Lent Post: Screw World Wars, Let's Talk about the Economy

Salvete.

Whereas I was going to talk about World Wars for the weekend, I've had a heavy concern as of late about Republican and Democrat policies in terms of the economy. So, I'll be talking about the economy.

As of late, I've been hearing from at least one of my liberal friends that Democrat policies boost the economy more than Republican ones. So today, I started to research the economy under Republican conservative and Democrat liberal policies. For the time being, we will set aside personal liberties and focus strictly on the economy. This was the first site I analyzed:

http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/

It seems biased, but I'm taking its statistics for facts. Both Reagan and Eisenhower had some of the worst and some of the best years for economic growth. Under an analysis of this website alone, it seems like each of the presidents has had quite decent economic growth, and Obama simply sucks as a president.

Now let's go into national debt:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Now, this site is clearly biased, but it shows similar results: Republicans and Democrats have had their on and off days (for example, Roosevelt and Truman), and Obama sucks as a president. (This site is quite less biased: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm)

Now, let's take a step back and look at other similar charts:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-national-unemployment-by-political-party-president/

These charts both show a far more fluid movement than just "Republicans suck at the economy, Democrats are far better." Rather, they show that the economy has never truly went away and has been exponentially increasing at a steady pace, that is, until Obama showed up.

So what does this mean, and why would the anti-corporation policies of Democratic liberals be on par with the pro-business policies of Republican conservatives? The answer lies in the public and private sectors. While the economy will always be there (unless you're Obama), the ratio of public sector to private sector will vary immensely. People will always get the service they need, and there will always be a fairly stable economy.

So why would the Republican strategy be favorable? The answer lies in personal and corporate freedom. Sure, the government might be able to provide the services people need (though there will be tremendous inefficiency, corruption, and regulation), but the citizens who function outside of the government industry will never be able to earn a living from starting a business independently.

In addition, governmental interventionist policies are incredibly inflexible. If the public sector gains too much power and funding, it could potentially solidify a monopoly in its sphere of influence. This is quite risky; as we've seen in the Great Depression and the current recession, the whole system collapses under Democratic policies, even though they work about as well as Republican policies in stable economic climates. Republican conservative policies, on the other hand, ensure that businesses function relatively independently of each other. This is optimal for any turmoil in the economy, whether or not conservative policies have a slight disadvantage in economic "peacetime" (which they don't). Because it is almost impossible to determine when a large recession will strike, it is both safer and freer to have Republican conservative policies.

Oh, and also:
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-national-unemployment-by-political-party-president/
Obama really sucks.