Economy Dems v Repubs

The claim has been made that the economy does better under Dem Presidents than Repub.


Timing, the whole idea that a president alone determines the economy is crazy. But both parties like to assign credit or blame.


First, let’s address the metrics.

Number of jobs created
GDP growth.

(I’m sure I’m missing a few).
All have been better under Dem Presidents

Because for the last 40 years the Republican platform has been trickle down economics.

That doesnt work. Giving blanket tax breaks to companies at the expenses of other programs has never paid off.

Trickle up economics have worked. Companies never have said “we have record profits. Let’s build more factories/stores/ etc”

What they have done is “we have more demand, let’s fill that demand”

Dems have focused not on rich, but in middle class and poor. That has created more disposable income for those groups and have resulted in more demands resulting in growth.

In addition, due to Republicans pressure, they also focus on limiting Government growth (which Republicans only care about when there is a dem President). So deficit spending tends to be reduced as well marginal tax increased on upper class result in higher Revenue for government.


How do higher taxes and higher government income translate to more disposable income for citizens?

I reject this claim:


I also reject this claim.


Because they are able to use that money to create more investments that create better jobs.

Welfare reform was under clinton.

More accessible college education leads to better educated population leading to better paying jobs.

Social spending increases under Dems, which while not perfect, is a investment that more often then not pays off.

1 Like


Doesn’t make it less true.

You reject the claim that overall Government spending is less under Dems?

Is deficit spending higher or lower under Dems last 40 years?

Perhaps it’s semantics. I should have send less government spending as a % to GDP.

How? Government “investments”? How does a tunnel in Massachusetts give me more disposable income in Texas?

Who had Congress and which pushed it?

Until dilution to the point of diminishing return. We’re there.

A sociology degree and $100k in debt will not get you a “better” job than a year in tech school as a mechanic at Cat.

Does it? You have evidence of this claim on scale?


It’s not true.

Put the goal post down.

How so? Where are they getting the funds to “trickle up”?

Of course they have.

They can do that without the profits to fill the demand and take the risk of building factories/stores?

Dems have taken for granted the middle class and poor by making promises they don’t keep.

Mostly, it is the middle class who gets hammered.

1 Like

The question is simple if phrased a different way.

What do dem Presidents that helps the private sector economy?

Blanket statement which is patently false.


Easier question to answer.
Republicans tend to give lowe tax rates to large companies I the hope of creating growth. But the companies can use that money anyway they want (stock buy backs, company mergers)

Dems tend to raise tax rates on those companies and give target tax breaks.

R&D tax breaks.
Opportunity zone tax breaks

A company can still pay the same low tax, but only if they spend the money on investments that will lead to more growth opportunity for more people.

I don’t think those “tends” are true at all.

I will agree that bail out money usage needs to come with conditions on use. Bail out money is not under discussion.

Business thrives in permissive environments, they die in non-permissive environments.

There is no way higher taxes give me more disposable income.

And? My statement is the country does better under Dem Presidents.

Even with a Republican congress. Hell, I use to vote for a Republican congress man during the clinton years.

Anyway, good discussion Sneaky. Thanks for starting the thread. I got to go make my football game food but carry on. Will be back to correct you after my game!

I’ve heard that claim from the party that doubled 200 years of national debt in less than 8, but ironically, all they can do is tank the record-shattering market and drive up unemployment from here.


And you would be mis-attributing the success.

Didn’t the Trump admin set all kinds of records?