obama. It was simply amazing to see them do that until I looked at the records.

Sure some expect payoffs but the big payoff is a recovering economy and rising tide floats all boats.

So glad to see how a "factual" conservative argues or asserts their bullshit and thanks for taking the time to take it apart,
line by line.
.
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: The Republican Record

Post by L.Wood »

.

Government Spending Myths, in one easy Graph.

This shows you the effects of federal policy whether it's a dollar of tax cuts or a dollar of spending and the outcome it produces.


.......................... Image


Larry, your image went bye bye so I fixed it. --Dar
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: The Republican Record

Post by L.Wood »

.

Just to let you know about the impact of the above, Moody.com graph...today a group of us representing MoveOn.org delivered a petition to Rep. John Boozman's office in
Lowell, AR, which contained several hundred local signatures supporting BHO's Green Initiatives. After presenting the petition I asked to present a graph for the Congressman's
consideration. I had copied the above graph showing the effect on our economy of federal fiscal policy. So, now the graph has gone from these pages into the office of our 3rd
District Congressman.

Thanks for the great resource Sav and DAR and all other Fay. Freethinkers who have a hand in making this a very fine forum.

.
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
MoserToTheExtreme.com

Re: The Republican Record

Post by MoserToTheExtreme.com »

As a new member of the 'blogosphere' I am having a blast reading the various points of view and the banter (civil as it may or may not be) that exists as a result of it. I recently started a blog at http://www.mosertotheextreme.com and had the privilege of Darrel finding it and commenting on some of my blogs. As a result of our exchanges, I found my way to this forum and took the time to read the initial post and each and every following response. Enjoyable reading!

A thought: Say I take all that was stated in the initial article as fact, which I have no reason not to, is there any possibility of a residual factor? For instance: Democrat gets in office and enacts all the values of his party, then a Republican follows and begins enacting all of his party's values. In either case, they obviously can't have an immediate impact, and likewise, their effects don't disappear immediately upon their exit. So, in reference to the subjects mentioned, is it possible that during each party's time in office, the stated facts may have been more directly affected by the previous party's actions?
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: The Republican Record

Post by Dardedar »

MoserToTheExtreme.com wrote: So, in reference to the subjects mentioned, is it possible that during each party's time in office, the stated facts may have been more directly affected by the previous party's actions?
DAR
Yes Michael, and as I mention in my original letter above (top of the thread):

"There are many more categories to consider, inflation, unemployment, income gain. I found they all trend in favor of the Democrats and like the above it’s usually not even close. And the trend holds up even if lag factors are figured in."

If you check out some of my footnotes, for some of these categories lag factors were taken into consideration. The trend holds up.

D.
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: The Republican Record

Post by L.Wood »

.
So, in reference to the subjects mentioned, is it possible that during each party's time in office, the stated facts may have been more directly affected by the previous party's actions?
Moser, you never swim in the same river twice.

I suggest you give one small but relevant example of what you wish to demonstrate or discover.

e.g.:
Fact: Faith-Based Initiatives were introduced during Clinton's Administration with the idea that existing community organizations would be good custodians of public assistance.

Fact: George Bush expanded FBIs and directed Federal monies to churches which taught Abstinence-Only sex education and which supported George Bush's re election.
Additionally, Bush allowed federal monies to be directed to organizations which practiced religious discrimination when hiring.
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: The Republican Record

Post by Dardedar »

More data on job creation:

***
Is it true that Democrats have been considerably more effective at creating private-sector jobs?

"[By]turning to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site, where visitors can customize data tables on national employment statistics... we used the month-by-month totals for nonfarm employment in the United States.

Here are the average annual percentage increases in jobs for each postwar president:

Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year

If you exclude Obama, Democrats averaged 3.03 percent annual job growth, compared to 1.07 percent for Republicans -- a nearly 3-to-1 advantage.

If you include Obama, the Democrats still held a significant edge. With Obama included, the Democrats averaged 2.03 annual job growth, compared to the same 1.07 for Republicans -- about twice as high as the GOP.

And... the U.S. working-age population actually grew slightly faster under Republican presidents, making the Democratic accomplishment even more impressive.

So the statistics are clear: Democratic presidents have been more successful at creating jobs."

Politifact

See also this chart from the Wall Street Journal:

"Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939.

Because the size of the economy and labor force varies, we also calculate in percentage terms how much the total payroll count expanded under each president. The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records."

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

Bonus. Deficit chart:

Image
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: The Republican Record

Post by Dardedar »

Interesting data and links:

GOP Leaders Remind Voters the Economy Does Better Under Democrats

Image

"[A] recent Time poll showed Americans not only prefer President Obama over Bush by a twenty-point margin, but blame Dubya for the economic disaster 61% to 27%. Last week's Washington Post-ABC survey revealed a staggering 73% have some or no confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decisions for the country's future. And by a 42% to 34% margin, the public still trusts Democrats to do a better job handling the economy. But the larger truth about the free enterprise system trumpeted by Pete Sessions is this:
When it comes to GDP, employment, the stock market or just about any other measure of the health of American capitalism, the historical record is clear: the economy almost always does better under Democrats.
The verdict on President Bush's reign of ruin was pronounced even before Barack Obama took the oath of office. January 9, 2009, the Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, "Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record." Just days after the Washington Post documented that George W. Bush presided over the worst eight-year economic performance in the modern American presidency, the New York Times on January 24 featured an analysis ("Economic Setbacks That Define the Bush Years") comparing presidential performance going back to Eisenhower. As the Times showed, George W. Bush, the first MBA president, was a historic failure when it came to expanding GDP, producing jobs and fueling stock market growth.

But it was the release of a Census Bureau report in September ("Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008") which in 67 pages laid bare the economic devastation and human toll during the Bush presidency. As The Atlantic ("Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy") rightly noted, "It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride":
On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
Jon Perr at crooksandliars
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
Post Reply