Under which party do the

[AUman43 5]

Since 1968 (Nixon Through G.W. Bush)

Since 1988 (The Two Bushes Compared with Clinton)

If the rich are, surprisingly, so much better off under Democratic presidents, what about the rest of us? Other economic statistics, which are available over a longer period of time (1930-2003; 34 years of Republican administrations; 40 years of Democratic administrations), tell basically the same story for the economy as a whole.

Over this period of roughly the last three-quarters of a century, real disposable personal income for all Americans has grown nearly twice as fast under Democrats as under Republicans. (The annual mean growth in real disposable personal income under Republicans has been 2.3 percent; under Democrats, 4.3 percent.)

Republicans have traditionally identified themselves as the party of fiscal discipline, but over the last three-quarters of a century, Republican administrations have increased federal debt at a rate more than four times faster than have Democrats. (This statistic, moreover, includes a decade and a half of combating the Depression and fighting World War II under Democrats and does not include this year’s record Republican deficit of more than $400 billion.) A comparison of the presidencies of the two Bushes and Clinton in the area of fiscal responsibility is especially dramatic. The average annual deficit under Clinton was $40 billion. Under the Bushes (again, not yet including this year’s $400-plus billion deficit), the federal government has gone more deeply into debt at the rate of $256.3 billion per year, meaning that deficit spending has been more than six times worse under the Bushes than Clinton--and that difference grows greater by the day.

President Bush's claims that his economic policies are working are absurd, considering that the massive deficits his tax cuts have produced have yielded only an anemic improvement in the economy. Such improvement as there has been is the Keynesian result of the huge deficits. As Sen. Lloyd Bentsen remarked to me during the Reagan recovery in the mid-1980s, "When you're writing $200 billion in hot checks every year, you can't help but produce some stimulus." Vice President Dick Cheney's rejoinder to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's concern about growing deficits speaks volumes about how fiscally irresponsible the Republican party has become: "Reagan proved deficits don’t matter."

Here, perhaps, is the answer to the question of why the Republican states are labeled "red states," which seems so odd in light of the GOP's traditional fervent anti-communism. What makes it appropriate to call Republican states red is the color of the ink needed for the party's budgets.

What of overall economic growth? During the period from Herbert Hoover's presidency onward, the American economy (GDP) has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans. (The annual mean growth in real GDP under Republican Presidents has been 1.8 percent; under Democrats, 5.1 percent. UNDER WHICH PARTY DO AMERICANS IN GENERAL FARE BETTER?

)

Since 1929 (Hoover Through G.W. Bush)

Since 1968 (Nixon Through G.W. Bush)

Since 1988 (The Two Bushes Compared with Clinton)

These statistics show that the popular Democratic slogan, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote for the Democrats," is true--even for the rich.

Are the remarkably better economic results achieved by Democrats due to better policies? Such significant differences over such a long period of time strongly suggest that they are. Some might argue, though, that the Democrats just have better luck. Even if that were the explanation, that luck has been so much better for so long that it would seem foolish for the rich, as well as everyone else, not to vote for a party with such good luck.

SOURCES:

Mean Household Income for Top 5% in 2002 dollars:

U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables - Households, Table H-3, http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h0301.html, accessed 12 August 2004.

Percent Change from Preceding Period in Real Disposable Income:

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts Table, Table 2.1—Personal Income and Its Disposition, Line 40: Percent Change from Preceding Period: Disposable Personal Income, Chained (2000) Dollars, http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/Tabl...04&Freq=Qtr, accessed 31 July 2004.

Annual Surplus or Deficit:

Budget of the United States Government, Historical Tables: Fiscal Year 2004, Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits, 1789-2008, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/sheets/hist01z1.xls, accessed 1 August 2004.

Percent Change from Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product:

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts Table, Table 1.1.1—Percent Change from Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product, Line 1. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/Tabl...04&Freq=Qtr , accessed 29 July 2004.

[otterinbham 0]

Sigh.

What you fail to grasp is that Household Income is not a truly accurate gauge of economic performance for a number of good reasons. First, household incomes rise and decline based on whether or not a second person in the household finds it necessary to work. The other anomaly of household income is that it fails to take into account today's aging populace where heads of households may choose to work less or even retire, effectively skewing the statistic lower.

Even with all that being said, household incomes in this country have more than kept pace with inflation since 1980, a reversal of the trend from 1960-1980. More importantly, the difference between American household incomes and German, French, Italian, British, and Canadian household incomes have all widened greatly since 1980. So compared to economic policies of the rest of the G8, American economic policy of strict monetary control, reduced taxes, and loosened regulation have proven to be an absolute Godsend.

Why 1980? Of course, part of the reason I choose that benchmark is because it marks the beginning of the Reagan presidency and a shift away from Keynsian thought in economic planning. At the same time, it's when Paul Volker really made his presence known as the Federal Reserve Chairman, choking off the money supply. Both Reagan and Volker instituted longterm policy reforms that were direct reversals of both Keynes and Galbraight, the two darlings of the Democratic economic thought. Even today, you hear people in Washington getting sentimental about these two discredited figures.

The true measure of economic performance is not household income, which is far too dependent on variables such as the decision to have a second income. Rather it is growth of household WEALTH that is the most accurate gauge of a country's overall economic direction. Add up the assets, subtract the liabilities, and you find a far better glimpse of this country's economic performance over the past fifty years.

When we use this yardstick, the country has performed most impressively over the past 27 years, boosting household wealth to all time highs. Further, despite all the poor-get-poorer-rich-get-richer rhetoric, the wealth has been spread around. Now, more Americans than ever hold equities. Further, home ownership, a traditional building block of wealth is at an all time high. Even with today's mortgage crisis, deliquency rates on sub-prime fixed-rate loans is only at 5%, while fixed-rate prime mortgage delinquency rates sit at less than 1%. Two years from now, once this issue has passed, we'll still have a record percentage of American households owning property.

What's more, once the 1990s came along, more Democrats were forced to embrace decidedly Republican ideas in economic policy. After all, while Clinton had the power to sink NAFTA and other free-trade initiatives, he instead sign them into law in defiance of his base. The result has been an enormous increase in global trade, of which the United States has been a beneficiary. In addition, the Republlicans and Clinton completely reformed Welfare (A Keynsian notion if there ever was one). Finally, the Bull market of the 1990s did not get underway properly until Clinton's healthcare initiative was defeated by Congress.

Conversely, Bush is a closet Keynsian. His wholly unnecessary, grotesquely expensive Prescription Act is proof of that. The United States would be operating on a balanced budget right now if this legislation had not been passed. The same is true of Nixon, who was a terrible economist by anyone's reckoning. Nixon, if you remember, was the president who, to the country's sorrow, embraced wage and price controls--an economic approach that would be considered loopy even by the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader today. So be careful what labels you apply to which politicians.

However, Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have also had a salutary effect on household wealth. Since the 2003 tax cut (which included cuts in the income, dividend and capital-gains rates) net worth has increased 16%. It's also roughly 27% higher than it was in 1998, in the middle of the stock market bubble.

So, yeah, if you use household income, the Democratic Party has enjoyed marginally better performance. But if you look at household wealth, the economic reforms implemented by the Republicans in 1980 (And largely unchecked since then) have proven to be the true long-term stimulus for growth.

[MDM4AU 339]

Since 1968 (Nixon Through G.W. Bush)

Since 1988 (The Two Bushes Compared with Clinton)

If the rich are, surprisingly, so much better off under Democratic presidents, what about the rest of us? Other economic statistics, which are available over a longer period of time (1930-2003; 34 years of Republican administrations; 40 years of Democratic administrations), tell basically the same story for the economy as a whole.

Over this period of roughly the last three-quarters of a century, real disposable personal income for all Americans has grown nearly twice as fast under Democrats as under Republicans. (The annual mean growth in real disposable personal income under Republicans has been 2.3 percent; under Democrats, 4.3 percent.)

Republicans have traditionally identified themselves as the party of fiscal discipline, but over the last three-quarters of a century, Republican administrations have increased federal debt at a rate more than four times faster than have Democrats. (This statistic, moreover, includes a decade and a half of combating the Depression and fighting World War II under Democrats and does not include this year’s record Republican deficit of more than $400 billion.) A comparison of the presidencies of the two Bushes and Clinton in the area of fiscal responsibility is especially dramatic. The average annual deficit under Clinton was $40 billion. Under the Bushes (again, not yet including this year’s $400-plus billion deficit), the federal government has gone more deeply into debt at the rate of $256.3 billion per year, meaning that deficit spending has been more than six times worse under the Bushes than Clinton--and that difference grows greater by the day.

President Bush's claims that his economic policies are working are absurd, considering that the massive deficits his tax cuts have produced have yielded only an anemic improvement in the economy. Such improvement as there has been is the Keynesian result of the huge deficits. As Sen. Lloyd Bentsen remarked to me during the Reagan recovery in the mid-1980s, "When you're writing $200 billion in hot checks every year, you can't help but produce some stimulus." Vice President Dick Cheney's rejoinder to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's concern about growing deficits speaks volumes about how fiscally irresponsible the Republican party has become: "Reagan proved deficits don’t matter."

Here, perhaps, is the answer to the question of why the Republican states are labeled "red states," which seems so odd in light of the GOP's traditional fervent anti-communism. What makes it appropriate to call Republican states red is the color of the ink needed for the party's budgets.

What of overall economic growth? During the period from Herbert Hoover's presidency onward, the American economy (GDP) has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans. (The annual mean growth in real GDP under Republican Presidents has been 1.8 percent; under Democrats, 5.1 percent. UNDER WHICH PARTY DO AMERICANS IN GENERAL FARE BETTER?

)

Since 1929 (Hoover Through G.W. Bush)

Since 1968 (Nixon Through G.W. Bush)

Since 1988 (The Two Bushes Compared with Clinton)

These statistics show that the popular Democratic slogan, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote for the Democrats," is true--even for the rich.

Are the remarkably better economic results achieved by Democrats due to better policies? Such significant differences over such a long period of time strongly suggest that they are. Some might argue, though, that the Democrats just have better luck. Even if that were the explanation, that luck has been so much better for so long that it would seem foolish for the rich, as well as everyone else, not to vote for a party with such good luck.

SOURCES:

Mean Household Income for Top 5% in 2002 dollars:

U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables - Households, Table H-3, http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h0301.html, accessed 12 August 2004.

Percent Change from Preceding Period in Real Disposable Income:

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts Table, Table 2.1—Personal Income and Its Disposition, Line 40: Percent Change from Preceding Period: Disposable Personal Income, Chained (2000) Dollars, http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/Tabl...04&Freq=Qtr, accessed 31 July 2004.

Annual Surplus or Deficit:

Budget of the United States Government, Historical Tables: Fiscal Year 2004, Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits, 1789-2008, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/sheets/hist01z1.xls, accessed 1 August 2004.

Percent Change from Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product:

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts Table, Table 1.1.1—Percent Change from Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product, Line 1. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/Tabl...04&Freq=Qtr , accessed 29 July 2004.

What is the source of your "cut and paste" job?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Easy. ALL do better under the GOP. End of discussion.

[otterinbham 0]

Easy. ALL do better under the GOP. End of discussion.

You seem to have forgotten Richard Nixon. Holy firetruck, what a total economic disaster of a president that guy was. Seriously. I mean, we would have been better off having George McGovern running the economy.

[MDM4AU 339]

Shug,

What is your source? I am just curious...even more now that you refuse to post it.

And, BTW...

6) When referring to an article, give us a link, ALWAYS! ...