[MP+4]

Republicans do have a way of making things worse for people. The democrats aren't as bad, and they often take over after the republicans have ****ed everything up. That said, I don't think the democrats have been all that great either.

[Rategbee]

Good thing they didn't extend their analysis to the bust years under Roosevelt in the 30's and boom years under Republicans in the 20's. That'd ruin their well crafted conclusion.

[DoctorIrokezov]

Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class

This is as far as I read. When the bottom 50% have no federal tax liability, then writers such as these reveal themselves to be writing in an uninformed purely partisan manner. That makes this a campaign ad and not news.

The only thing they might be talking about is when Obama gets us all those high paying non-outsourceable jobs that he promised. Then the poor will be middle class. Yeah...that might be it!

I am really looking forward to the new job when it gets here and I am more confident than ever as McCain promised me the same job if he wins!

[chuecafresss]

Originally posted by PLATO
Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class

This is as far as I read. When the bottom 50% have no federal tax liability, then writers such as these reveal themselves to be writing in an uninformed purely partisan manner. That makes this a campaign ad and not news. So you still accept the statistical findings that Americans do better under Democrats in the past 50 years? And still want to pick the slower growth, right?

[boffincash]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I hate to be "that guy" GePap, but this does not prove a link. Not even close. As I said, control for the Fed, control for oil prices, etc. etc., and then look at the data. There may well be a link, I don't know. But there are too many variables to say that it's due to the party sitting in the White House. Did you read this part of the article?

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The man who wrote this is a Democrat, and also a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, so he knows his economics.

Even if policy has nothing to do with it, why chance it and go with the Republicans and their statistical track record?

[Old-old-Ivy]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Sample size? Read the article, and then if you need more, you have the book's name and the author's name. I am sure a few seconds of internet research will answer your questions.

[GrottereewNus]

I hate the poor but I'm not liberal.

[Qauunet]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I read the article, and I'm questioning the obviously poor sample size. With so many factors not under a president's control, you can't state anything meaningful without a huge sample size.

This is like claiming that one guy is obviously better at scrabble than another because he won six out of ten games. "Poor sample size"? So fifty years of economic growth data is a "poor sample"? So we have to wait 300 years to know, right?

It seems like a simple statement - in the past 50 years we have had 34 years of Republican Presidents and 26 of Democrats. To quote:
average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

So explain what the "sample size" problem is.

And of course the main point of the article is that the issue is more stark for those at the bottom, while those at the top are generally the same off.

[Innoloinarp]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Yes, I did.

It is a statistical regularity that life expectancy has risen prodigiously while the wearing of powdered wigs has fallen dramatically in the past 250 years.

Is that the best dumb poor comparison you could make?

If the issue were trully beyond any policy control, then the growth rates should be more uniform - chance and all. They aren't. Maybe Republicans have gotten "all the bad luck", but then, if you notice a pattern that having a certain bunch in power leads down most of the time, what exactly is the "intelligence" in ignoring that?

[themsrsdude]

Originally posted by Patroklos
No more different than the 1950s and 1990s. IN terms of policy actions the government could take, the economy is more similar in 1950 and 1990 than in 1950 and 1920. For example, the government established a mandatory minimum wage in 1938. So in 1930, no government could mandate a raise on all bottom wages. in 1950 and 1990 they could.

Who suggested excluding the 40's? If they had, wouldn't the extrordinary circumstances of the 40's warrent exclusion using your own standard above of being non standard? OzzyK did, or at least he only tried to compare 1920's boom to 1930's collapse.

And the author began in 1948, which was after the wartime boom, and during or right after the recession of the late 40's.

[EbrsaRynleot]

Originally posted by Patroklos
More similar /= relevantly similar. Given that the comparison is being made of what happened when certain parties were in power, what powers those parties had to use to influence the economy is a very relevant point.


He was pointing out you purposely excluding periods that debunk the trend for no academic reason.

A 20 year period that saw the biggest swings in our modern economic history is less instructive than a 50 year period (which is what is being discussed in the article) in which we haven't had any economic meltdowns. After all, as Republicans keep trying to say, the slowdown during the W Presidency hasn't been that bad.

Why? Why not? The man is comparing presidencies. Perhaps he sould have gone 1949 instead, the true beginning of Truman's second term, which still leaves out the war related issues of his first term.

[BUMbaronos]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Yes, I did.

It is a statistical regularity that life expectancy has risen prodigiously while the wearing of powdered wigs has fallen dramatically in the past 250 years. I shouldn't have invested all I had in the powdered wig market

Oh, FTR, I think you are correct. Correlation does not equal causation. There are just too much that isn't accounted for that it really doesn't make the findings worth much. That, and as said, I'd be interested to see the differences of growth during different party control of Congresses.

[avappyboalt]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I shouldn't have invested all I had in the powdered wig market I coulda told ya, man. You gotta run these things by me first.

[bomondus]

Originally posted by Guynemer


The point is that there are too many other variables. If you don't control for the other variables, you can not, as a true scientist or statistician, draw any conclusions.

And, believe me, I want this to be true. Yes, there are a lot of variables changing all the time - which leads me to ask why would all these disparate variables all allign in certain ways during periods of Democratic rule and Republican rule and led to this steady statistical regularity?

again, if things are so outside the control of party, why should we get sucha clear distinction, for example, in growth rates at the very bottom, over a 50 year period?

[Uninkipsyncp]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, there are a lot of variables changing all the time - which leads me to ask why would all these disparate variables all allign in certain ways during periods of Democratic rule and Republican rule and led to this steady statistical regularity?

again, if things are so outside the control of party, why should we get sucha clear distinction, for example, in growth rates at the very bottom, over a 50 year period? Gepap:

I made a point earlier, about the fact that the last three republican mandate were made during a recession. The two first recessions were worldwide (1981 & 1991) while the 2001 one was probably mainly in USA and caused by the wake of 911.

I'm pretty sure that you can't blame republican for these recessions. And had a huge effect on the correlation stats.

Usually in social science, you will have a time lapses of several years when you try to see the correlation between the two variable. Since you'll suppose that the effect is not immediate.

Right now I'm working on a paper which seek the correlation between the liberality of divorce law in 1961 and the outcome of divorce in 1967-1968. Since the effect will never be immediate.

Really; this study seems to be really amateurish, which is surprising since the guy should have a PHD.

Edit: I'll read the text again, since I supposed that I am wrong somewhere.

[chinesemedicine]

Originally posted by GePap

3. The 1991 recession occurred all during a Republican period of power, so what is wrong about noting this?
They were worldwide, they are not caused by the republicans. Canada got hit REALLY hard in 1981 and 1990-1992. The average income took 7 years to go back at his 1992 level(when you adjust income with inflation)



I'm pretty sure that you can't blame republican for these recessions.

Why not, if they happen under their watch? More importantly, why is it that in the last 50 years more recessions would happen under Republicans? Even if Republican Presidents have no direct blame, it seems quite risky to go with them - they seem to have terrible luck. [/QUOTE]
I don't know why, maybe there is sociological reasons, american people tend to vote republican when they are in times of difficulty or when the future doesn't look bright. I DON'T KNOW.

But what I do know is the statistics in this paper are not good, and would never be accepted in a peer review.

[Duaceanceksm]

Originally posted by CrONoS
But what I do know is the statistics in this paper are not good, and would never be accepted in a peer review. These statistics are from a book I can only asume you have never read, so what basis you would have to claim that they would not pass peer review, given that you most likely have never reviewed them?

All this article does is publicize the findings, and the article was not writen by the book's author.

[U2DnBGFE]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Good thing they didn't extend their analysis to the bust years under Roosevelt in the 30's and boom years under Republicans in the 20's. That'd ruin their well crafted conclusion. So now, the Great Depression is Roosevelt's fault??

[Ggskbpbz]

I think the state of the economy probably has more effect on what people vote, than the effect of what the people vote has on the economy.