My dear readers, you know me. I'm your buddy Mike, a proud card carrying partisan Democrat. I know some may consider me intemperate about saying I hate Republicans but what am I gonna do? I gotta be me. I mean you have a party here who wants to protect the rights of abusers against women they abuse and who wants people who can't afford healthcare to drop dead, yeah I hate these ideas and the perversity of the people who advocate them.
In my defense I might quote one of the greatest Republicans ever, Thaddeus Stevens, who declared: "Principles indeed! Betray your principles and stand by your party!" Unfortunately we haven't seen men like Thaddeus in the GOP in a long time.
There have been some interesting pieces in Bloomberg over the last few months that seriously question why anyone is ever a Republican. If it really is as Romney now says "the economy stupid" then how stupid is anyone who votes Republcan. Of course Romney stole this line from Clinton-you know no good original ideas come from this chameleon.
They were two Bob Drummond pieces. The first he published on February 27. The second on May 4.
I will tell you about the later one first. The title says it all: "Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in the White House."
This is a fact that has been picked up on a number of times. James Carville pointed it out way back in this great book he wrote in the 90s "We're Right, They're Wrong."
We know that George W. Bush-who for some reason has decided recently to start weighing in on policy questions again, really W we can't miss you if you're still here-presided over the weakest job growth since 1945 and had the weakest economic expansion in the postwar era:
"Republican George W. Bush, who added just 1 million jobs in eight years. Bush had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The private sector continued to shed jobs in the opening months of the Obama presidency, but as of April, those jobs have all returned."
For now we'll leave to one side the fact that of the 1 million jobs created under W most of those jobs were low paying service sector jobs-the kind that his successor in Texas, Rick Perry had been bragging about during the primary.
But this has been the rule-if you want job growth, and I don't want to know who doesn't but it's probably the Republicans like Tyler Cowen, vote Democrat.
"During an election-year clash over which U.S. political party has the best prescription for curing unemployment, Democrats can argue that almost two-thirds of private-sector job growth in the past five decades came with them in the White House."
What?!! I thought Mitt Romney uniquely "understands the economy" from all those jobs he cut back at Bains.
"The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures."
Yes there have been close to 70% more jobs under Democrats, making it even more unfortunate that Romney has tried to run as "Mr. Job Creation."
What's more though this is true even though the Democrats have been in the White House five fewer years since 1961:
"Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy’s inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans. Through April, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector paychecks per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans."
Ok, so many of us aren't so surprised about this. I don't think it's any trade secret that the GOP doesn't care about the little guy but only the rich and the rich corporations. Everyone else can very well drop dead.
What is even more eye catching though is the first piece Drummond wrote back on February 27 that showed that even the stock market performs better under Democrats!
"While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars-and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close."
"The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades sinceJohn F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX)only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday."
"That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office. "
What's surprising then is why Wall Street believes in the GOP so much. Maybe it's really not about the economy then? Is Wall Street not so bottom line driven as we thought? They just prefer the party that says nicer things about them? Maybe-remember all the breast-beating after President Obama made the quip about "fat cats?"
The whining still hasn't stopped.