Pornographs
Pornograph: pôr-'no-graf n.
1. A monograph on otherwise abstruse topics superbly researched, analyzed and illustrated with pastel-colored charts to illuminate even the most dismal of sciences.
2. Licentious painting or literature, especially PowerPoint graphics displayed on walls of darkened rooms devoted to bacchanalian econometric orgies.
The practice of Pornography is discouraged in members of The Cliometric Society or the Association Française de Cliometrie whose style guides mandate drab, gray or occasionally dun chart backgrounds.
TODAY'S TOPIC: Who is better for the economy? Republicans or Democrats?
Peruse the charts below to your heart's content, listing presidential terms since 1932 and how the economy fared during those terms. (1940-48 has been left out so as not to over-favor those Democrat war-mongers -- yeah, we yellow dogs have long memories, Bob Dole.) The rank-ordered lists are color coded for your convenience.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Growth:
Top 4: Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy/Johnson, Clinton
Bottom 4: Eisenhower, Nixon/Ford, Bush I, Bush II (Bush II looks a tad ahead of Bush I on the chart, but that's because the 2008 numbers are not included yet. When they are, Junior will lose to Pappy -- again.)

Source: BEA(1)
Per Capita Income Growth:
Top 4: Roosevelt, Truman, Clinton, Nixon/Ford
Bottom 4: Carter, Eisenhower, Bush II, Bush I
(Here we have Junior in his true colors. Per capita income actually declined by 0.05% per year through 2007. 2008 numbers are not in yet, but I doubt if they'll improve his performance).

Source: Census Bureau (2)(3)
So what was that about Republicans being better for the economy?
Notes:
(1) Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce National Economic Accounts: Current Dollar and "real" GDP
(2) U. S. Census Bureau: Selected Per Capita Income and Historical Income Tables
(3) U. S. Census Bureau: Historical Statistics of the United States,Colonial Times to 1970 (Bicentennial Edition)


Salon.com
Comments
For further evidence to support your pornographic evidence, feel free to visit an earlier post of mine during the election season (excuse the you-know-whatting) that wasn't nearly this concise but essentially laid out the same evidence.
Debunking the Republican Myths
Where that puts us now in the midst of this whole economic fiasco is anybody's guess, but I'm sure glad that it isn't the guys in red in charge.
Bully.
Oedipal complex is such a tragic thing.
bow-wow-wow-yippe-yo-yipee-yay! rated!
As we say, "le poids des mots, le choc des photos", in your case, "le choc des graphiques", I'll work on a phonetically-based pun over the weekend.
(rated!!!)
Sarah: I can't come up with a pun, but maybe I'll add a soundtrack set to Cole Porter "C'est magnifique, It is pornographique..." and show these at the next AEA meeting :-).
Smithbarney: Or maybe you have the better idea. I can see me in a raincoat outside the convention hall whispering "Psst! Dirty Pictures" and giving folks a flash!
WOOF
So one has to look into social, sociological, psychological and other factors (maybe I'll do a post on it). The Republicans of course have exploited the culture wars effectively. They have also managed to successfully manged to tag the Democrats with the "Tax and Spend" canard. But I've suspected for some time now that "Tax and Spend" is at one level not an economic message. Lee Atwater, Reagan's Rove and Rove's guru as you know, famously explained that the underlying message was something like: "Tax who and Spend it on who." His grammar wasn't too good, but what he was saying was that it was basically a racist message.
I'll have to work on flushing/fleshing it out. Sometimes the numbers don't say it all.
WOOF
Every time I heard supply-siders claim cutting taxes raises revenues, I want to scream. If that is so, then eliminating taxes altogether should result in an infinite revenue stream -- which it does -- as long as you can get away with kiting checks as bush and the Repugnants did during his administration.
Welcome to Ponzi World.