http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071929 OK, but what about Congress? OK, but that's just the stock market, not the economy as a whole. But Rush said.... Why might this be happening? The articles suggests that perhaps the tighter regulation you get with Dems increases investor confidence. (But Ayn Rand said....) Or perhaps the Dems' interest in putting money in the hands of consumers before investors is the key factor. Or, perhaps, the GOP's emphasis on defense spending is unproductive. heh heh heh I "knew" this stuff already, but it was nice to see it statistically correlated.
Hhmmm, if high taxes on the wealthy and increased regulation -- both embraced by the Democrats -- are the secret to economic prosperity, shouldn't Europe be booming?
If tax cuts -- implemented by the Republican pary last year -- are the secret to economic prosperity, shouldn't the U.S. be booming?
Colin, is it possible that Reeps are too far right, European socialists are too far left, and Dems are just right? Not to mention that your attempt to make me look at your half naked assistant didn't work, and I saw you switch ropes with your right hand. There are alot of economic plans that don't work, but talking about them doesn't have jacks*** to do with the objective evidence that the Dems are better for the economy than the Reeps.
> Hhmmm, if high taxes on the wealthy and > increased regulation are the secret to economic > prosperity, shouldn't Europe be booming? Maybe, just maybe, tax rates and regulation are not related to economic prosperity..
I would be interested to see what the economy was doing on average when each party was put in office. Whether its deserved or not Republicans have the reputation for many voters of fiscal responsiblity. They may be elected more often when the economy is bad. Just a guess.
> Well, then the parties' differing power would have > no effect. Which ain't the case Maybe, just maybe, there is more to running the government than adjusting taxes and regulations...
Ok, if you want an example: Without adjusting taxes or regulations, west coast shipping has ground to a halt.
Well, first off, tax cuts are just one factor in economic growth, with other important considerations including the regulatory environment, rule of law, and property rights. But to address the issue you raised, I refer you to Mickey Kaus's Oct. 4 column: http://politics.slate.msn.com/?id=2071802
No, that is impossible. OK, let's talk about it. First I think that the correlation is completely worthless. The fallacy here is that Republicans ostensibly stand for free markets, low regulation, low taxes etc., and therefore you can test the worth of that economic philosophy by studying the economic performance of Republican presidents. That doesn't work however, especially over a 100 year time frame. The GOP of today is not the GOP of Teddy Roosevelt. The only real Republican president I can think of who embodied its stated philosophy of low taxes and small government was Ronald Reagan, who did cut regulation and taxes. Nixon? He grew government, establishing OSHA. Bush Sr. raised taxes. Clinton meanwhile, a Democrat, although he raised marginal rates he also got NAFTA passed, saw capital gains rates cut, and helped cut the welfare state with the passage of welfare reform. The study also notes that Hoover take the blame for the Great Depression, while Dems get credit for the recovery. That may skew things just a bit. And while a host of reasons can be held responsible for the GD, I would note that Hoover raised taxes to over 60 percent while the Smoot-Hawley bill raised tariffs. So while you may be able to blame Republican presidents I think that the ideology still holds up to scrutiny. If anything we should damn Republicans for not practicing what they preach. As a further example of how meaningless lables can be, Stephen Moore of the ultra right-wing Club for Growth recently released his rankings of the country's governors for fiscal management. Democrat Roy Barnes got an A -- only one of two governors to get one, while Gov. Taft of Ohio and Sundquist of Tennessee, both Republicans, got an F's.
heh heh heh The GDP comparison only goes back to 1930. Was Nixon more or less liberal than Johnson and Kennedy? If you look at the entire Bush-Reagen era, what do you see, more liberalism than Clinton and Carter, or less? Plus, you've made the fundamental mistake of equating cutting (or raising) taxes on the rich with cutting taxes, period. Yeah, and Reep small gvt. philosophies contributed to the Depression. OK, so your position is, the Reep philosophy is better for growth than the Dem philosophy, even tho it hasn't been IRL.
Yes, but the S&P comparison goes back to 1900. Depends how you look at it. Kennedy slashed marginal tax rates. Johnson benefited from huge government spending for his social programs and the Vietnam war, which spurred the economy but also gave us inflation and a hell of a hangover. I wouldn't put Reagan together with Bush. Bush wasn't a Reagan republican and didn't believe in his brand of economics or philosophy towards government. Surely you remember that they were political rivals and Reagan put Bush on the ticket to strengthen party unity. Bush is the guy who coined the term "voodoo economics" and was basically a lifelong government employee. I would lump Bush in with Clinton, but probably not with Carter. I don't care how you slice it, a tax cut is a tax cut. Well, you can argue about the causes of the Depression until the cows come home. Perhaps needless to say though I disagree. My position is that low taxes, low regulation, a respect for property rights and rule of law, when put into practice, beats the leftist philosophy any day of the week in boosting economic growth.
Statistically correlated? This study is so flawed a high school drama major could blow holes in it. First off, it's no coincidence they took 1930 as the start year. That happened to be depression-era with a Republican President. Then, they followed that up with the huge expansion incurred as a result of World War II, under a Democratic President. Eisenhower was a moderate. Nixon made a plethora of economic mistakes like price controls. The first conservative Republican President in the post-1930 era is Ronald Reagan, who inherited a disastrous economy his first two years thanks to Jimmy Carter. Their biggest flaw, of course, is the starting point of 1930 and it was no mistake on their part. The first year of "decent data available" my foot. What a bunch of ass clowns who devised this study.