When does an explanation become an excuse?

Question

I ask this because it is obvious cons and liberals have different ideas about how best to grow the economy.

Liberals believe that by shifting taxes to those who can better afford it (the rich) and creating laws and programs that help the little guy work his way up, you can create a larger more educated middle class and better growth.

Cons believe that cutting taxes (mostly for the rich) and deregulating leads to more growth. In fact, they believe social spending (such as education, job training, GI Bills, etc) leads to more poverty.

AND YET TIME AFTER TIME THEY ARE PROVEN WRONG, AND HAVE TO COME UP WITH EXPLANATIONS (EXCUSES) ON WHAT THEY SAID WAS GOING TO HAPPEN DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I'M ALWAYS PROVIDING STATS FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES PROVING THE ECONOMY DOES BETTER WHEN DEMS ARE IN POWER

AND WHAT DO CONS DO?

COME UP WITH EXCUSE AFTER EXCUSE. OH WELL THIS, OH WELL THAT.

SAMPLE EXCUSE I'VE HEARD BEFORE:

Well the economy grew so much under FDR because he came from the Great Depression. It doesn't matter that the economy tanked for FOUR straight years after 1929, it was bound to go up.

Reagan, on the other hand, had to deal with a recession. That's why his growth numbers are lower.

So yes I can see how I'm a hypocrity by pointing at the Great Depression as a good thing for FDR but the recession under Reagan as a bad thing.

I always list my sources. Compare the percent increase for all presidents for yourself. You will see Democrats dominating.

REAL GDP
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

INFLATION ADJUSTED TAX REVENUES
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/sheets/hist01z3.xls

POVERTY RATES
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

MEDIAN WAGES
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h06ar.html

JOBS CREATED
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001

Public education, state owned and subsidized universities, job training, GI Bills, student grants, subsidized loans are all forms of social spending and wealth redistribution.

It is taking from those who have more (because of our progressive tax system) and giving to those who have less.

Answer 1

Cons believe that cutting taxes (mostly for the rich) and deregulating leads to more growth. In fact, they believe social spending (such as education, job training, GI Bills, etc) leads to more poverty.

What a bunch of crap. Cons really believe giving people something for nothing leads to dependence. Train them, educate them, whatever just don't give them something for nothing.

Answer 2

Interesting take on the economy under both parties.

I personally believe that there are so many factors involved that simply sighting this or that administration was in control when this or that took place really doesn't amount to a true cause and effect analysis.

Was there a conflict or war going on? An oil embargo perhaps? Terrorist attack? Stock market crash? Large shift in technology? Result of policies initiated by the prior administration? Lowered or raised expectation of future earnings caused by world events totally out of the control of the administration? For instance, if a President chose to pay down the debt somewhat (look, it's just a hypothetical, ok?), the economic indicators for the economy as a whole would be worse than if he chose to initiate a bunch of government, pork barrel construction projects or social programs. Not really a true picture of the President's fiscal policy when viewed at a later time using different economic indicators for the period.

Too complex to tie each period to each President's party affiliation - that's my opinion.

Each ideology has its pros and cons - and each will be successful or fail depending on the circumstances and times when they are initiated.

Answer 3

No, we ask you to provide sources and uses statements, to go along with a list of "Facts" that are alone meaningless.
As everyone pointed out in your last question.
A list of stats, from 1932, when the entire economy and Fiscal Practice and Policy has changed dramatically, without, cause and effect is a best incomplete Science and at worst just Lazy.