Meaningless statement. But I'll give you some specifics about the 'darker sides' of American political and economic history.
The GOP OWNS Watergate, Iran-Contra and the unfolding shit show to be named later.
The GOP OWNS the Great Depression, the Great Recession and most of the recessions since WWII.
They also OWN 'fairy dust economics' which, among other things, posits 'deficit spending bad under Dems, good under Repugs'.
Why does the economy do better when Democrats are in the White House?
Interpreting the post-war economic growth gap
By Tim Hyde
With a presidential election less than five months away, the daily torrent of polls, gaffes, and attack ads tends to get all the attention. But history suggests that following the latest macroeconomic developments – like last month’s disappointing jobs report or this week’s Fed decision to hold off on interest rate hikes – gives us a better indication about who will prevail in November.
A large political science literature has found that better economic performance in the run-up to an election is closely associated with the political fate of the incumbent party. It seems that on some level voters hold presidents responsible for the economy, even though most observers think the president actually has relatively little control over it.
Sure, presidents have a few tools at their disposal: they can appoint pliant Fed chairs, push for changes to taxes and regulations, and try to negotiate new trade deals. But their control is naturally limited by the power of Congress, long-term economic trends outside their control, and the potential for disruptions coming from abroad.
Then again, the historical record shows that the economy has done quite a bit better under Democratic presidents since World War II, with faster GDP growth, more reductions in unemployment, greater industrial production, and higher corporate profits.
Is this just statistical noise, or is it actually evidence that Democratic presidents (and policies) are better for the American economy? A study appearing in the April issue of the American Economic Review tries to find the root cause of the economic growth gap between Democrats and Republicans.
In Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration (PDF), authors Alan Blinder and Mark Watson compare the economic records of Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, focusing on the period since World War II when data on gross domestic product and employment have been collected in a consistent manner. They find GDP tends to grow much faster under Democratic presidents (averaging 4.33% per year) than Republican presidents (averaging 2.54% per year).
The authors note that this 1.8 point GDP growth gap between the parties is quite large -- roughly equivalent to the 2.0 point gap between the booming 1990’s and the much rockier economy of the last ten years.
GDP growth over the last 16 presidential terms
Comparison of U.S. real gross domestic product growth during nine Republican and seven Democratic presidential terms, 1949–2013. Economic growth has been consistently higher under Democratic presidents during this period.
View full size chart
https://www.aeaweb.org/view-high-chart?id=6322
Source: U.S. Federal Reserve FRED database
There are other ways to measure the health of the economy besides GDP, but almost no matter which one is used, the economy seems to do better under Democratic presidents.
The Democratic advantage persists for unemployment (especially changes in unemployment), wage and productivity growth, and stock market returns, although the differences are not as stark as they are for GDP.
The economy is in recession about 7% of the time under Democrats as compared to 28% of the time under Republicans. Republican presidents do tend to preside over lower inflation at least, but that is mostly to be expected given the generally more sluggish economic conditions during their terms.
The GOP OWNS Watergate, Iran-Contra and the unfolding shit show to be named later.
The GOP OWNS the Great Depression, the Great Recession and most of the recessions since WWII.
They also OWN 'fairy dust economics' which, among other things, posits 'deficit spending bad under Dems, good under Repugs'.
Why does the economy do better when Democrats are in the White House?
Interpreting the post-war economic growth gap
By Tim Hyde
With a presidential election less than five months away, the daily torrent of polls, gaffes, and attack ads tends to get all the attention. But history suggests that following the latest macroeconomic developments – like last month’s disappointing jobs report or this week’s Fed decision to hold off on interest rate hikes – gives us a better indication about who will prevail in November.
A large political science literature has found that better economic performance in the run-up to an election is closely associated with the political fate of the incumbent party. It seems that on some level voters hold presidents responsible for the economy, even though most observers think the president actually has relatively little control over it.
Sure, presidents have a few tools at their disposal: they can appoint pliant Fed chairs, push for changes to taxes and regulations, and try to negotiate new trade deals. But their control is naturally limited by the power of Congress, long-term economic trends outside their control, and the potential for disruptions coming from abroad.
Then again, the historical record shows that the economy has done quite a bit better under Democratic presidents since World War II, with faster GDP growth, more reductions in unemployment, greater industrial production, and higher corporate profits.
Is this just statistical noise, or is it actually evidence that Democratic presidents (and policies) are better for the American economy? A study appearing in the April issue of the American Economic Review tries to find the root cause of the economic growth gap between Democrats and Republicans.
In Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration (PDF), authors Alan Blinder and Mark Watson compare the economic records of Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, focusing on the period since World War II when data on gross domestic product and employment have been collected in a consistent manner. They find GDP tends to grow much faster under Democratic presidents (averaging 4.33% per year) than Republican presidents (averaging 2.54% per year).
The authors note that this 1.8 point GDP growth gap between the parties is quite large -- roughly equivalent to the 2.0 point gap between the booming 1990’s and the much rockier economy of the last ten years.
GDP growth over the last 16 presidential terms
Comparison of U.S. real gross domestic product growth during nine Republican and seven Democratic presidential terms, 1949–2013. Economic growth has been consistently higher under Democratic presidents during this period.
View full size chart
https://www.aeaweb.org/view-high-chart?id=6322
Source: U.S. Federal Reserve FRED database
There are other ways to measure the health of the economy besides GDP, but almost no matter which one is used, the economy seems to do better under Democratic presidents.
The Democratic advantage persists for unemployment (especially changes in unemployment), wage and productivity growth, and stock market returns, although the differences are not as stark as they are for GDP.
The economy is in recession about 7% of the time under Democrats as compared to 28% of the time under Republicans. Republican presidents do tend to preside over lower inflation at least, but that is mostly to be expected given the generally more sluggish economic conditions during their terms.
