Alan Blinder, a columnist in The New York Times, says that the economy has historically fared better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
So Obama is better for the economy than Republican nominee John McCain, he argues.
“Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth for real GNP of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats,” Blinder writes.
In addition, inequality of income increases under Republicans and decreases under Democrats, says Blinder, now a Princeton University economist.
Times columnist Ben Stein, in comparison, opposes Obama's ideas and notes that Obama has proposed a second round of fiscal stimulus to help the economy rebound.
“The first round (signed into law by President Bush) hasn’t succeeded, and Senator Obama’s ideas aren’t very promising either,” he writes.
Obama’s tax-and-spending binge would widen the budget deficit without creating much of an increase in consumption, Stein argues.
© 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.