GOP Leaders Remind Voters the Economy Does Better Under Democrats

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hermit, Jul 21, 2010.

  1. [​IMG]

    On Meet the Press Sunday, born-again deficit virgins John Cornyn and Pete Sessions could not explain any steps they would take to stem the flow of red ink they helped produce. But this weekend, both Republican leaders were crystal clear about their nostalgia for the economic policies of George W. Bush. While Senator Cornyn gushed "President Bush’s stock is going up a lot" as people are looking back "with more fondness" on his administration, Rep. Sessions insisted "we need to go back to the exact same agenda that is empowering the free enterprise system rather than diminish it."

    That refrain is music to Democratic ears. After all, 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.

    The table above (via The Reaction) provides a horrifying snapshot of the scope of the national calamity under George W. Bush. The extent of the failure by Jeb's brother was particularly glaring when it came to employment and job creation.


    http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/gop-economy-does-better-under-dems
     
  2. Ricter

    Ricter

    I find the data in that table rather weak.
     
  3. it all about monetary and credit cycles.. 5 administrations is hardly an accurate sample size
     
  4. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VcJohfS4vTQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VcJohfS4vTQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

    Remember - Always get your numbers from neocon Think Tanks
     
  5. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Is it just me or is hermit getting desperate cheer leading for the democraps?
     
  6. Uh oh

    [​IMG]
     
  7. You're a total joke. Not only are these projections IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET, I even gave you a link to the budget and told you what table they're in.

    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2900278#post2900278

    Your continuing lies and spin only show how pathetic and desperate you are.


    [​IMG]

    <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2900281>
     
  8. You are an idiot, thanks for the public display though, I really appreciate it. Take a lesson in economics instead of relying on pretty pictures from warmongering neocons next time.

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036#_ftn14

    In constructing its baseline, Heritage partly assumes its own conclusion. The baseline projections developed by Heritage generally resemble CBPP’s, with one crucial difference. Heritage assumes that regular discretionary spending (other than war costs and stimulus funds) will grow at the same rate as the GDP over the next 10 years. In contrast, we assume that such appropriations will grow somewhat more slowly in the 10-year budget window because they will grow with inflation; this is the standard, widely accepted baseline assumption. Heritage’s decision to scrap normal baseline practices and assume higher levels of discretionary spending boosts such spending by more than a full percentage point of GDP by the end of the ten-year period and adds to interest costs as well. Heritage then uses this increased spending it assumes to buttress its claim that it is excessive spending growth that causes the deficit. In theory, policymakers might choose to increase discretionary spending to keep pace with GDP, but that is highly unlikely in these straitened times. And that is not how the Budget Enforcement Act, CBO, and the Office of Management and Budget define “current policy” when they make their baseline budget projections for the coming decade
     
    #10     Jul 21, 2010