JUST WHO IS BETTER OFF UNDER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS?

There are many, it turns out, who are indeed better off financially when we have Republican presidents and we've got some relevant data on the subject. Now such information is only as good as its source, but we'll explain. A recent and very comprehensive summary was compiled in an article authored by Alan S. Blinder in his New York Times column "Economic View." In the spirit of honest disclosure Mr. Binder has been a Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve and advised a number of Democratic presidents but as we like to say at the Faux, facts are fun, so here are some. From 1948 to 2007, there have been 26 years of Democratic presidents and 32 years of Republican ones. The chart to the left starts with the lowest income group, the 20th percentile and goes up on through the top 5% and states (adjusted for inflation) the yearly average income of these citizens. Mr. Blinder entitled the chart we're replicating "Family Income Growth."

Wow, even the top 5% commanded more income when we had a Democratic Commander-in-Chief; and the only thing that really grew under Republican rule was the differences in income. Our United States is quite an economy and fifty-eight years is quite a sample, and while Republicans will try and spin this, it will serve us all if they remember the words of their idol Ronald Regan about "the stubbornness of facts."

We at the Faux wish to give a shout out and thanks to Joanna M. of Woodbridge for alerting us to "The Economic View," and thanks also to that crazy left-wing blog which provided compiler Larry M. Bartels with his data. Oh, the blog's name? It's the U.S. Census Bureau, heard of them? So then just "who is better off under Republican Presidents?" It would not be fair to say that it's only Republican presidents; it's their vice presidents, donors, and their families. Ask yourselves if you're in that club.