Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Why McCain and the GOP Are So Afraid of Discussing the Economy

By Frances Moore Lappe, Huffington Post. Posted September 5, 2008.


Whether rich, poor or somewhere in between, Americans always do better economically under Democrats.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Frances Moore Lappe

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For too long, Democrats have been derided as economically clueless tax-and-spenders. No wonder Americans so often vote against their own common interests.

We should know better. And now we do.

Alan S. Blinder, in the New York Times, drew recently from Unequal Democracy, a new book by Princeton political science professor Larry M. Bartels. His takeaway could be a game-changer:

Over the last six decades, whether rich or poor, everyone has done better with Democrats in the White House.

And that is just the nondivisive, universal note that Barack Obama needs to hit and keep hitting, in response to the Republican National Convention, and in debates and in the press. So let's tell our McCain-leaning friends and family about this -- and also encourage the Obama campaign to make sure this message gets heard. It's easy: Just fill out this form. Among the most striking points:

  • From 1948 to 2007, the average annual growth of real gross national product was 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats. Put another way, real per capita GNP grew 69.5 percent faster under the Democrats.
  • Blinder notes that this 1.14-point difference over eight years would yield 9.33 percent more income per person -- and that's a lot more than most of us could expect from a tax cut.
  • The best-off families (the 95th percentile) fared almost as well under Republican as under Democratic presidents (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent).
  • Families at the 20th percentile (the poorest) did significantly better under Democrats than under Republicans. (2.64 percent versus 0.43 percent). Consider this: Eight years of a 0.43 percent annual rate of growth increases a family's income by 3.5 percent, but eight years at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent!
  • Income inequality in the United States has been rising for about three decades, especially in recent years. Over the entire 60-year period, writes Blinder, "income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps overall."

Now is the time to bury forever the false portrayal of the Democrats' economic record and replace it with these hopeful facts.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by our writers are their own.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: economy, election08

Frances Moore Lappé is a democracy advocate and world food and hunger expert who has authored or co-authored 16 books.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is INFORMATION that WE have SHOUT from the Rooftops
Posted by: JSquercia on Sep 5, 2008 1:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is information that WE HAVE to SHOUT from the Rooftops and it MUST be brought up in the Debates . Sadly winning the debates is no guarantee of Winning the Election .
I think we must ask the question how is it that the Party of Fiscal Responsibility morphed into the party of Borrow and Spend .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Republicans have always run bigger deficits and raised the national debt higher than have Democrats
Posted by: yellow on Sep 5, 2008 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The facts presented in the above article are perfectly consistent with the economic trends over the past forty years and their causes. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have been able to "reduce the size of government" mostly because of the chronic stagnation of late capitalism. Special interests are not to blame. US capitalism tends toward concentration of income and markets and thus needs constant stimulus in the form of deficit spending in order to sustain consumption and profit levels and avoid a depression. The problem is not political but rather the historic nature of capitalism.

Many Keynesian economists in the early post-WWII years, whether "left Keynesians" such as Michel Kalecki or advocates of the "neo-classical/Keynesian synthesis" such as Alan Blinder who was quoted in the article, all agreed that the US economy would need to commit to military spending in the amount equal to at least 10% of the Gross National Income. Failing this, economic stagnation would result along with high rates of chronic unemployment as occurred in Great Britain in the immediate aftermath of WWI when the government returned to the gold parity levels with the British Pound that existed before the War. High levels of US military spending snsued until the late 1960s by which time US military spending dropped from nearly 14% of GNP in 1950 to about 5% in 1970. The 1970s were a period of stagflation. Despite the higher rates of GDP growth in the 1990s, the US has never returned to the high rates of early post-WWII economic growth.

Currently, since the jobless recovery of late 2001, we have experienced some of the slowest rates of growth in the entire post-WWII era with negative rates of net job creation that fails to even keep pace with the growth of the national work force. Even high rates of military spending have failed to restore the economy and in fact have actually contributed to slow job growth because of its high concentration in capital intensive sectors. Progressive taxation and public investment in new areas, such as public infrastructure and mass transit, could possibly reverse this trend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Campaign Isn't About The Issues
Posted by: FoonTheElder on Sep 5, 2008 4:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because this campaign isn't about the issues it's about fake personalities. These personalities are designed by the Republicans and then sold through their dominance of all forms of big corporate media.

You would think that the average duhmerruhkun would have figured out by now that four more years of the same Republican policies would give us the same disasterous results. Unfortunately, many duhmerruhkuns are gullible to whatever repetitive propaganda the Republicans put in their ear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How very odd, peculiar and
Posted by: Last Chance on Sep 6, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
strange that no articles appear anywhere about how to insure an honest and fair election. Everyone is assuming all the votes will be counted so they can go on discussing which party serves the people better and trust the majority will win. Did the majority win in 2000 or in 2004? Never mind, everything is fine, don't worry, Diebold and Republican-appointed election officials will take care of everything (!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» OOPS! Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: OOPS! Posted by: JSquercia
Why is Alternet so Afraid of Covering Economic Issues ? Follow the Money !
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 6, 2008 12:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are seeing the biggest taxpayer ripoff in the history of the United States. Fannie and Freddie were just Nationalized placing trillions of dollars of debt on our Nation's balance sheet.

We have seen the banks run to the Federal Reserve to borrow hundreds of billions. The Fed's balance sheet is now in trouble. Banks have a negative net balance at the Fed of over 150 billion while taxpayers have no idea how much non- Federal Reserve institutions have borrowed!

Until progressive sites like Alternet emphasize the monetary and economic the progressive and liberal communities will be woefully ignorant. In the end you can't run Progressive Policies without money and that is exactly what the Republicans are up to, bankrupting the government to starve the Common Good ... Grover Norquist has said as much.

Until Progressives become financially literate they will be thwarted at every turn and old programs such as Social Security and Medicare will be gutted while new programs will never happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Fannie/ Freddie Bailout: Trillions for Banks , Debt for Taxpayers
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 6, 2008 2:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"That's right -- we have no money for rebuilding our infrastructure, for any form of National Heath Care, for fixing/saving social security, but a bunch of rogue traders and Alan Greenspan, under the guise of "Deregulation" can leverage up and lose trillions, which you the taxpayer is on the hook for!"

Here Comes the Half Trillion Dollar Fannie/Freddie Bailout!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Sep 6, 2008 7:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The party of "moral values" is once again responsible for bankrupting small town Americans - the very Americans they apparently represent - more than entrenched wealthy interests - would that it were so. Do you remember the Resolution Trust Corporation which took over the S&L's in the '80's? This is just another replay with different players of the same bad anti-regulatory and regressive tax policies that were allowed to happen because voters who brought this to bear only care about smokescreen issues. We will see just how far that goes this time because wallets are increasingly empty and rhetoric just won't cut it anymore - or will it? Will the cultural garbage that being a hockey mom somehow makes you the representative of middle America - get over? Again?

Meanwhile, Mr. Raines makes off with millions while Fannie sinks...and gets a bail from you and me - Mr. and Mrs. depressed-wage earning taxpayer. But are they paying attention to this...marching on Wall Street, etc.? No, they are listening to the Palin garbage about being small town Americans who hunt and play hockey - as if that's trustworthy. Activism on behalf of those most in need speaks louder than anything and louder than words.

But when more become homeless, jobless...and so on...they just might see which party truly has their interests in mind. We can only hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]