随口说几句。我们虽然是纳税人，但美国大部分的税收是来自那些极富的一群人，而不是我们这些中产阶级。布什上台后的减税政策虽然我们也受小部分利益，但最受益的是那群大富翁们。他的政策现在只是临时的，如果麦肯上台，如果还继续这个政策，那就是permanent了。美国的公共设施，medicare 对穷人老人的保障都需要钱。奥巴马说了他要终止布什给那些包括在自己在内的百万富翁的tax cut 。像咱们一般老百姓影响不大。
![[em63]](https://emojis.huaren.us/static/emojis/v1/yoci/em63.gif)
![[em62]](https://emojis.huaren.us/static/emojis/v1/yoci/em62.gif)
统计上讲，的确是民主党总统经济搞得好。 但是对每个总统来说， 近代经济搞得最差的是民主党的卡特， 搞得最好的是民主党克林顿， 生活在小克世代当然不错，可是赶上卡特，就倒霉了。 不知道会不会有人真的看这张表格投票。
that is the factor that weighs most.
![[em54]](https://emojis.huaren.us/static/emojis/v1/yoci/em54.gif)
It is time series data, so accounts for economic cycles. Economic cycle presents for both parties, right?
And your statement of lagged effect is also counted (Clinton created tech & housing bubbles...)
The fact is, Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
show me your model. Let me see where the adjustments are. Otherwise I don't believe it.
I already showed you hard data, it depends on you to believe it or not.
BTWI: this is meta-analysis
BTWII, your argument is rather weak to make here. Nothing personal.
you showed me the result. you didn't show me the process or the model. am i correct?
It is time series data, so accounts for economic cycles. Economic cycle presents for both parties, right?
And your statement of lagged effect is also counted (Clinton created tech & housing bubbles...)
okay, let me ask you in a diffent way. for instance, how was the housing bubble effect adjusted in the model? by how much and by what factors?
咖啡因mm，这个是meta-analysis, as I said many times. Pls do homework on what meta-analysis is.
thanks:)
wiki:
A weakness of the method is that sources of bias are not controlled by the method. A good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics. Robert Slavin has argued that only methodologically sound studies should be included in a meta-analysis, a practice he calls 'best evidence meta-analysis'. Other meta-analysts would include weaker studies, and add a study-level predictor variable that reflects the methodological quality of the studies to examine the effect of study quality on the effect size. Another weakness of the method is the heavy reliance on published studies, which may increase the effect as it is very hard to publish studies that show no significant results. This publication bias or "file-drawer effect" (where non-significant studies end up in the desk drawer instead of in the public domain) should be seriously considered when interpreting the outcomes of a meta-analysis. Because of the risk of publication bias, many meta-analyses now include a "failsafe N" statistic that calculates the number of studies with null results that would need to be added to the meta-analysis in order for an effect to no longer be reliable.
everything has two folds. Can you show me a meta-analysis study that favors Republican then?
i truly believe that the analysis (the underlying studies, not meta-analysis itself) is flawed. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.
