If the Economy is a concern for you, you would be stupid to elect a right wing president.

http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/sp-500-performance-by-party http://presidentialdata.org/ this one and the rest http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php

 

Just because the economy does well statistically under Democrats doesn't mean they have better policies. A lot of it could be residual benefits from the previous administrations' policies. Obama didn't make the economy grow by thst much. There was a lot if evidence that the economy had already reached a near bottom when he took office. And a lot of the growth was due to groundwork that Republicans were already laying out while Obama was president. Republicans have been fighting for tax cuts during both of Obama's presidency. And when it finally happened it generated 9+ years of continuous growth.

 

Clinton had more economic conservative/right cred than Trump does. Out of curiosity, I wonder what the same graph would look like it if were overlaid with who controlled Congress during these times.

 

Split government with no party in full control works best. It’s also better psychologically for more people to feel they have at least some say in government.

 

There is absolutely no way you can twist this with your nonsense. I know this hurts but it has to be pointed out because it is 100% true and all the squirming you do won't get around these facts. 60 years of facts. By the way this isn't about Obama or The right wing wacko.

 

It would look the same of course, the power in this country is in the hands of the president. He can write law on his own and it is right on the edge of impossible to overturn a veto, an overturn takes 2/3 majority , that rarely happens. So the president chart is all that is needed to define how each party does with the economy over all..

 

we are talking about how well the economy does under presidents of each party, what these charts say is totally clear . That democratic economic policy works best and the rights policy is horrible.

 

Not really. The branches are co-equal, even with the gradual increases in Executive power. The President can write a bill, but it doesn't become a law that the President can sign unless Congress decides to put it to a vote and approves it first. And it isn't at all obvious that it would look the same. For part of Clinton's history, for example, Republicans controlled Congress, and the same is true of Obama. There isn't going to be 100% overlap.

 

do you REALLY think that you're going to change minds about Democrats? LOL

 

absolutely ridiculous the president stops bills that he vetoes/ the congress has to come up with another bill. An executive order can only be nullifying by congress writing a law that he will veto. So your wrong.

 

Don't want to change the minds of your hate group, your party is run and driven by hate,I don't give a dam about your hate party, my intention is to make sure all democrats get out and vote, To get rid of you , I'm a patriot and reject everything you have to offer , which is nothing but this country's biggest threat and enemy.

 

You say that as if anything you said is mutually exclusive to what I said. Of course the President can veto, just as Congress can override a veto. And, no, that isn't the only way an executive order can be nullified . . . there's the courts. We have a system of checks and balances. That goes for the President too.

 

OP claim is fallacious and out of much necessary context. The composition and acts of CONGRESS far more than the Executive, affect the Economy EVENTUALLY OVER TIME, and not just a few years. Charting the performance of capital markets during this or that POTUS Administration is an oft seen lie narrative that the union label LW spins out. Anyone who buys into it should STAY OUT of the actual markets, and just buy mutual funds. You'll get creamed otherwise, and have been warned.

Presidential Administrations, other than through serious Black Swans like declaring war out of nowhere, are not generally responsible for the gyrations of the stock market. Of course they claim credit when things are good and shift it when things are bad. This applies to all Administrations of either Party. Neither Trump nor Obama cause corrections or upswings.

An example of a Black Swan and its effects is ACA. At the most unwise time in recent history, a deep recession, trying to shift healthcare onto the nation's 30 million businesses extended the recession and crippled the recovery unnecessarily.

Another example of Big Black Swans, is excessive government Executive overreach during the Johnson, Nixon and Bush2 Administrations. Johnson gave us Medicare and institutionalized welfare. Nixon gave us a whole host of federal power grab, as did Bush2 in response to 9/11. All of it is BAD for capital markets over time. ALL government growth and overreach is BAD for markets over time, but it can take decades to see just HOW BAD.

To date, the Trump Administration has not done any "Black Swan" manufacture of its own other than perhaps the Tax Reform, and the results of that, good or ill, are just BEGINNING to flow through the economy. Sure, there is some short term enthusiasm or confidence that moves things a bit, but by and large, it takes lots of time for markets to reflect the positive or negative effects of policy.

 

Vetoes don't get over ridden 2600 vetoes and 100 have been over ridden and most of that 100 were vetoed in the first place as a token by the presidents/ The courts won't intervene if the law is constitutional and that's easy to work with,So again the power lies with the president. what power that he doesn't controls is minor

 

Using stats - in the way done is problematic for a number of reasons. Completely dismissing them is also problematic.

The claim "All Gov't overreach is "BAD" for markets over time" is not true. There are numerous problems with unbridled laissez fair capitalism. Extreme Capitalism and Extreme Socialism ( communist totalitarianism for example) end up at the same place. In both cases you have a few elite owning most resources and means of production with fair and free markets stifled.

Both Red and Blue Establishment have worked to create horrible imbalances in relation to fair and free markets. The President is a not some rock or Island - the President is subject to the whims of the Establishment and works in concert with the Establishment. Then there is reality - as you point out - black swan events.

For example - It was not that Clinton and Republican Congress wanted to increase taxes and curb spending - they had to. The interest on our debt as a ratio of income had exceeded 25%. (This was due to the massive credit card spending under Reagan and Bush over the previous 12 years).

There are many fiscal indicators that are not that great. Debt to GDP for example. Interest as a ratio of income is what the IMF uses. If the interest/income ratio hits 30 % red lights go off - the ship is taking in water faster than it can be bailed out. If nothing is done in short order the ship will sink.

The actions of Clinton/Congress helped but at the same time there was a "white swan" event. The computer/tech/internet revolution which rapidly increased income. These combined to reduce the deficit to near zero.

We managed to avert disaster. Rather than learn a lesson, the Bush administration - along with congress - went right back to the same Reagan vomit. Bush inherited a problem in the first years (which justified small deficits) - the Tech Bubble burst which hurt income. His response was to cut taxes and increase military/war spending like crazy. The economy recovered in a couple years which increased revenue but his spending far outstripped this revenue increase. Outsourcing of our manufacturing base and continuation of tax policy which allowed international corporations to bilk the US was also a problem.

Then came the desperate attempt to maintain revenue via enabling massive ponzi scheme. This resulted in the 2008 Crash and subsequent 2009 deficit of 1.4 Trillion dollars.

Obama and congress then bailed out the Establishment international financiers who were responsible for the ponzi scheme. Trillions of dollars in stimulus and credit care spending were undertaken to prop up the financial system. At the same time the Fed started messing with the "invisible hand" in order to get interest rates on our debt down.

The economy survived but the cost was our long term economic future. By the end of Obama's term the debt was 20 Trillion (from 6 Trillion when Clinton's term ended). Interestingly the interest on this debt (2.25% on average) = 450 Billion roughly the same as it was at the end of Clinton's term.

On roughly 3.3 Trillion in revenue this is an interest to income ratio of only 14%. Fantastic right ? way lower than 25% and less than half of the 30% "red light warning" figure. Not so fast.

The reason the interest payments stayed the same over nearly 27 years was because while the debt Tripled .. the ave interest rate was reduced to 1/3rd .. from 7% and higher down to 2.25%.

We are now in a rising interest rate environment and the Fed is out of bullets. We messed with the invisible hand and - as it always does - the invisible hand is striking back. The upward pressure on the ave interest rate on our debt is massive.

If you have any doubt look at the chart of the 2yr - click on 5 years https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=US2Y

You will see that 2yr debt in 2014 could be floated at less than 0.4% - Easy money ! This is one of the ways we reduced the ave interest rate ... floating more debt at shorter term (vs the standard 30 yr).

The problem is that the 2yr debt financed in 2014 at 0.4% had to be refinanced in 2016 and floated again in 2018. Not that the yield on the 2yr is now 2.8%. So this means that we are paying 2.4% more to finance 2 year debt than back in 2014.

Now this is unrealistic on a short term (not on a longer term) but, if the average interest on our entire 2.15 Trillion dollar debt increased by 2.4% this would increase our interest payments by 516 Billion/year - to more than 1 Trillion dollars per year.

On income of say 3.5 Trillion - this gives a ratio of 29% interest/income. That is on the basis of an ave interest rate of roughly 4.7%. Historical average is closer to 6%.

Enter Trump. Trump and Congress has now gone back to the Reagan vomit once again. Massive deficits are forecast for at least the next 3 years - exceeding 1 Trillion dollars.

This is being done in stable economic times (so there is no need to increase the deficit to stimulate or bail out the economy) but worse - in a rising interest rate environment.

This is the pinnacle of fiscal irresponsibility. Congress has given up and resigned us to the abyss.

 

Half of all the new jobs during Obama's presidency were in Texas. Perry told Obama to piss off on more than one occasion and Texas gets less money from Washington than it sends. How does that fit in with all this?

 

Total complete nonsense , your going to try to somehow disparage the facts and those facts are totally clear , you going to convince people here that it is just a accident that your hate party shows on charts to be a disaster as far as the economy is concerned in this country.
▶ 0:39 Just left click the (0:39) to see Scum bag telling that the Democrats do do better then the the hate party as far as the economy is concerned

 

This thread is not about Scum bag or Obama if you want to make that a post go someplace else , this is simply showing what a disaster it is and how stupid you would be to elect a hate party president. Simple as that.

 

See post 15.

 

NOT EVEN CLOSE OBAMA WAS GOLD ALL AROUND AS FAR AS THE ECONOMY IS CONCERNED

 

The GOP controlled congress both houses for 6 of Clinton’s 8 years and had the house for 6 of Obama’s 8 years while they held the senate for the final 2 of his 8 years. Democrats held the Senate for the first two and last two of Bush 43’s 8 years and the house for the last two of his 8 years.

e

 

I did read it but there is no over ride for this massive discrepancy. it is unarguable unless you say these charts are wrong. lies or distortion. The point is that democratic economic solutions and tools are just that much better then the rights. Lets try this, I say demand side economics is the only way to drive the economy , something that the left believes in and I think that supply side economics is not good for driving the markets as the right supports , money in the hands of people buries money put into the hands of business to drive markets. The right feeds big business and cares little about people, the left believe in our responsibility as far as all aspects of our population is concerned, again putting money on the demand side where it drives the market way better then giving it to the wealthy and big B. If this doesn't fit your thoughts that's fine . But it's my opinion that this is the difference.

 

To repeat myself this is a thread about the total difference between these two party's presidents over 60 years. Not during one or two presidency's

 

A

Actually I covered three Presidents covering 24 years. Democrats controlled the house and senate during all 4 Bush 41 years and the house all 8 years of Reagan’s term and the senate for the final 2 years of his term. Democrats controlled everything during Carters four years and controlled congress both houses during all 8 of the Nixon Ford years.

 

It’s not remotely all up to Presidents how the economy goes.