Skip to content

Grecian Formula

© Jim Morin

The GOP solution of “starve the beast” and tax cuts for the rich didn’t work for Greece. Heck, it didn’t work for us just a few short years ago. In fact, it has never worked. So why do voters keep believing them?

I realize the following numbers only reflect which party controlled the presidency, and don’t take into account who controlled Congress, but they are still significant:



  1. oregonbird wrote:

    Neither are doing us any good in income growth, are they? The problem created by the corporations refusing equitable profit-sharing is as clear as the R-vs-D equation.

    Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 2:18 am | Permalink
  2. Windsavage wrote:

    The problem with the chart is obvious;
    “Correlation does not imply causation.”

    Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 4:36 am | Permalink
  3. Jeff wrote:

    @Windsavage, true, but at some point that strong correlation does mean something changes when there’s a Dem in the White House. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the POTUS does something to change those numbers, but there is something that is making growth stronger under a democratic leader. You can’t discount the facts on the chart just because they don’t point to a direct cause.

    Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 5:55 am | Permalink
  4. TENTHIRTYTWO wrote:

    Windsavage, I think you misstated the maxim:

    “Correlation does not imply causation, unless the correlary involves Obama, in which case it always implies causation.”


    Massive deficit spending under Republican rule – correlation does not imply causation, therefore we cannot be sure the Republicans are responsible

    A tornado hits my house while Obama is president – Obama destroyed my home, and my family, and the Constitution, and is instituting socialism under the guidance of the ghost of his Kenyan father.

    At least, this is the rule as I understand it…based on the commentary on Fox Nation.

    Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 7:01 am | Permalink
  5. Arthanyel wrote:

    LOL 1032 – spot on.

    Windsavage – agreed, and politicians love fallacies. On the other hand, as my father used to say, “if 10 people tell you that you’re drunk, you’d better lie down.”

    Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 9:51 am | Permalink
  6. Iron Knee wrote:

    I agree with WindSavage, although correlation is a good trigger for further study. I think in this case we do have some understanding of why this happens. The theory of “trickle down” economics says that if you give rich people more money, they will create more jobs and everyone will benefit. But what we have seen instead is that it leads to too much investment dollars chasing after fewer places to invest (it is simple supply and demand!). As a result, we see bubble after bubble, more reckless investment on the part of banks in order to compete, and the almost inevitable collapses as bubbles burst or risky investments fail.

    As someone who has started lots of companies, it is obvious to me that companies keeping more money does not result in more hiring. A company hires more people when there is more demand for their products and services, and they need more employees to satisfy that demand. Thus the Democratic strategy of supporting the middle class is far more successful because it increases demand.

    It seems pretty clear to me.

    Arthanyel, you gave me a good laugh with that saying. But it is also true that if you keep trying the same thing over and over but keep getting the same bad result (every time we try trickle down economics, the economy tanks), then you should stop. That is indeed merely correlation but you ignore “mere” correlation at your own risk.

    Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 10:37 am | Permalink
  7. Don wrote:

    1032 – wonderful. Still chuckling over it. I made a rather long-winded comment on another thread a couple days ago and would have included your maxim if I’d read it before my expository rant. I’ve taken to gently asking folks how Obama’s policies have directly affected them and find that most have nothing. Nothing at all. Just this mass hysteria that he’s a bad man with bad policies.

    Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink
  8. Sammy wrote:

    Don: I’ve had the same kinds of conversations, only they go more like this:

    Conservative friend: “I’ll keep my guns, religion and money, you can keep the change.”

    Me: “(1) Do you have an original thought, or do they all come from erroneous bumper stickers? (2) There have been no enhancements to gun control since Obama became president. In fact, one law has been loosened. We have the exact same religious freedom we had in 2008 and before, and I dare you to name one change to counter my contention. AND, tax rates have not gone up one percentage point since Obama took office, and YOUR tax bracket has ZERO chance of increasing anytime soon.”

    Conservative friend: “err, Jeremiah Wright! Bill Ayers! Closet Muslim! Birth certificate!”

    It’s like fucking right wing Tourette’s.

    Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
  9. ThatGuy wrote:

    Haha Sammy, fantastic. I think it was Bill Maher that said that Republicans need Obama to be this socialist boogeyman in order to stay relevant. The problem is their rhetoric works among those who either would benefit from GOP policies (Mitt Romney types) and need more than their own wellbeing to justify their views, single-issue voters (abortion, gay marriage) and people who only listen to those who yell the loudest.

    Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink