soMe other Facting Charts

note that this chart reflects costs t0 2011, since then the rise in healthcare costs has been 1.5%, significantly lower than anytime in the past five decades

Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010
Average annual percentage increases in jobs, postwar Presidents:

Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year
If you exclude Obama, Democrats averaged 3.03 percent annual job growth, compared to 1.07 percent for Republicans -- a nearly 3-to-1 advantage.

If you include Obama, the Democrats still held a significant edge. With Obama included, the Democrats averaged 2.03 annual job growth, compared to the same 1.07 for Republicans -- about twice as high as the GOP.

[Note that the statistics for Obama include job losses in the 1st quarter of 2009, which rightly belong to GW Bush, considering Obama wasn’t sworn in until January 20, 2009 and didn’t' have a cabinet in place during that time, much less have an ability to impact job growth. We were losing jobs at a rate of several hundred thousand a month when Obama took office. Still,  Obama has a net gain of jobs in his first five years in office.. This is one of the ‘tricks’ G0P apologists use when attacking Obama, accusing him of being responsible for job losses brought about by the Bush/Cheney recession.]

Dardedar’s blog, revisited:

Dardedar’s blog, revisited:

This is a response to Dardedar from a Republican challenging the assertions made by Dardedar after analyzing some economic data, including that from Michael Kinsley that showed how the country has fared better economically under Democratic Administrations for the past 60 years.

This is a bit dry, but it illustrates well a few key items. one thing I notice 9s that, as pointed out, the Republican spokesman here uses several tactics common among right wing pundits; changing the subject; straw men; unsupported assertions stated as ‘fact’, and an insistence that “fiscal responsibility” is the province of the GOP (which in this case is a circular argument, as it asserts that which the debate disproves.) (‘anti-circular’?)

• 
  

Re: The Republican Record

by Dardedar » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:08 pm

DAR
An acquaintance of a friend sent along this reply to my letter. I'll respond in the next post.

****
1) Stock market. Four of the five top Presidents for stock market growth are Republicans. The only democrat in the top 5 is Clinton. All that growth happened during the years republicans ran Congress (500 point on the DOW the first two years, 7000 points the last six...feel free to look that up). Those exact policies were free trade, balanced budget, and a tax decrease. All republican issues, and none of those are supported by Obama or the Dems today). So, looking at YOUR data, I see the stock market as better under Republicans.

2) Economic growth. First the citation used includes Hoover, which I think is a stretch. As I pointed out I believe Clinton's last six years, based on enacted policies, were Republican Congress policies not Presidential preference policies. Under those circumstances (using your data) the Republicans, since 1968 would come out better. Again I would point out what POLICIES caused economic growth. The only democratic growth that is above average in the last 40 years (again, by your citations) comes during the Clinton years. As for GDP growth I see it better off under Republican policies.

3) Deficits. Based upon the data cited in the OP there is no way to tell. They used real dollars, not adjusted for inflation. That clearly is NOT the way to measure this metric. During WWII (under a Dem) the deficit was 44% of GDP. Clearly MUCH bigger than it is right now as a percentage, but a small amount in dollars as compared to right now. Since they don't analyze the numbers correctly it is impossible to say (without more research) which party is better on this (and we would have to figure out how far back to go).

4) Job creation. "James Carville put it this way: "In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…”" James Carville must have gone to public school, because he's horrible at math. If you have 10 random events (coin tosses, President party affiliations), there is a 1 in 32, still not bad, but the data is skewed. That statement was made in 1996. It would have included Truman years and years that included the draft during a world war, and the draft during Kennedy and Johnson for Viet Nam. I can only assume (since there is no data cited) that he is including draft data in his "jobs" number. I think this counts as a "null" since the numbers cannot be verified.

5) Poverty. I see how they are analyzing the numbers, and I challenge it. There were minute drops under several Democratic Presidents and minute increases under Republicans. But if you look at the AVERAGE rate you will see a serious difference. GWB is slightly better than Clinton, who is slightly better than Reagan. But the HUGE difference is under Kennedy, where the poverty rate is double that of almost any other President since him. If you look back as far as this data goes (Kennedy) and ask "who had the highest poverty?" it would be Kennedy, then Johnson, with GWB coming in the lowest. I would also suggest that under FDR, or Truman the poverty would skyrocket. Based on this analysis I would give the Republicans the better score.

6) Spending. This is where I believe the President has less influence than Congress. I will add one additional data point here;

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_aw ... %20GDP.GIF

If you look at the chart you will see that the ONLY significant time since 1977 that the congress slowed down their spending was when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. But, I like the way YOUR data puts it. "The party with the best record of serving Republican economic values is the Democrats. It isn't even close." Unfortunately Kinsley uses the "apples to oranges" comparison of numbers in vastly different years (decades) to make his point, and thus the numbers are not usable. In this case I find the point a draw, since the Republican Congress went astray in the last six years of its existence.

So, where does this leave us? The six points of the article and how I look at the EXACT same data (with some addition for #6).

1) stock market. False
2) GDP growth. False
3)larger deficits. Cant Tell
4) job creation. Cant Tell
5) poverty. False
6) Federal spending. Draw

So, as I said earlier, the entire premiss revolves around those six things are better under Democratic Presidents. Looking at the SAME data, I come to completely different conclusions. Thus I declare your premiss denied (QED).

Dardedar

Site Admin

 

Posts: 7826

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm

Location: Fayetteville

• 
  

Top

• 
  

Re: The Republican Record

by Dardedar » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:46 pm

DAR
In reply to the above rebuttal to my letter (top of thread). I don't know this person but since they are a republican apologist I'll use the name tag "REP."

****
REP
1) Stock market. Four of the five top Presidents for stock market growth are Republicans. The only democrat in the top 5 is Clinton.

DAR
That's nice, but you forgot to bring along any evidence whatsoever for your assertion. I have provided multiple lines of evidence showing otherwise and have others I didn't include due to space. You provide a mere assertion.

REP
All that growth happened during the years republicans ran Congress (500 point on the DOW the first two years, 7000 points the last six...feel free to look that up).

DAR
Why? It's not relevant to my thesis which is that these seven or so variables had better results under Democratic Presidents. What happened under the various Congressional rule is an interesting question and one worth exploring but it does not address my claim (except my #3 which refutes your unsupported claim).


REP
Those exact policies were free trade, balanced budget, and a tax decrease. All republican issues, and none of those are supported by Obama or the Dems today). So, looking at YOUR data, I see the stock market as better under Republicans.

DAR
I am not interested in what you can "see" but in what you can show, and your #1 shows nothing because it contains nothing beyond mere assertion.

REP
2) Economic growth. First the citation used includes Hoover, which I think is a stretch.

DAR
If you read my citation carefully you would know that the numbers for "investment growth" (not "economic growth") were also calculated with Hoover removed and the Demo's still performed 6x better.


REP
As I pointed out I believe Clinton's last six years, based on enacted policies, were Republican Congress policies not Presidential preference policies.

DAR
You may wish to believe that but it does not address my thesis which is an examination of a comparison of presidents.

REP
Under those circumstances (using your data) the Republicans, since 1968 would come out better.

DAR
Show this. Since you don't even state my #2 correctly I am not confident you have looked at this one carefully.

REP
Again I would point out what POLICIES caused economic growth. The only democratic growth that is above average in the last 40 years (again, by your citations) comes during the Clinton years. As for GDP growth I see it better off under Republican policies.

DAR
In my #4 reference I have provided evidence showing GDP growth has been better Democratic Presidents. This is an objective claim that can be measured and shown to be true or false. Again, the claim was, with regard to Presidents:

"American Gross Domestic Product has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans."

The data shows this is clearly true but rather than admit this you want to give credit to some undefined and unmeasurable category of "republican policies." This does not address my claim and curiously you don't even attempt to support your claim. And it's not clear you understood the claim of my #2. Perhaps read it again. It refers specifically to "investment growth."

REP
3) Deficits. Based upon the data cited in the OP there is no way to tell. They used real dollars, not adjusted for inflation.

DAR
Inflation happens in all presidential terms. The rate goes up, the rate goes down. I have provided evidence showing that the average annual republican deficit is four times larger than under Democratic Presidents. The idea that this difference can be made up by a difference in inflation, is laughable.

REP
That clearly is NOT the way to measure this metric.

DAR
Show this.

REP
During WWII (under a Dem) the deficit was 44% of GDP. Clearly MUCH bigger than it is right now as a percentage, but a small amount in dollars as compared to right now.

DAR
Then the large deficits of that time period should have really hurt the average annual deficit numbers for the Democrats. Curiously you want special consideration for Hoover but want Democrats to be credited with the cost of WWII! And that's okay, because Reagan/Bush spent so much (and Clinton paid down the debt) the republicans still end up the far bigger spenders. To avoid dealing with this bad result the constant dollar measurement provides you appeal to inflation. When that doesn't work you want to calculate the deficit relative to GDP. I remember when Republicans used to hate that trick.

This may be useful here:

http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-perce ... -years.png

REP
4) Job creation. "James Carville put it this way: "In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…”" James Carville must have gone to public school, because he's horrible at math. If you have 10 random events (coin tosses, President party affiliations), there is a 1 in 32, still not bad, but the data is skewed.

DAR
If you are going to insult someone's math abilities and where they may have attended school it's best to have your numbers straight. You don't. Simply put, Carville is right, you're wrong (note the title of his book!). Perhaps your private school tuition could have been better spent elsewhere. If "you have 10 random events" or "coin tosses" as you say, this gives you odds of one in 252. Five gives you 1 in 32.
But this is incidental and a distraction from my point which is in fact true, the presidents with the top job growth numbers have been Democrats.


REP
That statement was made in 1996. It would have included Truman years and years that included the draft during a world war, and the draft during Kennedy and Johnson for Viet Nam. I can only assume (since there is no data cited) that he is including draft data in his "jobs" number. I think this counts as a "null" since the numbers cannot be verified.

DAR
The Nobel Prize winning Krugman does a comparison similar to Carville's except it is from July. Perhaps this is a chart from his book. Demo's hold the top four spots. GW Bush, is of course last.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... talking-2/

This is better:

"The Simple Arithmetic of Employment: Job Growth Is Always Higher When a Democrat Is In The White House"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fid ... 24510.html

An excerpt:

"Remember the last time the number of jobs grew more rapidly under an Republican president? John McCain can't. Because he wasn't born yet. Over the past 75 years, one trend has held constant. Rapid job growth only occurs when there's a Democrat in The White House.

No Republican President -- not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not Reagan, not Bush -- has ever created more jobs, or created jobs at a faster rate, than his Democratic predecessor. It's not even close. The contrast has been especially stark over the past 16 years, when 23.1 million jobs were created under Clinton and less than 5 million were created under Bush. On average, job growth under Democrats is more than twice that under Republicans.

Whatever benchmark you use, the difference is dramatic. Since Truman was elected in 1948, 53.2 million new jobs were created during the 24 years when Democrats held The White House, and 38.3 million were created during the 36 years of Republican administrations."

--Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, seasonally adjusted non-farm payrolls.

DAR
This fellow examines the last 13 presidents. He also examines the record during Congress. Democratic Presidents hold the top six slots.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/08 ... idents-do/

REP
5) Poverty. I see how they are analyzing the numbers, and I challenge it.

DAR
Finally, a challenge!

REP
There were minute drops under several Democratic Presidents and minute increases under Republicans.

DAR
Well you gave up that challenge rather quick. I'll take it.


REP
But if you look at the AVERAGE rate you will see a serious difference. GWB is slightly better than Clinton, who is slightly better than Reagan. But the HUGE difference is under Kennedy, where the poverty rate is double that of almost any other President since him. If you look back as far as this data goes (Kennedy) and ask "who had the highest poverty?" it would be Kennedy, then Johnson, with GWB coming in the lowest. I would also suggest that under FDR, or Truman the poverty would skyrocket. Based on this analysis I would give the Republicans the better score.

DAR
Of course you would. But none of this refutes or even addresses my claim, which is specifically:

"With the exception of president Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since 1961, it fell." Address the claim, don't change it.

REP
6) Spending. This is where I believe the President has less influence than Congress.

DAR
That's nice. Perhaps in my next letter I will examine the record of Congress. This letter is addressing the record of US Presidents.

REP
I will add one additional data point here;

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_aw ... %20GDP.GIF

If you look at the chart you will see that the ONLY significant time since 1977 that the congress slowed down their spending was when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994.

DAR
Reagan didn't sign those spending bills? Amazing. Did Reagan ever submit a balanced budget?

Let's ask leftwinger Joe Scarborough (just kidding, he's a rightwing conservative Republican) to do some comparisons. This from his 2004 book:

"The White House's own numbers best illustrate how
shamefully the Party of Reagan has misspent our tax
dollars over the last ten years. When comparing its
fiscal record to that of the Clinton administration,
George W. Bush's White House loses in a landslide."
-- Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day, pg. 27

"Using the Bush White House's own numbers, the federal
government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate
of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under
George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the
federal government has grown at a staggering rate of
10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that... George
Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill." --Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29


REP
<Snip> In this case I find the point a draw, since the Republican Congress went astray in the last six years of its existence.

DAR
The point "is a draw" because the Republicans did what I claim they do? Again, amazing.

Here is a very interesting chart:



And he notes: "Interestingly, since Johnson, every Democrat has increased revenue more than spending. However in the opposite case, under all five Republican Presidents, since Nixon, government revenue has decreased and spending has increased."

I must keep this link, he makes my case over and over:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

REP
So, where does this leave us? The six points of the article and how I look at the EXACT same data (with some addition for #6).

1) stock market. False
2) GDP growth. False
3) larger deficits. Cant Tell
4) job creation. Cant Tell

DAR
You forgot to provide a drop of evidence for #1. You completely changed the subject on #2. As I have shown the Republican deficits are twice as large in constant dollars without even considering Bush II (#3). Krugman supports my job creation claim so we actually "can tell" and, unlike your near complete lack of references I provide two more and have several other sources supporting this claim as well.

REP
5) poverty. False

DAR
You already conceded #5 is true. Your words: "There were minute drops under several Democratic Presidents and minute increases under Republicans."

REP
6) Federal spending. Draw

DAR
I provide data showing Republican spending is almost double, you provide... "the Republican Congress went astray." Well yes they did, and that is the point in question isn't it? Where I went to public school, that wasn't a draw. Maybe your private schools operated differently?

Another useful chart on federal spending:



ibid

REP
So, as I said earlier, the entire premiss revolves around those six things are better under Democratic Presidents. Looking at the SAME data, I come to completely different conclusions. Thus I declare your premiss denied (QED).

DAR
That's a little premature to say the least. When you did address the actual premise, you didn't support your conclusions. Almost without exception you provide no references supporting your claims and most of the time you stray from engaging my actual claim. Maybe you will try again. I hope so. And do remember the premise which is that these categories are better under Democratic presidents. Appeals to Congressional records would be interesting (see my footnote #3 which addresses this) but not relevant to this actual premise.

regards,

Darrel

Economic Benefits of Food Stamps

 This chart comes from Mark Zandi, via Dardedar’s blog,  I thought it interesting because of the current argument about food stamps. Checking just two of the items on the page, note that food stamps bring in $1.73 for every dollar spent, a net boost to the economy of 73 cents on the dollar, whereas corporate tax cuts return a paltry $o.30 on the dollar, a net LOSS of 70 cents.

We need to try some ‘trickle up’ for a while

 Dardedar’s 2008 blog:

in reading more from Dardedar’s 2008 blog, his article

(which I just reprinted)

was challenged by a Republican reader, whose conclusions from the data were exactly opposite those of Dardedar. 

Noting that m0st of them were basically unsupported assertions rather than facts backed by evidence, Dardedar addressed the objections one-by-one and provided more documentation to support his points. This exchange is so relevant to today’s issues I will reprint more of it in future posts. (hint: Dardedar’s original conclusions withstood the challenge).

For anyone interested in the truth behind many economic claims in these times of G0P mis- dis- and piss-poor information, you can get a lot of it here

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=531y

The Republican Record

 

 This is an analysis I found by a newly minted US citizen in 2008. Since that time we have suffered through W's 2nd term & the worst of the Bush/Cheney recession, and 5 years of the Obama administration, which, though plagued by the uber-partisan obstruction of the tea party, shows undeniable progress in job creation, deficit reduction and a skyrocketing stock market. in other words, things don’t look any better for the GOP since the statistics included here.

The sad thing is that honest conservatives have many very good ideas and ideals that should represent all Americans’ beliefs and desires. This honorable stance has been poisoned by the rise of the tea party, which has hijacked people’s sincere beliefs through dis-information and outright lies, and a hyper-partisan hatred of the current President which has infected our entire political system and put American Democracy itself at risk.

Thanks to Dardedar  for this illuminating posting from 5 years ago

 

 

 

The Republican Record

by Dardedar » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:15 am

DAR
A little letter I am sending around:

*****************
As a Canadian who recently became a citizen, I am, along with my eighteen year old son, very much looking forward to voting for the very first time. Like many citizens, I am interested in supporting the party with the best track record on the economy, job creation, small government and fiscal responsibility. Setting aside all of the political chatter and what each side claims about their record I thought I would look into this. Here is what I found.

Which party is better for the stock market? Slate magazine checked the numbers (in 2002) and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500 compared with an 8% return from the Republicans. Stock Trader's Almanac examined Dow appreciation and found similar numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent). [1]

Just weeks ago the New York Times examined how an investment of $10,000 would have grown under each party during this time. They found that a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. 500 would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only. If we exclude Herbert Hoover's disastrous depression numbers the growth rises to $51,211. The same investment made during Democratic presidents only, would have grown to $300,671.[2]

Does having a Republican Congress help the market? No, the record shows that a Democratic controlled Senate provided a higher return and a Democratic controlled House also enjoyed a higher return. [3]

How about growth of GDP? American Gross Domestic Product has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans. Since 1930, the annual mean growth in real GDP under Republican Presidents has been 1.8 percent; under Democrats, 5.1 percent. [4]

Which party has had the largest annual deficits? Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion. [5]

How about job creation? James Carville put it this way: "In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…” [6]

How about poverty? With the exception of president Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since 1961, it fell. [7]

Which party is better at “small government” and keeping federal spending down? Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. So it’s no surprise to find Republican presidents have increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats. And this is not even counting the second term of G.W. Bush. [8]

There are many more categories to consider, inflation, unemployment, income gain. I found they all trend in favor of the Democrats and like the above it’s usually not even close. And the trend holds up even if lag factors are figured in.

It’s curious how effective false advertising has been for the Republican party. Contrary to the story they have sold nearly half the country, America has done very well under Democratic presidents, and in fact far better than under Republican presidents.

Darrel [...]
Fayetteville, Arkansas

[1] Slate magazine, http://slate.msn.com/id/2071929/
[2] Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants,
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008 ... CHART.html
[3] Slate magazine, http://slate.msn.com/id/2071929/
[4] George Mason’s University, History News Network, http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html
[5] ibid
[6] “We're Right, They're Wrong,” (1996) James Carville, pg. 13
[7] Census poverty data, see: http://democraticshortlist.com/compare.htm
[8] Michael Kinsley, Washington post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Apr1.html

Bonus: Republican Governors associated with lower growth:

viewtopic.php?p=23882#p23882

Dardedar

Site Admin

 

Posts: 7826

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm

Location: Fayetteville

• 
  

Top