A blog about Schools & Education, Religion & Faith, and Politics.
About dirtyshirt


Real Name:
Richard Bramer
Member Since:
June 27, 2006
Last Signed In:
November 23, 2009
Profile Views:
744
Blog Views:
7797
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
McCain Backers Testosterone Levels Dropped After Loss
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize: How Did That Happen?
Obama Song: The Sad, Sorry Truth
Conservatives Give - But Only to Their Churches
Getting All Wee Weed Up
Right Wing Poster Boy Gladney Needs Insurance Reform
Sitting Here Awaiting the Obama Presser Anxiously
A Tale of Two Kings: Jackson and Presley
Fourth of July Weekend Open Invite
What Does Coleman v. Franken Tell Us About Bush v. Gore?
Archives
November 08
December 08
January 09
February 09
March 09
April 09
May 09
June 09
July 09
August 09
September 09
October 09
November 09
The Truth is Complicated

 Sloganeering, platitiudes, 'gotcha' politicking - everyone recognizes it and everyone complains about it when it's aimed at them. It takes real dedication to avoid it. The way to proceed, I believe, is to avoid the desire to be humorous or cute in the midst of a serious political discussion. Avoid negative mental habits, fear or hate mongering and demonizing the opposition. Remember the truth in physics is simple; in politics it's complicated. If you can't name your views, the opposition's views and a third view, then you don't adequately understand the topic. The posts here will, at times, be lengthy but I will also support them with ample references, usually in the form of links, so that the reader will be left with more than just my position on a topic, but hopefully some information beyond that.

Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


dirtyshirt - > E Pluribus Unum -> Republican Presidents Bad for the Economy
Republican Presidents Bad for the Economy

 In a recent article meant to be one more effort at sifting through the rubble that is the Bush 43 legacy, the Washington Post published the economic records of the last eleven Presidents (all of them since Truman). (see http://www.washingtonpost.c...

While their take was that Bush 43 was the worst yet in terms of the three major economic indicators, (Job Growth, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Growth, and Per Captia Personal Disposable Income), I noticed an even bigger picture here.

Democrats often and long have lived with the myth from the right that "fiscal conservatism" has been a hallmark of the right and is the reason for our economic health. The "tax and spend" Democrat, it has been declared often and long, is the source of all economic woe.

While it is true that Bush 43 abandoned the fiscal traditions of his party and thus posted the worst numbers since measurements were first taken 70 years ago, the bigger story here is that the strength of the Republicans is actually their biggest weakness.

What follows is a summary of the financial performances of all of the last eleven presidents. The red rows are Republican presidents and the blue rows are the Democratic presidents. There is a white row that lists the average of all presidents, and at the bottom one more blue and one more red rows with averages for the two parties.

Democrats

Jobs Growth

Gross Domestic Product Growth

Per Capita Disposable Personal Income

Republicans

 

0.3

1.4

1.3

Bush 43

Clinton

2.4

3.6

2.3

 

 

0.6

1.9

0.1

Bush 42

 

2.1

3.4

2.7

Reagan

Carter

3.1

3.4

1.8

 

 

1.1

3.1

2.1

Ford

 

2.2

2.4

2.6

Nixon

Johnson

3.8

5.3

4.1

 

Kennedy

2.3

5.3

4.1

 

 

0.9

2.3

1.3

Eisenhower

Truman

2.2

1.8

0.8

 

AVG (Both)

1.909090909

3.081818182

2.109090909

AVG (Both)

Dem AVG

2.76

3.88

2.62

 

 

1.2

2.416666667

1.683333333

Repub AVG

 

Here is what you should notice about this summary: the Republicans are worse for the economy in all three measures and the Democrats are better than the average in all three measures.

It would seem, if it is a fact that Democrats have been pursuing 'tax and spend' policies, that these are better for the economy than 'fiscal conservatism' or more specifically, laissez-faire.

The data is consistent and overwhelming. It would be well for Republicans to remember this when we try to dig ourselves out of the Bush 43 recesssion and as the California legislature continues to try and pass a budget in our state.

Posted in the Politics interest group.
Topics: republican, presidents, jobs, GDP, Gross Domestic Product, Personal Disposable Income, democrats
posted by dirtyshirt on Monday, January 12, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 251 times
30 comments from 11 users

1

posted by antiextremism on Jan 12, 2009 at 10:55 AM

You gotta stop confusing alleged conservatives with facts DS. LOL

Bush -  got us more in debt than the previous 42 Presidents combined

Bush - biggest government in history

Bush - don't let the door hit ya on the way out

posted by TomW on Jan 12, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Anti: I think Bush fell short of that mark by just a little and especially if you look at inflation.  And calling him the worst President depends on where you sit and what you think his goals were.


posted by dirtyshirt on Jan 12, 2009 at 11:45 AM

TomW: I don't know what you're responding to... was there a deleted post or something?

I think calling Bush 43 the worst ever is rightly based on an utter lack of unfettered success in ANY area.

It is truly mind-numbing the depth and breadth of his failures.

The interesting thing about all this, IMO, is that it is opening the population's eyes to a lot of failures by the Republicans, such as is outlined with this data.

posted by randomfactor on Jan 12, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Bush - biggest government in history

With luck he'll be #2 soon, though.

posted by Lingtaowoo on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:03 PM

I hope there is a gauntlet of 'shoe throwers' for Bush when he leaves...don't tell me with the MILLIONS that's going to show that 'something' isn't already planned for the Savior of the universe--maybe it'll be waiting for him when he gets to Texas

posted by randomfactor on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Well, he got egged at his first inauguration...

posted by catpaw on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:19 PM

My first guess is Republicans subscribe in some form or other to the "trickle-down" policy. Tickle-down does not work, has never worked. Yet, it is an article of faith for conservatives. Deregulation. incentives, and tax breaks to corporations do not tickle down to middle class wage earners.

posted by randomfactor on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:30 PM

 Tickle-down does not work, has never work.

Down tickles me.  YMMV. 

(Actually, trickle-down works just fine for those at the top.)

posted by TSM on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:30 PM

It's not just the economy that does better under Democratic presidents.

The Democratic Dividend
The stock market prefers Democratic presidents to Republicans.

http://www.slate.com/id/207...

 

posted by dirtyshirt on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Thanks for the excellent link, TSM.

I wonder: now that we have the data on the economic front, what will the Republican Party claim as their raison d'-etre?

There is nothing left to excuse them for their numerous excesses and the choices that have divided this country.

posted by Lingtaowoo on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Trickle Down sounds like a bladder control problem--maybe thats where the Republicans got it from... 

posted by TSM on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:54 PM

I hope there is a gaunlet of 'shoe throwers' for Bush when he leaves

There will be.

Mostly from his former employees.

Word is they're chomping at the bit to write tell-all books about Bush's WH.

 

posted by adampayne on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Dirtyshirt, thanks for the grab from the Washington Post with this blog post! It is startling to see such a difference over this period of time. For honesty's sake, the lower scores in per capita personal disposable income for both Truman and Eisenhower should be tossed because price and and wage controls were in effect after World War II, which greatly impacted disposable earnings for all economic class groups. 

Thanks again.

posted by TSM on Jan 12, 2009 at 01:00 PM

Thanks for the excellent link, TSM

You're welcome. I always use it when the rightwingers start their nonsense about the stock market.

 

what will the Republican Party claim as their raison d'-etre

We already saw it at the Palin rallies during the election.

All they have left are the racists and dominionists as supporters. Both groups were soundly rejected by the mainstream.

 

posted by ALICEN on Jan 12, 2009 at 01:02 PM

What's a gaunlet? 

posted by randomfactor on Jan 12, 2009 at 01:10 PM

A small gaun. 

posted by VirgilAnderson on Jan 12, 2009 at 01:12 PM

 

 

Alicen,

A Gauntlet : http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...)

as opposed to running the gauntlethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

--virgil

 

posted by ALICEN on Jan 12, 2009 at 01:21 PM

Well, VirgilAnderson, thank you so much for clearing that up for me.  Here I thought there was another new word  -- gaunlet -- that just hadn't made it to my trusty dictionaries.  So it's not "gaunlet" after all.  I see now.  Thanks again.  I had thought it might be "gauntlet" but I surely did not want to be intuiting the message. 

posted by dirtyshirt on Jan 12, 2009 at 01:26 PM

Alicen: all that for a misspelling?

posted by antiextremism on Jan 12, 2009 at 01:27 PM

Here is the little gaun Random is talking about Alice. Must be French.

posted by ALICEN on Jan 12, 2009 at 01:29 PM

Oh, it's small gaun and not small gaunt.  I have a small gaun, but we keep a couple of large gauns on hand, too.  I know my Second Amendment rights, you see, and I think it's a good idea to keep gauns around.  That's to keep the gaunts away.  You know how those gaunts can get.  Ornery as all get-out. 

posted by Lingtaowoo on Jan 12, 2009 at 01:39 PM

Sorry about that---I made the necessary changes in spelling--didn't know I was getting graded....

posted by antiextremism on Jan 12, 2009 at 03:07 PM

Remember the old Superman series with George Reeves Alice?

I used to get a kick out of the fact that the bad guy would squeeze off a few rounds off Superman's chest, and he would just stand their with his arms on his hips until the guy ran outta ammo. But when the bad guy ran out of bullets, and threw his gun at Supe, he'd duck!

posted by dirtyshirt on Jan 12, 2009 at 03:16 PM

This is... odd?

Nice pic of Superman. The point of the post, however, is flying past me like a speeding bullet out of a gaun.

posted by nooneisabovethelaw on Jan 12, 2009 at 05:01 PM

And then, sadly and ironically, Reeves took his own life with a gun.

I think it's called "hijacking the thread"

posted by antiextremism on Jan 13, 2009 at 07:30 AM

Oh c'mon, when have I ever gone off on a wild tangent?

posted by TSM on Jan 13, 2009 at 08:28 AM

U.S. mortgage meltdown linked to 2005 bankruptcy law
http://www.kansascity.com/b... 

Thank you Republicans. Scumbags.

The 2005 bankruptcy bill was actually first drafted in 1997 and first introduced in 1998. The United States House of Representatives approved a version titled the "Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999" and the Senate approved a slightly different version in 2000.[9] After the differences in the bills were reconciled, Congress passed the "Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000". President Clinton, however, employed what is known as a "pocket veto" by waiting for the lame-duck congressional session to adjourn without signing the bill, a legislative maneuver tantamount to a veto.[10] [11]

In the years since 2000, the bill was introduced in each Congress, but was repeatedly shelved due to threats of a filibuster from its opponents and because of disagreements over various amendments, including one backed by Senate Democrats that would have made it harder for anti-abortion groups to discharge court fines related to felony convictions.[12]

The increase in Republican majorities in the Senate and House after the 2004 elections breathed new life into the bill, which was introduced in its current form by the chairman of the Finance Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.[13] The bill was supported by PresidentGeorge W. Bush. Tom DeLay also championed the controversial legislation. The bill passed by large margins, 302-126 in the House[14] and 74-25 in the Senate[15], and was signed into law by President Bush.

 

posted by randomfactor on Jan 13, 2009 at 09:30 AM

That "large margins" line is the key.  The reason the congress has had low performance polling in recent years is the Democrats' failure to *STOP* things like this, and the tendency for too many Democrats (lookin' at *YOU*, Biden) to be on the wrong side.   Sure, the Republicans in concert with the sociopath-in-chief could've pushed it through anyway.  But 74-25 should never have happened.

That said, the "mortgage meltdown" is a tiny part of the overall economic problem (which was actually caused by financial institutions kiting checks) but it still might not have been so bad if a provision in the bankruptcy bill had allowed bankruptcy court judges to rewrite mortgages as well as other debt contracts.  Looks like we'll get such a provision--too late to do any good.

posted by randomfactor on Jan 13, 2009 at 09:30 AM

Of course, the performance scores for Republicans in Congress are much lower than for Democrats--but that fact is rarely broken out in reporting.

posted by TSM on Jan 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM

the performance scores for Republicans in Congress are much lower than for Democrats--but that fact is rarely broken out in reporting.

Damn that "Liberal" media.

Congressional Democrat Approval Rating: 37%
Congressional Republican Approval Rating: 25%

http://pollingreport.com/co...
 

 

1

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

Advertisement