Dems outperform Repubs in every economic metric

Description: Each bar graph compares the historical performance of our economy under Democratic presidents with the performance under Republican presidents. The blue bar represents the average performance under Democrats and the red bar represents the average performance under Republicans.

The GDP numbers represent the average annual GDP growth. The jobs graph shows the average monthly job creation. Median income indicates the average annual change in the average income of the middle 20% of Americans. Unemployment reflects the average annual change in the U3 unemployment rate (positive numbers are bad, negative numbers are good). The debt to GDP ratio shows the average annual percentage of change in the ratio of national debt to GDP (positive numbers are bad). Stocks reflects the average annual change in the value of the S&P index.

In each case, the data reflects presidents as far back as the data is available from that source. Most of the graphs show the average going back to either 1930 or 1950. The income data only goes back to 1968, and the debt data goes back to 1961. The exact years and figures are available from the ‚ÄúExcel‚ÄĚ link below.

Sources: BEA BLS BLS Treasury Census Yahoo

Discussion: The economy has consistently performed dramatically better under Democratic presidents ever since we have been tracking economic performance.

Median income has essentially not increased at all under Republican presidents while increasing by an average of 1% per year, after adjusting for inflation, under Democratic presidents. A more detailed breakdown of how income levels have changed under the parties, including the change for other income brackets, is available here.

Jobs have been created far more rapidly under Democratic presidents as well, with Democrats averaging 2.5 times more jobs being created each month. This figure could be somewhat misleading, given that two of the three most recent presidents have been Democrats, and the population is larger today than in the past. However, as you can see from a comparison of the presidents’ jobs records it is not that simple- a number of Democratic presidents farther back in history beat more recent Republican presidents. For example, both President Carter and President Johnson beat all Republican presidents. In fact, only 2 of the top 8 presidents are Republican while all 4 of the worst 4 are Republican. So, the pattern appears to be fairly consistent.

The gross domestic product has also grown approximately 2.5 times as fast under Democrats. 5 of the top 6 presidents for GDP growth are Democrats with the best Democratic president having 2.5 times as much GDP growth per year as the best Republican president.

The dramatic gulf between the performance of the parties is not limited to the presidency. Democrats also dramatically outperform both at the state level and in the legislature.

The reasons the economy performs so much better under Democrats are a subject of much debate. Common explanations include a greater emphasis on expanding access to the benefits of economic growth to a broader slice of society, higher investments in societal foundations like education and scientific research and smarter regulation. But, whatever the explanation is, or the explanations are, the record is unequivocal.

See more graphs about: GDP Unemployment Income Debt Market

11 Likes

Whats going on with your shithole country OP? Anything you wanna post??

1 Like

Go see a doctor.

6 Likes

I heard the nba g league is gonna have a team in mexico city next year might wanna see if there having a tryout????

Well as I said on another thread, if the Democrats feel this is true then they should run on that platform.  Promise to reverse all the disasterous Trump policies that have led to today's economy lol.

10 Likes

You can't post cold hard facts here. That shit doesn't work. 

1 Like

seems hard to believe, considering I've never heard anything different than our country being in pretty much it's worst shape ever under Carter. 

 

Will wait for Camicon to make sense of this. 

Pedro you're a for real weird dude. Why do you even spend time on here?  Similar to a conservative enrolling at Cal Berkeley. Like, why?  I think you and everyone else would both be happy if you just went away.  

But lemme guess lemme guess, you enjoy "trolling Trumptards" right? That's the reason? 

5 Likes

Facts and data over history mean nothing! Did you know that the market hit record highs and unemployment is super low bro!

2 Likes

Average growth 5% hahahahahaha

 

Classic

So, a lot of that data goes back to the 30s and 50s? I wouldnt say that's relevant whatsoever to the platform of Republicans and Democrats today.

Also, Obama's numbers are HEAVILY skewed in the fact he took over at the lowest point of the Great Recession and after all the bailouts, the numbers had no where else to go but up. So by the time numbers broke even to pre 2008 levels, something that was going to happen regardless of who the president was, the percent change was very significant.

And the amount of influence the president has in the economy is overstated imo, and that goes for Trump as well.

 

1 Like

OP, stop being a partisan shill.

Take a step back everytime you read something like you posted and question it.

 

Look at income adjusted for inflation since 1950.

You'll see that the top 10% has seen a steady rise in income, with a massive rise in income in the last 30 years, especially among the top 1%

The rest of the centiles have largely remainded flat, with the bottom 25% seeing a reduction in income adjusted for inflation.

 

What does that mean? 

It means both parties have done a terrible job advocating for 90%+ of the population.

It's why Trump was elected, because he's not part of that establishment and constantly bashes their policies.

1 Like
Jmunzies - 

So, a lot of that data goes back to the 30s and 50s? I wouldnt say that's relevant whatsoever to the platform of Republicans and Democrats today.

Also, Obama's numbers are HEAVILY skewed in the fact he took over at the lowest point of the Great Recession and after all the bailouts, the numbers had no where else to go but up. So by the time numbers broke even to pre 2008 levels, something that was going to happen regardless of who the president was, the percent change was very significant.

And the amount of influence the president has in the economy is overstated imo, and that goes for Trump as well.

 

"Facts and data over history mean nothing! Did you know that the market hit record highs and unemployment is super low bro!"

1 Like
CharlesMartel -

OP, stop being a partisan shill.

Take a step back everytime you read something like you posted and question it.

 

Look at income adjusted for inflation since 1950.

You'll see that the top 10% has seen a steady rise in income, with a massive rise in income in the last 30 years, especially among the top 1%

The rest of the centiles have largely remainded flat, with the bottom 25% seeing a reduction in income adjusted for inflation.

 

What does that mean? 

It means both parties have done a terrible job advocating for 90%+ of the population.

It's why Trump was elected, because he's not part of that establishment and constantly bashes their policies.

You were killing it right up until the end. 

 

While it's accurate that people THOUGHT Trump would be the outsider that stood up for the 90%, his actual actions have done exactly what those establishment hacks had been doing. Income inequality is growing, the 1 and .1%ers got a massive tax cut. On and on. 

 

He conned a ton of people into thinking he would be any different. 

CharlesMartel -

OP, stop being a partisan shill.

Take a step back everytime you read something like you posted and question it.

 

Look at income adjusted for inflation since 1950.

You'll see that the top 10% has seen a steady rise in income, with a massive rise in income in the last 30 years, especially among the top 1%

The rest of the centiles have largely remainded flat, with the bottom 25% seeing a reduction in income adjusted for inflation.

 

What does that mean? 

It means both parties have done a terrible job advocating for 90%+ of the population.

It's why Trump was elected, because he's not part of that establishment and constantly bashes their policies.

This.  Love him or hate him, you can't argue with the success he's had in getting our jobs back.  At this point we actually have more jobs than we do bodies.

 

 Compare the growth we've had under trump to the suffering we experienced under Obama..

1 Like

yes he can argue with it

its what TDS is all about

pure emotion 

no reason

1 Like

Mental illness.

1 Like

This is nonsense.

FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
CharlesMartel -

OP, stop being a partisan shill.

Take a step back everytime you read something like you posted and question it.

 

Look at income adjusted for inflation since 1950.

You'll see that the top 10% has seen a steady rise in income, with a massive rise in income in the last 30 years, especially among the top 1%

The rest of the centiles have largely remainded flat, with the bottom 25% seeing a reduction in income adjusted for inflation.

 

What does that mean? 

It means both parties have done a terrible job advocating for 90%+ of the population.

It's why Trump was elected, because he's not part of that establishment and constantly bashes their policies.

You were killing it right up until the end. 

 

While it's accurate that people THOUGHT Trump would be the outsider that stood up for the 90%, his actual actions have done exactly what those establishment hacks had been doing. Income inequality is growing, the 1 and .1%ers got a massive tax cut. On and on. 

 

He conned a ton of people into thinking he would be any different. 

Well my post that you responded to merely stated why he was elected, it didn't make a value judgment about how well he's doing.

But you did so we can analyze it.

 

Your response was nothing but conclusions and conjecture without any analysis.

 

What explains the reason for a massive rise in income among the top 10% (especially the top 1%) and a flat income for the rest of the population (with the bottom 25% seeing a reduction)?

 

It's because the US economy was opened up to cheap 3rd world labor, through trade deals, elimination of tariffs, and immigration (both legal and illegal).  This allows the top 10%, who are usually managers and those who have ownership interests in business to massively reduce costs by employing 3rd world labor while eliminating American jobs that pay middle class wages.  Paul Krugman has even admitted that he and other economists were wrong about these policies and that they were disasterous for much of the middle to low income workers in the US. (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-10/inequality-globalization-and-the-missteps-of-1990s-economics)

Now what are Trumps stances on all for these?

 

Everyone knows how US manufacturing jobs were exported to the 3rd world and how elimination of tariffs allowed goods made in these places to be sold in the US, undercutting the price of domestically manufactured goods. This is what Trump's tariffs are about.

Even jobs that remained in the US suffered because of immigration policies.  You can look up historical wages for certain jobs.  For example, working in a meat processing plant.  In the 60's these jobs paid around $50,000 in today's dollars adjusted for inflation.  Back then the vast majority of workers in these plants were Americans.  Then in the late 60's you have a shift in immigration policy, allowing massive influx of people from the 3rd world and along with it, widespread illegal immigration as well.

Today, working in a meat packing facility pays only around $28,000 a year, with a huge percentage of workers being illegals or new immigrants from the 3rd world.  People say they are doing the jobs Americans don't want to do but that's a total lie.  Americans won't do it for 28K a year but plenty will for 50k, like their grandparents and great grandparents did.  Americans will do dirty and hard jobs, like fracking, sanitation, etc., but only if they're paid a middle class wage.  At least Trump is trying to reduce the flow of people undercutting the wages in traditionally middle class jobs.

Many of Trump's policies are aimed at solving the problem of 3rd world labor undercutting American jobs.

1 Like
Jmunzies -

So, a lot of that data goes back to the 30s and 50s? I wouldnt say that's relevant whatsoever to the platform of Republicans and Democrats today.

Also, Obama's numbers are HEAVILY skewed in the fact he took over at the lowest point of the Great Recession and after all the bailouts, the numbers had no where else to go but up. So by the time numbers broke even to pre 2008 levels, something that was going to happen regardless of who the president was, the percent change was very significant.

And the amount of influence the president has in the economy is overstated imo, and that goes for Trump as well.

 

Anybody who says "it had no where else to go but up" about the last recession wasn't in banking.  That shit was teetering on the precipice of being much much worse.  And a less effective president could have made that a reality.  I know now the common conservative talking point is that Obama inherited a slam dunk with jobs numbers and GDP because the market had bottomed out when he took office, but NOBODY was feeling that way in real-time.