Democratic Presidents outperform Republicans in 11 of 12 economic measures

[Riot]

Democratic Presidents outperform Republican Presidents in 11 of 12 economic indicators over past 80 years

A new book by a business lawyer and a financial services firm head, hitting shelves just months before the presidential election, finds that Democratic presidents have been far more successful at guiding the U.S. economy than Republicans.

Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box, written by Lew Goldfarb and Bob Deitrick, looked at 12 indicators of the economy—including the deficit, months in recession and stock market performance—to assess how American presidents of the last 80 years have performed.

In 11 of 12 of those indicators, the authors found that Democratic presidents came out on top.

The only indicator in which the GOP outperformed Democrats on the economy was in the average annual unemployment rate.

"When we started writing, we did not cherry pick any of the data," says Deitrick, who said he knew only the stock market data when he began and "had no idea where the rest of the chips would fall."

"It was overwhelming and surprising to see the Democrats win on almost all of the economic indicators," he said.

Dietrick hopes that voters will use the book to make informed decisions in the voting booth come November. As a financial planner, Dietrick advises voters to choose their presidents like they do their stocks: "using sound economic data... and consistency, predictability and stability."

In his mind, that means choosing a Democrat.

Details, continued http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...mic-indicators

[Thepaindispenser]

Assuming their numbers are correct which is a big assumption, their book is completely worthless. JFK's fiscal policies are much closer to Romney than Obama. Is Bill Clinton supposed to get credit for the fake Internet bubble economy that he was lucky enough that it blew up after he left office? Does that mean we should have elected Carter over Reagan despite stagflation and a recession? Should we ignore that Obama has grown the largest debt in the history of the country or that he has presided over the worst recovery in 65 years? Should FDR get credit for the WW II economy or even worse should LBJ get credit for the Vietnam War economy? Like I said that book is worthless.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

that book is worthless.

That figures. Ri(di)ot's worthless opinions have to come from someplace.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

That figures. Ri(di)ot's worthless opinions have to come from someplace.

Useless post only meant to be insulting troll duly noted.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Assuming their numbers are correct which is a big assumption, their book is completely worthless.

Assuming the earth is really measurably round, which is a big assumption, the theory that the earth isn't flat is completely worthless. As I said, completely worthless.

Because I said so.

Worthless.

Completely.



Ah, yes - taking numbers you haven't read, from a book not yet published, and declaring it "worthless". What a magical mind you have regarding politics and the economy.

[Thepaindispenser]

Yes taking numbers from a book that you haven't fact checked and is yet to be published and then declaring that people should vote a certain way is definitely worthless. Now actually try and address one thing in my post.

[Danzig]

i'd imagine that when the economy does well it does so in spite of the politicians, not because of them. there's no need for anyone to help along the charade that government actually helps businesses in any purely positive way.

and it's funny how quickly all those pols disavow any responsibility whatsoever when the stuff goes south.

[Thepaindispenser]

Excellent point Danzig, which is another reason why this book is worthless.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'd imagine that when the economy does well it does so in spite of the politicians, not because of them. there's no need for anyone to help along the charade that government actually helps businesses in any purely positive way.

and it's funny how quickly all those pols disavow any responsibility whatsoever when the stuff goes south.

Thinking the economic performance of this country is independent from our Congress and government is completely absurd, and disproven by the past two centuries plus of our country's existence.

But this book looks at the facts of the past 80 years, excluding Obama (he's not included). And the measurable facts, the actual results, show that 11 of 12 economic indicators perform better under Dem Presidents than GOP.

Damn facts - they do seem to have a "liberal" bias, huh?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Yes taking numbers from a book that you haven't fact checked and is yet to be published and then declaring that people should vote a certain way is definitely worthless. Now actually try and address one thing in my post.

Try hard and concentrate here - I didn't say anything about voting, the author did, and the author, you'll note, was surprised at the result, as he thought it would be different.

Try to think, and not use just your lizard brain of kneejerk hate - why do you assume your concerns were not addressed in the data?

Which of the charts listed in the article - the actual numbers listed - make you think your concerns were not addressed, and why? All those numbers are public domain. Give us actual numbers that show differently than these two authors, and support your contention their numbers are wrong.

This isn't opinion - this is measurable numbers. 12 economic indicators. Not opinion. So stick with the facts and defend your casual "worthless" comment, if you want any respect for your opinion.

[Thepaindispenser]

Just a quick glance at two charts shows how stupid and worthless the charts are. Our trade deficit has gotten worse with each successive President and if Obama was included he would be last, so that shows absolutely nothing.

However the most embarrassing for an Obama worshipper like you is that he would be third for highest average unemployment rate right behind Hoover and FDR, the two Presidents during the Great Depression. That alone is a good enough argument that he should be tossed to the curb in November 2012.

Any more questions Riot?