Recession by November a blessing in disguise?

Discussion in 'Economics' started by turkeyneck, Jan 20, 2008.

  1. The GOP will hand it to Democrats on a silver platter? The economy tends to do better under the Democrats historically. Any thoughts?
  2. The economy does "well" with a Democratic president only when there's a Republican-controlled Congress. Dems don't ever mention that and Dems would would go crazy in office otherwise.
  3. Doesn't really matter who gets in office this time, rome is burning and nobody running is a fireman.
  4. You might want to check your facts there.

    DEM 1960 thru 1968: John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, both Dem. with a Democratic Congress.
    GDP 1960: 526 bil
    GDP 1968: 910 bil +73% growth in 8 years

    REP 2001 thru 2006: GW Bush, Rep., with a Rep. Congress.
    GDP 2001: 10128 bil
    GDP 2006: 13195 bil +30% growth in 6 years

    In the 1960's when the government was under full Democratic control, the economy grew at double the rate of when the Republicans controlled the government in 2001-06.

    This doesn't surprise me because Democratic spending tends to be "bottom up" (helping lower economic classes) while Republican spending tends to be "top down" (big tax cuts for the wealthy). "Bottom up" stimulates the economy more because the poor will always spend the stimulus, whereas of the tax money given to the wealthy only a small fraction trickles down.
  5. Who is President is now almost completely irrelevant to the economy. There is very little difference between the two parties economically at this point. Repubs set records for budgetary spending and implement a very costly Medicare drug platform. The dems want to drastically increase health care, maybe universal. Any correlation is just coincidence at this point...

  6. Kennedy = huge tax cuts with the intention of increasing economic growth. Both sides are aware of this, but like to withhold our allowance.

  7. Papa you hit it on the head.