What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why are Republicans seen as good economic managers? (1 Viewer)

John Maddens Lunchbox

John Maddens Lunchbox

Socialism for Dummies
The last 5 recessions have occurred under Republican administrations and the last two economic booms have occurred under Democratic admins.

is it time to re-evaluate this stereotype? Democrats have not had a recession under their watch in over 40 years at the federal level.

Trump in 2004 said

: “I’ve been around for a long time and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.”
Click to expand...
USA Today

Under that Reagan-to-Trump timeline, the Republican presidencies had four recessions start in their terms: one each under Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and two under George W. Bush. By contrast, Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had zero.
Click to expand...
Five now with the Trump one added in.

"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."
Click to expand...


Forbes from 2019

In a more brutal assessment from the Washington Post “Trump’s economic brain trust consists of a guy who plays an economist on TV, a crank who has been disowned by the (real) economics profession and the producer of “The Lego Batman Movie.”

Of course a recession during Trump’s term would fit the historical pattern which reveals that recessions are much more common under Republican presidents. This is graphically demonstrated in a pre-election 2016 CNBC article (see chart). It is also a concern that reportedly no one in the Trump administration is preparing for an economic slowdown as they do not want to admit it is a possibility.
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s one long coincidence over 40 years or maybe it’s time to re-evaluate.

I’m open to a discussion on why Republicans should be considered good economic managers, but the image does not match the reality

 
Or fiscally responsible. There is almost no evidence of that being true in decades. They get in office and it’s a smash and grab job from the get go. One might call it looting on a grand scale . 

 
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
The last 5 recessions have occurred under Republican administrations and the last two economic booms have occurred under Democratic admins.

is it time to re-evaluate this stereotype? Democrats have not had a recession under their watch in over 40 years at the federal level.

Trump in 2004 said

USA Today

Five now with the Trump one added in.

Forbes from 2019

Maybe it’s one long coincidence over 40 years or maybe it’s time to re-evaluate.

I’m open to a discussion on why Republicans should be considered good economic managers, but the image does not match the reality
Click to expand...
The recession in 2006-2008 occurred under Bush but the policies that caused the recession were passed/repealed under the Clinton Administration.  Clinton deregulated the mortgage/banking industry by repealing Glass-Steagall and passing the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act.  Clinton also signed into law the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.  These policies deregulated the financial sector and brought investment and commercial banks together (subprime mortgage backed securities wrapped in insurance to make them look like AAA rated securities) and allowed banks to make predatory loans to people (interest only, ARMs or no-doc mortgages).  Once the predatory loans reset in the mid-2000s and the housing market peaked, people began to default on their loans because they couldn't afford the mortgage once the interest-only ran out of the ARM % was too high.  This caused a strain on banking and investment operations (see, Bear Stearns) to fold because they were holding these junk mortgage backed securities that insurance didn't have the ability to cover.  

 
Snotbubbles said:
The recession in 2006-2008 occurred under Bush but the policies that caused the recession were passed/repealed under the Clinton Administration.  Clinton deregulated the mortgage/banking industry by repealing Glass-Steagall and passing the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act.  Clinton also signed into law the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.  These policies deregulated the financial sector and brought investment and commercial banks together (subprime mortgage backed securities wrapped in insurance to make them look like AAA rated securities) and allowed banks to make predatory loans to people (interest only, ARMs or no-doc mortgages).  Once the predatory loans reset in the mid-2000s and the housing market peaked, people began to default on their loans because they couldn't afford the mortgage once the interest-only ran out of the ARM % was too high.  This caused a strain on banking and investment operations (see, Bear Stearns) to fold because they were holding these junk mortgage backed securities that insurance didn't have the ability to cover.  
Click to expand...
Sounds like W should have fixed that issue.  He had 8 years...

 
Should have pushed to repeal the bad laws that enabled those crappy loans.  Not all of them originated before 2000. I bet most were after 2000.

 
Juxtatarot said:
Low taxes and business friendly regulatory climate.
Click to expand...
Yes...its the idea of it...tax cuts that hit the highest and corporations the most...remove regulations and consumer protections which allow for more growth...promise everything you can.  People see that as a great thing...rarely is it really good overall for things in the long run.

 
Snotbubbles said:
So your argument is that the recession was Bush's fault because he didn't repeal the laws put in place by Clinton fast enough?  Damn Republicans.
Click to expand...
I was mostly being facetious.  Not that many people recognized the danger posed by the excesses (mostly under GWB) that resulted from the laws passed in the Clinton era.  Hindsight is 20-20 on these things.  Both political parties bear responsibility for the housing-crisis recession IMO, as do the people of the US for engaging in these activities.

Attributing recessions to the President in office at that time isn't really good practice.  Lots of factors involved and very few data points to draw conclusions.

The two areas where there is a direct influence by the political party in power is on budgeting and tax reform.  The GOP has long pushed for lower taxes and claimed that these low rates "will pay for themselves" through growth.  Not only are the tax rate changes often targeted at those with the most income (trickle down effect, which doesn't work well), but it's pretty clear that the GOP thinks we're on one side of the Laffer curve, when in reality, we're probably on the other side.

 
The Z Machine said:
I was mostly being facetious.  Not that many people recognized the danger posed by the excesses (mostly under GWB) that resulted from the laws passed in the Clinton era.  Hindsight is 20-20 on these things.  Both political parties bear responsibility for the housing-crisis recession IMO, as do the people of the US for engaging in these activities.

Attributing recessions to the President in office at that time isn't really good practice.  Lots of factors involved and very few data points to draw conclusions.

The two areas where there is a direct influence by the political party in power is on budgeting and tax reform.  The GOP has long pushed for lower taxes and claimed that these low rates "will pay for themselves" through growth.  Not only are the tax rate changes often targeted at those with the most income (trickle down effect, which doesn't work well), but it's pretty clear that the GOP thinks we're on one side of the Laffer curve, when in reality, we're probably on the other side.
Click to expand...
Agree.  IMO, the US needs to stop deficit spending.  I'm ok with a tax increase if it's accompanied by a budget decrease.  Neither party seems interested in doing that though.  

 
This is a great question and as someone who held a belief that it was true, I can only offer the reason "why" I believed it was because adults and politicians told me so at a young age.  It wasn't until I was older that I realized that none of them are really fiscally responsible.  None of them have any interest in curtailing our debt.  The best I can hope for anymore is a downward trend of deficits from one year to the next during a Presidential term.  Obviously, that isn't happening right now.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
When has a democrat been seen as a good economic manager? 
Click to expand...
men v women, public v private, white v whoever, liberal v conservative - our job, sociologically, is to find the equilibriums, not work the imbalance. we do not need Democrats, we need liberal imaginations spurring our innovations. we do not need Republicans, we need conservative circumspection at the helm. we need commie wackos reminding us that America is only as strong as its weakest link. we need reactionary nutjobs harping that the business of America is business. we need people to make tolerance a part of decency, we need people to remember decency as the goal of tolerance. we need citizens, not contestants. we gotta stop winning to keep from losing. nufced

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jackstraw
Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy
2
Replies
93
Views
3K
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
Disturbing SPLC Poll On Partisanship & Violence - Rubio Campaign Violently Attacked (6/17/22 10:21 PST)
2
Replies
83
Views
2K
squistion
squistion
Joe Bryant
Election Deniers Are Bad, Right?
20 21 22
Replies
1K
Views
29K
knowledge dropper
knowledge dropper

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top