Which party is best for the economy? It's not even close

[ProSense]

Which party is best for the economy? It's not even close

by Jon Perr

If for nothing else, you have to give Republican leaders and their conservative echo chamber credit for staying on message. After Paul Ryan famously declared the America was becoming a nation of "makers versus takers," Jeb Bush praised Ryan's defense of "the right to rise" supposedly now under assault. Last week, supply-side propagandist George Gilder, perhaps best known for his mantra that "the poor most of all need the spur of their own poverty," returned to warn that "people will abuse any free good." And campaigned this weekend in Ohio, the GOP ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan claimed theirs is the party of "success."

As it turns out, there is one problem with this Republican chest-thumping. Because when it comes to which political party is best for the American economy, it's not the GOP. It's not even close.

As the historical record shows, from economic growth and job creation to stock market performance and just about every other indicator of the health of American capitalism, the modern U.S. economy has almost always done better under Democratic presidents. Despite GOP mythology to the contrary, America generally gained more jobs and grew faster when taxes were higher (even much higher) and income inequality lower.

While the U.S. recovery from the crippling Bush recession has been painfully slow, most economists--including the nonpartisan CBO and some of John McCain's own 2008 advisers--believe President Obama saved the American free-enterprise system from the abyss. And many economists are increasingly worried that businessman-turned-President Romney would lead the United States back into recession.

Here's why the economic debate between Democrats and Republicans is no contest at all...

• Job Creation and Economic Growth
  
  
• The Stock Market
  
  
• Income Inequality
  
  
• National Debt
  
  
• The Bush Disaster and the Obama Recovery
  
  
• Looking Ahead to the Romney-Ryan Recession

Job Creation and Economic Growth

When President Obama declared in December that decades of Republican trickle-down economics "never worked," conservatives were predictably apoplectic. Instead, they should have been ashamed.

To be sure, George W. Bush provided the perfect bookend to era of modern Republican economic management ushered by Herbert Hoover. The verdict on President Bush's reign of ruin was pronounced even before Barack Obama took the oath of office. Just days after the Washington Post documented that George W. Bush presided over the worst eight-year economic performance in the modern American presidency, the New York Times on January 24, 2009 featured an analysis ("Economic Setbacks That Define the Bush Years&quot comparing presidential performance going back to Eisenhower. As the Times showed, George W. Bush, the first MBA president, was a historic failure when it came to expanding GDP, producing jobs and fueling stock market growth.

On January 9, 2009, the Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, "Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record." (The Journal's interactive table quantifies his staggering failure relative to every post-World War II president.) The meager one million jobs created under President Bush didn't merely pale in comparison to the 23 million produced during Bill Clinton's tenure. In September 2009, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee charted Bush's job creation disaster, the worst since Hoover:



<...>

In May, Bloomberg News similarly confirmed that private sector jobs increase more with Democrats in the White House. (Ironically, this is the first recession in 40 years in which the total federal, state and local government workforce contracted.) As Bloomberg explained:

Since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures...Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy's inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans.

And as ThinkProgress highlighted, over the past 50 years, Republican administrations oversaw the largest declines in wages (measured as a percentage of U.S. Gross Domestic Product):

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/02/1127055/-Which-party-is-best-for-the-economy-It-s-not-even-close

CHARTS: Yes, We’re Better Off Than We Were Four Years Ago
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10021267053





Note:

Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified

[Jennicut]

1. Whenever any Repub that I know says Romney would be good for the economy,

I will just show them this. It really is amazing that that meme even exists.

[ProSense]

2. It's a terrific post. n/t

[Overseas]

3. K&R.

[ProSense]

4. It's chock full of charts! n/t

[mnhtnbb]

5. Thanks for posting. Have shared to fb and another board where DNC being discussed--

mostly by Repubs spewing talk radio/Faux BS.

I'm sure they won't be bothered by the facts--especially since they've
now been instructed by their leaders to ignore the facts!