Dem's vs GOP on economics.

[Necrosis]

Looks like Dem presidents have a far better rating on economics and the country does far better.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20324

Abstract
The U.S. economy has grown faster—and scored higher on many other macroeconomic metrics—when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we concentrate), the performance gap is both large and statistically significant, despite the fact that postwar history includes only 16 complete presidential terms. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters (such as differential trends or mean reversion), nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. Many other potential explanations are examined but fail to explain the partisan growth gap.

it may have to due with ideology.

[Soul Crusher]

lol

[Necrosis]

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/rss.jpg

Why do red states do worse on almost all measures?

[tonymctones]

Lmfao again the argument that correlation equals causation.

[Soul Crusher]

Why not do one in terms of which party controls congress, the Senate, divided govt, etc? 

[Necrosis]

Lmfao again the argument that correlation equals causation.

You don't know what stats are do you. How is somethign a correlation if they did a regression analysis and thus checked each ind variable with an alpha level of .05.

listen even causal statistics are not true causations. causation is a correlation that has met an arbitrary alpha level, thus chance is so unlikely it is accepted as causal. However, if we take your argument to it's absurd conclusion, no such thing as causation exists. Also, you seem to think correlations don\'t have merit, they do, huge in fact. The statement correlation does not equal causation is being mis used here by you. Correlations vary in strength and when you control for nusance variables you can get a pretty accurate depiction of things.

[Necrosis]

Why not do one in terms of which party controls congress, the Senate, divided govt, etc? 

Not sure how intense the stats would be, hence why they simplified it, however, the data is there, how you interpret it is up to you.

[Option D]

Lmfao again the argument that correlation equals causation.

but it sure does seem to apply the other way when convenient.

[Soul Crusher]

but it sure does seem to apply the other way when convenient.

How about the fact that EVERY toilet screams bloody murder when MOBACCA comes near?

In that cause it directly applies no?   

[Soul Crusher]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/homeownership-rate-americans-under-35-peaked-2004


 

[Necrosis]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/homeownership-rate-americans-under-35-peaked-2004


 

Again this doesn't discount the above.

It's a fact, the red states are in worse economic positions then the blue states on avg. Why is this? I am unsure, however, I think the high concentration of hicks in the south is probably the main reason. I would also argue that religiouness is another correlate that adds to the picture.

[LurkerNoMore]

 

[dario73]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/706025967449751-federal-debt-7t-under-obama

$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama

.Home » News
$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama
August 4, 2014 - 4:04 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Terry Jeffrey
Subscribe to Terry Jeffrey RSSShare on Facebook Share on Twitter More Sharing Services1.3KShare on printShare on email
(CNSNews.com) - The total federal debt of the U.S. government has now increased more than $7 trillion during the slightly more than five and a half years Barack Obama has been president.

That is more than the debt increased under all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined, and it is more debt than was accumulated in the first 227 years of this nation's existence--from 1776 through 2003.

The total federal debt first passed the $7-trillion mark on Jan. 15, 2004, after President George W. Bush had been in office almost three years.

[Coach is Back!]

Looks like Dem presidents have a far better rating on economics and the country does far better.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20324

Abstract
The U.S. economy has grown faster—and scored higher on many other macroeconomic metrics—when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we concentrate), the performance gap is both large and statistically significant, despite the fact that postwar history includes only 16 complete presidential terms. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters (such as differential trends or mean reversion), nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. Many other potential explanations are examined but fail to explain the partisan growth gap.

it may have to due with ideology.

LOL...coming from the party that can't even balance a checkbook or can't figure out that if you spend more than you take in it leads to debt......and believes global warming is real..lol.

[LurkerNoMore]

LOL...coming from the party that can't even balance a checkbook or can't figure out that if you spend more than you take in it leads to debt......and believes global warming is real..lol.

Says the opposing party that believes the birth certificate is fake and scientific evidence exists of prayer working.

[Dos Equis]

Looks like Dem presidents have a far better rating on economics and the country does far better.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20324

Abstract
The U.S. economy has grown faster—and scored higher on many other macroeconomic metrics—when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we concentrate), the performance gap is both large and statistically significant, despite the fact that postwar history includes only 16 complete presidential terms. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters (such as differential trends or mean reversion), nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. Many other potential explanations are examined but fail to explain the partisan growth gap.

it may have to due with ideology.

Did you read the rest of the article?  I clicked the link and it says you have to pay?

[2Thick]

Friendly constructive criticism for the OP:

You really, really suck at understanding money, economics, investing, markets, etc & should stick to medicine.

How's that debt to GDP doing these days?

[Coach is Back!]

Says the opposing party that believes the birth certificate is fake and scientific evidence exists of prayer working.

Another brilliant retort by our resident clown.

[syntaxmachine]

Looks like Dem presidents have a far better rating on economics and the country does far better.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20324

Abstract
The U.S. economy has grown faster—and scored higher on many other macroeconomic metrics—when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we concentrate), the performance gap is both large and statistically significant, despite the fact that postwar history includes only 16 complete presidential terms. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters (such as differential trends or mean reversion), nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. Many other potential explanations are examined but fail to explain the partisan growth gap.

The paper attributes the correlation to factors that can be considered good luck rather than sound economic policy on the part of Democratic presidents: it isn't attributable to the fiscal or monetary policies that prevail in their administrations, and it is attributable to things like how benign oil shocks happened to be at the time, something presidents clearly have no control over. So I don't see how ideology is relevant to this data.

[Straw Man]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/706025967449751-federal-debt-7t-under-obama

$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama

.Home » News
$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama
August 4, 2014 - 4:04 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Terry Jeffrey
Subscribe to Terry Jeffrey RSSShare on Facebook Share on Twitter More Sharing Services1.3KShare on printShare on email
(CNSNews.com) - The total federal debt of the U.S. government has now increased more than $7 trillion during the slightly more than five and a half years Barack Obama has been president.

That is more than the debt increased under all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined, and it is more debt than was accumulated in the first 227 years of this nation's existence--from 1776 through 2003.

The total federal debt first passed the $7-trillion mark on Jan. 15, 2004, after President George W. Bush had been in office almost three years.

this chart would have looked even worse if McCain or  Romney had won because they would have cut taxes and probably increased military spending (shit - McCain would have started WW3 by now)

[Coach is Back!]

this chart would have looked even worse if McCain or  Romney had won because they would have cut taxes and probably increased military spending (shit - McCain would have started WW3 by now)

You have a degree in finance?? Holy shit.

As for increasing military budget....first role of a real president is to protect the country. I know thats hard for liberals to grasp, but it's true.

[Necrosis]

You have a degree in finance?? Holy shit.

As for increasing military budget....first roll of a real president is to protect the country. I know thats hard for liberals to grasp, but it's true.

That's enough from you.

All that spending has caused the US to be super secure right?

[OzmO]

You have a degree in finance?? Holy shit.

As for increasing military budget....first roll of a real president is to protect the country. I know thats hard for liberals to grasp, but it's true.

Ronnie saved the lives of Marines in Lebanon, Clinton got a BJ, and Yes, Bush did real well protecting us from Planes and OB failed to get Osama.

Meanwhile 70-year olds can now hide bombs from the TSA in their shoes.  Has any Arab got TSA Precheck on their ticket yet?

[Dos Equis]

Ronnie saved the lives of Marines in Lebanon, Clinton got a BJ, and Yes, Bush did real well protecting us from Planes and OB failed to get Osama.

Meanwhile 70-year olds can now hide bombs from the TSA in their shoes.  Has any Arab got TSA Precheck on their ticket yet?

Absolutely love this.  Has saved me a ton of time. 

[240 is Back]

LOL...coming from the party that can't even balance a checkbook or can't figure out that if you spend more than you take in it leads to debt......and believes global warming is real..lol.

Are you saying historically, Dem presidents have borrowed like crazy, and Repubs have balanced the budget?