Because I like watching people lie...

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
correlation != causation

[/ QUOTE ]There's nothing in politics or economics which can have its causation proven. A hypothesis can only be proven incorrect.

However this correlation is just about as strong as they come. On average the economy and the budget does much better under a Democratic Administration.

Oh, and on topic, the right-wing American Enterprise Institute recently came out with this:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

Bush Junior is a drunk spendthrift.

Somehow half of America has been convinced that we should spend a ton of money building up another country, but not our own. If the Left could ever get a noise machine that powerful, imagine what we could accomplish. Maybe our students would start competing well against other nations... who knows. The sky is the limit.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
correlation != causation

[/ QUOTE ]There's nothing in politics or economics which can have its causation proven. A hypothesis can only be proven incorrect.

However this correlation is just about as strong as they come. On average the economy and the budget does much better under a Democratic Administration.

Oh, and on topic, the right-wing American Enterprise Institute recently came out with this:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

Bush Junior is a drunk spendthrift.

Somehow half of America has been convinced that we should spend a ton of money building up another country, but not our own. If the Left could ever get a noise machine that powerful, imagine what we could accomplish. Maybe our students would start competing well against other nations... who knows. The sky is the limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

One could easily posit that since the effects of changes to fiscal policy take some time to percolate through the economy, it's possible your analyis is ass-backwards. What if my theory was that the state of the economy is always a reflection of the previous 3 -4 years worth of federal meddling?

Then it looks like Republican administrations are dealing with the mess of Democratic administrations while Democratic administrations are undermining the strong results of Republican actions...

The point is, your chart is nonsense and so is your analysis, and no, I'm not a supporter of Bush. I'm offended by ALL stupidity not just republican stupidity.

natedogg

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, your chart is nonsense and so is your analysis, and no, I'm not a supporter of Bush. I'm offended by ALL stupidity not just republican stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do yourself a favor and read the AEI analysis. AEI is a conservative organization. Among their findings:

- President Reagan cut the budget of eight agencies out of fifteen during his first term, and ten out of fifteen during his second term.
- President Clinton cut the budget of nine out of fifteen agencies during his first term but cut none during his second term.
- President George W. Bush has cut none of the agencies’ budgets during his first term.

Also it shows that

- In his first term, Clinton cut non-defense discretionary spending by 8 percent
- In his second term, Clinton increased such spending by 8 percent
- In his first term, Bush INCREASED non-defense discretionary spending by over 30%!

Finally, I'm sure most of the conservatives on this board are not big fans of the feds running education. Well, under GWB education funding by the feds is up 70% and under clinton it went down by 8% in his first term.

[Matty]

Nevermind that. It's only about revenue. And 100% of revenue comes from a good economy.

Clearly when a Republican President consults his crystal ball and sees a Democrat will serve for 8 years after him, he sets up the economy to thrive for exactly that long- but he takes extra care to make sure it doesn't happen until the end of his administration- whether that be 4 or 8 years long. I mean, it's obvious.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
Nevermind that. It's only about revenue. And 100% of revenue comes from a good economy.

Clearly when a Republican President consults his crystal ball and sees a Democrat will serve for 8 years after him, he sets up the economy to thrive for exactly that long- but he takes extra care to make sure it doesn't happen until the end of his administration- whether that be 4 or 8 years long. I mean, it's obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right; what we need is to cut taxes (again) on wealth, so that revenue will go up. It's worked so well so far!

[jester710]

I have no experience with economics, nor do I have a particular political affiliation, so my question is borne purely out of curiosity. Someone posted on this thread that perhaps the best solution is a Republican Congress with a Democratic President. So far, no one has responded to this. I would like to know how you all feel about this statement, whether you think the opposite could be true, or whatever. Thanks.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no experience with economics, nor do I have a particular political affiliation, so my question is borne purely out of curiosity. Someone posted on this thread that perhaps the best solution is a Republican Congress with a Democratic President. So far, no one has responded to this. I would like to know how you all feel about this statement, whether you think the opposite could be true, or whatever. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]Since all spending starts in Congress, and the President has the veto I think the only important factor in the amount of spending is whether the two are from different parties or the same party. Democratic Congress and Republican President, or Republican Congress and Democratic President- either way would cut spending.

However, whoever controls Congress determines what that limited amount of money is spent on. So having Congress is more important legislatively, but having the Presidency is better for PR, agenda-setting, foreign policy and court appointment purposes.

I think that's about as condense as you can make that issue. =]