To: Wharf Rat who wrote (26720 ) 9/6/2012 7:31:08 PM From: TimF Respond to of 85487 Several studies of the post-war American political economy find that Democratic presidents have been more successful than Republicans. Most recently, Bartels (2008) found that economic growth had been greater and that unemployment and income inequality had been lower under Democratic presidents since 1948... This reexamination of these findings indicates that they are an artifact of specification error. Previous estimates did not properly take into account the lagged effects of the economy. Once lagged economic effects are taken into account, party differences in economic performance are shown to be the effects of economic conditions inherited from the previous president and not the consequence of real policy differences. Specifically, the economy was in recession when Republican presidents became responsible for the economy in each of the four post-1948 transitions from Democratic to Republican presidents. This was not the case for the transitions from Republicans to Democrats. When economic conditions leading into a year are taken into account, there are no presidential party differences with respect to growth, unemployment, or income inequality.polsci.buffalo.edu Then there is Brumar's point. Kennedy cut taxes, Bush I raised them, Nixon imposed wage and price controls, there really isn't a long term consistent set of economic policies among the president of either party. And you point out the much of the Democrats numbers is do to Clinton. Clinton was lucky in his timing (between two recessions without either taking effect in either of his terms, plus he was president during the tech boom, and got a lot of the peace dividend. Also he had a congress that (after the Republicans were elected) actually cared about restraining the growth of government, something that is rare among congresses, no matter who is in charge. Clinton rightfully gets credit for not messing that all up, but not for creating it.