Where do you think future political campaign contributions come from? Whoever is in power has to divert public money to friends. That way they can tap them later to put enough advertising out there to sway your vote. Plus, your buddies will always take care of you later personally out of gratitude for filling their pockets.
There actually have been studies that look at exactly what you are trying to say. Unfortunately for your reasoning, no matter what way the studies are done, looking at a year lag, or more, the democratic administrations are always on top. Here's a couple more fun facts for you: 1. Under democratic administrations, all income levels rise. In fact, the lower income groups rise the fastest of all. Under republicans, only the top groups rise. "Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year. Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich â the top 1% and the top .1% â the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.) In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php 2. A fascinating tidbit is that the last year of every republican administration (but probably ending with this one), the last year is much better than the three previous. In every case, the Fed has altered its monetary policy to favor growth. The funny thing is, this only happens in the last year of a republican administration, never a democratic administration. Fed bias, perhaps? "It shows economic performance during election years and it's a mirror image of the top chart: Republicans produce better overall performance, and they produce especially stupendous performance for the well off. Democrats not only produce poor overall performance, they produce disastrous performance for the well off, who actually have negative income growth. In other words, voters aren't necessarily ignoring economic issues in favor of cultural issues. Rather, Republicans produce great economic growth for all income classes in election years, and that's all that voters remember. They really are voting their pocketbooks. Bartels doesn't essay an explanation for this. Do Republican presidents deliberately try to time economic growth spurts â and are Democratic presidents too lame to do the same? Is it just luck? Or is the difference somehow inherent in the different ways that Democrats and Republicans approach the economy (with Democrats typically focusing on employment and Republicans on inflation)? At this point, your guess is as good as anyone's. Bottom line: if you're well off, vote for Republicans. But if you make less than $150,000 a year, Republicans are your friends only one year in four. Caveat emptor." same article as above.
Uh, no. Jeremy Siegel and many others have written about this. Stocks have their best performance by far in states of gridlock...which probably supports libertarianism (i.e, very few new laws or regulations) more than anything else. I'd be less worried about Obama if Republicans controlled Congress. But if Obama's horrendous tax proposals pass through a Democratic Congress, katy bar the door... The other thing these studies don't mention is the "lag factor." They assume a President gets full credit (or blame) the first day he's in office. But what about policies enacted the prior 4-8 years, which may be affecting the economy much more than recent legislation? Clinton's 1998 anti-drilling legislation comes to mind.
I am always amazed by the huge percent of the population that does not understand inflation caused by deficit spending (i.e., senseless and endless wars) is a indirect tax. It really makes no difference whether the government takes five buck from you as a direct tax, or makes the ten bucks in your pocket only buy half as much, does it? You can buy one hell of a lot of social welfare, education, and medical care, for what one ridiculous war costs! And when you get through you have something of lasting value -- something other than destroyed assets and burned out hardware. When you go up a thousand in the market and then watch your profit become a thousand dollar loss, you didn't lose a thousand, you lose two thousand. It is the same with war. The cost is double what anyone thinks, because you lose what the war costs plus an equivalent amount of investment in infrastructure that you did not make because the funds for that were diverted to war.
Exactly..... tax cuts mean more when the dollar is strong. The purchasing power of the tax cuts are reduced when the dollar is losing it's value. Atleast the liberals say that they will tax the rich 5% and spend it on social programs and they do it. The conservatives say that they'll cut government spending, balance budgets and give tax cuts to all. They do not do the 2 of the 3 things that they say will do. I'm still trying to figure out what the conservatives are trying to conserve.
Yeah, everything good that has happened in this country is because of Regan. The 90s bull market is because of Regan, except for that mini-crash in 98 which was Clinton's fault. The industrial revolution of the early 1900s was because of Regan too, the markets knew at that time that Regan will be the president in 80 years. Regarding the anti-drilling legislation, I can't understand why Bush did not go forward with it when the Republicans had a majority in both the congress and senate. It's because they did not want to, it is more profitable for them to make it an election issue.
If we are better off during the Democrat's administration then why did Bill Clinton sold the Port O' Call of Los Angeles to the Chinese, at the same time started a mass exodus of jobs to China? It's the fact that only one out of 4 of the last presidents is a democrat, the very last one was a lame duck pres Jimmy Carter. The very hopeful one for the liberal was controversial and inexperience, can you really trust the democrats to lead this country. Don't you have any better choice than Obama? sg20
FINALLY - someone who actually gets it. The left wing Dem-controlled media has been perpetuating the lie that all of these economic woes are W's fault. (I'm not saying W is a good Prez). Well, let's look at the fact - The Democrats have now had control of Congress for the last (approx) 1.5 years - including the Senate Banking Committee. Is your life any better or cheaper now? How's your 401K doing? Can you get a mortgage? How's your homes value doing? Over the last 18 months, the Dems have tragically mishandled the housing crisis, banking liquidity and traded 5 new tax hikes hidden in the so called Housing Rescue Bill in lieu of any type of substantive program to actually stabilize the market. It's a farce. Anyone notice the 8 straight months of unemployment increase? Get it straight - no sitting President has any significant impact on the economy - the type of macroeconomics that the President can even effect by the Executive Branch takes years or even decades to play out. Barney Frank and his crew of Dem idiots on Senate Banking have fucked us for the next 20 years. They just don't understand math. And of course the rich get richer - and you know what? They almost always work harder, longer and with more tenacity.
Is it better or worse that China has a booming economy? Is it better to be one rich nation, or several rich nations - raising the levels of all? Are you a conservative capitalist - looking to isolate your wealth, funnel all growth to yourself by any means possible? Can you safely live in an environment where you are perceived as abusive, corrupt and unfair without increasing your spending on protecting yourself? There is something to be said for existing in balance with the rest of the environment - it's called sustainability. Otherwise you define "you and them" - "good or evil", get ready for ever stronger conflict, incur more complexity encumbering everyone and it's plain outright stupid - the only thing conservative capitalism surely entails is that it will bring around its own end.