Replies to post #389659 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[blackhawks]

False equivalence. The following are opinion pieces, however the data they are both based upon is not a matter of opinion.

Additionally, were the data supportive of the argument for Dem recessions and GOP economic recoveries we would see the GOP hang that FACT around Dem necks at election time.

The stock market is not mentioned in the first piece, it is here:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787

The stock market SPX, +0.19% DWCF, +0.16% tends to perform better with a Democratic president, rising 11% per year on average compared with 6.5% for Republicans.

Democratic presidents keep having to save the US economy after Republican presidents run it into the ground

Michael Gordon, Opinion Columnist

https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-presidents-us-economy-recession-democrat-presidents-save-it-2021-1

Since the 1990s, GOP presidents keep running the US economy into recessions.

And then Democratic presidents come in and save the economy.

Democrats should remind voters of this every chance they get.

Michael Gordon is a longtime Democratic strategist, a former spokesman for the Justice Department, and the principal for the strategic-communications firm Group Gordon.

This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.

Repeat after me: The last three Republican presidencies ended in economic turmoil. And their Democratic successors had to clean up the mess. Voters need to be reminded – again and again – that putting Republicans in the White House puts our country in recession.

Republican recessions

It seems quaint compared to 2008 or our current crisis, but President George H. W. Bush ended his one term in office in recession. After what was then the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in US history, in July 1990 the country entered a recession that saw unemployment rise to a peak of 7.8% in June 1992.

His challenger Bill Clinton made the economic pain that families were feeling the mantra of his campaign and handily beat Bush, who came across as out of touch with working Americans.

One of Clinton's first legislative achievements was an economic recovery bill that, among other things, put a greater tax burden on the wealthy and increased tax credits and wage subsidies for the working poor. As a result, during his eight years in office, Clinton oversaw economic growth that averaged 3.5% annual GDP growth but topped 4% throughout his second term. Unemployment fell from 7.4% to 3.9%, and the labor market added an average of 2.9 million jobs per year.

Cut to President George W. Bush and his policies that cut taxes for the rich, grew our national debt and trade deficit to record levels, left the US dollar severely weakened, decreased regulation of Wall Street, and ultimately helped bring about the Great Recession.

The Great Recession was man-made, caused by reckless lending by financial institutions – not the result of the natural cycles of our economy. The devastation was – and continues to be – enormous, with America more unequal, less productive, and poorer because of the severity of the crisis.

President Barack Obama came to office needing to help bail out entire industries that our country runs on. The depth of the decline was the worst in 80 years, and the recovery Obama initiated was slow – but effective.

After taking over in early 2017, former-President Donald Trump maintained the Obama recovery in some ways – but in other ways economic disparity grew deeper. Then, he treated the pandemic more like a political issue than a health issue, and the economy went into freefall on every metric. Millions of jobs were lost – some for good. Unemployment still sits at 6.7% despite some improvement in recent months, with communities of color hit hardest.

Now, as part of the promise of President Joe Biden, we will get through the pandemic and renew our economic strength in turn: another Democrat fixing a Republican mess.

Carter boomerang

Older voters will recall that President Jimmy Carter became the favorite Republican punching bag after his four years in office ended in economic calamity. So many negatives for the economy became associated with Carter – malaise, stagflation, the misery index – that Republicans held onto the White House for 12 years straight, the longest continuous streak in nearly 70 years. The fear of going back to the Carter years kept voters on edge and Republicans in power.

But it's been almost 50 years since Carter took office, and despite their superior record Democrats have failed to capitalize sufficiently on the economic strength they repeatedly ushered in and make it synonymous with their brand.

Much like the GOP did with Carter, Democrats need to make the Bushes and particularly Trump their punching bag for the next generation. The Democrats need to make it clear that they are the stewards of steady, strong economic growth and are always cleaning up after the GOP.

In most election years, voters think first about the economy and their own pocketbooks. That is the primary driver of most elections at most levels. Every Democrat needs to make the contrast in economic success their mantra – for the sake of the party and the country.

Repeat after me: The last three Republican presidencies ended in economic turmoil.


Opinion: The economy — and the stock market — tends to do better under Democrats

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787

Last Updated: Jan. 21, 2021 at 8:25 a.m. ET
First Published: Jan. 20, 2021 at 11:06 a.m. ET
By William Chittenden

Here’s what the data shows going back to Eisenhower


In general, since President Dwight D. Eisenhower took office in 1953, the economy — as measured by gross domestic product, unemployment, inflation and recessions — has typically performed better with a Democrat in the White House.

GDP growth has been significantly higher; inflation — a measure of the change in prices — has been lower; and unemployment has tended to fall.

Perhaps the most striking difference I found is in the number of months the economy was in recession, as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. From 1953 to 2020, Republicans controlled the White House for 480 months, about 23% of which were spent in recession. Democratic presidents held the reins for 336 months in that period, just 4% of which were in recession. The 2020 recession that began in March has not been officially declared over.

What’s more, the recession that began in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter was the only one during the period I studied that began while a Democrat was in office.

‘Democratic trifecta’

In my analysis, I also examined the impact of Congress and how having all, part or none of the legislative branch controlled by the president’s party affected the economy’s performance. With twin Democratic victories in Georgia on Jan. 5, the Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the first time since 2011.

I found that the U.S. economy expanded 93% of the time there was a Democratic trifecta, or for 178 out of 192 months since 1953. Unemployment and inflation, on the other hand, was a little above average, at 6.05% and 3.89%, respectively.

The best conditions, based on my analysis, were with a Democratic president facing a Republican Senate or Republican Congress. The U.S. was never in recession when those conditions were true, and when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress under a Democratic president, average monthly unemployment was the second lowest of any condition, at 4.85%.

[B402]

One ray of hope Koog...

The great resignation...

Rising wages where there was once stagnation...

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/wage-stagnation-in-america
“monopsony power.”

I agree with you on the covid cause,,,to be political, its beyond me why repubs have fought to extend the pandemic...

The extremes of both parties are clueless, and the centrist seem happy with the status quo....

We will either embrace the future or not....

[newmedman]

I bought my first home in 95 and had a 30 year fixed for 6.9%. Proceeded to pay it off in 5 years, then used that equity as a springboard. I've seen mortgage rates dip and dive ever since yet people complain when it goes from zero to three. WTF?

The price of gasoline has fluctuated from really high to really low since then and will continue to do so. It's how the market moves. Ask me if I care.

Blaming politicians for price fluctuations in oil is your first mistake. Are you one of those guys that believes an oil well should be drilled into every backyard on the planet?

Do you believe that we should have days in the middle of the summer where there's not a cloud in the sky but the sun can't shine through the dark noxious fumes so you can have cheap gasoline to start your car with in the mornings?


Do you want to know how to get rid of your stagflation nonsense? Offer a living wage and affordable health care to workers who will flock back to it. Quit putting money in the pockets of billion and trillion dollar corporations and give it back to the people that actually consume those goods.

Then, you can raise the price on everything and we can still afford it. Yahtzee, low poverty and prosperity.

Or maybe, just maybe the people who make millions won't feel the need to make billions of more dollars that they could never spend over a lifetime anyway.

It's all a big pile of bullshit. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer and everyone is in the street fighting, blaming elected officials. You elected them Koog and so did I.

If there was an actual shred of compassion in this world we would be in a much better place than where we are today. Instead, it's a stupid competition of who could walk over the most bodies in their rise to the top of some imaginary hill.

That's why me and my ex chose to not have children 25 years ago and it's my advice to anyone today.

I'd never raise a child to teach them to cut someone else's throat to be successful and in a world where success is really undefined there's no way anyone is ever happy.

[fuagf]

Koog, Biden’s old Senate colleagues don’t recognize his current economics. They’re cool with that.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=163940280

These to you so they sit beneath the other replies, particulary the evidence in blackhawks' ..
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=166583793

'This is going to end badly for everyone': Wealthy venture capitalist Nick
Hanauer is on a mission to fix the American economy before it's too late
P - arizona1, That is an excellent Hanauer sum-up of Schultz.
P - "Afraid of AOC? LOL. I love her. She makes Democrats who support her look ill informed and pollyanish.
C'mon sweet pea. Let's see you take on Nick Hanauer. LOLOL
Watch venture capitalist detail how AOC is actually more centrist than billionaire Howard Schultz"
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146491885

-

Democrat presidents are good for the economy. Why? Pragmatism. Resulting in Democrats acting on
evidence of what economic policies have been successful. And under what particular circumstances.

"Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy?
[...]
For the most part, however, Republican economic policy since 1980 has revolved around a single policy: large tax cuts, tilted heavily toward the affluent. There are situations in which tax cuts can lift economic growth, but they typically involve countries with very high tax rates. The United States has had fairly low tax rates for decades.

The evidence now overwhelmingly suggests that recent tax cuts have had only a modest effect on the economy. G.D.P. grew at virtually the same rate after the 2017 Trump tax cut as before it. If anything, the Clinton tax increase of 1993 has a better claim on starting a boom than any tax cut since."

Toss in the Republican mantra of small government. Their starve the beast bit.

To link yours to a few:

The Ghost of Trump Chaos Future
Sorry, investors, but there is no sanity clause.
By Paul Krugman
[...]
The truth is that most of the time, presidential actions don’t matter much for the economy; short-term economic management is mainly up to the Fed. But when bad things happen, we do need the White House to step up. In 2008 and 2009, it mattered a lot that officials of both the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration responded competently and intelligently to the financial crisis.
P - Unfortunately, there’s no reason to expect a comparable degree of competence if something goes wrong again.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145774414

Democrats or Republicans: Which Is Better for the Economy?
By Many Metrics It's the Party That Doesn't Put Business First
https://www.thebalance.com/democrats-vs-republicans-which-is-better-for-the-economy-4771839

[...] How do US taxes compare internationally?


With others - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=161477508

including

conix, Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=131519025