These 5 charts prove that the economy does better under Democratic presidents

While economic growth alone is not sufficient for middle class and working class income growth, it is certainly necessary. The most systematic investigation of how parties affect economic growth was performed by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. Their results are unequivocal:

“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.”


Source:

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/thes...ic_presidents/

Oh, you've got to be kidding us or you are incredibly stupid. Those charts are so bad that you can prove anything by them. No coordinating dates, not start/end cycle, no names.....there's nothing there for anyone other than an idiot to believe. The only thing that article is is a headline for morons to believe. I know where to put you now; some where below Munchkin and above Assup.

While economic growth alone is not sufficient for middle class and working class income growth, it is certainly necessary. The most systematic investigation of how parties affect economic growth was performed by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. Their results are unequivocal:

“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.”


Source:

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/thes...ic_presidents/ Originally Posted by OverEasy

There's also a strong correlation between per capita sales of sour cream and motorcycle accidents, the death rate from falling out of a wheelchair and potato chip sales, and egg sales and deaths from auto accidents. Really.

The correlations you cite are a strong function of the period you pick. I note that several in your article use 1946 as a starting point. During the period from 1946 to 1968, there were three Democrat presidents and one Republican president. Growth during this period, the rebound after World War II, was stronger than during the period afterwards. This had very little to do with who was president.

How about Congress? Congress controls the purse strings and arguably has more control over the economy than the President. And the Federal Reserve has more control than either.

One president can execute disastrous policies that make the next guy look bad. A classic example is Jimmy Carter and his Democrat Congress. GDP growth was high during the first two or three years of his administration, then tanked so that Reagan looks bad during the time Paul Volcker (Fed chairman under Reagan) was jacking up short term interest rates to double digits and cooling the economy. (Democrats might have a similar argument in favor of Obama and against George W. Bush, although I'd argue they were just as responsible as Republicans in allowing the conditions to exist that created the 2008/2009 recession.)

I'd argue that Carter was the exception to what I said above -- the economy sucked by the end of his term in large part because of his policies and a Democrat congress and dovish Fed chairmen that went along with him.

In determining what works and what doesn't, it makes much, much more sense to look at countries instead of who's president, and policies instead of parties. Kick out the petro-states and tiny countries, and you'll see the most prosperous in the world are Singapore, Hong Kong, the United States, Switzerland and Ireland. What do these have in common? Relatively free markets, smaller government, rule of law, lower overall taxation, and, maybe with the exception of the USA, regulation that's efficient and not burdensome.

Oh, you've got to be kidding us or you are incredibly stupid. Those charts are so bad that you can prove anything by them. No coordinating dates, not start/end cycle, no names.....there's nothing there for anyone other than an idiot to believe. The only thing that article is is a headline for morons to believe. I know where to put you now; some where below Munchkin and above Assup. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Trump is on record admitting the economy tends to do better under Democrats.

Trump is on record admitting the economy tends to do better under Democrats. Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

So do you think it does better under Democrats? Are you voting for the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green for Congress and state senate and house? Inquiring minds want to know.

So do you think it does better under Democrats? Are you voting for the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green for Congress and state senate and house? Inquiring minds want to know. Originally Posted by Tiny

hes made it clear that he is voting for hillary "crooked" clinton.

“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.”

Source:

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/thes...ic_presidents/ Originally Posted by OverEasy

Oh, you've got to be kidding us or you are incredibly stupid. Those charts are so bad that you can prove anything by them. No coordinating dates, not start/end cycle, no names.....there's nothing there for anyone other than an idiot to believe. The only thing that article is is a headline for morons to believe. I know where to put you now; some where below Munchkin and above Assup. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

undereasy thinks hes found a smoking gun, only that what hes got is squirt gun.

Salon is a liberal rag that ponies up talking points favorable to democrats.

Trump is on record admitting the economy tends to do better under Democrats. Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

So are you saying that Trump is a genius?

So are you saying that Trump is a genius? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

He doesn't know wtf he's saying.

While economic growth alone is not sufficient for middle class and working class income growth, it is certainly necessary. The most systematic investigation of how parties affect economic growth was performed by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. Their results are unequivocal:

“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.”


Source:

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/thes...ic_presidents/ Originally Posted by OverEasy