Headline News

Why America Desperately Needs a Republican President

So Democrat Presidents fare better at managing the economy… really?

 

Liberal leaders and their minions constantly grandstand about how much better they are for the broad economy and that they are FOR the middle-class, blah, blah, blah. In truth, Democrat leaders have caused significant financial hardship for the middle-class and shouldn’t be left in charge of the American economy.

 

Presidents Are Not Elected Kings

 

Presidents are not Kings and to pass legislation they need both the House and the Senate to make it happen. They cannot unilaterally institute policy. This is the balance of power envisioned by the founding fathers of America. It works well when different parties occupy the Executive and legislative branches or when a Republican controls all three. You will see why in a moment.

 

 

The Truth is in the Numbers

 

In the last 100 years, starting when Woodrow Wilson was in the White House, there have been 17 presidents in office. From those, 8 were Democrats and 9, Republicans. During the same 100 years, Democrats enjoyed total control of Government (the Presidency, the Senate and the House) for 38 years – let’s call this a Clean Sweep. The Republicans only had control of all three for 18 years, the remaining 44 years were a mixed bag. Why is this important? Because when the executive and the legislature are from the same party, it is their vision entirely that gets enacted.

image source: commons.wikimedia.org

image source: commons.wikimedia.org

When a Democrat has a Clean Sweep, liberal and socialistic policies are enacted – this has proven economically disastrous. When Republicans have a Clean Sweep, pro-growth policies are born; sometimes it takes a little patience to see the end result with Republican economic policy, but that is the Conservative mentality after all – a focus on sustainability and steady economic improvement (not looking for the quick hit).

 

There is one critical statistic that needs to be examined from an economic standpoint to fully grasp which party is best for the country: INFLATION. The rate of inflation faced by the US during the Clean Sweep years sums up my entire point.

When you compare the inflation rate side by side, during the Clean Sweep years for both parties, all the liberal fairy tales come crashing down. It turns out that the average inflation rate during a Clean Sweep, meaning a single party control of the White House, Senate and Congress, is grossly higher when it’s a Democratic Clean Sweep as opposed to a Republican one. The average annual inflation rate during a Republican Clean Sweep is 0.55%. The average annual inflation rate for a Democrat Clean Sweep, 5.8% – that’s ten times higher than the Republican rate. Any country that averages a 5.8% inflation rate for a few consecutive years is flirting with economic disaster. The threshold for a tolerable inflation rate is typically around 2.5% (in a developed nation). An inflation rate of 5.8% brings into question the trustworthiness of a nation’s currency.

 

 

It’s the economy, stupid!

 

If you don’t really get what the big deal about inflation is, and I know most Democrats ignore this vital statistic, look at it this way; inflation is like a cancer that steals hard earned savings. Inflation makes it more expensive to put food on the table, buy a home and send your children to college. And no, inflation doesn’t guarantee higher wages (certainly not 5.8% a year in higher wages!). As an example, just look at the inflation rate during Carter’s tenure and the lack of growth in wages (also known as stagflation).

 

If you save a dollar, and inflation is 4%, in five years, that dollar will be worth roughly 77 cents.  So imagine if the Liberals had Clean Sweep power for a decade. Given the average inflation rate when they are in full command, $1 now would be worth roughly 40 cents in a decade. How’s that for liberal policies?

 

On the flip side, with Republicans in full command (Clean Sweep) for a decade (using historic results as our guide), the benefit to hard working savers is huge. $1 today would be worth roughly $0.94 in ten years.

 

It goes even further than that if you look at the income tax numbers. In 1916 Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat in the White House, oversaw the increase of the highest tax bracket, going from 15% to 67%. In 1918, still under Wilson, it escalated to 77% for those earning $1,000,000 and above. As soon as Harding (Republican) came into office in 1921, he reigned in the rates and got the highest bracket to 58% then to 46% a year later. In 1925 Calvin Coolidge, also a Republican, oversaw a further reduction to 25% for $100,000 as the highest tax bracket. In 1932 under Roosevelt, a Democrat, it was back to 63% escalating to 79%, 81% and then 94%.

 

For those of you who say that it doesn’t matter whether the rich have to pay such lofty rates, think again.

 

When millionaires are taxed at a higher rate, consumers and the working class are negatively impacted (costs increase for products); jobs are lost because less cash is available for expansion and eventually those millionaires lose motivation to work as hard (resulting in the worst outcome possible).

 

Think about it…

 

Say you were making $2 million a year while Woodrow Wilson was in power. You would essentially be going to work Monday through Thursday for the government and Friday would be your day to keep your earnings. Under FDR it would have been even worse than that. What’s the likelihood of you losing interest in risking capital and working hard when you’re being taxed so heavily? I’d suspect quite high.

 

But wait, it’s OK because don’t the Liberals protect the middle-class?

 

 

Republicans Tax the Middle-Class Much Less than Democrats

 

I’m sure many Liberals will say that it doesn’t matter if we tax the rich more even after all the points I’ve highlighted about how it shrinks the tax base, causes consumer goods to rise in price, weakens the job market etc… but they can’t weasel their way out of explaining that Democrats rarely, if ever, lessen the burden of taxes paid by the lowest earners in the country and middle-class. As a matter of fact, under FDR, the President Liberals use as their poster boy, the lowest tax rate in the country (for the lower middle-class) nearly quadrupled. During his tenure, the lowest tax rate went from roughly 6% to nearly 20%.

image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonythemisfit/2866406076/

image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonythemisfit/2866406076/

 

All through Truman’s Presidency the highest tax rate remained above 90% and the lowest tax rate well above 20%. The highest tax rate remained steady at 70% through various Presidencies until Ronald Reagan pushed it down to 50% in 1982 and down further to 38.5% in 1987 and finally to 28% in 1988.

chart source: http://www.verisi.com/resources/us-marginal-tax-rates.htm

chart source: http://www.verisi.com/resources/us-marginal-tax-rates.html

 

 

Increasing Taxes is the Lazy Liberal Way

 

The bleeding hearts have been excessively taxing for decades and giving it away at their discretion; this is a fact. What is a lesser known fact is that Liberals have been taxing the lower-income-earners at higher rates than Republicans for years as well.

 

image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76657755@N04/7027608495/

image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76657755@N04/7027608495/

 

The Clean Sweep Years Show the Democrats’ True Colors

 

I mentioned earlier on that when Democrats had a Clean Sweep of the Presidency and the two legislatures, inflation averaged 5.8% – and 0.55% under Republicans. Why does this matter? Under a Clean Sweep, the President gets to run his programs without the need for bipartisan support. That’s the true measure of effectiveness. An unrestrained Republican gives us 0.55% inflation; an unrestrained Democrat gives us 5.8%. Remember, inflation is no different than a hidden tax.

 

Still think Democrats are better in the White House?

 

Here is something else for you to ponder. In the last century, Democrat Presidents with Clean Sweep legislature have raised taxes by an average of 56 percentage points; while Republicans with Clean Sweeps have reduced it by 27 percentage points. What’s better for you and your family? Paying more in taxes or less? Would you rather keep that extra $5k in your pocket and put it towards your child’s college education or give it to the government to decide what is best for society?

 

 

The Numbers Don’t Lie

 

Social policies are good, to a certain extent. Yes, taxes to build roads and keep them maintained are needed. Taxes are also needed to pay emergency response units as well as build defenses that protect our interests, and we all must chip in, but let’s not go overboard. Certain expenses should be left to the individual so we can all maintain a necessary and god given freedom. Higher taxes and more spending has never been the right solution for a struggling economy… never.

 

You know the old saying, “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.”

 

If you want to know why people who love their freedom look forward to Republican presidents, look at the times when Democrats had full control over the Senate, House and presidency and you will see a trail of destructive economic policies which the citizens ALWAYS ended up paying for.

 

The numbers are clear; the economy and American households are better off under a Republican president, especially when he has like-minded adults in the House and Senate to see the virtue of lower taxes and lower inflation. It’s when the Republicans’ conservative principles are upheld that the economy advances and individual freedom improves. That’s why a Republican President is what’s best for America.

 

 

Stay hungry,

signature

 

 

 

Aaron

If you enjoyed this story, don’t be stingy. Share it with others please 🙂

email

Like all of you entrepreneurs and investors out there, Aaron has been in the trenches. He is the founder of an influential online media and PR company. From oil wildcatters to mining prospectors, tech gurus to medical doctors, and even celebrities, Aaron has helped market and expand brand awareness for a diverse range of publicly traded companies ran by entrepreneurs from all walks of life.

  • Libsbegone

    A perfect article Aron!

  • Manup

    leaving the libers in power will result in tryrany. Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid are the worst leaders this country has ever seen. 2014 keep America safe!!!!!!

  • Looking At an Economy with a Quick Case Study

    In any economy, especially the American one, certain areas take time to respond to
    policies initiated by government. While some policies have an instant effect,
    others can take as much as ten years to make an impact. For those policies
    which take time to impact the broad economy, sometimes the wrong leader gets
    the credit. Take for example the policies President Reagan enacted in office in
    the 80s. It wasn’t until the 90s that some of these policies made their
    complete presence felt by resulting in full-employment and a budget surplus
    (which Slick Willie took credit for, by the way).

    Thank heavens that during Clinton’s years in office there was a Republican controlled
    House, otherwise, whatever gains that were realized because of Reagan’s
    policies would have been squandered away (if Slick Willie was in control of the
    Senate and House).

    When Reagan took office in 1980 on the heels of Democratic President Jimmy Carter,
    inflation was at 12%. The day Reagan left office, it was 4.4%. Unemployment was
    7.5% under Carter and reigned in to 5.4% under Reagan. Why? Because under
    Reagan taxes were lowered, which meant more private investment that eventually
    led to jobs and a larger tax base, resulting in everyone sharing the burden of
    common good (I’m simplifying what Reagan did for the economy of course).

    • Ibinaround2

      Reagan also TRIPLED the National Debt, raised the debt ceiling EIGHTEEN times, began the ridiculous Trickle Down economics which has NEVER worked, cut taxes for the wealthy drastically, and sold arms to Iran Illegally…STOP with the History revisions…

      • Orion

        Typical liberal talking points copy and paste parts of what happened and not the actual full story .

      • Tory

        Lol they always seem to forget how every time a RepublICON get in office it takes a Dem to clean up their awful mess.

    • SuperTech86

      Gains from Reagan’s policies…LMAO

      You’ve clearly never actually studied economics.

    • SuperTech86

      So the price controls enacted by Nixon that carried over into the Carter admin and their effects where his fault? The OPEC oils shock in response to changes in FED policy. Or how about how the FED changed how it target inflation away from the M1 and M2 and to money aggregates.

      And no the tax cuts under Reagan had nothing to do with the economic growth that was attributed to the eldest baby boomers reaching the prime work age and financial deregulation caused massive capital inflows into the U.S which suppressed a variety of interest rates.

  • pointdexter

    I don’t really think it matters which party is in power, they both think they know what is best for our money.

    • Manup

      How can you say it doesnt matter after all the crazy mess ups from the libers and the cold hard numbers pointsexter!!!!!

      • pointdexter

        Two parties one goal. What do you do Manup, follow me from comment to comment just to disagree with me?

        • Manup

          I disagree with you pointsexter because you make no sense and sound like a liber!!!!!

      • Tory

        You mean the crazy mess Bush × 2 made that President Obama tried to clean up but was obstructed by the RepubliCONS in every turn?

        How quick we forget but you will be reminded as soon as Trump and his band of racist thugs take office.

  • pointdexter
  • Dean

    I like what the Democrats do for technology by investing in the green space. Republicans are hell bent on the use of fossil fuels. Inflation comes when government spends, so long as they are spending oin a good cause what is the problem. That my 2 cents as a Canadian.

    • Danger_zone

      In theory the Democrats have the right idea with technology sure. But the efficiency and extreme waste by government and cronyism is so so high. Why not loosen regulation up so the private sector can invest in green space and technology and go from there. That way it doesn’t come at the burden of the tax payer.

      • Dean

        Didn’t they try that under Bush?

        • Danger_zone

          Far as I know Bush wasn’t interested in green tech and did nothing to help it or new businesses in the industry.

          • Dean

            Not sure about that

          • Danger_zone

            It’s true

      • SuperTech86

        Government growth is actually the biggest under Republican administrations, don’t believe the lies.

    • Tory

      Republicans in the US think climate change is a myth.
      Let me know what would be a good area in Canada to relocate to. Thanks

  • Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
    Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
    Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
    Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
    Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
    The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations.
    So Aaron, I call bullshit. Give it up son. I was in business for 45 years and I thoroughly know bullshit when I see it.

    • Father? Is that you?

      Only half of American adults have a vested interest in the stock market, and less than 15% directly participate in the stock market through buying and selling individual stocks. Most important, did you not read my point about taxes? That means no matter what you make, under a Democrat you get to keep much less. Oh, and don’t forget about the hidden tax of inflation, which is also much much higher when Democrats are in power.

      Hard to call me a bullshitter when all I did in this report was present facts and stats.

      On a more positive note, I’m glad you had such a long and rewarding career in business.

      Enjoy the weekend

      A

      P.S. I won’t even bother stating how much debt has been accrued under this current Democrat President.

      • Ibinaround2

        Paying for two wars of Bush and recovering from the Great Recession takes money. You CANNOT cut your way out of a recession…

        • Anytime a liberal brings up Bush to defend Obama, I just have to laugh. It has been 7 years, pal. Enough with the excuses. All the presidents combined didn’t rack up as much debt as Obama has during his two terms. And what has that done for the middle class? Last I check wages were stagnant for a decade. Last I checked purchasing power has eroded (hence the relevance of inflation in my article). Printing money (the Fed) and borrowing excessively while increasing taxes (Obama) just delays the inevitable. Younger generations of Americans have been sold out under your theory of Krugman economics.

          Adios

          • Ibinaround2

            So Bush adding 5.5 Trillion to the national debt doesn’t matter? His total job creation during his term was 1.3 million jobs. You don’t think that was a huge setback to try and make up those lost jobs? Not to mention his unnecessary wars, which we are STILL entangled in. Every preceding presidents term affects the next president term. Bush’s presidency left the worse economic climate since the Great Depression…

          • Read up Ibinaround2.

            Really? 7 years later and you’re still blaming Bush? It was Clinton’s policies that triggered the housing collapse. Check it out. I guess your point of the preceding president has merit…

          • Ibinaround2

            Apparently you buy the simplistic view that poor people caused the entire collapse of the banking industry. Banks have been fined Billions for fraudulent loans in their part of the scheme. They took poorly performing mortgages, bundled them as AAA securities, and sold them all over the world. They knew they were crap when they sold them, plus they insured them with AIG so when they failed, made money on the back end too. Also there were crooked appraisers and ratings agencies who made money on these schemes.

            There were many players in the failure of the financial sector. To blame it all on poor people buying homes is ludicrous…

          • Gibberish. Who blamed it on poor people? I referenced Clinton. Last checked, he was a multi-millionaire. Read ‘The Sellout’ by Charlie Gasparino. It’ll teach you some valuable info about what truly caused the crisis. Yes, bankers, in part, were to blame. Never disputed that.

          • Justin Williams

            When Bill Clinton was president he took the National Debt down to half or even more, then Bush out is back in debt more than any other president we ever had, if we have a republican president then the lower class and middle class will pay 50 to 75 percent not taxes when the upper class and rich people will only have to pay a lot less more taxes than now there are rich who only pay 2% taxes it’s wrong

          • Sandra Roberts

            Obama has added 14.5 TRILLION in National Debt that’s almost 3x what Bush did, We have lost 6x the Number of jobs in the last 4 yrs under Obama and job creation doesn’t even come close to 3% of loss sure the numbers look good because they don’t report on unemployment for those who have given or can no longer receive unemployment.

          • Ibinaround2

            WRONG.
            On Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08. On Nov. 23, 2015, it was $18,722,746,583,118.03 Thus, so far in Obama’s presidency, the federal debt has increased $8,095,869,534,204.95.

            http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/debt-under-obama-8000000000000

            When Bush left office the debt was 10.6 Trillion. Subtract that from what it is now and tell me how you get 14.5 Trillion. Where did you get that false stat?

          • Sandra Roberts

            You have NOT taken into account the fact the last fiscal budget for 2016 which sent the budget over 22 trillion Dollars have you? That was passed just at the start of the New Year. Also Bush INHERITED Part of that debt, Just as the Next President will inherit Obama”s debt

          • Ibinaround2

            Even IF the national debt was going to be 22 trillion, it STILL does not equate to “Obama has added 14.5 TRILLION in National Debt”, which is what you claimed and I took issue with.

            Worrying about the national debt is as pointless as worrying about an asteroid hitting the Earth. NO ONE has paid down one dollar of the debt in 180 years…you think they are going to start now? The national debt is like what Jesus said about poor people, ” For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.” We will ALWAYS have a national debt and it will ALWAYS grow…

          • Ibinaround2… that’s crazy talk, pal. Please read what you wrote. Then ponder.

            “Worrying about the national debt is as pointless as worrying about an
            asteroid hitting the Earth. NO ONE has paid down one dollar of the debt
            in 180 years…you think they are going to start now?”

          • Ibinaround2

            Why worry about something you have absolutely no control over? And even if you did, worrying never solved anything.

            Or did I misread your intent entirely?

          • Mpr Listener Burnsville

            Bush INHERITED surpluses forecast to exceed all the national debt in about a decade…and left office with multi-year record high deficits with red ink for as far as the eyes could see.
            Reagan nearly tripled the nation debt

            Clinton had budget surpluses
            Bush 2 Double the national debt
            Obama as seem the deficits come down faster than any president in history

            FYI — fed spending in constant dollars increase 330% faster under Bush2 than Clinton…and 75% faster under Reagan than under Clinton.

            Under Obama — no increase in fed spending (in constant dollars) — spending is down from the last Bush 2 budget year.

            Fed spending grows faster under Rep…and deficits explode.

            if you worry about debt — the facts are clear — vote Dems.

          • Jack

            You have not taken into account that what a president does concerning the debt and such. Does not stop when he leaves office. There is interest and such.
            If, Reagan did not triple the debt, Bush doubling it. And, then borrowing from China. Think how much lower it would be now.

          • Jack

            Conservatives deny their history.Makes them look bad.

          • Jack

            Yea! It’s like republicans bringing up Carter and Clinton.
            Bush cut taxes twice twice and started 2 wars.So, had to borrow from China. Even Lincoln had a federal tax to pay for the Civil war. The printing money started under Nixon.

          • SuperTech86

            And what does 7 years have to do with anything? What is the average length of time it takes for deleveraging to complete after a major financial crisis fueled by a massive expansion of debit and credit? And in terms of U.S household debt which peaked at almost 100% of GDP in 2008 how has the majority of the debt been reduced? Was it paid down or defaulted on? True or false when adjusted for scale is the U.S recovery not tracking the same as Japan after it’s commercial real estate bubble burst in ’92?

            “Printing money (the Fed) and borrowing excessively while increasing
            taxes (Obama) just delays the inevitable. Younger generations of
            Americans have been sold out under your theory of Krugman economics.”

            You imply that the executive branch has any say over FED policy when it does not or do you not know what the function and purpose of the FMOC is because it hasn’t changed in a century.

      • SuperTech86

        “P.S. I won’t even bother stating how much debt has been accrued under this current Democrat President.”

        Don’t bother as you clearly haven’t studied global financial crisis history and the effects on the national debt or the simple fact that federal spending under Obama is inline with historic trends.

        And if you think that reducing federal spending during the deleveraging process that is required after a major financial crisis you are not even remotely qualified to speak on such subjects.

        • manderso

          Now that the pubs are in charge we won’t worry about the debt, will we.

      • Jack

        Thought buying stocks was the capitalist way?

  • tuhaybey

    The numbers in fact do not lie, but the author of this article certainly is- http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php

  • Jim

    What is truly sad, is that this article is utterly false. Wrong, period. Submit this as a paper for grading, and you fail. You fail in logic, and you fail in reading comprehension.

    Here, are the hard facts, as compiled and evaluated by actual researchers;

    “Even though the US Constitution assigns power over the budget (and most other economic powers) to Congress, not to the president, there is no difference in growth rates depending on which party controls Congress. It’s the presidency that matters.”

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2014/09/the-us-economy-performs-better-under-democratic-presidents-why.html

    • Semantics Jim. Perhaps read the title first, then proceed to actually read the article.

  • Bill Miller

    Average annual change in real GDP per capita since F.D.R.:
    From best to worst:
    1) FDR – Democrat: 5.25%
    2) Kennedy / Johson – Democrats: 3.93%
    3) Bill Clinton – Democrat: 2.91%
    4) Ronald Reagan – Republican: 2.65%
    5) Jimmy Carter – Democrat: 2.19%
    6) Nixon / Ford – Republicans: 1.81%
    7) Dwight Eisenhower – Republican: 1.19%
    8) George W. Bush – Republican: 1.1%
    9) George H.W. Bush – Republican: 0.95%
    I’ll take my chances with a Democratic president, thanks.

    • Bill,

      First, FDR’s numbers benefited, so to speak, from the Depression in that the economy was so bad, any positive growth would show up as a dramatic increase. Clinton, for another example, benefited from being forced to enact many Republican economic policies. Bear in mind, he didn’t have the House or the Senate for 6 of his 8 years in power.

      This is why I wrote in my article that is important to identify which party controlled the House and Senate during a President’s reign.

      The fact that Jimmy Carter is on your list gives me pause as to its credibility.

      • Bill Miller

        Your reply, especially regarding FDR, is rather odd, to say the least. Economic growth coming out of Depressions / Recessions, is not all the same. Nor are political responses to these catastrophic events. Under FDR, the Democrats held the House, the Senate and the Presidency, and utilized Keynesian economics to prime the pump of the economy, which resulted in large increases in GDP for over a decade. Hoover and the Republican controlled Congress emphasized austerity for a full three years, with negative economic results. It’s not as if the Depression came along at the end of Hoover’s term in office, and he didn’t have time to turn things around.

        Where is the evidence that, given another three years (or six years), GOP policies would have resulted in 5% annual economic growth, alleviating the worst impact of the Depression for millions of Americans? And why should we expect that even if once FDR became President, alternatively, he had to deal with a GOP-controlled Congress, that economic growth would have been as strong as it was under the Democratic controlled Congress?

        As for Clinton, you may remember that the Republicans predicted doom and gloom when his administration increased taxes on the wealthy (without a single Republican vote in the Senate, VP Al Gore casting the deciding vote) at the beginning of his administration. That tax increase, even after the Republicans took control of Congress, was never repealed, yet the doom and gloom predicted by conservatives never came to pass.

        Moreover, although the GOP did control Congress, they didn’t have a veto-proof majority. Clinton used the veto 37 times while President, but the GOP was only able to override just two of those vetoes, thus Clinton was not “forced” to do what Congress wanted him to do. Couple that with the Gingrich’s failed attempt to shut down the government (a favorite tactic of conservatives, despite its track record of failure), and it’s obvious that the supposed impact that the GOP-controlled Congress had on the Clinton economy is highly overrated.

        Finally, that even the Carter Administration (with a Democratic controlled Congress) resulted in stronger economic growth than the Administration of Bush II (who enjoyed GOP control of both the House and the Senate for the majority of his two terms) should give anyone pause who may be considering voting Republican for economic reasons alone.

        • Bill,

          You and I clearly have different economic philosophies. Expecting a Keynesian and Austrian to agree on anything relating to the economy is a lost cause.

          My point with FDR and the Depression was simply the bigger the collapse, the bigger the rebound. And if you recall, FDR’s policies failed miserably for many years. Keynesians agree that it wasn’t until WWII took off that the American economy started to truly rebound. I would recommend reading ‘The Forgotten Man’ by Amity Shlaes. A great book on this very subject.

          • Bill Miller

            What I recall is my grandparents, who lived through the Depression (as opposed to so many modern revisionist conservatives who did not) telling me how FDR put people to work, gave them hope, and helped prevent starvation and want on a massive scale. Funny that his “failed” policies resulted in him winning four elections.

            Also, please point me to the Keynesians who believe FDR’s policies were a failure until WWII came along (considering that it was Keynes himself who greatly influenced FDR’s domestic economic policies, and never claimed that these policies had failed.)

            Alf Landon, a Republican who ran against FDR in one contest, was asked years later his opinion on the FDR presidency. He responded that, “Roosevelt saved America.” (“The Worst Hard Time” by Timothy Egan.)

            And again, where you get the idea that a huge economic collapse inevitably leads to a huge rebound, I do not know. (Also, how you reconcile that claim while also insisting that FDR’s policies were a failure is obviously a contradiction since, by your logic, particular policies don’t particularly matter.) Obviously, then, particular economic policies make big recoveries happen, or they do not.

            I actually did read about 2/3’s of Shlaes revisionist history, which basically claims that if only free-market entrepreneurs had been allowed to go about their business, the private sector would have pulled us out of the Depression years earlier. This claim, however, ignores 1) Real GDP growth was already putting food on the table of real people and 2) The people she writes about who were able to battle through the Depression on their own terms were not prevented from doing so by the Federal Government (or the author wouldn’t have been able to come up with them as examples.)

            In my opinion, her book was simply an attempt to revise history to, ironically, support the failed policies of those who got us into the Depression in the first place (the unregulated free marketers) who are also essentially the same people who got us into this most recent economic mess as well.

          • Bill,

            Having grandparents who went through the Great Depression is something we
            mutually share. But that doesn’t make you, or me, an expert on the matter.
            Matter of fact, it’s almost irrelevant for this debate.

            And, anyone who thinks the ‘free market’ caused the collapse of 2008 is sadly
            mistaken. It was terrible easy-housing policy introduced by the Clinton
            administration, and continued by W., that promoted reckless lending and
            borrowing. If anything, government policy mixed in with a side of crony
            capitalism was the culprit. We haven’t had a free market for decades, if ever.
            To argue that a lack of regulation caused the housing bubble is strange.

            P.S. Maybe finish the book before you write it
            off with a one sentence snub.

          • Bill Miller

            If “we’ve never had a free market,” then why do you put so much blind faith in advocating for one, especially since apparently without one, the United States somehow managed to become the economic leader of the world for a century? The market which is utterly and completely free from government intervention in some way, shape or form has probably never existed, except in the fevered imaginations of the libertarian capitalists who continue to assert, without evidence, that it would be the most nearly perfect system of economic organization ever created.

            As for “crony capitalism,” that is essentially a redundant term. Whenever business goes largely unregulated, it is inevitable that corruption and manipulation will sneak in the back door. Look at today’s headlines about currency manipulation by the big banks, and how they even bragged about it to each other in chat-rooms. That corporations have bought off many politicians in both political parties to gain a free hand in manipulating the system is not an indictment of government intervention / regulation. It is an indictment of the lack of teeth in the rules, and the greed of particular individuals who choose to look the other way.

            My point about the Depression was that as the old folks who actually remember the Depression die off, it becomes steadily easier for modern-day conservatives to revise history to their benefit, since soon there will be no one left from that era to contradict their dubious claims.

            Finally, there’s no need to finish reading a book once it’s become obvious (more than halfway through) that the author is not interested in presenting a fair and balanced account of a historically significant time period. She knows her readers well, and understood that there’s an insatiable market for this sort of revisionist history among a certain demographic that, ironically, largely benefited either directly or indirectly from many of the government programs and laws which they now vehemently criticize.

  • Adrian S

    If you remove the 2 great wars from the question, the average inflation is not that different between the 2 parties, even though it’s clearly higher for Dems. It is the difference in mentality between the 2 parties at core, but it’s nowhere near the stupid calculations in this article. Without the wars, you don’t really have that problem.

  • Mike

    So three problems with this article.
    1) Interesting how you focus on inflation and not I don’t know… on GDP growth, unemployment rate, stock market growth. I’m sure you know that by most measures the economy does indeed do better under Democratic presidents.
    2) How about some information on how you came up with your inflation numbers? What years did Democrats and Republicans have clean sweeps? What was inflation during those periods? I’m sure if you’re numbers are legit, you did a decent amount of work. Why not show us? Because they do not seem believable.
    3) You are correct in saying the clean sweep matters because when a party has that they are able to truly practice their economic policies. What your analysis is missing is the fact that after a few years of a clean sweep, the party in power loses congress, you have divided government that can’t change much of anything, and we are essentially being run by laws passed by the last clean sweep government. Those years of divided government should be included as part of the previous clean sweep government.

    Example. When Obama became president, he had a clean sweep for a few years, and he passed all sorts of liberal programs like Obamacare, the Stimulus package, continued with the TARP, bailed out the auto industry,

    • Mike

      raised taxes on the rich, etc. Republicans were powerless to stop him. Now that we have a divided government, Obama hasn’t been able to do as much and Republicans have been unable to enact their own agenda or even roll back what he already passed.

  • James Sefcak

    This article is pure right-wing propaganda. history has proven that economies do far better under Democratic presidents than Republican. GOP Presidents have a tendancy to make deficits far worse.

    • James,

      I will say this… you’re wrong. Case in point, the current President is a Democrat. His administration has accumulated more debt in 7 years than all other Presidents, combined! This article is not, as you say, ‘right-wing propaganda.’ In fact, I have no more vested interest in the outcome of US elections than any other Canadian. I just point to the facts. And they are very clear. While not perfect, nor even great for that matter (and they’re getting worse with time), Republicans have been better stewards of the US economy.

  • Jack

    have to laugh. Notice you did not mention Eisenhower WANTED taxes in the 90s%. Also, The Congressional Research Service has said that cutting taxes for the rich, has never helped jobs or the economy. Just increased the income gap. Also. Look up a stock trading magazine editor said,”I don’t know why people think Republicans are good for the stock market” Found that what Truman said IS TRUE,”If, you want to live like a Republican, Then, vote Democratic.”

  • Pattie

    A+ article. Some ppl just refuse to understand that the sneaky dems pretty much took control of Bush’s second term in 05 and they were spending up a storm over what Bush spent on the wars..they were told repeatedly to stop the spending but it fell on deaf ears of course. Then they took official control in 07 and BO took that spending ball and ran with it and now we are on the brink of disaster…he is the worst president ever and Hillary will finish us off.

  • SuperTech86

    LMAO…whomever wrote this article has the economic IQ of a fruit fly….

  • Tory

    You sound like a damn fool…evertime you people scream for change you Elect a stupid RepubliCON who put us in a recession

    Then a Democrat is elected and if he does not have magical powers to clean up the damn mess you Cons make in the time frame you think he should, you get to crying and blaming the Dems

    You right wing nuts wanted Change well you are about to get it with Trump, Giuliani, and Christie.

    And they are all racist crooks. I’m so glad President Obama is handing the torch to Trumps unqualified ass.

    Get prepared for the worse recession since Bush × 2 and you who voted this serial scam artist in office.will have no one to blame but yourselfs.

  • manderso

    You just have to look at jobs created under the Presidents to see the truth.

  • SuperTech86

    Aaron you should actually read some books and papers on economics.By the way the countries that have adopted neo-liberalism since the 80’s are some of the worst performers in the OECD, I wonder why that is? Maybe the re-distributive effects upwards?

    • SuperTech86,

      I should read some books and papers? Interesting… what a novel idea. Thank you for sharing such valuable wisdom.

GRAB your FREE
COPY of this EBOOK NOW!
And become a subscriber to Capitalist Creations’ newsletter, which includes exclusive updates, real estate tips and offers.
Your Information will never be shared with any third party.

What you'll learn from this eBook:

  • Where most profitable properties are located in your city
  • How to select the perfect tenant
  • The H.U.T.S.S. secret (it’ll increase your monthly rent!)
  • Special Bonus: My Tenant Application Form
GRAB your FREE
COPY of this EBOOK NOW!
And become a subscriber to Capitalist Creations’ newsletter, which includes exclusive updates, startup and investing tips and offers.
Your Information will never be shared with any third party.

What you'll learn from this eBook:

  • The reason world-class entrepreneurs start businesses
  • What drives entrepreneurs to record profit years
  • The key ingredients to all successful startups