Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMorrison
In fact, they -increase- spending.
Of course, there are some who would argue that increasing wages is not indicative of a growing economy..... though, they are the same people who claim that providing tax breaks to the rich bolsters the economy, and leads to higher wages. 
I think these figures are a bit misleading though. I'd venture to guess that under the Republicans, the top 5% does better than the NYT table shows, but through deregulation and tax loopholes, are more able to hide their income, during those administrations. :P Then when a Democrat takes office, they add some regulation back in, forcing the rich to declare more of their income.....
(Oh and Agema, apparently to Republicans, linking to Slate is something akin to how I might feel if they linked from O'Reilly..... Even if you are just trying to show them numbers that were compiled directly from the Economic Report to the President, complete with link to said document. ) |
These are the same canards floated the last time.
I don't actually dispute that over the period from 54 until the present that that statistics have favored the democrats.
I dispute they are factually relevent; to restate - I don't disbelieve figures on how the economies fared. I dispute that they are attributable to democrats or republicans.
Case in point- Clinton cut defense spending dramatically (the so called peace dividend). He cut it because the actions of Reagan led to the break up of the Soviet Union.
Again, the US economy performed well during the 50's as we had no significant opposition. This happened as a result of WWII - one can not statistically make any claim that was a result of the actions of the democrats.
Assume that there were 7 democratic and 5 republican administrations in 48 years. What are the chances if you flipped a coin that the democrats would get 3.5 heads and the republicans 2.5 (zero). So the odds are someone will get more heads - but getting more has nothing to do with being democrat or republican.
I don't say that there is no causal relationship - but I am saying it is nowhere near 1 - and probably much closer to .1. And that other factors are much larger.