Since 1929:
· An investment of $10,000 in the S&P stock market index during only Republican administrations would have yielded a return of just $10,506 (this includes the abysmal 36.7 percent drop in returns over the eight years of the George W. Bush Administration).
· That same $10,000 invested during Democratic administrations would have grown to $389,320 (this includes the 29.5 percent increase in returns over the [first] 281 days under President Obama’s Administration).
[New York Times, Opinion, 10/14/08, updated by author Tommy McCall 10/28/09*]
This is a striking 37-fold difference in performance.
According to this analysis, annualized returns under Republican presidents through the end of the George W. Bush Administration, who presided over a 4.4 percent annualized drop in returns, were only 0.1 percent. By contrast, Democrats presided over a nine percent annualized gain for investors.
Stocks do better under Democrats.
The fact is that the economy has performed significantly better under Democratic administrations than Republican administrations. Between 1960 and 2008, Democratic presidents presided over stronger economic growth, larger increases in median family income and higher job creation, as well as lower federal spending, federal deficits, and inflation. [Slate, 9/16/08; New York Times, 8/30/08]
For example, over the past 48 years, Democrats have presided over:
· Stronger growth in the economy. From 1960 to 2008, real GDP grew faster under Democratic presidents (4.1 percent per year on average) than under Republican presidents (2.7 percent).
...
Better household incomes for all. Between 1948 and 2008, annual incomes grew for all income classes under Democratic Administrations. By contrast, under Republican Administrations, the richest Americans enjoyed a disproportionate share of income growth.
Over this same period, real median income, representing the exact middle of American households, grew more under Democrats (2.2 percent) than under Republicans (0.6 percent). In fact, under President Bush, real median income actually fell $2,197. Looking back as far as we have data (back to President Kennedy), only two other Administrations have had a decline in real median household income.
· Largest decreases in poverty. Since the census began tracking the poverty rate in 1959, Democratic presidents have often produced the largest drops in poverty rates, while Republicans have seen the largest increases. As an example, during the eight years of William Jefferson Clinton Administration, the poverty rate decreased by 21.17 percent and the number of Americans living in poverty decreased by 19.57 percent. Unfortunately, those gains more than reversed in the George W. Bush Administration, when the poverty rate increased by 12.82 percent and the number of Americans living in poverty increased by 21.04 percent. More than numbers and percentages, these figures reflect that, while more than 7.6 million Americans rose out of poverty during the Clinton years, nearly 7 million fell into poverty during the Bush years.
Economic Growth is BETTER and more EQUITABLE under Democrats
Lower unemployment and more robust job growth. The unemployment rate has been lower under Democratic presidents (5.3 percent on average) than under Republicans (6.2 percent).
Moreover, in the eighty years between the start of the Hoover Administration and the end of the George W. Bush Administration, job growth was higher under all six Democratic Presidents than under any of the seven Republican Presidents.
The statistical probability of that happening through random chance is more than 1,700 to 1.
Democrats Create More Jobs
And let me add (not from the same source): Even in terms of fiscal responsibility, that thing Republicans like to harp on, it is really a Democratic value as proven by the numbers:
Republicans do FAR more deficit spending that Democrats.
The numbers don't lie. It is very clear that Democrats are better for ALL aspects of the economy.
BACK TO PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT NEWSLETTER MAIN PAGE
Return to I Had a Thought
No comments:
Post a Comment