OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Agema]

I saw some stats collected from the Economic Report Of The President on the tax/spend trends of the two parties postwar. They suggest Republicans do indeed reduce taxes, but they don't actually reduce spending.

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

This is another article that suggests from the raw data that the US economy not only has historically grown more under the Democrats, but but more equally too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...in&oref=slogin

[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. )

[chrispedersen]

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.

[chrispedersen]

Oh and it turns out I was wrong. At least my local NPR claims that Martin Luther King was a republican.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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.

Well how about we don't assume that. How about we look at the report, and see that of the 50 years used for the article, 30 years had Republican Presidents, and 20 years had Democratic Presidents. Now, using your example, that means that by sheer chance, the Republicans had more chances to do better. Unfortunately this forces you to stand strong on your refusal to give creedence to isolated statistics, as obviously they had more chances to do poorly, as well. And, in most cases, they in did manage to do more poorly. Of course there were more factors involved, but one thing that makes a good President, is the ability to harmonize with those factors, to get a more effective whole. You can argue what could be, or what also maybe had relevance, but it doesn't change the fact - over the last 50 years, Democrats have had significantly, and fairly reliably more positive economic figures during their time in office. That is a simple fact, it's backed up by other facts, and it's hard to effectively argue against it without presenting facts that support your position.


I will again clarify, for those who like to skim - I am not a Democrat, nor do I implicitly support that party. However I do feel that the Republican party has gone so far beyond the line of good sense, that our country could be much better off. Since we have a very broken 2 party system, I have nothing to compare them to, but the Democratic party, which has become almost as bad in many ways, but is still statistically, and (to me anyways) ideologically superior.

I do wish we could manage something better than either.....

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Well how about we don't assume that. How about we look at the report, and see that of the 50 years used for the article, 30 years had Republican Presidents, and 20 years had Democratic Presidents. Now, using your example, that means that by sheer chance, the Republicans had more chances to do better. Unfortunately this forces you to stand strong on your refusal to give creedence to isolated statistics, as obviously they had more chances to do poorly, as well.

I don't know if you are deliberately misunderstanding or not.

What I am saying is:

1. The sample size is *too* small to determine causality between performance and party.
2. Performance is greatly overshadowed by external factors such as the putative ending of the cold war.
3. The choice of 1954 as an ending point is arbitrary, and designed to make the democrats look good. Throw in the great depression years and the democrats look abysmal. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Any decision to chose an arbitrarily starting point (throwing out hundreds of years of data) you have to immediately infer that any legitimate reason has been tossed out the window.

Its like saying.. yes.. we are going to measure the mpg of this car - but only during the times its running *down* the mountain.

Since we have a very broken 2 party system..

For the sake of argument, what makes you think its broken? I think it is working as well as usual, and as well as intended, more or less.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

What I am saying is:

1. The sample size is *too* small to determine causality between performance and party.
2. Performance is greatly overshadowed by external factors such as the putative ending of the cold war.
3. The choice of 1954 as an ending point is arbitrary, and designed to make the democrats look good. Throw in the great depression years and the democrats look abysmal. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

1) It's the only sample that we have. Post WW2 we see the plastic revolution, computers, television, etc etc. For so many reasons, the rest of history isn't even entirely relevant to the current situation, because life and the economy have both evolved tremendously, changing the dynamics of cash-flow forever.

2) Going back to your "chances of positive or negative events" argument, I can only state that given how many extenuating factors exist, the only thing that we can do, unless we can achieve full transparency from our government and our corporations, is assume that over time, the net effect of positive and negative factors upon the performance of the Presidency, has been roughly equal.

3) There is no "choice" of an ending date for the study, and it is not arbitrary. That year was chosen for one simple reason, it is the first year that all relevant factors was tracked by the Economic Report to the President. And as I postulated before, it's all that really matters to the here and now. 70 years ago for example, our economy was balanced around the concept of single income families. It was considered generally disreputable for a married woman to be working in America, rather than taking care of her children. The advent of so many of our modern trappings, and the rapid rise in apparent cost of living, has transformed our economy in ways that make historical dynamics inapplicable to the present state of the nation (and the world), thus invalidating data culled from another era. Otherwise, we must both bow to the assumption that Despotism is the superior form of government, as the greatest empires of all time, Alexander the Great's Greece, and Ghengis Khan's Mongolia, were essentially led by intensely charismatic and intelligent dictators. Ignoring that fact, is arbitrarily skewing results towards some sort of representative government, and thus ignoring the ability of a strong dictator to make a nation grow and flourish beyond expectations.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

For the sake of argument, what makes you think its broken? I think it is working as well as usual, and as well as intended, more or less.

Certainly not as intended. The type of conflict in Washington that was originally intended, has all but faded away. Our elected officials are no longer elected based upon their ability to debate, their ability to innovate, or their ability to help our government evolve. Our Federal Government was intended to change and grow over time, to meet the changing needs of the nation, and her people. But as politicians perfected spin, and their ability to manipulate people into voting for charisma, rather than for integrity and courage - as the focus was taken away from serious national concerns, and placed upon petty social issues - we failed ourselves, and our government failed us.

Both parties have failed us. Just, the Republican party has managed to fail us just a bit more.

[Gregstrom]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Otherwise, we must both bow to the assumption that Despotism is the superior form of government, as the greatest empires of all time, Alexander the Great's Greece, and Ghengis Khan's Mongolia, were essentially led by intensely charismatic and intelligent dictators. Ignoring that fact, is arbitrarily skewing results towards some sort of representative government, and thus ignoring the ability of a strong dictator to make a nation grow and flourish beyond expectations.

Just to stir a little , but I can think of two other greatest empires of all time: British (certainly covered the greatest area) and Roman (pretty impressive longevity and impact on western ways of thinking). Both ran a form of democracy (I wouldn't call them very representative democracies, though - OTOH, is a system where a 52%/48% split of the popular vote can equate to a 70%/30% college vote really that representative?), with a noticeable proportion of politicians who were corrupt or held extreme viewpoints. They had two-house systems of government, and rich and influential families kept on getting members elected to positions of political power on the basis of name and family influence for multiple generations.

I match you, and raise you one herring!

[NTJedi]

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.

Providing tax breaks to the rich won't bolster the economy or provide higher wages. Increasing minimum wage has not improved the lives of those working minimum wage as the rest of the market adjusts upwards as well... the $1 menu's from fast food restaurants have been disappearing as a result. Another bad side effect of increasing minimum wage is other businesses don't match the increase... thus if you're earning $6.25/HR and minimum wage is increased from $5.00 to $6.15 you're out of luck and closer to the poverty level.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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.....

Bill Gates found a way to pay zero in taxes for 1999 so those Democrats do a terrible job getting him and others at his level to pay taxes. If the Democrats were serious about improving the tax system they would attack the existing loopholes.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Providing tax breaks to the rich won't bolster the economy or provide higher wages. Increasing minimum wage has not improved the lives of those working minimum wage as the rest of the market adjusts upwards as well... the $1 menu's from fast food restaurants have been disappearing as a result. Another bad side effect of increasing minimum wage is other businesses don't match the increase... thus if you're earning $6.25/HR and minimum wage is increased from $5.00 to $6.15 you're out of luck and closer to the poverty level.

I'm pretty sure that you're well aware that the purchasing power of "minimum wage" has been eroding for decades now?

That is to say, that we are not keeping pace with the cost of living. Not only that, but as you point out, many middle-wage jobs don't even see the corresponding increase, thus we experience the phenomenon of a shrinking middle class, and more people at or below poverty level.

But poverty, is a mutable point. If I were to pay 100% taxes, but have a decent place to live, healthful food on my plate, and an ID card that let me into movies, and let me pick up a few luxuries here and there, why would I complain? People ultimately complain about taxes because of how little they see in return.

Our approach to taxation and spending is entirely backwards for this day and age - and the lack of serious accountability ruins our government's chances of success.