I'm no friend of the free market types, but Will is right--this study is a little thin on the meat. Additionally (and this is pointed out in the comments to the Drum post), economic policy changes are slow growing seeds. I could read the chart and conclude that Republican policies right the ship after failed Democratic policies. Also, the graphic could be more instructive if perhaps the color of the Congress was included, since the president (Bush excepted) often does little without them.

Lag Time is one issue.

What the charts don't take into account is the lag time of economic policies. It takes between 1 and 3 years for economic policies to have their full effect on the economy. Therefore, I democrats often enjoy the fruits of republican economic policies and vise versa.

Nor does the chart take into account who controls Congress. The President ultimately doesn't make economic policy, Congress does.

It also doesn't take into account whether the policies were themselves good. Look at the time during the depression. FDr gets credit for all this job growth, but it is now recognized that his policies did more harm than good and in fact prolonged the Depression. The "job growth" was mostly government programs that made matters worse.

Well, there's not much else to add here. Expat, I'm still fairly new here on GWH, but overall my impression of you is that, while left-leaning in most things, you're reasonable and willing to call a spade a spade. It seems like this post is far too blindly partisan for someone who typically contributes reasoned, well-researched dialogue. I suppose I'm just surprised. What say you to the above critiques?

I have little incentive to defend Republican presidents, but this study doesn't tell us much about which party best serves the country. Both parties have their pet spending agendas, but neither benefit the economy. What we need is less government spending, not different ways to spend more money. This comparison incites partisan passions, but diverts attention away from the relevant comparison: big vs. limited government.

For instance, the biggest negative "red" bar belongs to the Republican Hoover, but Hoover is largely responsible for the New Deal policies that made FDR (in)famous. In turn, FDR gets a couple positive blue bars, but—as with most economic data from this period—the jobs were largely due to military conscription.

The article mentions fortuitous Fed policies, but there are three different ways the government can run up a deficit:

1. Yes, the Fed can lower the interest rate by virtue of fiat power. However, this inflates the money supply, which causes inflation.
2. The government can also borrow from domestic savings. However, this crowds out private investment and slows the economy down.
3. The government can also borrow from overseas funds. However, this creates a trade imbalance.

Deficit spending can create a short-run appearance of prosperity, but deficits create an artificial boom that causes an inevitable bust. As has already been noted in the comments, this boom-bust cycle can take many years. Presidents can come and go before the negative effects of their policies come to roost.

In short, this study has no practical value and only a little partisan value.

On the Lag issue -

Drum may say that the analysis "holds up even if you lag the analysis by a few years to allow time for economic policies to have an effect.", but he provides zero evidence (that I say anyway) that this statement is true. Nor did I see anything on the Angry Bear website.

Do you really think it was better to live under Carter than Bush, Bush, Reagan (1st term) and Ford? In fact, there's something screwy with those numbers when Carter comes out looking so good. Something smells

The only legitimate point all this makes in my opinion, is that Republicans are bad on the debt issue. But doesn't that go without saying? Republicans tend to borrow and spend while Democrats tend to tax and spend. Might this even be a straw man argument. Most conservatives complain about the growth of the debt, even more than liberals do.