Historically markets do much better under Democrats
Started by petrfitz
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 2533
Member since: Mar 2008
Discussion about
"Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. 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... [more]
"Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
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 of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
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.
Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, 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.
The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide.
It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.
The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.
The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)
The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.
The table also shows that 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."
[less]
Response by julia
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 2841
Member since: Feb 2007
I agree on some of your points but...I strongly believe that Pres. Obama will raise taxes on the middle class. Last year I earned $146k and paid in state and local (not federal) $41k in taxes. You've written in the past you don't mind paying higher taxes. For myself I cannot afford to pay higher taxes. Also, the Clinton economy went south in '99-'2000 and the Bush economy, doing really bad now was going well for a number of years.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by julia
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 2841
Member since: Feb 2007
I'm still going to vote for Obama...I don't agree with him on everything but I strongly support him.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by anonymous
almost 18 years ago
"And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980."
Would have been seven of seven if not for Ross Perot splitting the Republican ticket...
Oh well, guess we'll have to go three for three and start a new trend...
Its simply a numbers game...now that the far right bear has been awoken, the amount of get out the vote drives being organized in Ohio, Penn and Michigan is staggering...the red herring is that Palin was put on the ticket to "get women" as the real reason was to deliver a shot in the arm...
Raising McCain just needs 20% of that Hillary vote...considering he had it already, the rest he brings over will be gravy...
Unfornately, the economy is still screwed...the only difference is this is global and not national so we'll all be in this together...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by petrfitz
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 2533
Member since: Mar 2008
Julia - Obama's plan is for a tax cut for 95% of americans - the top 5% would not get tax cuts and those at the top willget a slight increase. McCains plan calls for the top 2-3% to get a tax decrease where as the remainder of the 98% of Americans will not get any tax decrease.
Actually McCains health care plan would mean a significant tax increase on all working americans - porbably a $3K - 5K per year increase on all working families.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by bjw2103
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 6236
Member since: Jul 2007
Actually, as much as I dislike McCain's health plan, it would NOT increase taxes "3k to 5k on all working families." What he's really proposing is to remove employers from the system, which is a nice idea in theory, but very difficult to manage smoothly.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by petrfitz
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 2533
Member since: Mar 2008
BJW - you are wrong again:
"A new study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) shows that a key component of John McCain’s health care plan—which would push working families into the private insurance market—falls far, far short of what retirees would need to cover their premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
McCain’s proposal is centered on high-deductible health savings accounts (HSAs), which provide fewer benefits at higher costs and undermine existing employer-based health care. He also would make health care premiums part of taxable income, essentially creating a new tax for working families."
So the basis of his plan is to make ANY and ALL employer contributions to health care taxable. Almost all workers who are covered by employer provided insurance get some sort of funding if not all through the employers. Employees are not currently taxed on the employer funding, under McCain's plan they would be taxed on these funds and taxed just as much as their regular income is taxed.
That is a tax INCREASE on all working Americans.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by totallyanonymous
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 661
Member since: Jul 2007
Note OP's all knowing "source", an NYT op ed. I say op ed because all their articles are op eds.
I know WSJ uses bigger words than NYT, but its well worth the read.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by anonymous
almost 18 years ago
"McCains plan calls for the top 2-3% to get a tax decrease where as the remainder of the 98% of Americans will not get any tax decrease."
Seriously, how are you able to print this...its blatenly false....
Do you really think that he would push through any tax cuts that only benefit the top 2%
Creditability - DENIED
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by anonymous
almost 18 years ago
I didnt realize anyone reads the NYT's anymore as reflected in their ever stellar stock price...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by anonymous
almost 18 years ago
Ahhh speak of the devil...this would truly be a great day in history
Murdoch reportedly considers New York Times deal: report
By Steve Goldstein
Last update: 4:40 a.m. EDT Sept. 3, 2008
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Rupert Murdoch is considering an acquisition of The New York Times according to a report by Vanity Fair's Michael Wolff, who wrote a profile and interviewed the chairman and chief executive. Wolff speaks of watching Murdoch "go through the numbers, plot out a merger with the Journal's backroom operations, and fantasize about the staff's quitting en masse as soon as he entered the sacred temple." The article doesn't directly quote Murdoch on his reported interest. There would be clear regulatory obstacles to a New York Times acquisition in addition to a likely reticence on the Sulzberger family to sell to him. News Corp. also owns MarketWatch, the publisher of this report.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10022
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
> Creditability - DENIED
What is creditability?
Your ability to get a loan?
;-)
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by anonymous
almost 18 years ago
Ahhhh...Google spellchecker got me...thnx for the catch...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by currypuff0
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 14
Member since: Jul 2006
julia
Last year I earned $146k and paid in state and local (not federal) $41k in taxes.
julia sorry for asking but how on earth could you be paying 28% of your income towards state and local taxes?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by julia
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 2841
Member since: Feb 2007
Are you saying I should get someone new to do my taxes. The $41k was after my 401k, etc.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10022
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
yeah, you definitely need a new accountant. NYC and NYS taxes top out at about 12% or so...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by petrfitz
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 2533
Member since: Mar 2008
Julia - do you own a home? do you itemize?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by bjw2103
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 6236
Member since: Jul 2007
"McCain’s proposal is centered on high-deductible health savings accounts (HSAs)"
This isn't exactly accurate. McCain does like consumer-directed health plans, but they are not the focus of his proposal. What you (conveniently) forgot to mention is that McCain is proposing a tax credit for individuals or families who buy coverage on their own ($2500 and $5000, respectively). I should know better than to argue with you, as you'll ALWAYS side against anything associated with a Republican, but don't like the idea of your spreading misinformation here, however trivial the impact.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by petrfitz
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 2533
Member since: Mar 2008
so you admit that McCain's health care program is truly a tax INCREASE.
thanks
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by julia
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 2841
Member since: Feb 2007
I just sold my apartment but last year I did own. Maybe I'm wrong. I need to look at my returns. Sorry if I mislead anyone.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by bjw2103
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 6236
Member since: Jul 2007
"so you admit that McCain's health care program is truly a tax INCREASE.
thanks"
Um, no. You are mistaken.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by tech_guy
almost 18 years ago
Posts: 967
Member since: Aug 2008
You owe capital gains tax to the city and state on your real estate appreciation, assuming its over 250k profit (or 500k if you're married). Or if you (and spouse, if applicable) didn't live there enough to qualify, then you owe that tax on the whole profit.
I agree on some of your points but...I strongly believe that Pres. Obama will raise taxes on the middle class. Last year I earned $146k and paid in state and local (not federal) $41k in taxes. You've written in the past you don't mind paying higher taxes. For myself I cannot afford to pay higher taxes. Also, the Clinton economy went south in '99-'2000 and the Bush economy, doing really bad now was going well for a number of years.
I'm still going to vote for Obama...I don't agree with him on everything but I strongly support him.
"And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980."
Would have been seven of seven if not for Ross Perot splitting the Republican ticket...
Oh well, guess we'll have to go three for three and start a new trend...
Its simply a numbers game...now that the far right bear has been awoken, the amount of get out the vote drives being organized in Ohio, Penn and Michigan is staggering...the red herring is that Palin was put on the ticket to "get women" as the real reason was to deliver a shot in the arm...
Raising McCain just needs 20% of that Hillary vote...considering he had it already, the rest he brings over will be gravy...
Unfornately, the economy is still screwed...the only difference is this is global and not national so we'll all be in this together...
Julia - Obama's plan is for a tax cut for 95% of americans - the top 5% would not get tax cuts and those at the top willget a slight increase. McCains plan calls for the top 2-3% to get a tax decrease where as the remainder of the 98% of Americans will not get any tax decrease.
Actually McCains health care plan would mean a significant tax increase on all working americans - porbably a $3K - 5K per year increase on all working families.
Actually, as much as I dislike McCain's health plan, it would NOT increase taxes "3k to 5k on all working families." What he's really proposing is to remove employers from the system, which is a nice idea in theory, but very difficult to manage smoothly.
BJW - you are wrong again:
"A new study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) shows that a key component of John McCain’s health care plan—which would push working families into the private insurance market—falls far, far short of what retirees would need to cover their premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
McCain’s proposal is centered on high-deductible health savings accounts (HSAs), which provide fewer benefits at higher costs and undermine existing employer-based health care. He also would make health care premiums part of taxable income, essentially creating a new tax for working families."
So the basis of his plan is to make ANY and ALL employer contributions to health care taxable. Almost all workers who are covered by employer provided insurance get some sort of funding if not all through the employers. Employees are not currently taxed on the employer funding, under McCain's plan they would be taxed on these funds and taxed just as much as their regular income is taxed.
That is a tax INCREASE on all working Americans.
Note OP's all knowing "source", an NYT op ed. I say op ed because all their articles are op eds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?em
Here's the flip side (My favorite is the fact that 38% of U.S. households pay NO income tax, NONE, as in ZERO):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039919493892941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
or
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
I know WSJ uses bigger words than NYT, but its well worth the read.
"McCains plan calls for the top 2-3% to get a tax decrease where as the remainder of the 98% of Americans will not get any tax decrease."
Seriously, how are you able to print this...its blatenly false....
Do you really think that he would push through any tax cuts that only benefit the top 2%
Creditability - DENIED
I didnt realize anyone reads the NYT's anymore as reflected in their ever stellar stock price...
Ahhh speak of the devil...this would truly be a great day in history
Murdoch reportedly considers New York Times deal: report
By Steve Goldstein
Last update: 4:40 a.m. EDT Sept. 3, 2008
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Rupert Murdoch is considering an acquisition of The New York Times according to a report by Vanity Fair's Michael Wolff, who wrote a profile and interviewed the chairman and chief executive. Wolff speaks of watching Murdoch "go through the numbers, plot out a merger with the Journal's backroom operations, and fantasize about the staff's quitting en masse as soon as he entered the sacred temple." The article doesn't directly quote Murdoch on his reported interest. There would be clear regulatory obstacles to a New York Times acquisition in addition to a likely reticence on the Sulzberger family to sell to him. News Corp. also owns MarketWatch, the publisher of this report.
> Creditability - DENIED
What is creditability?
Your ability to get a loan?
;-)
Ahhhh...Google spellchecker got me...thnx for the catch...
julia
Last year I earned $146k and paid in state and local (not federal) $41k in taxes.
julia sorry for asking but how on earth could you be paying 28% of your income towards state and local taxes?
Are you saying I should get someone new to do my taxes. The $41k was after my 401k, etc.
yeah, you definitely need a new accountant. NYC and NYS taxes top out at about 12% or so...
Julia - do you own a home? do you itemize?
"McCain’s proposal is centered on high-deductible health savings accounts (HSAs)"
This isn't exactly accurate. McCain does like consumer-directed health plans, but they are not the focus of his proposal. What you (conveniently) forgot to mention is that McCain is proposing a tax credit for individuals or families who buy coverage on their own ($2500 and $5000, respectively). I should know better than to argue with you, as you'll ALWAYS side against anything associated with a Republican, but don't like the idea of your spreading misinformation here, however trivial the impact.
so you admit that McCain's health care program is truly a tax INCREASE.
thanks
I just sold my apartment but last year I did own. Maybe I'm wrong. I need to look at my returns. Sorry if I mislead anyone.
"so you admit that McCain's health care program is truly a tax INCREASE.
thanks"
Um, no. You are mistaken.
You owe capital gains tax to the city and state on your real estate appreciation, assuming its over 250k profit (or 500k if you're married). Or if you (and spouse, if applicable) didn't live there enough to qualify, then you owe that tax on the whole profit.