If you want to understand the American economy over the last 75 years, ignore the speeches. Ignore the campaign ads. Ignore the slogans. Look at the numbers. Because the numbers tell a story that would be funny if it weren’t so expensive.
Since 1945, the U.S. economy has performed significantly better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. This is not spin. It is arithmetic.
Look at the stock market. For the Republican Party, the market is the ultimate scoreboard. It is the daily report card on the health of capitalism itself. If you had invested $1,000 in the S&P 500 during Democratic presidencies since Harry Truman, you would have a massive return. Under Republicans? A fraction of that. The data shows that stock market returns are nearly ten times higher under Democratic administrations. The market, that cold, unemotional arbiter of value, prefers the “socialist” Democrats by a landslide.
Look at jobs. The Republican pitch is that they are the job creators. They will cut taxes and unleash the American entrepreneur. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics tells a different story. Since 1945, Democratic presidents have overseen the creation of roughly 42 million jobs. Republican presidents? Roughly 24 million. Even if you account for the length of terms, the job creation rate is nearly double under Democrats.
Why?
Why does the “party of business” consistently fail at business?
The answer lies in the mechanism.
Republicans practice a theory called “supply-side” economics. It is the belief that if you give money to the wealthy, they will invest it, and that investment will “trickle down” to the rest of us. It is a nice theory.
It has never worked.
What actually happens is that the wealthy hoard the money, park it in assets, and widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The Republican playbook is a one-trick pony: cut taxes for the top, deregulate industry, and wait for the magic. The magic never comes.
Democrats practice a different theory. They focus on “demand.” They understand that the economy is driven by people buying things. When the middle class has money, they spend it. When they spend it, businesses grow. When businesses grow, they hire people. This is not rocket science. It is the circular flow of an economy. Democratic policies (infrastructure spending, education investment, healthcare expansion) put money in the hands of the people who will actually use it to drive growth.
Then there is the deficit. This is the sharpest knife in the Republican drawer. They scream about the national debt. They warn of fiscal ruin. They hold press conferences about the burden we are leaving our grandchildren. But the numbers are crystal clear. The deficit explodes under Republicans. It shrinks under Democrats.
The pattern is undeniable. Ronald Reagan cut taxes and the deficit nearly tripled. George W. Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. Donald Trump passed a tax cut that added nearly $2 trillion to the debt. They are not fiscal conservatives. They are the party of the credit card. They run up the bill, hand it to the Democrats, and then complain about the cost of the meal.
This leads to the most damning historical pattern of all. The “Crash and Clean Up” cycle.
Since 1929, the American economy has suffered its most catastrophic failures under Republican watch. The Great Depression started under Hoover. The Savings and Loan crisis happened under Reagan. The dot-com bubble burst under Bush. The 2008 financial collapse happened under Bush. The economy does not just grow slower under Republicans. It breaks.
And who do the voters call when the house is on fire? The Democrats. They call in FDR. They call in Obama. They call in Biden. The Democrats are the plumbers. They come in, patch the pipes, pass the regulations, and fix the mess. It is slow, thankless work. But it works. By the time the Democrats have the economy humming again, the voters get restless. They forget the fire. They listen to the Republicans promise that the “adults” are back in charge. And the cycle repeats.
In 2020, we saw this play out in real time. The pandemic shattered the economy. The previous administration downplayed the virus, delayed the response, and left the economy in ruins. The new administration came in, passed the American Rescue Plan, and kickstarted the fastest economic recovery in modern history. The result? Historic job growth and a stock market that continued to climb.
The Republican brand is a triumph of marketing over substance. They are the party of business in the same way an arsonist is the party of fire. They are the party of fiscal responsibility in the same way a shopaholic is the party of savings.
The numbers do not care about the branding. The market does not care about the talking points. The jobs do not care about the ideology. For 75 years, the spreadsheet has been screaming a single, undeniable truth. If you want a growing economy, a rising stock market, and a functional government, you hire the Democrat.
If you want a crash, a deficit, and a tax cut for your billionaire friends, you hire the Republican.
The choice is that clear.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Presidents with the Largest % Debt Increases
1. Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat)
Increase: ~1,000%+
2. Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)
Increase: ~700–800%
3. Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Increase: ~180–190%
4. George W. Bush (Republican)
Increase: ~90–100%
5. Barack Obama (Democrat)
Increase: ~70–80%
Keith O
First, FDR and Wilson managed during the two largest wars the US ever participated in, WW I and WW II. In the latter, the US carried the world on its back for 4 years. Of course the debt increases astronomically–these were emergencies.
Second, you’re accounting fails to account for two facts about Obama vs Trump. First Obama served two terms and Trump had served only one. Adjusting for that length difference, Trump’s increase is equivalent to a 78% increase. Second, Obama had to step in and clean up Bush’s disasterous management of the Great Recession. Again this was emergency spending (and Biden faced the same thing in 2021 cleaning up for Trump’s mismanagement of the pandemic.) That goes to the point of the article–the Dems have to clean up for the GOP partying teen agers.
The stock market is not the economy.
Who has made that claim, other than red-hats?
Max
Read the rest of the article. The answer is the same on growth, jobs, recessions and deficits.
“Republicans practice a theory called “supply-side” economics. It is the belief that if you give money to the wealthy, they will invest it, and that investment will “trickle down” to the rest of us.”
That’s also the theory that the Vanguard and similar like-minded YIMBY organizations adhere to, regarding housing.
In fact, the author of this article has made similar noises on behalf of development interests, though I’m not sure if he’s totally aligned with that particular ‘trickle-down” theory.
Yes, supply side doesn’t need to be combined with trickle down. I guess supply side without trickle down is abundance.
Good point by Ron Glick.
Supply side: An economic framework arguing that economic growth is best stimulated by increasing production (supply), rather than demand.
Trickle down: A colloquial and often critical term for the idea that benefits given to the wealthy will eventually “trickle down” to everyone else.
FURTHERMORE Ron O really is misusing both terms.
“More supply” in housing is not inherently the same thing as supply-side economics. In housing, the push for more supply is typically demand-driven. Population growth, job growth, or income growth lead to increases demand for housing. If supply doesn’t keep up then prices rise (sometimes dramatically)
It’s exactly the same thing – you claim that developers will “pass along the savings” from more supply to potential homebuyers.
There’s a periodic commenter on here (who was a developer himself) who notes that this isn’t how it works. Builders don’t build in order to “lower prices”. And in fact, will sit on properties (such as Chiles Ranch) and/or will pause/slow down building if prices don’t reach the level they want.
Also, the “causes” of demand that you list are not supportive of what you claim. UCD, for example, is not increasing the number of employees at the Davis campus, nor are salaries increasing in general as fast as inflation. Population growth for the state and country is also not occurring.
Then, there’s “alternatives” that you also fail to consider (e.g., not moving to the area in the first place, moving to places like Spring Lake instead, etc.).
The Cannery did not “lower prices”, and neither did Spring Lake. (However, they did stop building in Spring Lake during the last housing crash, and prices dropped like a rock at that time). Where was your “demand” at THAT time? Plenty of supply, at low prices.
I stand by my explanation of why it’s not the exact same thing. I have never made the claim that developers will pass along anything other than through mandated subsidies.
You and the YIMBYs also make the same type of claim regarding “getting rid of regulations” – as if builders will then “pass on the savings” to homebuyers.
I’m failing to see any difference between Republican vs. Democratic claims regarding this, these days.
Nor am I seeing much difference regarding opposition to rent control, between the two parties. Basically what we have is one party – the YIMBY party.
There is no difference between “drill, baby drill” and “build, baby build”. Both make the same claim, and both arise from the business interests that would benefit.
For that matter, both parties are opposed to a stable population (and have actually implied that in their public comments). Hence, the defensiveness of the governor, for example, regarding the California Exodus.
You’re collapsing very different arguments into one. Housing supply isn’t about giving benefits to developers and hoping they trickle down. It’s about whether a constrained housing market can meet demand. If demand exceeds supply, prices rise—regardless of ideology. The question is how to increase supply and ensure affordability, not whether supply matters at all.
And again, it’s not that simple.
If you build a bunch more McMansions in Tiburon, prices don’t fall for pre-existing houses (unless their view is blocked, perhaps).
The Cannery did not lower prices, and neither did Spring Lake. For that matter, I have not seen any evidence that Mace Ranch or Wildhorse lowered prices, either.
For sure, the housing crash lowered prices (largely unrelated to “supply”). The local housing market is declining again right now (again – unrelated to local supply).
If the development activists on here are going to claim that Village Farm, for example, is going to lower prices (or even keep them “in check”) for existing housing (since that’s the argument that’s being put forth), they need to demonstrate/prove by how much. And not just make some vague claim about increasing supply without examining all of the factors (some of which I mentioned in an earlier comment above).
Truth be told, the ONLY argument being put forth regarding the sprawling proposals is that they will “lower prices” for existing housing, or will keep them in check. And yet, there is no evidence for that whatsoever. The local examples that we DO have seem to show the opposite.
Ron O
No, supply side is not the same as increasing supply. “Supply side” is one aspect of “trickle down”. Supply side is the belief that giving businesses more incentives will lead to increased productivity that is shared with workers with more jobs and earnings. It turned out that businesses did not pass along either of those.
The rest you’re arguing from uninformed anecdotes. Multitudes of well done economic studies don’t agree with your tiny number of observations.
Richard:
I’m not the one claiming that developments such as The Cannery, Mace Ranch, Wildhorse, and Spring Lake lowered existing Davis housing prices.
And since that type of claim is the entirety of the “more supply” argument, perhaps you’d care to let us know exactly how much (or even a ballpark figure) each of those developments reduced housing prices in Davis.
Perhaps you can do this for each one (and/or point in time), since other factors such as the housing crash, interest rates, changes in total local employment (however “local”‘ is defined), and alternatives are also a factor.
Just give us some kind of number (e.g., “average Davis housing prices would be XX amount more”, if one or more of those developments weren’t built).
Seems like the least thing that development activists should be able and willing to put forth, in regard to the “increased supply” argument.
For that matter, you can probably even take a guess had Covell Village been built. How much cheaper would Davis housing prices be today, if that had been approved?
Who is responsible for our current economic malaise? Both the Dems and The Reps.
Here is the history. After the profligate Reagan years both Democratic and Republicans worked together to get the budget under control.
First George H. W. Bush reneged on his no new taxes pledge and worked with House Speaker Tom Foley to bring down the deficit that had exploded under Reagan because of the failure of trickle down economics to live up to its promises.
Then building on the deficit reduction under H.W.Bush, Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich and balanced the budget for the first time since The Vietnam War.
George W. Bush came in and cut taxes while fighting two wars, something that no previous President had done, exploding the deficit again. On his watch Bush’s VP, Dick Cheney, famously said “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
Bush’s tax cut were legislated to expire under Obama but Obama further exploded the deficit when he extended the Bush tax cuts instead while also passing a budget busting healthcare reform and continuing the War on Terror.
Trump came in and increased the deficit massively with another giant tax cut.
Biden spent massively on things to help the lower economic strata, raising children out of poverty, but did it with even more deficit spending.
Then Trump came back in with another massive tax cut that used the already massive deficit as a baseline thereby ballooning the deficit to new heights.
With all this deficit spending over the last 25 years the cumulative impact has been the erosion of the dollar’s buying power from inflation. As an example gold costs about 20 times today what it did when George W. Bush came into office in 2001.
Biden’s deficit came from the stimulus spending to counteract the pandemic recession. The redistributive spending was only a small amount of that.
The value of gold is like tulip bulbs. It’s not grounded in any real valuation and depends entirely on speculation. It’s no longer a useful metric.
“The value of gold is like tulip bulbs. ”
Okay, choose your own metric: Housing, food, insurance, car prices, postage stamps, stock indices, medical costs, silver, copper, retail prices, CPI. When deficit spending is combined with money printing the result is inflation as more money equilibrate throughout the productivity of the economy as increased prices.
” The dot-com bubble burst under Bush.”
It actually burst in January 2000 under Clinton. However it didn’t have any real economic consequences. Instead Bush presided over a minor recession that started around the time of the 9/11 attack (but was not related.)
But the entire economy burst under Bush due to lax enforcement. Beginning with Harvey Pitt at the SEC where a recovery from the dot com bust was delayed because of a lack of confidence in the regulators. It was only after Pitt resigned that the stock market recovered from the dot com and Enron busts. Then at the end of his term the housing bust that resulted from lax regulation of the credit markets tanked the entire economy. Bush’s disdain for regulation did tremendous damage to the economy.
All the comments on here prove the point that whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican one can make it look like it’s the other side’s fault by cherrypicking the data.
Which means the solution is careful data analysis
Economic comparisons between political parties can vary a lot depending on which data gets emphasized and how it’s framed.
A few key reasons why this happens:
1. Different metrics tell different stories
People might focus on:
GDP growth
Unemployment rates
Stock market performance
Wage growth
Income inequality
National debt
Each of these can point in different directions at the same time. For example, strong stock market gains don’t always mean wages are rising broadly.
2. Timeframes matter a lot
Economic outcomes often lag behind policy decisions. A president or party might inherit:
A recession or expansion
Policies from the previous administration
So depending on where you “start the clock,” conclusions can change.
3. External factors play a huge role
Things like:
Global financial crises
Pandemics
Wars
Federal Reserve actions
These can dominate economic outcomes regardless of which party is in power.
4. Policy goals differ
Generally speaking (in broad terms):
Some emphasize growth, deregulation, and tax cuts
Others emphasize redistribution, social spending, and labor protections
So “better for the economy” can depend on what outcomes someone values most (e.g., growth vs. equality vs. stability).
5. Selective use of data (cherry-picking)
This is where your point really hits:
Choosing only strong years or weak years
Ignoring inconvenient indicators
Comparing mismatched time periods
This can make almost any argument look convincing if not examined carefully.
Basic Scan
“We are highly confident this text was AI generated
Chance this entire text is…
AI 100%”
https app dot gptzero dot me/
It was A.I. generated, I thought that obvious.
Does that make it wrong?
How many other comments and articles on the Vanguard are A.I. generated either totally or partially?
Do you do a “Basic Scan” on them too?
Notice I condemned both parties.