What sort of Presidents start recessions?

[mendeleev 68]

A recent image in the Wall Street Journal, which I've annotated (and tried to attach) got me thinking.

In the past 80 years, we've had 40 years of Republican presidents and 40 years of Democratic presidents.

There have been 14 recessions. Ten started under Republican presidents; four under Democrat presidents.

Republican recessions have lasted 138 months or over a quarter of their time in power. Democrat recessions have lasted 42 months or not quite 9% of their time in powder.

The last Democrat recession was Kennedy's in April 1960 (although maybe that one should be credited to Eisenhower and Reagan's first recession should be credited to Carter).

When it comes to preventing recessions while they are in power, Democratic presidents seem to do much better than Republicans. Famous Democrat presidents have had to clean up after Republican recessions -- most famously FDR, then Clinton and now, we hope, Obama.

recession_image_with_credit.bmp

[Otto 83]

Rather than focusing on the top of the chain - focus on the House and Senate would be more appropriate since their behavior/actions (or inactions) are what really drives/steers the country. IMO

[pedroh 21]

the mcrib is back!

that should help

[peejay 327]

Just to be fair...which party had majorities in congress during those 80 years? After all...the president is not an absolute ruler.

[britty 1]

the mcrib is back!

that should help

oh great, more McSh!t food to keep the country obese

[웃 910]

Rather than focusing on the top of the chain - focus on the House and Senate would be more appropriate since their behavior/actions (or inactions) are what really drives/steers the country. IMO

^^^Could not have said it better myself.^^^

If it were true that Democrats were better for the economy, then why is the GOP considered to be the party of the rich? Wouldn't the wealthy be hardcore Democrats?

Edited December 7, 2008 by Confucian

[mendeleev 68]

If it were true that Democrats were better for the economy, then why is the GOP considered to be the party of the rich? Wouldn't the wealthy be hardcore Democrats?

Why do you think that what is good for the economy is good for specifically rich people? Put differently, who gets hurt first and most in recessions? The poor and middle class, probably. For the truly rich, recessions can offer good buying opportunities -- which if you are rich might be a good thing.

[mendeleev 68]

Rather than focusing on the top of the chain - focus on the House and Senate would be more appropriate since their behavior/actions (or inactions) are what really drives/steers the country. IMO

OK -- if you analyze the chart with control of congress in mind, here are the numbers: Republicans have been of both houses of Congress for no more than 336 months in the past 80 years. Recessions started with republicans were in control of both houses of congress have lasted 65 months, or 19.3% of the time Republicans controlled both hosues.

Democrats have dominated control of Congress since Republicans lost it in 1930, and have controlled both houses 624 months in the last 80 years. Recessions have lasted 115 months during that time, or 19.0% of the time.

Control of congress doesn't seem to matter with respect to the amount of time the country is in recession -- but control of the White House does!

[kaydee457 13]

Agreed, look to Congress and the Senate. In this case it would be Barney Frank (D), Chris Dodd (D), Chuck Schumer (D), Charlie Rangel (D) and their social engineering gone awry.

[웃 910]

If it were true that Democrats were better for the economy, then why is the GOP considered to be the party of the rich? Wouldn't the wealthy be hardcore Democrats?

Why do you think that what is good for the economy is good for specifically rich people? Put differently, who gets hurt first and most in recessions? The poor and middle class, probably. For the truly rich, recessions can offer good buying opportunities -- which if you are rich might be a good thing.

I'd say the middle class get hurt the most in a recession. Especially the middle class that were approaching the retirement age and now have a mutual fund that is 40% less than what it was a year ago.

Just my humble opinion, but I think this recession is a beautiful thing for the lower class. That is, the ones that do not have 401Ks or anything tied to the market. They get stimulus checks and really cheap gas. And this is just an assumption, but they probably could care less that the really rich are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, matter of fact, they may even enjoy knowing that rich people are getting killed in today's market.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Confucian

[Ling Ling 22]

Rather than focusing on the top of the chain - focus on the House and Senate would be more appropriate since their behavior/actions (or inactions) are what really drives/steers the country. IMO

OK -- if you analyze the chart with control of congress in mind, here are the numbers: Republicans have been of both houses of Congress for no more than 336 months in the past 80 years. Recessions started with republicans were in control of both houses of congress have lasted 65 months, or 19.3% of the time Republicans controlled both hosues.

Democrats have dominated control of Congress since Republicans lost it in 1930, and have controlled both houses 624 months in the last 80 years. Recessions have lasted 115 months during that time, or 19.0% of the time.

Control of congress doesn't seem to matter with respect to the amount of time the country is in recession -- but control of the White House does!

Why are you trying to bring statistical data and logic to VJ?

This means nothing to people who have already bought into the fears created by the GOP.

Apparently, fear is much more convincing that data.

[mendeleev 68]

Agreed, look to Congress and the Senate. In this case it would be Barney Frank (D), Chris Dodd (D), Chuck Schumer (D), Charlie Rangel (D) and their social engineering gone awry.

I did so, above. Maybe our posts crossed, so you couldn't read the facts presented there.

The fraction of time the country has been in recession under Congressional watches led by Republicans is equal to Democrats.

In that analysis above, I credit the 1953 recession to Republicans, which might be unfair since they had been in control of Congress for just a few months after a period of long domination by Democrats. Similarly, I may have been unfair in assigning the current recession, which began in December 2007, to congressional Democrats since they had had control of Congress for only 9 months before the recession began.

I do believe that this current recession is a product of Republican mismanagement of financial markets and that Phil Gramm deserves more credit for this than any other Congressman or Senator. But that is my opinion. Do not confuse it with unambiguous facts I have presented above.

Why are you trying to bring statistical data and logic to VJ?

This means nothing to people who have already bought into the fears created by the GOP.

Apparently, fear is much more convincing that data.

Part of being American, to me, is an optimism that people, when confronted with stubborn facts, may reassess their positions.

[peejay 327]

Rather than focusing on the top of the chain - focus on the House and Senate would be more appropriate since their behavior/actions (or inactions) are what really drives/steers the country. IMO

OK -- if you analyze the chart with control of congress in mind, here are the numbers: Republicans have been of both houses of Congress for no more than 336 months in the past 80 years. Recessions started with republicans were in control of both houses of congress have lasted 65 months, or 19.3% of the time Republicans controlled both hosues.

Democrats have dominated control of Congress since Republicans lost it in 1930, and have controlled both houses 624 months in the last 80 years. Recessions have lasted 115 months during that time, or 19.0% of the time.

Control of congress doesn't seem to matter with respect to the amount of time the country is in recession -- but control of the White House does!

Why are you trying to bring statistical data and logic to VJ?

This means nothing to people who have already bought into the fears created by the GOP.

Apparently, fear is much more convincing that data.

This data doesn't prove squat. Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle. So by your so called logic we should vote for only Democrats forever and ever so that we never have another recession?

Talk about fear mongering!

While we are at it...how many more rainy / sunny days have there been when there were Republican presidents vs. Democrats? This should prove who really controls the weather too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A recent image in the Wall Street Journal, which I've annotated (and tried to attach) got me thinking.

In the past 80 years, we've had 40 years of Republican presidents and 40 years of Democratic presidents.

There have been 14 recessions. Ten started under Republican presidents; four under Democrat presidents.

Republican recessions have lasted 138 months or over a quarter of their time in power. Democrat recessions have lasted 42 months or not quite 9% of their time in powder.

The last Democrat recession was Kennedy's in April 1960 (although maybe that one should be credited to Eisenhower and Reagan's first recession should be credited to Carter).

When it comes to preventing recessions while they are in power, Democratic presidents seem to do much better than Republicans. Famous Democrat presidents have had to clean up after Republican recessions -- most famously FDR, then Clinton and now, we hope, Obama.

Laissez-faire vs. Keynesian economics. Keynesian Theory FTW!

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Just to be fair...which party had majorities in congress during those 80 years? After all...the president is not an absolute ruler.

the party line is that the president is an absolute ruler, as long as the president is a republican.