- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Has a Democrat POTUS ever ENDED a recession by being elected and enacting Dem policies?
Posted on 8/22/19 at 9:03 am to JohnnyU
Posted on 8/22/19 at 9:03 am to JohnnyU
quote:
This thread shows the blind ignorance of this forum. Obama inherited the great recession and shepherded the beginning of longest continuous economic growth in our country‘s history. It is Generally accepted that the economy does better under Democrats then it does under Republicans. Just Google it and you’ll see.
Both Bush presidency’s resulted in recession.
“The economy is in recession about 7% of the time under Democrats as compared to 28% of the time under Republicans. Republican presidents do tend to preside over lower inflation at least, but that is mostly to be expected given the generally more sluggish economic conditions during their terms.”
I love when politics gets injected into an economic argument. Stop stooging for parties. This stat just makes you sound dumb. The economy doesn't grow because of government policy and inflation depends on monetary policy. You are blinded by politics if you cite this as some gotcha on any particular administration. You are WAY over simplifying the economy.
1
Posted on 8/22/19 at 9:08 am to Crimson Wraith
quote:I've not seen that.
I've linked it on here numerous times
quote:At best, FDR's policies were of questionable effect. IMO they were unhelpful. A huge culprit though in deepening and extending the depression was Smoot-Hawley. S-H predated FDR. The depression is generally regarded to have ended shortly after WWII began in 1939. FDR took office 1933. So a 7yr prolongation is a stretch.
FDR prolonged the depression by 7 years per UCLA economists.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 9:18 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote: His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. But this part is creative writing.
I’m open to changing my mind.
Please provide facts proving this assertion false.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 9:21 am to Gaspergou202
Facts are fricking hard around here.
"Four Republican presidents suffered through two recessions while in office and Republican President Dwight Eisenhower presided over three. Meanwhile, Democrats have largely skated past the recession quicksand. Four in five Democratic presidents saw no recessions during their terms since 1945, Stovall says."
"With a Republican in the White House, though, the economy's growth slowed to 2.54%, the economists found. With a Democrat in office, growth jumped to 4.35% on average. A variety of other economic indicators, such as per capital GDP, stock market returns, real wages and the change in the unemployment rate, are also more robust with a Democratic president, the economists found. Unemployment fell by 0.8 percentage points with a Democratic president on average, while it rose 1.1% with a Republican."
"The U.S. economy has performed better when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance," according to the report titled "Presidents and the Economy: A Forensic Investigation."
"Four Republican presidents suffered through two recessions while in office and Republican President Dwight Eisenhower presided over three. Meanwhile, Democrats have largely skated past the recession quicksand. Four in five Democratic presidents saw no recessions during their terms since 1945, Stovall says."
"With a Republican in the White House, though, the economy's growth slowed to 2.54%, the economists found. With a Democrat in office, growth jumped to 4.35% on average. A variety of other economic indicators, such as per capital GDP, stock market returns, real wages and the change in the unemployment rate, are also more robust with a Democratic president, the economists found. Unemployment fell by 0.8 percentage points with a Democratic president on average, while it rose 1.1% with a Republican."
"The U.S. economy has performed better when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance," according to the report titled "Presidents and the Economy: A Forensic Investigation."
Posted on 8/22/19 at 9:22 am to BuckyCheese
quote:
Getting us into a war 8+ years into his presidency is not a Dem policy.
You seem to feel US entry into WWII was happenstance.
It wasn't.
It was driven by FDR policy.
You apparently don't know that. You should.
As you said, read some history.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 9:24 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
I love when politics gets injected into an economic argument.
Policy absolutely effects the economy.
quote:
Stop stooging for parties.
You're right there - neither party is looking out for the peasants. They're lining their own pockets.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 9:27 am to NC_Tigah
We tried to stay out of it for a while and be the arms supplier only. Japan forced our hand much earlier even though we were slowly moving in the direction. Probably a good thing TBH because it was a rallying cry and we went all in on germany and japan dry
Posted on 8/22/19 at 9:31 am to Powerman
quote:
Obama didn't cause a recession
Correct...It was Clinton’s legislation to allow folks with questionable crediks to buy homes they couldn’t afford to satisfy the appetite of foreign investors for US mortage-backed securities.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 10:14 am to whocares1
quote:
Policy absolutely effects the economy.
Right, but those policies typically never increase economic output. They either shift resources or hinder industry. That's my point. Stop giving credit to adminsrators when they do not run the economy.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 10:42 am to Eli Goldfinger
Obama spent two terms talking about 'Bush's economy', and Clinton benefited from the rise of the dotcoms. Neither one did all that much to help the economy.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 10:59 am to BhamDawg
quote:
Four in five Democratic presidents saw no recessions during their terms since 1945, Stovall says."
Wow I’m almost convinced!
Official Definition
The National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession as "a period of falling economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months." The NBER is the private non-profit that announces when recessions start and stop. It is the national source for measuring the stages of the business cycle.
Let’s examine this from FDR when the economic system was transformed. We will stick with the official National Bureau ones so we won’t count the massive unemployment jump from 1937 to 1938.
February to October 1945 Recession. FDR (D) president up to April 12, 1945. In all fairness while this recession extended 7 months into Truman’s tenure, he literally inherited it and I won’t count it against him. So running total: Democrats 1 for 1 in recessions.
The November 1948 until October 1949 Recession. Oh no! Truman gets hit squarely between the eyes! Democrats are now 2 for 2 in recessions. Oops! Old baw Stoval already wrong!
July 1953 to May 1954 Recession.
August 1957 to April 1958 Recession.
April 1960 until February 1961 Recession.
Ike’s (R) presidency January 1953 to January 1961. So I give him all three leaving JFK blameless because of inheritance.
JFK had no recessions in his shortened term, and because of his supply side (trickle down) tax cutting economic policies he left LBJ a strong economy.
LBJ “#make war not love” was also recession free! So 2 of 4 Democrats had recessions.
December 1969 to November 1970 Recession. Uber liberal Republican Tricky Dicky gets hit. Running total GOP 2 for 2 and DNC 2 for 4.
November 1973 to March 1975 Recession. Another Nixon recession. Now Ford (R) took over during this recession, but like Truman and JFK I declare him recession-less because of inheritance. New total: GOP 2 for 3; DNC 2 of 4.
January to June 1980 Recession hits President stagflation Jimmy Carter (D). New total: GOP 2 for 3 and DNC 3 out of 5. Your source takes it up the anus again.
The July 1981 to November 1982 Recession falls squarely in Reagan’s wheelhouse. Tally: GOP 3 for 4 and DNC 3 for 5.
July 1990 to March 1991 Recession. Bush the Elder (R) yields GOP 4 for 5 and DNC 3 of 5.
Clinton skates. And ...
March to November 2001. W(R) gets hit.
December 2007 to June 2009 Recession. W again. GOP 5-6 and DNC 3-6.
Now Obama can’t be blamed for inheritance of W but he can hardly be credited for the weakest recovery in US history. But GOP 5-6 and DNC 3-7.
Trump isn’t done yet but currently no recession. GOP 5-7 and DNC 3-7.
Now those are the facts. But sometimes recessions are the result of good things and sometimes bad. And sometimes the origins precede a president.
1945 because of adjustments at end WW2. Good!
1953 because of end Korean War. Good!
1973-75 because of end of Vietnam. Good! And oil embargoes by OPEC. Bad!
2001 dot-com bubble under Clinton. Bad! Y2K scare. shite happens.
2008-09 housing bubble started under Clinton and allowed to metastasize under W. Bad!
Posted on 8/22/19 at 2:31 pm to yatesdog38
quote:Just the opposite.
Japan forced our hand
On FDR's orders in mid-1941, we froze Japanese assets and embargoed gas and oil exports to Japan. FDR knew Japan had limited oil stores. He knew beyond a shadow of doubt the embargo would force Japanese military action.
Japan attempted diplomacy. We rejected. We had already broken Japanese code. We knew the Japanese military had given its diplomats a late November 11/29, 11/30/1941) termination date. If diplomatic entreaties were unsuccessful by Dec 1st, war was inevitable. Irreversible military actions would be set in place, and war would occur.
Unbeknownst to Japan (and the American public), FDR had all that information too.
FDR knew stalling negotiations while feigning a desire to continue diplomacy would lead to war. Hell, he even had decoded leaks detailing elements of Japan's war plan. He knew for example, that a Japanese invasion force was in route to Malaysia and/or the Philippines a week before Pearl Harbor. It is virtually impossible FDR did not also know of the Pearl Harbor strike force from the point it departed port in Japan. Yet he did nothing about any of it.
Why?
Because FDR wanted war. Arguably, he needed war. He was concerned any apparent prep on the part of US forces would spook the Japanese, and they'd shy away from the attack. FDR goaded the Japanese into it. He got more than he bargained for.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 2:36 pm to bamarep
not since FDR.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:22 pm to bamarep
Well "It's the economy Stupid" after the slight recession in 1991 coupled with Perot beat GHWB but Clinton cannot be credit with the recovery IMHO.
FDR was horrible for the economy.
JKF did lower taxes.
Presidents seem to take credit when the economy is good and blame somebody else if they see it going south.
FDR was horrible for the economy.
JKF did lower taxes.
Presidents seem to take credit when the economy is good and blame somebody else if they see it going south.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:39 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Have to say, the Clinton-Congress balance 1995-2001 did pretty well. Left the dot.com turd at W's feet, but those were 6 good years.
but Clinton cannot be credit with the recovery IMHO
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News