Cons let me ask you this and be honest...?

Question

If you had historical data proving supply side Republicans saw better growth then all other presidents, wouldn't you use it as proof that your ideas work best?

So why the copout when the facts show the opposite?

Keynesian (invest in America) Democrats see better growth then supply side Republicans.

IF REALITY WERE ON YOUR SIDE, WOULD YOU NOT USE IT?

1) Here are the percent increase in real GDP for various presidents:

FDR 177.51% (from 32' to 45')
FDR 88.14% (from 32' to 41', without WWII)
JFK/LBJ 46.00%
CLINTON 33.81%
REAGAN 30.63%
BUSH JR 16.55% (from 00' to 06')

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

---------

2) Here is the percent increase in inflation adjusted tax revenues:

FDR 447.54% (40' to 44', only data available)
CLINTON 57.91%
JFK/LBJ 37.63%
REAGAN 20.16%
BUSH JR 4.44% (assuming predictions up to 2008 hold)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/sheets/hist01z3.xls

troll,

Are you going to deny that the 1930s and early 40s was an era of New Deal Democratic Keynesian policies? It was a revolutionary change in the role of government. Government was now in the business of education, job training, GI Bills, etc, in an effort to get the economy moving again.

Likewise, are you going to deny that the 1980s was not a time of supply side, tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation?

Barry,

Ha. I just listed that excuse.

"Reagan was responsible for the Clinton growth but not responsible for the Bush Sr recession. It takes years for a presidents policies to take place unless of course you are talking about Reagan and Bush Jr. Then their policies took immediate effect and Carter and Clinton had nothing to do with it."

none,

FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton were the biggest Keynesians.

Reagan and Bush Jr, on the other hand, were the only supply side Republicans to hold the presidency. Nixon was not a supply sider (more of a moderate) and neither was Eisenhower.

The whole trickle down economics idea hadn't even been invented yet.

Answer 1

So...in your view, the only independent variable in the analysis is the party of the president, and the only dependent variable is GDP?

That analysis is specious.

Try again.

First, tell us all the factors that you, in your highly analytical mind, think might impact GDP. Give them some weighting factors, if you wish.

Go ahead, Professor Churchill.

ADDITION: Troovee...I asked you a question. The Socratic method suggests that you answer it in good faith.

Are you going to suggest that the single most significant contributor to the growth of GDP is the party of the President? Your analysis, in every single question you have posed, includes consideration of *NO* other factors. In a free market, one would think that you would have a more multivariate analysis. Do you? Have you boned up on your
ANOVA techniques? Have you done that data mining? Or is your conclusion already done, based on post hoc, ergo propter hoc (and if you don't know what that means, you are not capable of conducting this analysis).

Answer 2

If you are trying to prove that the free market (capitalism or whatever "supply side" is) doesn't work, BEST OF LUCK.

Hong Kong - Best example of Capitalism has a higher GDP per person than the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. Without any natural resources, it somehow manages to do better than those 5 huge economic "powerhouses" It's got unions to fight the "evil business" but they have lost 1 working day in 11 years due to union strikes. They seem pretty happy, but we can't be sure. Read "Free to Choose: A Personal Statement" by Milton and Rose Friedman, to learn why that is.

Percent Increase in real GDP includes Government spending. When the Income tax is 94%, do you think that government is going to sit on that money? No, they would like to spend it.
Source:www.data360.org

While we are on income tax; slavery is working and having all of the profits of your labor stolen by a higher authority. Income tax is stealing 35% of your profits, which would mean that we are 35% slaves. I would prefer 0% slavery, but you might have a different agenda.

Answer 3

okay history and facts are not on your side. for your information WW2 started in 1939 and that is what built the econmy up for FDR all his polices up then did not pull us out of the recession. . JFK started supply side econmics with his tax cuts. Pres. Clinton was handed a econmy that was in recovery and growing at 5%. and the democrats investing in crop growers not to grow crops helps no one. or build low income housing to allow them to become slums just keeps people in poverty . but rewritting history is the only thing liberals have now.

Answer 4

What your missing in your thinking is which systems put American Workers to work and which systems drive business to 3rd world countries. What is good for Multi national business is not always what is best for the small business in this country (500 employee or less). Clinton also added almost a whole year in this figures with a retro tax that drove many small businesses out of business that was a boom to American import business.

Answer 5

What kind of crappy stats are these? You have 4 democrat presidents and 2 Republicans. You picked 2 republicans who were also within 20 years of each other. Your hack job stats mean nothing, you've already rigged the question. Also as i told you before, presidents don't determine a good economy, the innovation of the American people determines our economy.

Answer 6

Do you not take into consideration, the fact that the previous presidents policies are what cause the subsequent growth. Reagan's supply side economics are the reason for the growth under Clinton. The economy was in a downturn when he left. Bush has brought it back. As far has FDR he was riding Hoover's policies.

Answer 7

There is no question that supply side economics does not work. There is also no question that any competent economist could have predicted as much before Reagan gave it a shot in the early 80's. There is no question that supply side apologists are afflicted with pure unadulterated greed...

Answer 8

So few answers to this and your last question. You must be scaring the poor babies out of their fragile world, so they're avoiding you.

Answer 9

Don't try to use logic with neo-cons. You may as well be speaking a language from another dimension.