STUDY: Democrats create more jobs than Republicans

[sMiLeYz]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76338.html

Which is exactly why the data from Bloomberg’s BGOV Barometer last week will shock many people. Bloomberg studied the past 50 years of U.S. job creation, under Democratic and Republican presidents. The facts: For the near half-century following the Kennedy administration, Democrats created nearly twice as many private-sector jobs as Republicans. Even though Democrats held the presidency for only 23 years compared with 28 years of Republican rule.

 

[Doppel]

Looking forward to hearing what the spin doctors have to say about this.

 

[jackstar7]

It's well-known common sense that president's don't have much direct influence over the economy... except President Obama.


Serious post should be taken double-seriously.

 

[Throckmorton]

Well to be fair, Republicans' goal isn't to create jobs, it's to maximize income for the wealthy.

 

[sunzt]

This is one of those cause-effect fallacies (forgot what they were called). There are too many variables including, congress makeup, wars, and economic cycle to be factored. Plus a lot of admins get credit for work done in prior admins. Just because the President is a D or R at a current point in time doesn't mean that the job creation is primarily the result of the president.

 

[Anarchist420]

The Democrats didn't create them, but it doesn't shock me that fewer private sector jobs were created under Republican rule. Look at this Republican Congress FFS--it's one of the most anti-market ever. They support eminent domain (Keystone XL), passed Obama's budget request, their leader supported taxpayer subsidized insider trading, they want to raise revenues, they support IP, the list goes on.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Correlation is not causation.

 

[crashtestdummy]

This is one of those cause-effect fallacies (forgot what they were called). There are too many variables including, congress makeup, wars, and economic cycle to be factored. Plus a lot of admins get credit for work done in prior admins. Just because the President is a D or R at a current point in time doesn't mean that the job creation is primarily the result of the president.

You're looking for cum hoc ergo propter hoc. And you're right, it would take a lot more work to really say that the Democratic presidents caused the increase in jobs, especially because many decisions that are made in one presidency (deregulating banks and derivatives, for example), may not have an effect until much later on.

 

[Throckmorton]

Correlation is not causation.

Yes but according to Republicans, Democrats destroy jobs and stifle the economy. Clearly that's not true.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes but according to Republicans, Democrats destroy jobs and stifle the economy. Clearly that's not true.

Exactly. It lays waste to the claim that dems in general promote job killing policies.

 

[Phokus]

And the corollary is that Republicans cause nothing but death, poverty, and suffering in general. Anthropologists are going to look back at us one day and say, 'how the fuck did these idiots exist?'

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes but according to Republicans, Democrats destroy jobs and stifle the economy. Clearly that's not true.

Partisans tend to pick statistics without context. Republicans are no exception. Certainly lots of jobs were created while Clinton was in office. Naturally the main reason was the tech bubble and the time was right. Clinton was smart enough to pretty much leave things alone and not screw stuff up. Thats not as easy a thing in DC as some might think, but he had smarts and sense. He was the most competent of Presidents in many years.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Partisans tend to pick statistics without context. Republicans are no exception. Certainly lots of jobs were created while Clinton was in office. Naturally the main reason was the tech bubble and the time was right. Clinton was smart enough to pretty much leave things alone and not screw stuff up. Thats not as easy a thing in DC as some might think, but he had smarts and sense. He was the most competent of Presidents in many years.

I'll second that...Clinton was definitely one of our better Presidents.

 

[Phokus]

Exactly. It lays waste to the claim that dems in general promote job killing policies.

The new GOP narrative will be, "Well, if Republicans were in charge during those years, job growth would have been even ... LARGER! Yeah, that's it!"

 

[Kadarin]

Well to be fair, Republicans' goal isn't to create jobs, it's to maximize income for the wealthy.

This. Jobs are only relevant insofar as how they will make the very wealthy even more so.

 

[alzan]

Too true. No administration, legislative session, etc. can truly be said to have created or destroyed jobs. Government can certainly create conditions that allow job creation, or in Clinton's case leave things as they are; but with our consumer based economy there are a myriad of factors that have to be taken into account.

I was laid off in the last couple of months, should I blame Obama? I could because we're under his administration, I could blame Congress as well; but neither one is true. The real reasons are too numerous to point out.

But we are in an election season; and reports or stats will be spun in ways that demonize or idolize either the incumbent President, current Congress-critters or the candidates/nominee(s) for the upcoming election(s).

 

[blankslate]

If only people had listened to Ross Perot about the "giant sucking sound"

Granted I think he was one of the more crazier candidates....

However he was crazy smart about what the consequences of "free trade" would be for us.

 

[WackyDan]

This is one of those cause-effect fallacies (forgot what they were called). There are too many variables including, congress makeup, wars, and economic cycle to be factored. Plus a lot of admins get credit for work done in prior admins. Just because the President is a D or R at a current point in time doesn't mean that the job creation is primarily the result of the president.

Add to that the policies of one president impact the term of the next president or two... A president can implement a job program or policy to grow the economy, but the pay off or the negative aspects may not be felt for years.

 

[Moonbeam]

Correlation is not causation.

No, but then we are talking about causation is causation, not correlation is causation.

 

[theeedude]

Austerity doesn't work. This has been proven in Europe.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'll second that...Clinton was definitely one of our better Presidents.

Depends on what you mean by better. I think he was an asshole for his affairs. He was a profound disappointment to anybody who looks for his President to have moral character and I do. I know he hated himself so much that he had to destroy his own success, but he also destroyed my trust. I was sure nobody could be so stupid and he was. Arrogant scum is how I would put it.

 

[nehalem256]

It would help if the article did not include blatant lies

The poverty rate declined under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent by 1970

Of course if we look at a graph of the poverty rate

We can see that it is giving Johnson credit for things that began BEFORE he was president.

 

[ElFenix]

It would help if the article did not include blatant lies


Of course if we look at a graph of the poverty rate

We can see that it is giving Johnson credit for things that began BEFORE he was president.

tangent: the most effective anti-poverty tools available to the government (refundable tax credits and food stamps) don't even get counted toward the poverty rate. what genius decided that?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Depends on what you mean by better. I think he was an asshole for his affairs. He was a profound disappointment to anybody who looks for his President to have moral character and I do. I know he hated himself so much that he had to destroy his own success, but he also destroyed my trust. I was sure nobody could be so stupid and he was. Arrogant scum is how I would put it.

Personally I haven't any respect as to how he conducted his personal affairs (no pun intended). Character does count. I'm glad he didn't compound it by diverting funds.

Funny thing about smart people in power. They sometimes think they are immune to discovery, but the truth rarely cares about the ego.

 

[nehalem256]

tangent: the most effective anti-poverty tools available to the government (refundable tax credits and food stamps) don't even get counted toward the poverty rate. what genius decided that?

Well one of the biggest refundable tax the EITC was created under Republicans and was frequently expanded under Republicans. So the Democrats are not exactly going to want to give credit for that. Plus the Democrats benefit by making the poverty rate look high, because then they can complain about it and advocate for more social programs (which wont be counted in determining the poverty rate :sneaky. Overall Republicans dont care about the poverty rate so they have little interest in making it accurate.