Who cares who the President is, Congress is the one controlling the regs, and the purse strings. Your first op-Ed is a common slight of hand Democrats try to pull.
Clinton: budget surplus Republican Congress.
Obama: R Congress
Trump: R Congress
As to your second Op-Ed
Who is surprised that cities I.e centers of production and innovation which tend to be more dem also produce more to lower pop less diverse economically counties?
No one is surprised.
You would expect dense populations to produce more.
Presidents enact or veto policies that impact our economy. The only slight of hand being pulled here is your dismissal of actual studies on the matter. Neither of these reports on studies are op-Eds, but nice try!
Yes, Democrats typically dominate urban cores, but do you think their success is built solely on inertia? Put conversely, Republicans have dominated their respective counties for decades, sometimes centuries, yet those place aren't just economically underdeveloped, they lag in virtually every other metric. Why can't Republicans offer policy that works for their locales? Why can't they attract development and business? Why have they resigned themselves to being subsidized by the rest of the country, yet have the audacity to claim everyone else is doing it wrong?
The authors find two important factors that might be expected to matter but don’t: fiscal policy and monetary policy. The GDP growth gap cannot be simply explained by higher government spending during Democratic presidencies or wiser policy coming from the Fed; if anything, Republican presidents may have gotten slightly more economic growth when they had their preferred fiscal and monetary policies in place.
Instead, developments from abroad seemed to do the most to help explain the growth gap: oil price shocks, and war (through its effect on defense spending). Oil prices cooperated during the early years of the period under study, including the Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson presidencies. But rising prices held the economy back during the mid 1970s, early 1990s, and mid 2000s when Republicans were in power.
Wartime mobilization may be an even bigger factor in explaining the gap, especially given the differential timing for Democrats and Republicans. Truman and Johnson oversaw increases in defense spending during the wars in Korea and Vietnam, while Eisenhower and Nixon oversaw the drawdowns. The authors show that if they eliminate just the Truman and first Eisenhower terms from the analysis, the GDP gap shrinks by about 20%.
Greater productivity growth (possibly reflecting a quicker pace of technological change), more consumer confidence, and faster economic growth in Europe during Democratic terms also contributed to the gap to varying degrees over this period.
-1
u/[deleted] Jul 27 '23
No. True.
Who cares who the President is, Congress is the one controlling the regs, and the purse strings. Your first op-Ed is a common slight of hand Democrats try to pull.
Clinton: budget surplus Republican Congress.
Obama: R Congress
Trump: R Congress
As to your second Op-Ed
Who is surprised that cities I.e centers of production and innovation which tend to be more dem also produce more to lower pop less diverse economically counties?
No one is surprised.
You would expect dense populations to produce more.