Does the economy do better under Democrates than Republicans?

I read in either Time or Newsweek that many economists agree (well the numbers show anyway) that the US economy performs better and the stock market runs smoother under Democratic Presidents than Republican. There are less poor and jobs are created.

Is it true?
Anyone ever read that?

Michael

Also of note Bush job approval drops to and all time new low of just barely 19% approval 77% disapproval. Wow, that is f*cking seriously low.

Oh and on economy: Overall, 14% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy, 79% disapprove, and 7% are undecided.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ironic but true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Republicans are for seperating classes rather than merging them together, they basically want defined social classes. Democrats spend less time caring for the rich and try to help the middle and the lower classes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Complete bullshit. It's the Democrats that engage in class warfare and try to seperate Americans into poor vs rich, black vs white, hispanic vs black. Republicsns believe in economic freedom, which benefits everyone. Democrats want to turn us into a nation of beggers dependent upon the government for our every need.

Regarding the OP question, let's look at specifics. The economy did well under Clinton for a variety of reasons. We had the "peace dividend. We had gas prices at an all time low, efficiencies created by the internet and other high tech innovations were coming on line, and Clinton's socialist tendencies were blocked by the Republican congress. Carter, on the other hand, was an unmitigated disaster.

On the Republican side we have Reagan, who turned around the economy from Carter's "stagflation" to an economic boom while simultaneously kicking the Soviet's ass. Then we had Bush number one, so-so economy. Then Bush 2, the economy has been growing thru most of his presidency despite the bursting of the tech bubble and the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever.

 

If you can divorce yourself from the rethoric and look at the facts. You will find Clinton was more of a Republican from and economic point of view that either Bush I or Bush II. And maybe even more than Regan as he was the only one to balance the budget. If he was a liberal like the Republicans like to claim he would have spent the money from the peace dividend. Funny, those very same Republicans that were for cashing in on the peace dividend are now blaming Clinton for cashing in on the peace dividend.

 

FRom where I sit Bush isn't managing anythng; he's just reacting to circumsatances

 

Epic fail. Democrats are the class warriors in the U.S. That was Edwards whole campaign, and we saw how well it worked for him.

The economy rocked along well enough throughout the 90's because a very active Republican congress lowered taxes, and defeated the early attempts by the Clinton's to socialize the economy. After Bill realized he couldn't go toe-to-toe with the Contract on America crowd, we basically had a stalemate, which benefited the business environment, and subsequently led to steady growth, low inflation, low unemployment and large investments thanks to the capital gains reduction.

It really is best to have a balance, with the Executive and Legislative controlled by different parties. And that's exactly what will happen again if Clinton is elected. You'll see a big Republican backlash, and they will capture more seats in the mid-term elections.

 

the only bullshit i hear is from you the republicans want to create an aristocratic wealthy class and a poor class to support them it is the dems who care about everyones economic well being

 

Right. That's what we talk about at our meetings. How did you know?

LOL They care so much they're itching to jack up my taxes. That'll really benefit my economic well being. I can't wait.

 

if the higher taxes go toward improving the american infastructure that does benifit you

 

The last Republican President to responsibly handle any aspect of the US economy was Nixon.

Reagan's administration was a disaster, but its dumber excesses were tempered by a less cooperative Congress (there were moderate Republicans in Congress then, as well as less rightwing Democrats). W&Co are Reagan again, right down to the same familiar faces and similar rhetoric, but this time with no Congressional tempering - so (for example, just one) instead of just a limited part of the financial system (the S&L's) going bubble up about 500 billion worth, we have a worldwide financial crisis worth trillions.

The economy of the lower classes of the US economy has not grown much, if at all, in thirty years. This is a return to the economic structure of the late 1920s, and the forerunner of another genuine mess.

It's not class warfare only when the lower class wins, you know.

 

I hear that phrase used a lot. History is not kind to Presidents who inherit the disastrous economic policies of the previous administration. For whatever reason, Reagan incorrectly gets saddle with causing a recession, when in fact the recession was in full swing when he took office in '81. By mid '83 the real growth rate of the gdp began to grow again and the subsequent years that followed saw some of the highest quarterly increases in real GDP in U.S. history.

Hardly a disaster.

 

Nah, they only care about making people dependent on them for everything from their food to housing to medical care.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Democrat versus Republican isn't really a very useful comparison. Liberal versus conservative would be more fruitful. And let's see a cite for your claiims, which I highly doubt the veracity of at this pont.

 

You're kidding, right? Do you even live here? Liberals vote for Democrats who LOVE entitlements. They are the kings of entitlements. Who supports government housing? Not conservatives. And free healthcare? That's another liberal cause. Just look at Obama and Hillary seeing how far they can get their noses up the liberals' @sses with promises of free medical care.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When the Democrats ran Congress for over 40 years and they could pass anything because they had the votes with a Democratic President as well why didn't they then establish a health care system? Why didn't they enforce illegal immigration laws that were on the books? Pass more severe penalties to insure that banks and mortgage companies can't make bad or questionable loans on overinflated house prices? There are many instances that the public is talking about changes but when the Democrats had their chances they never really changed anything except to help themselves as well as their lobbyists. The same can also be stated for the Republicans as well but they didn't have COMPLETE control of the Congress like the Democrats did for 40 years.

 

There were a couple of attempts, beginning with Truman in '46. Paul Krugman argues - and has some numbers to back him - that the Southern Dems blocked them because it would have meant integrating the hospitals and such.

The southern Dems switched parties, for national elections anyway, beginning after Lyndon Johnson's term: Nixon introduced the "southern strategy", which involved bringing the white bigots into the Republican Party. Reagan ran with that, using just the right code words and such - his "welfare queens" were never trailer trash, driving their Cadillacs in the small towns of the rural south.

Since then the Republicans have been blocking health care because it means levying taxes on rich people, as well as giving health care to lazy black people who don't deserve it.

As the true costs of the default system become more obvious, even some Republicans are at least falling silent on the matter - exept in campaigns, where the "no new taxes" business still sounds good to the 27% core.

 

I am not sure they are for it, but the results of their action are the same.

There is nothing wrong with class warfare. Actually that is the reason for the existence of parties, except in the USA, where both parties carry for the same class...

 

"going bubble up"

cool phrase - did you coin it?

 

lay off the Kool aid