Defend this cuckservatives

Yeah I am sure slightly calibrating the top tax rate by 2,145% has a huge effect on growth

Fucking retard "troll"

>Eisenhower
>Nixon
>"trickle-down"

???

"Luck" factor is still a factor. If the America prospers under democratic party, be it luck or otherwise, people should choose them over the other.

>putting materialist shit before ideals

Thing is you can attribute most of that to policies set in place by the previous president because it seems that unless there's a world war going on 4-8 years isn't enough time to singlehandedly turn an economy around in general.
So can you kindly go back to /pol/? You seem to be lost.

Let's be honest, user, Bush II an't really be considered, especially his 2nd mandate.
Even the best Democrat would have been in trouble with the crysis.

Republicans are elected during peaks, when there's no where to go but down. Democrats are elected during recessions, when there's no where to go but up. There's this thing called the "business cycle".

how's the denbts there

They spend on different things. Republicans spend on business subsidies and the military, both of which sustain an economy, if unfairly. (Subsidies)

Democrats spend on social programs which are a resource sink, regardless of ones opinions of their moral benefit.

What good is an ideal if it provides no materially manifested benefit?

Timing

economist.com/news/united-states/21611143-why-economy-has-grown-faster-under-democratic-presidents-timing-everything

Only idiots think that modern American presidents significantly effect GDP growth. Thank FDR and Nixon for setting up that system.

1. Since 1949 the Democrats have been in office for less time than the Republicans. That can skew the data.
2. Republicans generally take office after a Democrat starts a war: Woodrow Wilson, Truman, JFK/LBJ.
When you end wartime public spending, there's almost always a huge GDP growth slowdown.
3. Republicans are generally the ones that change economic/monetary policy. Eisenhower moved away from the absolute Keynesian controls of FDR/Truman. This led to a steep slowdown in public sector spending. Nixon changed the economy towards Monetarism, which contributed to the price shocks in the 70's. Reagan adopted neoliberalism as an economic policy, which facilitated the globalization/tech boom of the 90's-2000's.
4. Republican presidents have bad luck. Eisenhower inherited a high-inflation, high public spending economy. Nixon did as well. So did Reagan.
Bush 2 inherited the dotcom crash of 2000. He also inherited the failed deregulatory policies of Reagan/Clinton in the 2008 crash.
It's hard to see how a Democratic president would have done much better in these situations.
5. Democrats generally redstribute wealth towards the demand side of the economy. This usually boosts short-term GDP growth (and in my opinion, helps those who are most disadvantaged in society).
Republicans generally spend on the production side of the economy. This boosts long-term productivity gains and reorients the competitive advantage of the economy. It also leads to concentrated job losses.
Both sides are useful though, and that's partly why the US is one of the richest economies in the world.

>leftist economics

kek

>not updating that for 2015

Senpai you at least gotta be fair. Obama did 5/10. Not 1/10.

Preventive healthcare is cheaper than corrective healthcare on the long-run. Countries with more extensive government-provided healthcare can still spend smaller portions of their budgets than the USA.

Schooling prevents crime.

So, I'd say education and healthcare are more than just money sinks.

Republicans BTFO