An economic analysis covering the post-WWII years shows that the gross domestic product (GDP) grows 170% more under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents.
I don't know whether this article has been mentioned here before:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Former Fed vice-chairman Alan S. Blinder reviews "Unequal Democracy", a book by poli-sci professor Larry M. Bartels. This book discusses why, since WWII, the economy has grown so much more under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents. This stark fact surprised and shocked me (in a good way!). I knew Democrats were better than the GOP, but I had no idea Democrats were 170% better!
The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product (GDP) of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
For those tax-cuts-above-all-else folks (OK, probably not too many here, but you have friends and relatives):
That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
Wow!
Blinder then comments:
.... 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.
In other words, if you want to be 10% richer eight years from now, 60 years of economic history strongly suggests that you vote Democratic!
So, why are Democrats so much better for the economy than Republicans? Bartels' book shows that income inequity increases dramatically under Republican presidents, while such inequity falls under Democratic presidents.
.... families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.
In other words, the richest 5% of Americans (>$180,000 yr ... aka the GOP base) see their incomes increase over 11% LESS annually under Republicans as under Democrats (yes, even the rich are better off under Democrats than under Republicans). However, the poorest 1/5 of Americans see their income increase by over 500%(!) annually under Democrats compared to Republicans.
In other words:
... if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?