Republican advocates claim that their party is interested in growth, while the Democrats are only interested in redistribution. Well, the Republican Party may be interested in growth, but they are remarkably inept at delivering growth. From 1948 until 2008, there were 15 administrations. The four with the highest rates of growth were all Democrats. The four with the lowest rates of growth were all Republicans.
The growth is measured by the change in Real Gross Domestic Product from the inaugural year to the next inaugural year. There are other ways of measuring economic growth, and each of them would show slightly different specifics. There is no reasonable measurement, however, which shows Republican administrations outperforming Democratic administrations. (Even if you hypothesize a 4-year lead time, so that each administration is credited with the growth during the next, the Democrats come out somewhat better.)
The average growth rate during Democratic administrations is 4.35% / year, and no Republican administration has come anywhere near that high for the entire term. The average growth rate during Republican administrations is 2.56% / year, and no Democratic administration has had growth that low averaged over an entire term. Obama's recovery from the Bush train wreck may be slow enough to change the second sentence, but it will not lower the Democratic average enough to get a Republican term near it.
Let's first see the administrations in order of growth.
| President | years | RGDP | 4-year growth | % | Annual growth | % | Rank |
| H. S Truman | 1949 1953 | 1,843.1 2,345.2 | 1.27242 | 27.24 | 1.06208 | 6.21 | 1 |
| Kennedy Johnson | 1961 1965 | 2,894.4 3,607.0 | 1.24620 | 24.62 | 1.05656 | 5.66 | 2 |
| L. B. Johnson | 1965 1969 | 3,607.0 4,258.2 | 1.18054 | 18.05 | 1.04237 | 4.24 | 3 |
| Bill Clinton 1 | 1993 1997 | 8,516.2 9,845.9 | 1.15614 | 15.61 | 1.03694 | 3.69 | 4 |
| R. M. Nixon | 1969 1973 | 4,258.2 4,912.8 | 1.15373 | 15.37 | 1.03640 | 3.64 | 5 |
| Bill Clinton 2 | 1997 2001 | 9,845.9 11,337.5 | 1.15149 | 15.15 | 1.035894 | 3.59 | 6 |
| Ronald Reagan 2 | 1985 1989 | 6,843.4 7,879.2 | 1.15136 | 15.14 | 1.03586 | 3.59 | 7 |
| Ronald Reagan 1 | 1981 1985 | 5,982.1 6,843.4 | 1.14398 | 14.40 | 1.03420 | 3.42 | 8 |
| D. D. Eisenhower 2 | 1957 1961 | 2,598.8 2,894.4 | 1.11374 | 11.37 | 1.02730 | 2.73 | 9 |
| G. W Bush 1 | 2001 2005 | 11,337.5 12,623.0 | 1.11338 | 11.34 | 1.02721 | 2.72 | 10 |
| Jimmy Carter | 1977 1981 | 5,373.1 5,982.1 | 1.11334 | 11.33 | 1.02721 | 2.72 | 11 |
| D. D. Eisenhower 1 | 1953 1957 | 2,345.2 2,598.8 | 1.10814 | 10.81 | 1.02600 | 2.60 | 12 |
| Nixon Ford | 1973 1977 | 4,912.8 5,373.1 | 1.09369 | 9.37 | 1.02264 | 2.26 | 13 |
| G. H. W. Bush | 1989 1993 | 7,879.2 8,516.2 | 1.08084 | 8.08 | 1.01963 | 1.96 | 14 |
| G. W Bush 2 | 2005 2009 | 12,623.0 12,703.1 | 1.00635 | 0.63 | 1.00158 | 0.16 | 15 |
The RGDP is first for the inaugural year, and then for the next inaugural year. Both 4-year growth and annual growth are ratios. The annual growth ratios are chosen so that the fourth power of each is the 4-year growth ratio. I've followed these with the percent increase, first for the 4-year term, and then the annualized rate. Your eye should tell you how that follows from the preceding figure.
So, why should you believe Frank Palmer? You shouldn't. You should check it out. First, the same data in the original, historical order. (At this point, the RGDP gets a little repetitive.)
| President | years | RGDP | 4-year growth | % | Annual growth | % | Rank |
| H. S Truman | 1949 1953 | 1,843.1 2,345.2 | 1.27242 | 27.24 | 1.06208 | 6.21 | 1 |
| D. D. Eisenhower 1 | 1953 1957 | 2,345.2 2,598.8 | 1.10814 | 10.81 | 1.02600 | 2.60 | 12 |
| D. D. Eisenhower 2 | 1957 1961 | 2,598.8 2,894.4 | 1.11374 | 11.37 | 1.02730 | 2.73 | 9 |
| Kennedy Johnson | 1961 1965 | 2,894.4 3,607.0 | 1.24620 | 24.62 | 1.05656 | 5.66 | 2 |
| L. B. Johnson | 1965 1969 | 3,607.0 4,258.2 | 1.18054 | 18.05 | 1.04237 | 4.24 | 3 |
| R. M. Nixon | 1969 1973 | 4,258.2 4,912.8 | 1.15373 | 15.37 | 1.03640 | 3.64 | 5 |
| Nixon Ford | 1973 1977 | 4,912.8 5,373.1 | 1.09369 | 9.37 | 1.02264 | 2.26 | 13 |
| Jimmy Carter | 1977 1981 | 5,373.1 5,982.1 | 1.11334 | 11.33 | 1.02721 | 2.72 | 11 |
| Ronald Reagan 1 | 1981 1985 | 5,982.1 6,843.4 | 1.14398 | 14.40 | 1.03420 | 3.42 | 8 |
| Ronald Reagan 2 | 1985 1989 | 6,843.4 7,879.2 | 1.15136 | 15.14 | 1.03586 | 3.59 | 7 |
| G. H. W. Bush | 1989 1993 | 7,879.2 8,516.2 | 1.08084 | 8.08 | 1.01963 | 1.96 | 14 |
| Bill Clinton 1 | 1993 1997 | 8,516.2 9,845.9 | 1.15614 | 15.61 | 1.03694 | 3.69 | 4 |
| Bill Clinton 2 | 1997 2001 | 9,845.9 11,337.5 | 1.15149 | 15.15 | 1.035894 | 3.59 | 6 |
| G. W Bush 1 | 2001 2005 | 11,337.5 12,623.0 | 1.11338 | 11.34 | 1.02721 | 2.72 | 10 |
| G. W Bush 2 | 2005 2009 | 12,623.0 12,703.1 | 1.00635 | 0.63 | 1.00158 | 0.16 | 15 |
Anyway, you can check the St. Louis Federal Reserve reports on real GDP to see that my reports on RGDP are correct.
Then check my division. Admittedly, checking my work means a lot of arithmetic, especially if you check my fourth roots. Still, any small sample would detect a fraud if I were committing fraud. (For that matter, the order of the terms doesn't require the annual growth and percentage figures at all. Checking my fourth roots only verifies the arithmetic, not the ordering.)