I consoled myself by saying, “At least, I’ve learned not to do it again.

I refused to reboot the Bush administration and laid down my voting rights for awhile so as not to inflict more damage on America.

Surprisingly, if you look at personal income growth over the last fifty years under each kind of president (Democrat vs Republican), you discover that no matter which income percentile you fall into, you saw your income grow more during Democratic presidential administrations than during Republican administrations.

what does validating a debt mean-47

The income gains grew progressively smaller further up the income scale (2.5 percent for the 40th and 60thpercentiles, 2.4 percent for the 80th percentile, and so on).

But under Republicans, the biggest income gains were for people in the 95thpercentile (1.9 percent).

Did they cause the US national debt to balloon so that people gained this income at the government’s expense?

After all, this income growth did not just happen down in the welfare section; it happened throughout the middle class and even above.

Studying this graphic, you can clearly see that US government debt by year after WWII (1945) declined as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) continually all the way until the Reagan years. national debt grew much better for everyone under Republican administrations.

You can also see that most of those post-war years were under solid Democratic control in both houses. debt plunged for the first time throughout the Clinton years (when taxes on the wealthy were raised) and finally began to rise again during the Bush II years (when taxes on the wealthy were cut again … So, while individual income grew better for everyone during Democratic administrations, the U. You might have already noted that the debt soared in proportion to GDP under President Obama, but the Obama years do not afford a fair comparison of Republican vs Democrat on the national debt because we entered what may eventually be called the Great Depression II during the Bush II years.Seeing that graph caused me to wonder in defense of Republicans, “Did individual income under Democrats do better because Democrats blew huge deficit holes in the U. budget and, so, stimulated economic growth that led to income growth …by burdening the next generation with enormous debt?Throughout the years of Reagonomics, however, the United State’s national debt — after decades of decline – grew rapidly and continued to do so under President George Bush the First. Let me put it another way: I don’t believe for a second that Republicans, who presided over the creation of this global depression, would have fared any better than Obama when it comes to US deficits for the following reason: Obama has carried out exactly the economic policies that Bush switched to in his final year.If you don’t think he has, it’s time to remember that, when the so-called “Great Recession” began, George W.It sounds crude, but Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has gone a long way toward proving it.