# I'm trying to understand Republicans, but I just can't **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2011, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079 "2011-06-11T04:38:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/161 "2011-06-15T23:32:19Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Reagan still outperformed Carter, thus disproving the original thesis. If by “outperformed” you mean he [grew the national debt as a share of GDP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms), while Carter decrased the debt versus GDP, then yeah, he outperformed. But twisting an increase in the debt to be something to crow about is a Republican flaw we Democrats do not ascribe to. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/162 "2011-06-15T23:40:18Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Seems like what the data _implies_ is that it’s either really good or really bad to have liberal presidents since they are at both ends of the spectrum. That’s why I’ve stayed out of the data debate. I don’t think that set is a good method of gauging performance and results. There is simply too much random stuff playing into the equation at any time. Look at whatever you want but do so in context from transition to transition. It is unfair to directly compare the [dot.com](http://dot.com) bubble to something from the Ike era. It was a whole new sector of the market that didn’t exist. What I gather is that under Dems the economy tends to behave sluggishly but is _generally_ positive and stable. Under Republicans it tends to perform vigorously, but with associated risk; and both failures and success have far more impact. When it’s good it’s really good, and when it’s bad it’s really, really, bad. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/163 "2011-06-16T01:45:20Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > So what you’re saying is that Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republican, except when they aren’t. But that’s okay because it’s the Republican’s fault? > > Reagan still outperformed Carter, thus disproving the original thesis. Unless you want to twist Reagan’s success to make the Dems responsible. The only reason any of Reagan’s economic numbers are better than Carter’s is because the world price of petroleum began to decline after 1982. Reagan was not responsible for that, just as Carter was not responsible for the increase that followed the Iranian Revolution of 1979. More jobs were created per year under Carter. [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/) The highest unemployment rate under Carter was three points lower than the highest under Reagan. > **[Table Data - Unemployment Rate | FRED | St. Louis Fed](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE)** Carter paid down the national debt. Reagan nearly tripled it. > **[Voodoo Economics, and the National Debt Takes off Again](https://zfacts.com/national-debt/)** > > Watch G H W Bush call Reagan's supply-side economics "Voodoo" then deny it when he's Reagan's VP. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/164 "2011-06-16T02:59:29Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The only reason any of Reagan’s economic numbers are better than Carter’s is because the world price of petroleum began to decline after 1982. Reagan was not responsible for that, just as Carter was not responsible for the increase that followed the Iranian Revolution of 1979. > > More jobs were created per year under Carter. > [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/) > > The highest unemployment rate under Carter was three points lower than the highest under Reagan. > [Table Data - Unemployment Rate | FRED | St. Louis Fed](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt) > > Carter paid down the national debt. Reagan nearly tripled it. > [http://zfacts.com/p/318.html](http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) Oh, so if a Republican does well it’s because of external factors beyond his control? But when a Dem does well it’s because of his party affiliation? How are you not embarrassed by this behaviour? You guys are so blinded by partisan rhetoric that you can dismiss GDP growth by a Republican, hand waving it away based on deficits and externalities, but are perfectly fine assigning GDP growth to Democrats. Clinton got plenty of credit for creating jobs, but how many were lost after the dot com bust? You mentioned gas prices falling as helping Reagan, but gas prices soared during dubya, yet you still count that against him. Is it too much to ask for even just a little logical consistency? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/165 "2011-06-16T03:23:44Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Oh, so if a Republican does well it’s because of external factors beyond his control? But when a Dem does well it’s because of his party affiliation? > > How are you not embarrassed by this behaviour? You guys are so blinded by partisan rhetoric that you can dismiss GDP growth by a Republican, hand waving it away based on deficits and externalities, but are perfectly fine assigning GDP growth to Democrats. > > Clinton got plenty of credit for creating jobs, but how many were lost after the dot com bust? > > You mentioned gas prices falling as helping Reagan, but gas prices soared during dubya, yet you still count that against him. Is it too much to ask for even just a little logical consistency? Democrat Presidents nearly always orchestrate more growth in the per capita gross domestic product, and in job creation. I do not think that is a coincidence. I never blamed GW for the increase in gasoline prices that happened during his second term. I expect gasoline prices to rise under Democrat and Republican presidents. I do give Republicans credit for the decline in the crime rate since 1980. This was achieved largely by increasing the prison population, although legalized abortion helped too by leading to the destruction of millions of potential criminals in the womb. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/166 "2011-06-16T04:05:18Z")
I don’t know quite what to think about that last remark. Perhaps the healthiest thing would be not to. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/167 "2011-06-16T04:08:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I don’t know quite what to think about that last remark. Perhaps the healthiest thing would be not to. It’s an argument you hear every so often, that crime rates are down because supposedly the fetuses most likely to be aborted are those who would otherwise be born into the situations most likely to produce criminals. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/168 "2011-06-16T11:14:51Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > So what you’re saying is that Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republican, except when they aren’t. But that’s okay because it’s the Republican’s fault? > > Reagan still outperformed Carter, thus disproving the original thesis. Unless you want to twist Reagan’s success to make the Dems responsible. This is the very definition of cherry picking. The original thesis is supported by the examination of all of the available data, not by picking and choosing pairwise contrasts that you seem to think are favorable to your position. Besides, think about what you’re saying. According to you, Reagan achieved a 0.3% higher improvement in the GDP relative to Carter! Kinda takes a big chunk out of the pedestal upon which Republicans have placed Reagan if you point out that he only edged Carter out by a little bit in GDP (while blowing a hole in the national debt in order to do so, as others have noted). ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/169 "2011-06-16T11:43:51Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > More importantly, what happens to this thesis at the end of Obama’s first (last?) term? He’s on track to have the worst economic performance since Hoover according to > [http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/?p=34](http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/?p=34) This is also pure nonsense as well. If you’ll actually take note of the giant note in the figure, it was made when there was only one year of data available for Obama. Even just accounting for the next year, he’s already more than cut the difference in half. His track record is heading up, not down. The figure is also constructed so that it saddles him with the GDP of 2009. Fair enough, but as **Sam Stone** already noted, in such circumstances, there’s a lot of room to grow. What’s likely going to be the case is that his growth isn’t going to be terribly remarkable however, because the rest of the data shows that tax cuts don’t presage significant improvement in the economy, and Obama has only cut taxes since he was in office. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/170 "2011-06-16T13:38:27Z")
I’d like to add that I find the moderate republicans to be much more realistic , but sadly eclipsed in the news and by the candidates who seem compelled to cater to the more socially conservative base. I’m referring to average citizens rather than politicians. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/171 "2011-06-16T14:08:41Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > **Sam Stone’s** list is fraught with problems and lightly sprinkled with falsehoods and nonsense as well. And **now** you understand Republicans! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/172 "2011-06-16T14:20:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And **now** you understand Republicans! 🙂 Seems like we should have a graphic, musical flourish and tagline like NBC’s “The More You Know” educational spots. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/173 "2011-06-16T14:28:11Z")
Talk about cherry picking. > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The only reason any of Reagan’s economic numbers are better than Carter’s is because the world price of petroleum began to decline after 1982. Reagan was not responsible for that, just as Carter was not responsible for the increase that followed the Iranian Revolution of 1979. False. > [@](#): > > Mr. Reagan’s deregulation of crude oil prices created incentives for domestic producers to invest in exploration and to increase production. The threat of increased output by non-OPEC producers destroyed the discipline among OPEC members necessary to restrict production to maintain high prices. Facing the likelihood that an increase in supply would lead to lower future prices, OPEC producers increased output in the hopes of maximizing profits before prices fell. The cascading effect caused oil prices to tumble. [Cite.](http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1130/p09s01-coop.html) > [@](#): > > More jobs were created per year under Carter. > [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/) Your own cite shows this to be garbage. > [@](#): > > The highest unemployment rate under Carter was three points lower than the highest under Reagan. > [Table Data - Unemployment Rate | FRED | St. Louis Fed](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt) Misleading as well as meaningless - average unemployment under Reagan was 5.3%, vs. 7.6% under Carter. > [@](#): > > Carter paid down the national debt. > [http://zfacts.com/p/318.html](http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) Also false. The national debt was $698B in 1977, and $997B in 1981. A hint to OP - you won’t be able to understand Republicans by reading this board - too many people who will make simply make things up and post them. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/174 "2011-06-16T14:37:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Also false. The national debt was $698B in 1977, and $997B in 1981. Here’s a nice easy to read wikipedia page on national debt as a percentage of GDP by US presidential term. > **[History of the United States public debt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)** > > The history of the United States public debt began with federal government debt incurred during the American Revolutionary War by the first U.S treasurer, Michael Hillegas, after the country's formation in 1776. The United States has continuously experienced fluctuating public debt, except for about a year during 1835–1836. To facilitate comparisons over time, public debt is often expressed as a ratio to gross domestic product (GDP). Historically, the United States public debt as a share of GDP... Under Carter, the national debt was **reduced** 3.3%. Under Reagan, the national debt was **increased** by 11.3% in his first term and 9.3% in his second term. You’ll also note that the biggest increases were 20.0% and 15.0%, under W. Bush and H.W. Bush, respectively. > [@](#): > > A hint to OP - you won’t be able to understand Republicans by reading this board - too many people who will make simply make things up and post them. > > Regards, > Shodan A hint to everyone, whenever a conservative tells you sometime, make sure to check the facts. Make sure that any numerical comparisons that they give you employ constant dollars. My philosophy regarding anything that a conservative/Republican says: Don’t trust, and verify. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/175 "2011-06-16T14:47:51Z")
Also, Shodan says this to the assertion that more jobs were created under Carter than Reagan: > [@Shodan](#): > > Your own cite shows this to be garbage. > > Regards, > Shodan Of course, the cite in question shows exactly what it was purported to. Here’s another cite: [http://economyinperspective.com/jobs](http://economyinperspective.com/jobs) Annualized Job Growth Per President ``` Total NonFarm Private Sector Only Kennedy/Johnson 3.3% 3.0% Carter 3.1% 3.3% Clinton 2.4% 2.6% Truman 2.3% 2.5% Reagan 2.1% 2.3% Nixon/Ford 1.9% 1.7% Eisenhower 0.9% 0.5% GHW Bush 0.6% 0.4% GW Bush 0.2% -0.1% ``` > [@](#): > > Surprisingly, the rate at which jobs were created under Carter was second only to Kennedy and Johnson. These two presidents were reversed in private sector growth but otherwise the order was much the same. Reagan took over after Carter, and the rate of overall job creation dropped immediately. Under the Reagan administration overall, it was about 30% lower than during the Carter administration (it was initially much lower than that, but recovered). Notably, while job creation under Reagan was the best of any Republican administration, it was worse than under any Democratic administration: annualized job creation was more robust under every Democratic president than under any Republican president (and not because of government expansion). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/176 "2011-06-16T15:51:28Z")
**Shodan** : How on earth can you claim that the “jobs created per year” numbers are not as \*\*NDD \*\*claimed? It’s there in black and white. Sure, the total number of jobs created was greater during Reagan’s 2 terms than Carter’s 1 term, but that’s 8 years vs 4 years. It only makes sense to look at jobs/yr given the different number of terms in office. From **NDD** ’s cite: Carter: 2.6M/yr Reagan: 2.0M/yr I would hope you have the integrity to admit your mistake on this point. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/177 "2011-06-16T18:29:29Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Here’s a nice easy to read wikipedia page on national debt as a percentage of GDP by US presidential term. > > [History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms) That’s nice, but **NDD** ’s statement remains false. He claims that Carter paid down the debt, which is false. The debt went up by some $300B. > [@](#): > > My philosophy regarding anything that a conservative/Republican says: Don’t trust, and verify. And mine is that liberals on the SDMB will go to any lengths, including being as deliberately misleading as they can, to deny the reality of the Reagan era. To wit: > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Also, Shodan says this to the assertion that more jobs were created under Carter than Reagan: The assertion that more jobs were created under Carter than under Reagan is false, and the cite shows it to be so. 16.1 million is a larger number than 10.5 million. > [@John Mace](#): > > Shodan: How on earth can you claim that the “jobs created per year” numbers are not as NDD claimed? The “jobs created per year” numbers are garbage, meaningless, and misleading. Look at the cite he gave - the payroll increase under Reagan was 17.6%. Under Carter, it was 13.1%. The population grew by 9.8 million under Carter; by 17.3 million under Reagan. Reagan inherited a huge recession and it took a couple of years to recover. > [@](#): > > During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[12] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 9.5% in 1982 and 1983 This whole thread is packed with cherry-picking of the most blatantly dishonest sort, and none of it is coming from the right. As mentioned, liberals will go to almost any lengths to deny that the Reagan years were what they were. And the instant that Obama looks worse on any one of these cherry-picked, intentionally misleading pieces of garbage statistics, they will change their tune instantly. If Reagan doesn’t get any credit for fixing a recession he inherited, then Obama doesn’t either. If Reagan was a terrible President for increasing the national debt, then Obama is worse for increasing it a fuck of a lot more. I am different from you, **John Mace** - I have no hope whatever that the Usual Suspects will admit their mistake, Because it wasn’t something they did by mistake. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/178 "2011-06-16T18:59:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I would hope you have the integrity to admit your mistake on this point. > [@Shodan](#): > > I am different from you, **John Mace** - I have no hope whatever that the Usual Suspects will admit their mistake, I guess that dashes that hope, **John**. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/179 "2011-06-16T19:06:19Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’d like to add that I find the moderate republicans to be much more realistic , but sadly eclipsed in the news and by the candidates who seem compelled to cater to the more socially conservative base. I’m referring to average citizens rather than politicians. What makes a good man go moderate? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of moderateness?" ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/180 "2011-06-16T19:15:47Z")
Moderators, of course! It’s what they do, they moderate! Our Republic will not be safe until the scourge of cognitive dissonance is expunged, and moderators are radicalized! This position may strike you as extremist, but I say, “What do we want? Mild discomfort to the moderators! When do we want it? Well, pretty soon, if that’s OK with you…” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079.md?page=10)