The Greatest Party

An article in the Washington Post printed some very interesting statistics and statements about the Democratic and Republican Parties that made a Bush smirk wrinkle my face from ear to ear.

First, it talked about the labeling of the Democrats and Republicans as the “Mommy” and “Daddy” parties. I never thought about it that way, but it is a very nice analogy. I, and millions of other Americans, grew up in a household where my mother primarily played both roles as financial provider and housekeeper. And as the 21st century has it, females and mothers play a more predominant role in society.

First, think of the Republican Party as the irresponsible, drunken, perverted father type. He mainly screams and yells about kids, morals and the falling respect in society. Then he goes and wastes all his money on poker or something, watches a football game, has a beer, gets into a fight and loses his job. The next thing you know, you’re in debt to your neck and are losing the house. This is where “Mommy” or the Democratic Party steps in.

“Mommy” then has to go out and find a laborious job to make ends meet. She breaks her back all day “bringing home the bacon” then comes home to clean up the house and ensure that the kids are healthy, safe, and doing well in school. And over in the corner, is “Daddy” screaming and moaning about how it is “Mommy’s” fault he is such a mess.

Now, before you think I am blowing this analogy out of proportion, take a look at a summary of the statistics from the Economic Reports of 2005 and earlier. The party with the best record of serving the so called “Republican economic values” is the Democrats. The economic competition isn't even close. Democrats stomp the crap out of Republicans every year, by a huge margin.

Statistics back to 1959 make this clear. A consistent pattern over 45 years cannot be explained by shorter-term factors, such as war or who controls Congress. Republicans like to declare their incompetence by blaming the Majority Party of Democrats or blaming it on war. Maybe presidents can't affect the economy much, but the assumption that they can and do is so prominent in Republican rhetoric that they are stuck with it. So consider the following:

“Federal spending (a.k.a. "big government"): It has gone up an average of about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president's policies to take effect, Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion.”

Wow, and Democrats are the ones destroying America with unnecessary government programs; thus wasting millions of dollars? Give me a break. All these so-called “intelligent” straight-shooters who talk the real talk need an open palm upside their head. Here are the facts (but then again, Republicans totally ignore facts), Don Surber, Hiram Lewis, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, George W. Bush, and every other fascist, neoconservative in America needs to come out and admit that they are really just greedy bastards who care more about money and possessions than progressing a nation and its people.

“Leaning over backward even farther, let's start our measurement in 1981, the date when many Republicans believe that life as we know it began. The result: Democrats still have a better record at smaller government. Republican presidents added more government spending for each year they served, whether you credit them with the actual years they served or with the year that followed.”

“Federal revenue (aka taxes): You can't take it away from them: Republicans do cut taxes. Or rather, tax revenue goes up under both parties but about half as fast under Republicans. It's the only test of Republican economics that the Republicans win.”

“That is, they win if you consider lower federal revenue to be a victory. Sometimes Republicans say that cutting taxes will raise government revenue by stimulating the economy. And sometimes they say that lower revenue is good because it will lead (by some mysterious process) to lower spending.”

So basically, Republicans cut taxes, then we start getting a large debt building and they raise them again, burdening the citizens who unwittingly thought they didn’t have to manage their money as they did under Democrats.

The numbers in the Economic Report undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt. So, people may say that the President does not have any control over the economy, but these statistics show that they actually do have some influence. But then again, the Great Depression said that for us loud and clear.

“Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year, the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion. The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats.”

Wow, a $100 billion dollar difference in both the federal deficit and national debt. Wow, astonishing. The facts are right here for the world to see, and sadly the majority of Americans won’t take the time to read them. Well, as soon as we get a good ole Southern Democrat in office, we can start working on changing that sad fact. Education is priority.

“As for measures of general prosperity, each president inherits the economy. What counts is what happens next. Let's take just two measures, although they all show the same thing: Democrats do better under every variation. From 1960 to 2005 the gross domestic product measured in year-2000 dollars rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billon a year under Democrats. Measured from 1989, or measured with a one-year delay, or both, the results are similar. And how about this one? The average annual rise in real per capita income -- that's the statistic that puts money in your pocket. Democrats score about 30 percent higher.”

Again, what can I say? I mean, I knew this basic concept previously, but to see the statistics is just breath-taking. Basically, under Democrats, America produces more goods, more goods are consumed and the economy is vibrant. And not by just a small difference, this is $50 billion in difference. But not only that pleasure, under Democrats you make 30% more money! I guess it isn’t the reduced taxes, so it must be that jobs pay more under Democrats.

“Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13 percent compared with 3.89 percent for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33 percent versus 6.38 percent). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.
Almost forgot: If you start in 1981 and if you factor in a year's delay, Republican presidents edge out Democratic ones on inflation, 4.57 to 4.36. Congratulations.”

The top paragraph states that under Democrats, product prices only raise about 3.13 percent compared to 3.89 under Republicans. The bottom statement says that in one exception, Republicans beat us by .21 percent, but just wait until Bush’s complete 2004-2008 term is factored in. George Bush is going to send these statistics tumbling in the Democrats' favor.
Hey Republicans, what do you have to say about this? Let me guess, the statistics are flawed? They distorted data? Give me a break.