View Full Version : Democratic administrations are better for the economy
rockmom
08-31-2008, 12:14 PM
An interesting graphic:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/31/business/0831-sbn-webVIEW.gif
And the article that goes with it:
Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
xobehs
08-31-2008, 12:18 PM
In all honesty I cannot see any "president" turning around the state of the state in the next 4 years. It is going to be a legacy plauged with discontent IMHO.
That's because the Democrats typically "get the country back" after a Republican administration was involved in some war-time activity (which starts the economic improvement).
rockmom
08-31-2008, 12:35 PM
That's because the Democrats typically "get the country back" after a Republican administration was involved in some war-time activity (which starts the economic improvement).
From my memory, Truman (D) did have the reigns after WWII. However, he quickly embroiled us the Korean War. Eisenhower (R), was elected in part because he pledged to end the conflict, which he did. The bulk of his presidency was conflict free.
After Eisenhower, Kennedy (D) became president. His first years were war free, but he took us into Vietnam. Shortly afterward he was assassinated and LBJ (D)took over. Johnson continued the Vietnam conflict.
The Vietnam conflict continued under Nixon (R) until the year before he resigned. Ford (R) finished out Nixon's term without the U.S. being involved in a major military conflict.
Carter (D) won the election in 1976 and did not have major military action.
Reagan (R), Bush (R), and Clinton (D) did not have major military actions during their terms of office.
G. W. Bush (R) invaded Iraq.
I do not see the pattern which you claim exists. Can you clarify.
Like I said, I have no idea why that happens...
LOL!
Honestly, I was stating something I always heard my Daddy say...I don't have any basis for my claim.
rockmom
08-31-2008, 03:01 PM
Like I said, I have no idea why that happens...
LOL!
Honestly, I was stating something I always heard my Daddy say...I don't have any basis for my claim.
In light of that, what do you think about the chart and article?
pawprint
08-31-2008, 03:09 PM
If war was always good for the economy we'd be rolling naked in money instead of posting here by now.
Well, I suppose you can find numbers to support anything.
Here's another similar article:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
hidesome
08-31-2008, 03:13 PM
From my memory, Truman (D) did have the reigns after WWII. However, he quickly embroiled us the Korean War. Eisenhower (R), was elected in part because he pledged to end the conflict, which he did. The bulk of his presidency was conflict free.
After Eisenhower, Kennedy (D) became president. His first years were war free, but he took us into Vietnam. Shortly afterward he was assassinated and LBJ (D)took over. Johnson continued the Vietnam conflict.
The Vietnam conflict continued under Nixon (R) until the year before he resigned. Ford (R) finished out Nixon's term without the U.S. being involved in a major military conflict.
Carter (D) won the election in 1976 and did not have major military action.
Reagan (R), Bush (R), and Clinton (D) did not have major military actions during their terms of office.
G. W. Bush (R) invaded Iraq.
I do not see the pattern which you claim exists. Can you clarify.
I think you neglect the fact that Reagan won the cold war and George Bush won the 1st Gulf War. Both were major conflicts. The former was the single most expensive war ever fought. I tend to agree that it isn't exactly causal as suggested. Then again, I think the premise of the OP is pretty thin too for exactly the same reasons.
rockmom
08-31-2008, 03:18 PM
Both New York Times article and the Washington Monthly article, support the idea that Democratic administrations are good for the overall economy. The main difference is that the WM article shows that the Republican administrations do improve the economy, but only during election years. Is your point that Americans have short term memories?
My point is that anything can be skewed to support an opinion.
The economy is cyclical, not political.
rockmom
08-31-2008, 03:37 PM
The cold war was not an actual war. But it was present through Truman (D), Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R), Ford (R), Carter (D), Reagan (R), and Bush Sr. (R).
The Kuwaiti conflict lasted almost 7 months. I can't bring myself to put in the same category the Korean conflict, the Vietnam conflict, or the Iraqi conflict. If you want to add every military action we'll have to toss in Grenada, Panama, Somolia, the Balkans and probably a few other that aren't coming to mind.
I still fail to find the correlation that GiGi tried to make between Republicans fighting wars so that they cannot build the economy and Democrat not having to deal with wars so that can build the economy.
rockmom
08-31-2008, 04:17 PM
My point is that anything can be skewed to support an opinion.
The economy is cyclical, not political.
This statement contradicts your previous statement:
That's because the Democrats typically "get the country back" after a Republican administration was involved in some war-time activity (which starts the economic improvement).
------
Interestingly, of the 10 recessions since the end of WWII, 7 have been under Republican administrations. The two longest recession in that time period were under Nixon and Reagan. The shortest was under Carter.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/20510977/
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.