FEBRUARY 20, 2009 12:19PM

Pornograph: Dems vs. Reps Economic Smackdown

Rate: 12 Flag

                                            

    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.)

GDPbyPres1

                                                                                                                      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).

PCIbyPres

                                                                                          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)

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
CCC - I am enthralled by your pornographs & their consummate summation.

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.
Divide and conquer, maestro. I hope this one stays intact.

Bully.
Pornographs. Now figure that! Well done.
Mom always liked Dems best.
Oedipal complex is such a tragic thing.
bow-wow-wow-yippe-yo-yipee-yay! rated!
Great graphs! Need to send the link to my Dad in France! ASAP!
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.
Very clever. I'd love to watch what goes on at your economists' bacchanalia. And "Cliometric" sounds so.... I didn't even know it was a word. Good post.
Triple C! Kudos for this information. I love me some graphs.

(rated!!!)
Thank you, all.

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
With this seeming to cut and dried, how can/do people continue to argue that the Republicans are better for the economy? Is there some other factor you haven't touched on yet? Or is it just that they like to ignore history? I don't understand willful ignorance.
Merwoman, I don't understand it fully, either. I don't think I've purposely left out any statistical factors (in fact, there are more to come, wait for it ;-)) -- despite my woofing, I tend to be fairly professional when it comes to the sanctity of the numbers.

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
Unfortunately, even when the truth is presented in black and white -- or in this case powerpointesque colors, Repugnants will deny, baby deny. Expect to see a visit from our friend Don any moment now, explaining why black is white, torture is good, and wiretaps protect our basic liberties.

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.
I hadn't heard that Atwater quote before, very interesting. Pretty much what I've been arguing for years, about who benefits. It's that whole social justice thing, yanno. Republicans seems not to appreciate people in need as much as the Dems do. I seriously doubt there's anything you've missed, or any statistical hoo-haw that would negate the information you've already given us and swing the needle back to "Repubs are good for the economy." I just don't get how people can be so determined to ignore known reality. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, eh? :P
Wonderful analysis - thanks and I've added a new word to my graphic vocabulary.
Very enlightening. Unfortunately, I have to agree with Tom Cordle on this one. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. They enjoy being ignorant.