Market Performance: Clinton v. Bush

[Dardedar]

DAR
Graphics won't post. See the charts here.

Here are the numbers as best I can eyeball them from the chart:

Clinton S&P: 420 to 1,300

Bush: S&P 1,380 to 1,360

Clinton: DOW 3,200 to 10,500

Bush: DOW 10,700 to 12,200

With a little more checking I see that this sort of record has long been the case. This is very interesting too:

Republicans Aren’t Even Good for the Rich

Excerpt:

"United States Census Bureau data on mean household income from the beginning of the Nixon Administration through 2002 (the last year for which these data are currently available) show that this almost universally held belief is simply, almost spectacularly, wrong. During that period, Republicans held the White House for 22 years and Democrats for 12 years. In constant 2002 dollars, the average annual gain in income by the richest five percent of American households under Republicans (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the two Bushes) was $1706. Under Democrats (Carter and Clinton), the richest five percent saw their income rise by an annual average of $6,921."

"During the same administrations, from Nixon to the second Bush, the Dow has gained an annual average of 7.1 percent under Republican administrations and 11.1 percent under Democrats. Here, too, the difference is more striking when the comparison is limited to the two Bushes and Clinton: a 6.7 percent gain under the Bushes and a 16.8 percent gain under Clinton."

UNDER WHICH PARTY DO THE RICH FARE BETTER?

Since 1968 (Nixon Through G.W. Bush)



Since 1988 (The Two Bushes Compared with Clinton)



"Republicans have traditionally identified themselves as the party of fiscal discipline, but over the last three-quarters of a century, Republican administrations have increased federal debt at a rate more than four times faster than have Democrats. (This statistic, moreover, includes a decade and a half of combating the Depression and fighting World War II under Democrats and does not include this year’s record Republican deficit of more than $400 billion.) A comparison of the presidencies of the two Bushes and Clinton in the area of fiscal responsibility is especially dramatic. The average annual deficit under Clinton was $40 billion. Under the Bushes (again, not yet including this year’s $400-plus billion deficit), the federal government has gone more deeply into debt at the rate of $256.3 billion per year, meaning that deficit spending has been more than six times worse under the Bushes than Clinton--and that difference grows greater by the day." [note: these are 2004 numbers)

"What of overall economic growth? During the period from Herbert Hoover's presidency onward, the American economy (GDP) has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans. (The annual mean growth in real GDP under Republican Presidents has been 1.8 percent; under Democrats, 5.1 percent.)"

See the rest here.

DAR
Will we ever see a republican on this forum with the courage to defend such a record?

More:

See this chart too

***
And even longer and more thorough comparison:

Voting With Your Wallet: Breaking Down the Numbers by Party

By Philip Davis

posted on: October 16, 2006

1950-1953: Truman -- D (two assassination attempts) inherited a post-war economy in charge of building the country back up from a very difficult period. The 1948 election was the first time the Republicans attempted to steal an election by miscounting ballots: S&P 16-26

1953-1961: Roosevelt's Great republican general, Eisenhower -- R got us through the Korean War and got the 60s off to with a bang by starting the cold war that set the stage for the an immense peacetime expansion of the military -- one might say he invented the Fear Factor! S&P 26-58

1961-1963: Kennedy -- D (assassinated) inherited the Cuban missile crisis from Ike, but turned things around quickly: S&P 58-71

1963-1969: Johnson -- D declared war on poverty, started Medicaid but, unfortunately, also let us get sucked into Vietnam: S&P 71-104

1969-1974: Nixon -- R (scandal) I'm not even going to go there! S&P 104-86

1974-1977: Ford -- R The most amazing thing about Ford is that he became President of the United States of America and only 100,000 people ever voted for him in Michigan! S&P 86-96

1978-1982: Carter -- D A better ex-President than President, but a better President than he gets credit for during a really tough time. S&P 96-150

1982-1989: Reagan -- R Even I love him as a person, but he mortgaged the country to make the economy look good and effectively created our national debt as we went from a credit balance to a $3T deficit under his regime. Bush I's CIA sold arms to Iran! S&P 150-339

1990-1993: Bush I -- R Settled a lot of old CIA scores (Panama, Gulf War), pardoned the contra crowd, continued "Voodoo Economics" to over $4T in debt. S&P 339-445

1994-2001: Clinton -- D balanced the budget and attempted to nationalize health care before costs got out of control. Turned the actual (not fantasy) economy around and generated a surplus. His big mistake was to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of the taxpayers to balance a cut for 15M low-income families and 90% of American small businesses. This drove record funds into the 1994 Republican election where the Democrats lost the House and the Senate. S&P 445-1350

2002-???: Bush II -- Took a $2.6T budget surplus and turned it into a $1.5T deficit within 6 months of taking (literally) office by giving the average American family $3,000 (for gas) and above average American families millions. Holds the presidential record for cabinet resignations (14), and is the first President to suspend the release of presidential papers. The S&P was already down to 1,073 on 9/10/01 and, in fact, "only" dropped to a low of 944 on 9/17 before rebounding to 1,091 by early October. The rest of the drop -- to 794 over the next 12 months, was just the result of terrible economic policies. Last week was the first time the S&P got back to Clinton levels.

So how does that all stack up on the overall economic scorecard of Democrats vs. Republicans?

According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis:

* Personal income grew 20% faster under Democratic Administrations.
* Employment averaged 30% more under Democratic Administrations.

... I'm not going to keep saying under Democratic Administrations unless the Republicans win a category...

* Unemployment was 30% less (makes sense).
* GDP grew 33% more from 1962 on (see lag factors too!)
* GDP growth since 1930 was a stunning 5.4% vs 1.6%
* Inflation was 15% less, 27% less with lag factors.
* Growth in Federal spending (now hold onto your hat) 7% under Democrats, 7.5% under Republicans through 2001 (Bush will blow this number up a mile).
* Growth in Defense spending 8.3% Dems, 10% Reps
* Rise in Federal employees -- Republicans hired 310,000 new ones vs. Dems just 59,000.
* Average annual budget deficit 1962-2001: Dems $36B, Reps $190B (another number Bush will increase substantially)
* Total debt increase 1962-2001: Dems $720B, Reps $6.3T (again, Bush will lead you to the $7T promised land -- 10x what the Dems have done!)
* Average annual stock market returns since since 1900: Dems 12%, Reps 8%

* With a Democratic Senate: 10.5%
* With a Republican Senate: 9.4%
* With a Democratic House: 10.9%
* With a Republican House: 8.1%

[Dardedar]

DAR
A chart of the DOW usually looks something like this:



But see this one, adjusted for inflation:



Explanation here

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

You don't get the point. Actual income doesn't matter. Rich means how much more you have than anyone else. Although the rich get richer under Dems, so does everyone else. To get a real discrepancy between the have's and the have-not's, you need an R.

[Dardedar]

DAR
This thread needs some new pictures:







BART opines:
"They say it's cyclical - and they're right.

The economy grows when the Democrat's in office and
it dies when [republicans] practice their voodoo economics."

[Dardedar]

DAR
I need to update and revise this thread now that Bush's stats have gotten so incredibly worse.

[Doug]

I need to update and revise this thread now that Bush's stats have gotten so incredibly worse.

DOUG
Conservatives will say you are cheating: you are using all the data.

[JLP]

I know I'm late to this party but I wanted to mention a few things:

1. Your job creation chart could go back a lot farther than it does. Reagan's stats--although not as good as Clinton's--were still pretty good. I believe nearly 16 million jobs were created during his presidency.

2. A lot of the jobs created during Clinton's presidency were lost when the internet bubble burst.

3. The House was controlled by Republicans during 6 of Clinton's 8 years.

4. I know this was last updated in 2008 but under Obama's first year, 4.7 million jobs were lost.

I know all this stuff because I just wrote about it on my website, AllFinancialMatters.com. I took the information found in the historicals of the Federal Budget and put together this post along with a PDF that you're welcome to download (just click on the picture of the spreadsheet in the post): http://allfinancialmatters.com/2010/08/ ... velt-bush/

[Dardedar]

I know I'm late to this party but I wanted to mention a few things:

1. Your job creation chart could go back a lot farther than it does.

DAR
Okay, let's do that. From a previous post:

Is it true that Democrats have been considerably more effective at creating private-sector jobs?

"[By]turning to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site, where visitors can customize data tables on national employment statistics... we used the month-by-month totals for nonfarm employment in the United States.

Here are the average annual percentage increases in jobs for each postwar president:

Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year

If you exclude Obama, Democrats averaged 3.03 percent annual job growth, compared to 1.07 percent for Republicans -- a nearly 3-to-1 advantage.

If you include Obama, the Democrats still held a significant edge. With Obama included, the Democrats averaged 2.03 annual job growth, compared to the same 1.07 for Republicans -- about twice as high as the GOP.

And... the U.S. working-age population actually grew slightly faster under Republican presidents, making the Democratic accomplishment even more impressive.

So the statistics are clear: Democratic presidents have been more successful at creating jobs." --Politifact

JLP
Reagan's stats--although not as good as Clinton's--were still pretty good. I believe nearly 16 million jobs were created during his presidency.

DAR
Is that counting his huge expansion of the government and military/military spending. Under this examination by Forbes Reagan does do well, coming in behind Clinton in "employment rank." He also tripled the debt. That's a lot of spending.

JLP
2. A lot of the jobs created during Clinton's presidency were lost when the internet bubble burst.

DAR
Well these things happen. When you count job creation under presidential terms that's what you do, count the jobs during their terms. See data above. Also, let's consider GW Bush:

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

Excerpt:

President George W. Bush [had] almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

...The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939...

The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records."

[url="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/ ... on-record/]Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record --WSJ[/url].

This is consistent with his achievements in other categories.

As one fellow put it:

"In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…” --“We're Right, They're Wrong,” (1996) James Carville, pg. 13

JLP
3. The House was controlled by Republicans during 6 of Clinton's 8 years.

DAR
Perhaps see my short letter here: The Republican Record. Even when you take into consideration and adjust for who is in the house, the republicans still do not stack up well in all of the normal categories. See for instance this astonishing chart.

JPL
4. I know this was last updated in 2008 but under Obama's first year, 4.7 million jobs were lost.

DAR
And you would tag that on him eh? After blaming Clinton for jobs lost after he left? Let's revisit the bikini and take a look at the trends:



Red is associated with a bad trend, and blue is associated with a good trend. When you walk in the front door and the economy handed to you is losing 800,000 jobs a month, do you think it would make sense to credit some of that to a lag effect JLP? Yes I think so. In fact all of it.

I know all this stuff because I just wrote about it on my website,...

DAR
With all due respect, writing about something on the internet doesn't necessarily equate to "knowing" it.

D.

[JLP]

You left out one little detail: who controlled the House during these times? During Reagan, it was the Democrats. During the bulk of Clinton's terms, it was the Republicans.

You want to give democrats credit for creating jobs and then dismiss the losses as "well, these things happen." Regardless, job creation/growth has more to do with economic cycles than it does with who happens to be president. Sure, economic policies have something to do with it but it's much bigger than who happens to be president.

By "knowing" I meant that I had looked at the numbers...not that I was any smarter than anyone else.

For being "free thinkers" you guys sure seem to lean towards one particular party.

[Doug]

You left out one little detail: who controlled the House during these times? During Reagan, it was the Democrats. During the bulk of Clinton's terms, it was the Republicans.

Who controlled the house...but not Congress? Why do you cherry-pick that detail? Show how that is relevant compared to the White House or Congress as a whole.

You want to give democrats credit for creating jobs and then dismiss the losses as "well, these things happen." Regardless, job creation/growth has more to do with economic cycles than it does with who happens to be president. Sure, economic policies have something to do with it but it's much bigger than who happens to be president.

So it is just a coincidence that Democratic presidents have the country perform better on economic criteria? That seems very unlikely.

...For being "free thinkers" you guys sure seem to lean towards one particular party.

Why not? Why should anyone antecedently expect that the facts would distribute evenly between parties? Especially since one party, the Republicans/Tea Party, are hostile to the use of facts when forming policy.

[Savonarola]

Regardless, job creation/growth has more to do with economic cycles than it does with who happens to be president. Sure, economic policies have something to do with it but it's much bigger than who happens to be president.

If this is true, then we ought to see no statistically significant difference in economic performance by presidential party. Even if you want to argue that there are other factors, the fact that we do see a difference when analyzed over a long period of time is evidence that the party in power has an effect.

For being "free thinkers" you guys sure seem to lean towards one particular party.

I have a favorite response for the people who whine about a "liberal media bias." The media has a bit of a liberal bias because reality has a bit of a liberal bias. This is hardly any different. Freethinkers often lean left because the numbers do, too.

[Dardedar]

You left out one little detail: who controlled the House during these times?

DAR
No, I addressed it directly when I said:

"Even when you take into consideration and adjust for who is in the house, the republicans still do not stack up well in all of the normal categories."

See the link in question for the background data supporting this.

During Reagan, it was the Democrats. During the bulk of Clinton's terms, it was the Republicans.

DAR
So in this instance it canceled out. This does not help explain the long term trends. In normative categories by which we judge successful governance, the nation does better when Dems are in office.

You want to give democrats credit for creating jobs and then dismiss the losses as "well, these things happen."

DAR
As I said, you measure job creation during a presidents term. When you take into effect lag effects (which should over time be equal for each party, i.e., see GW Bush's lag effects), the results do not change.

Regardless, job creation/growth has more to do with economic cycles than it does with who happens to be president.

DAR
But of course. But lets not, because it is inconvenient, suddenly pretend that the executive branch of the government is insignificant or doesn't matter. Otherwise, why all the fuss about winning?

For being "free thinkers" you guys sure seem to lean towards one particular party.

DAR
With over 17,000 post since 2006 we have never (other than porn spam) censored a post for content. We don't control who shows up. We do control who gets roasted... people with bad arguments.

D.

[kwlyon]

I am very put out with the democrats. They are often too pussificated to get anything done. However, I have yet to hear a democrat imply that, in the event they loose an election, their constituency should begin to consider "second amendment options". I will lend no support to ANY party which tolerates, and in fact encourages such irresponsible rhetoric. It is one thing to be religious and/or conservative. It is quite another to equate an apposing world view with a tyrannical government. The republican party is dangerously out of control. The fact that they are still being taken seriously is a clear indication that, collectively, we still have one foot planted firmly within the cave. Thus I find myself short of political options. Once upon a time we were forced to choose between a turd sandwich and a giant douche. Now, it seems, our choice is between a turd sandwich and Cthulhu.

Kevin