Democrats are more economically responsible than Republicans.

I would like to discuss Harding, Nixon and Ford. The economy under Warren G. Harding was, surprisingly, better than I would expect. "Some politicians recommended that Harding enact a kind of stimulus package and put soldiers to work building roads for the rapidly growing numbers of cars being driven. Harding rejected that approach for a two-fold strategy of cutting federal spending and cutting tax rates. Before his death in 1923, Harding’s program was showing signs of success. From 1920 to 1923 the federal budget was cut in half from $6.4 billion to $3.1 billion. The top tax rate was sliced during these years from 73 percent to 56 percent, and, when Harding died in 1923, his vice president, Calvin Coolidge, cut that rate further to 25 percent. " [1] The source, however, continues, "How then should we assess Harding’s presidency—which launched an economic boom but which also saw two major scandals? We can say Harding was successful when he slashed the role of government through cuts in federal spending and in tax rates. And we can say he failed when he expanded the role of government by creating a Veterans’ Bureau and by maintaining federal control of western oil lands. Harding is an underrated president because he is being ranked by those who overrate the capabilities of the federal government. "I will now continue with Nixon. "In August the government had made a new plan for the economy with rather extreme measures, measures which would later be dubbed “Nixon Shocks”. The plan was announced on August 15, 1971 in a national televised address. Nixon declared that the gold window would be closed and that gold would no longer be transferable to US dollars. This created an 8 percent devaluation to the dollar, as compared to other of the times major currencies, stimulating American exports and the domestic economy. A 90 day freeze on wages and prices and the establishment of the cost-of-living council was also announced. Unfortunately he neglected to inform any allies beforehand, causing some more than minor problems between the countries. When 1972 came around, unemployment had continued to rise, with 2 million more Americans out of jobs than in 1969. The administration decided it was time to stimulate the economy with a $25.2 billion budget. In the election year, the money supply was expanded by 9 percent. This caused many to accuse Nixon and [Arthur] Burns of making a deal so that Nixon could win the upcoming election and Burns to keep his government position. Both men denied the accusation. " [2] The economy under Nixon was disasterous. This you cannot deny. Ford: "Ford, who was sworn in as president on Aug. 9, 1974, after the resignation of Richard Nixon, faced inflation that was already surging at a 10.9 percent annual rate in that month. It was thrust into overdrive by the OPEC oil embargo of 1974 and the elimination of wage/price controls instituted in the Nixon administration. " [3] Now, I will make rebuttals: "One might ask why Republican presidents can't get the spending cuts they need. The answer often lies in the resistance from Democrats. "I beg to differ. It is often the REPUBLICAN resistance in Congress that prevents incumbent Demcrats from repairing a broken economy. Look at what is going on in Congress right now. Barack Obama is fighting for his country and wishes for cooperation. Instead of cooperation, he gets resistance. "Also keep in mind that Bush was only one president. He spend far too much on military, didn't curb spending, and while he did some tax cuts, they were not all that large. He was not the best example of a Republican. "In fact, Bush is the PERFECT example of a Republican. The policies promoted by Republicans today are nearly identical to Bush's. Mitt Romney's entire campaign wasn't based on reform and innovation: It was a very Conservative campaign. He promoted Bush's policies and he wished to continue them. "Economic growth under Obama is on par with that of Bush discounting the great recession (2). This is surprising since there is usually a lot of economic growth after such a large fall. There was sure a rebound in the stock market. "The wounds of the nation are to deep and the support from Republicans is too minimal. Barack Obama is a great president and would be even greater if only he had the support of the other party. I await my opponent's response. Sources [1] . http://www.fee.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://money.cnn.com...