Still just President.
That’s correct. It does address most of your other concerns, however (lags, other indicators…)
Sorry - you are right, and I should have said that. It does a much better job of looking at multiple economic factors.
So what effect does the President have on the economy? I believe it is the legislative branch that controls the US economy - and since most years we have opposite parties controlling the Capitol and the White House, that would imply that your thesis is reversed: Republicans improve the economy and Democrats hinder it.
Not quite, as a quick look at Wikipedia will show. Presidents since FDR have been opposed in the House 47% of the time, 42% in the Senate. Breaking it down by party: Democrats have been opposed to the House or Senate 25% of the time, Republicans have been opposed to the House 78% of the time, and to the Senate 67% of the time.
Mind running that by me again? Using the same words to mean different things multiple times tends to not help readability.
Nobody but you and Saint Cad have said anything about “controlling” the economy.
“Stimulating” the economy through tax cuts is affecting the economy. That is exactly the type of thing we are talking about.
If Democratic tax cuts are aimed better than Republican tax cuts, that could partially explain why the economy does better under Democratic presidents.
Perhaps tax cuts which result in more money in the hands of those who need it and will spend it stimulate the economy better than tax cuts for the richest individuals.
Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world, certainly thinks so. Given his status, I am inclined to give some credence to his economic beliefs.
I also wonder how Republicans can use scare tactics about Democratic presidents harming the economy, and then when it is pointed out that the economy does better under Democratic presidents they immediately decide that the president has absolutely no effect on the economy after all.
Except, wait, tax cuts can stimulate it. But only Republican tax cuts, and for some reason they don’t work. But they should. Obama’s tax cuts would have no effect. The economy would do better as always under a Democratic president, but Obama’s tax plan would have nothing to do with it.
I
I haven’t done anything of the sort. Please point to the words you don’t understand, and I will try to help you.
Sure thing:
Either the first “difference” refers to something different than the second “difference” or you’ve merely said that “x = x” which, while true, is completely unhelpful.
The opinions of the ultra-rich (as in so-much-money-I-could-never-spend-it) really need to be taken with a grain of salt. Of course they can afford to assuage any robber-baron guilt they may feel (not that Buffett in particular is a robber-baron) with a little late-in-life sympathy for the masses. Obama can’t possibly hurt Buffett in any way he would notice; he certainly could affect the lifestyle of the guy earning $250,001 who is the target of his tax grab.
Also, the specific gripes I’ve heard Buffett make have not been necessarily broadly “liberal.” He has said something to the effect that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, which doesn’t seem right. Well, that is just an artifiact of the fact that 99.999% of Warren’s income in any given year comes in the form of dividends and cap. gains, which are taxed at a 15% rate (he pulls down only $100k in salary), whereas his secretary relies upon salary taxed at a regular marginal rate for 98% of her incremental income. Since the lower tax on dividends and cap. gains accrues to the benefit of Berkshire and its shareholders, and this success is a large part of what’s made Berkshire so successful and burnished Buffett’s reputation, it’s a little silly of him to be criticizing it.
Not at all - they all refer to the same thing - the difference between the means (here between Republicans and Democrats). And in this case, we have the entire population of data points we can have (for the time period for which the data are available). We don’t have to do inferential statistics to determine if the two values differ. We can see that they do. The difference (between Republicans and Democrats) is the difference.
That makes more sense. Still, if we wanted to use this data to, say, justify voting for Obama, we would be interested in knowing whether the partisan difference is actually something significant.
It’s kind of confusing to use “significant” here, because it continues to imply some sort of inferential statistical test, which is inapplicable.
Gates and Jobs and Google guys liberals? I’d be interested in a cite. And something more than just Gates’ philanthropy. Conservatives can be philanthropic too, and this is admitted by this liberal. Warren Buffet I will give you, he has said he is a Dem on many occasions.
Since no one but you mentioned anything about the president controlling the economy your comment is absurd at best. As for the president vs Congress, did the Bush and Reagan tax cuts originate in the White House or the Capitol? Yes, technically the House originates the bill, but anyone with political knowledge greater than Sarah Palin knows where it really originates.
Given the data in the OP, do you have evidence that the theory of the supply siders is correct? I think we all understand their fantasy.
BTW, the expansion of the '90s began before the bubble, and in fact began after the Clinton tax increase showed the markets that there was finally someone at the wheel who knew what the fuck he was doing. It was clear that deficits were going down (though a surplus was not really believed in, IIRC) and this had a big impact.
It is applicable. You’re taking a narrower view of the population than I am, but let me try to explain. If you want to justify voting for Obama over McCain you will have to take a population that includes all the presidents over the last 60 years plus the possible Obama and McCain presidencies. It may be a fact that the economy has done better under Democratic presidents, but without the inference we can’t use that to make predictions about the future.
A wider view would see the data as a sample from the population of all possible economies and try to determine whether the party of the president really had an effect on the economic outcome. Then statistical inference becomes important. This seems to me the correct way to look at the situation.
Really? The President proposes the budget, manages the Treasury, carries out the budget, gets us in and out of wars, supports or opposes economic legislation and offers leadership. For example, the Fannie and Freddie bail outs were greatly accelerated by the support of Paulson and Bush. The President has the single largest effect on the economy of any legislative branch, and it is quite a large effect. The 9/11 funding to airlines would have seen bankruptcies had it not happened quickly.
Now I notice that a lot of conservatives blame Carter for high interest rates back in the 70s, and there is an instance where the President had little effect: Fed Chair Paul Volcker was a Republican appointee and in order to stick it to Carter, a Democrat, he precipitously raised interest rates causing a recession with the excuse of controlling inflation. The only thing Carter could have done was call for Volcker to step down, which would not have been binding, but it would have put the blame/credit squarely where it belonged. Carter came very close to balancing the budget in the late 70s and then Volcker screwed him anyway.
What is good economically for the very wealthy is not necessarily good for the country as a whole.
I’m not sure how this statement relates to this thread, since both the poor and the very wealthy have done better under Democratic presidents.
A more accurate statement might be: What allows the wealthiest individuals to get cash through methods other than increased productivity (voodoo economics, loopholes, cronyism, poorly aimed tax cuts, etc) is not necessarily good for the economy, and as a result not necessarily good for the wealthy.
Republicans always avoid talking about this simple fact. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Everyone is paying for that lunch in more subtle ways, but the middle class are taking a bigger hit, and the future is being betrayed. Republicans are the party of massive irresponsible spending, and their irresponsibility alone can partially explain why the economy falters with them in charge.
http://www.businessweek .com/@@*7OQP4YQG8gsPxgA/magazine/content/04_44/b3906038_mz007.htm
\ The rich have done much better than in the past. The definition of rich has changed. Billionaires instead of millionaires. Concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. Top 1 % with 40 percent of the wealth.
That has been the aim of these policies. It is not an accident.