Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Republicans bad for your income

This is a newer edition of something that has been out there for years.

You usually see charts analyzing income growth under Democratic Presidents versus Republican Presidents and conservatives always respond it is Congress that passes economic and tax policies. This chart does two things, it splits it up by income category and by what branches the parties control.

Click for larger image.

It is obvious the GOP governs to benefit the rich either not caring or mistakenly thinking that benefits everyone. That is wrong. They don't even do as good a job benefiting the rich.

The second response I always get from conservatives is it is a coincidence because government doesn't affect income growth. LOL!!! Remember that when they say Democrats are bad for your pocket book and show them this chart.

There are other charts out there with analysis of other parts of the economy and even government job growth and debt levels and pretty much anything you can shake a stick at. The bottom line is that Republicans don't govern well when they are in control, they don't even meet their stated goals of reducing debt and the size of government. The best thing they do is direct government money to their cronies and tax cuts for the rich, who save it instead of creating jobs. Savings does not create job, creating demand does.


Anonymous said...

You say Republicans "save [money] instead of creating jobs."

Other than stashing physical cash in mattresses, how does saved money not end up as investment?

Gary said...

Individual savings have one of the lowest income multipliers and lowest job creation effects of anything the government can encourage. Of course, it does help the government expand if they can be encouraged to buy government bonds.

Interesting you pick that minor point and don't look at the main thrust - the chart of how everyone loses income when Republicans control Congress or the Presidency.

daniel noe said...

This chart is funny. It contradicts everything I have seen in the last ten years.