Interesting point...

[cherydactyl]

via gillan

Comments

[neraulia.livejournal.com]

Pshh, isn't that the truth.

[drusni.livejournal.com]

my father would say that's because the conservative fiscal policies take a while to have an effect, so the liberals 'inherit' the booms.

I, however, do not agree with him.

[cherydactyl.livejournal.com]

That seems bordering on delusional to me.

OTOH, so does calling Clinton a liberal...he was a moderate, not so much a liberal.

[nicegeek.livejournal.com]

It may or may not be correct, but it isn't delusional. There definitely is a long delay (often years) between the implementation of a macroeconomic policy and the impact of that policy becoming visible. Exactly how long that delay is will vary depending on the specifics, and is usually difficult to prove with any confidence. If that delay happened to be four years long, then the economy at any moment would depend on the policies not of the current administration, but of the prior one.

Republicans tend to produce less balanced budgets, because they cut taxes, but not spending. However, if their economic theories are correct, over subsequent years, those tax cuts produce economic growth, which translates into increased revenue. But the delay between cause and effect make it very difficult to prove (or disprove) this causal link.

So whether or not it's true in any particular case, it's a plausible theory.

[nicegeek.livejournal.com]

In my view, neither party can properly be called "Fiscally conservative", since that would require cutting both taxes and spending, and neither party ever cuts spending. In fact, both parties tend to increase spending significantly whenever they manage to get control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, so the best check on spending is to keep the government divided as much as possible.