Look who is the party of recession!

[high fly]

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

Number of recessions since the one in 1899-1900: 23
Number of Democratic Party presidents: 8
Number of Republican Party presidents: 12

Democrat presidents with a recession that began on their watch: 4
Republican presidents with a recession that began on their watch: 10

Republican presidents with multiple recessions that began on their watch: 6
Democrat presidents with multiple recessions that began on their watch: 2

Recessions that began under a Republican administration: 17
Recessions that began under a Democratic Party administration: 6

Republican recessions handed off to a Democrat: 4
Democratic recessions handed off to a Republican: 1

Republican presidents without a recession that began on their watch: 2
Democrat presidents without a recession that began on their watch: 4

Average length of a recession beginning under a Republican administration: 16.23 months
Average length of a recession beginning under a Democratic administration: 10.5 months

Total length of Democrat recessions: 5 years, 3 months
Total length of Republican recessions: 23 years

[high fly]

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html


RECESSIONS BY PRESIDENT:
Length of recession in months given in parenthesis


June 1899 - Dec. 1900, MCKINLEY, REPUBLICAN, (18)

Sept. 1902 - Aug. 1904, T. ROOSEVELT, REPUBLICAN, (23)

May 1907 - June 1908, T. ROOSEVELT, REPUBLICAN, (13)

Jan. 1910 - Jan. 1912, TAFT, REPUBLICAN, (24)

Jan. 1913 - Dec. 1914, TAFT, REPUBLICAN, (23) (handed off to Wilson)

Aug. 1918 - March 1919, WILSON, DEMOCRAT, (7)

Jan. 1920 - July 1921, WILSON, DEMOCRAT, (18) (handed off to Harding)

May 1923 - July 1924, COOLIDGE, REPUBLICAN, (14)

Oct. 1926 - Nov. 1927, COOLIDGE, REPUBLICAN, (13)

Aug. 1929 - March 1933, HOOVER, REPUBLICAN, (43) (handed off to F. Roosevelt )

May 1937 - June 1938, F. ROOSEVELT, DEMOCRAT, (13)

Feb. 1945 - Oct. 1945, TRUMAN, DEMOCRAT, (8)

Nov. 1948 - Oct. 1949, TRUMAN, DEMOCRAT, (11)

July 1953 - May 1954, EISENHOWER, REPUBLICAN, (10)

Aug. 1957 - April 1958, EISENHOWER, REPUBLICAN, (8)

April 1960 - Feb. 1961, EISENHOWER, REPUBLICAN, (10) (handed off to Kennedy)

Dec. 1969 - Nov. 1970, NIXON, REPUBLICAN, (11)

Nov. 1973 - March 1975, NIXON, REPUBLICAN, (16) (handed off to Ford)

Jan. 1980 - July 1980, CARTER, DEMOCRAT, (6)

July 1981 - Nov. 1982, REAGAN, REPUBLICAN, (16)

July 1990 - March 1991, BUSH SR., REPUBLICAN, (8)

March 2001 - Nov. 2001, BUSH JR., REPUBLICAN, (8)

Dec. 2007 - June 2009, BUSH JR. REPUBLICAN, (18) (handed off to Obama)

[hanso]

Does it have the stock market also?

[StanUpshaw]

I don't see congressional control mentioned anywhere. The president does not have omnipotent control over the economy.

But that's beside the point. We've never had a laissez-faire economy. Each party has foisted upon us, and the rest of the world, its version of monetary manipulation, trade distortion, and good old-fashioned corruption and plunder.

But no, you're right. Your slavemaster is better because he only beats you with a stick, while mine beats me with a whip.

[weekapaugjz]

The president does not have omnipotent control over the economy.

i'm still working through the long-winded previous points, but this hits the nail on the head.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

The stock market is not the leading indicator of the economy.


I dont know who wants to be super democrat more, Epo or HF ?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I don't see congressional control mentioned anywhere. The president does not have omnipotent control over the economy.

But that's beside the point. We've never had a laissez-faire economy. Each party has foisted upon us, and the rest of the world, its version of monetary manipulation, trade distortion, and good old-fashioned corruption and plunder.

But no, you're right. Your slavemaster is better because he only beats you with a stick, while mine beats me with a whip.

That doesnt mean the statists would not want that to happen, They love an imperial presidencies especially when a president can start wars without congressional approval as our constitutional scholar did with Libya


And bankruptcy laws? Fuck them too, we got some auto companies to bail out

[hanso]

The stock market is not the leading indicator of the economy.


I dont know who wants to be super democrat more, Epo or HF ?

Well let's just have a look at it anyway shall we?

When we were in recession the Dow was lower by some 4k points. Non sequitur? Can you show any recessions where we had a high holding market?

[Kevin]

When people realize that as long as a President needs and takes large sums of money to finance his campaign, he has no power or say on anything what so ever. Then it will all be easier to figure out that no one president is to blame or to praise for anything right or wrong.

They are all bought and paid.


That is why democracy is a sham.

The ones with the power do not want all the scrutiny or backlash that publicly comes with it.

They buy a charasmatic person to do all their work, they are "the help" just like everyone else in their lives.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Well let's just have a look at it anyway shall we?

When we were in recession the Dow was lower by some 4k points. Non sequitur? Can you show any recessions where we had a high holding market?


Rounds of QE and purchasing of MBS by the Fed makes for a weak dollar in this case. The stock market is another bubble now just like in 2007

[StanUpshaw]

Rounds of QE and purchasing of MBS by the Fed makes for a weak dollar in this case. The stock market is another bubble now just like in 2007

B...b...but...the nominal value of my 401k is almost back to where it was!

[Crispy123]

Well let's just have a look at it anyway shall we?

When we were in recession the Dow was lower by some 4k points. Non sequitur? Can you show any recessions where we had a high holding market?

I thought when people make statements and proclaim them to be true we HAVE to accept it as fact. You must be a liberal.

[Bob Impact]

All of that work and this data isn't statistically significant in the slightest. Imagine that.

[cougarjake13]

When people realize that as long as a President needs and takes large sums of money to finance his campaign, he has no power or say on anything what so ever. Then it will all be easier to figure out that no one president is to blame or to praise for anything right or wrong.

They are all bought and paid.


That is why democracy is a sham.

The ones with the power do not want all the scrutiny or backlash that publicly comes with it.

They buy a charasmatic person to do all their work, they are "the help" just like everyone else in their lives.



Current democracy is a sham but I don't think it always was
It may have been and it's just more noticeable bc the diff betw haves and have nots is greater now

Prob only a select few know the real deal

[StanUpshaw]

Current democracy is a sham but I don't think it always was
It may have been and it's just more noticeable bc the diff betw haves and have nots is greater now

Prob only a select few know the real deal

Democracy was better when the have nots weren't even allowed to vote?

[JohnGacysCrawlSpace]

Democracy was better when the you-know-whats weren't allowed to vote.

[high fly]

I don't see congressional control mentioned anywhere. The president does not have omnipotent control over the economy.

Indeed.
To extend the point, it would seem recessions would occur with roughly the same regularity regardless of who is in power.
But we see it doesn't, therefore your point doesn't address the disparity seen.

There is no mention of congressional control because by and large, presidents are able to implement their policies regardless of who controls congress. Reagan got his program passed despite Democratic control of the House, and Bush Jr's policies remained in place when the Democrats regained slim majorities in congress.

Taken as a whole, we can see that recessions occur when a Republican is president to a degree of severity and frequency that can't be ignored or dismissed when we look at such a lengthy historic trend.

[hanso]

Rounds of QE and purchasing of MBS by the Fed makes for a weak dollar in this case. The stock market is another bubble now just like in 2007

But I thought you said the office has no hold on the economy.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

But I thought you said the office has no hold on the economy.

Policies of the president does, Also there are a lot of transaction btwn the Federal reserve and US Treasury (a cabinet position)

[high fly]

Rounds of QE and purchasing of MBS by the Fed makes for a weak dollar in this case. The stock market is another bubble now just like in 2007


Your inability to address the OP is taken as a forfeit.
History shows the recessions can be expected when Republicans are elected president, and those recessions are the most severe.

When we look at the number of Democratic Party presidents and the number of Republican Party presidents, and then consider facts such as:

Total length of Democrat recessions: 5 years, 3 months
Total length of Republican recessions: 23 years

- something other than deflection is called for.
Unless you wish to concede what the facts show in terms of how much worse things tend to be when Republicans are president.
If you have contrary historic data that would indicate different conclusions, let's see it.

[Kevin]

Democracy was better when the you-know-whats weren't allowed to vote.

Irish?

[hanso]

Rounds of QE and purchasing of MBS by the Fed makes for a weak dollar in this case. The stock market is another bubble now just like in 2007

But I thought you said the office has no hold on the economy.



Starting two wars while lowering (elitist) taxes for the first time history, and keeping all this off the books wouldn't have ill effects on economy would it?

This has to be secular.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Your inability to address the OP is taken as a forfeit.
History shows the recessions can be expected when Republicans are elected president, and those recessions are the most severe.

When we look at the number of Democratic Party presidents and the number of Republican Party presidents, and then consider facts such as:

Total length of Democrat recessions: 5 years, 3 months
Total length of Republican recessions: 23 years

- something other than deflection is called for.
Unless you wish to concede what the facts show in terms of how much worse things tend to be when Republicans are president.
If you have contrary historic data that would indicate different conclusions, let's see it.



Your partisan hackery shows


Youre excellent at just posting bumper sticker lines without even digging into why there are recessions.


But all is well right? Obama rescued the economy, the auto industry and the stock market is booming

[brettmojo]

Your partisan hackery shows


Youre excellent at just posting bumper sticker lines without even digging into why there are recessions.
HA!

[WRESTLINGFAN]

But I thought you said the office has no hold on the economy.



Starting two wars while lowering (elitist) taxes for the first time history, and keeping all this off the books wouldn't have ill effects on economy would it?

This has to be secular.

Bush was no conservative at all, His congresses also passed a usesless medicare part D bill. And Obama doubling down on the spending with a democratic majority for 2 years makes things better?

[Crispy123]

WOW. http://mychinaconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/pot-kettle-black-by-john-takai-dreamstime.jpg

[high fly]

Your partisan hackery shows


The OP and the following post consist of facts you are unable to address.
Not finding anything suitable at the Heritage Foundation, eh?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

The OP and the following post consist of facts you are unable to address.
Not finding anything suitable at the Heritage Foundation, eh?

Youre throwing shit against the wall like spaghetti and not really providing the real explanations.


One example. That Clinton recovery in the early 90's started in April of 92. Bush 41 was still in office. He inherited an improvong economy

[high fly]

Youre throwing shit against the wall like spaghetti and not really providing the real explanations.


One example. That Clinton recovery in the early 90's started in April of 92. Bush 41 was still in office. He inherited an improvong economy


“Day after day during the presidential campaign year of 1992, such industrial giants as General Motors, General Electric, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Sears, Unysis, Dupont and TRW announced major reductions in plant and personnel.
IBM cut 100,000 jobs and closed ¼ of its factories. GM cut 74,000 jobs.
In the first week after his inauguration, four more corporate giants – Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, United Technologies and Sears Roebuck – announced the elimination of 100,000 “good” jobs providing full time work at high wages with full benefits. Housing sales fell nearly 14 percent in the month after Clinton became president.”
- Divided We Fall, by Haynes Johnson


Some recovery.
Back to the drawing board for you.
Still searching Heritage Foundation for something, anything that would explain how so many recessions follow Republicans, eh?
Nothing there that addresses the trend over a whole century, huh?
Maybe you'd better go back to name-calling.....

[high fly]

Youre throwing shit against the wall like spaghetti and not really providing the real explanations.


The explanation is obvious.
Elect a Republican, get a recession.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Larry Elder writes


"Bill Clinton entered office in January 1993. According to the NBER, did he inherit a recession? Not even close. The recession began in July 1990 and ended eight months later, in March 1991 -- a full 19 months before Clinton was even elected.

Let's be charitable. Perhaps the documentary used a different definition of recession. True, some experts use another standard: two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. But during Bush-41's last year in office -- 1992, the year voters elected Clinton -- the economy grew every quarter, averaging 3.2 percent.

But today, nearly two decades after the fact, the PBS narrator solemnly states that "as Clinton took office in the winter of 1993, the economic crisis that had propelled him into office showed few signs of abating" -- even though the economy was then on its 22nd consecutive month of positive growth!

Really? "In the winter of 1993 ... the economic crisis ... showed few signs of abating"? Jan. 29, 1993, seven days after Clinton took office, The New York Times wrote, "U.S. Says Economy Grew at Fast Pace in Fourth Quarter: The economy grew at a faster-than-expected annual rate of 3.8 percent in the final quarter of 1992, the strongest performance in four years, the Commerce Department reported today."

[high fly]

Larry Elder writes


Larry Elder writes where?
I'll concede the economy was expanding, but not to any significant degree. It was barely moving forward, unlike the 4% GDP that came in 1994 after Clintonomics was implemented. Clinton was handed off a floundering economy, 7.4% unemployment rate, a deficit near $300 billion and had to soon find the money to pay off the S&L deregulation tab, which was over $125 billion.
If things were going so great, the mantra of the Clinton campaign would not have been, "It's the economy, stupid."
It would have been the mantra of the Bush campaign.
Can you explain that?

I take it you are conceding the trend spanning from 1899 to 2012 as a long string of Republican disaster compared to what happened under Democratic Party presidents.
It's just not a topic you are equipped to address.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Larry Elder writes where?
I'll concede the economy was expanding, but not to any significant degree. It was barely moving forward, unlike the 4% GDP that came in 1994 after Clintonomics was implemented. Clinton was handed off a floundering economy, 7.4% unemployment rate, a deficit near $300 billion and had to soon find the money to pay off the S&L deregulation tab, which was over $125 billion.
If things were going so great, the mantra of the Clinton campaign would not have been, "It's the economy, stupid."
It would have been the mantra of the Bush campaign.

I take it you are conceding the trend spanning from 1899 to 2012 as a long string of Republican disaster compared to what happened under Democratic Party presidents.
It's just not a topic you are equipped to address.

Just throwing lines about Presidents and recessions without really providing any substance makes you really qualified to be an expert

[WRESTLINGFAN]

More from Larry Elder


"In October 1992, as President George Herbert Walker Bush ran for re-election against Bill Clinton, the economy was 18 months into a recovery. But as Investor's Business Daily noted, 90 percent of the newspaper stories on the economy were negative. Yet the following month, when Clinton defeated Bush-41, suddenly only 14 percent of economic news stories were negative!"

[high fly]

I didn't claim to be an expert. That is something you are talking about, then rebutting no one but yourself.
I think you are inventing quotes from someone named "Larry Elder."
Your reluctance to say where you get it from is noted.

This part seems to be a stumbling block for you:

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

Number of recessions since the one in 1899-1900: 23
Number of Democratic Party presidents: 8
Number of Republican Party presidents: 12

Democrat presidents with a recession that began on their watch: 4
Republican presidents with a recession that began on their watch: 10

Republican presidents with multiple recessions that began on their watch: 6
Democrat presidents with multiple recessions that began on their watch: 2

Recessions that began under a Republican administration: 17
Recessions that began under a Democratic Party administration: 6

Republican recessions handed off to a Democrat: 4
Democratic recessions handed off to a Republican: 1

Republican presidents without a recession that began on their watch: 2
Democrat presidents without a recession that began on their watch: 4

Average length of a recession beginning under a Republican administration: 16.23 months
Average length of a recession beginning under a Democratic administration: 10.5 months

Total length of Democrat recessions: 5 years, 3 months
Total length of Republican recessions: 23 years

[high fly]

Since you are so reluctant to say where you're getting your Larry Elder bumph from, here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2852975/posts


No surprise you didn't want to own up to being a freeper..........

[StanUpshaw]

Since you are so reluctant to say where you're getting your Larry Elder bumph from, here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2852975/posts


No surprise you didn't want to own up to being a freeper..........

:rolleyes:

http://i.imgur.com/87QYY.png

I don't know why I'm surprised this is the level of your intellectual integrity.

[high fly]

Here's the other part you guys can't handle:



http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html


RECESSIONS BY PRESIDENT:
Length of recession in months given in parenthesis


June 1899 - Dec. 1900, MCKINLEY, REPUBLICAN, (18)

Sept. 1902 - Aug. 1904, T. ROOSEVELT, REPUBLICAN, (23)

May 1907 - June 1908, T. ROOSEVELT, REPUBLICAN, (13)

Jan. 1910 - Jan. 1912, TAFT, REPUBLICAN, (24)

Jan. 1913 - Dec. 1914, TAFT, REPUBLICAN, (23) (handed off to Wilson)

Aug. 1918 - March 1919, WILSON, DEMOCRAT, (7)

Jan. 1920 - July 1921, WILSON, DEMOCRAT, (18) (handed off to Harding)

May 1923 - July 1924, COOLIDGE, REPUBLICAN, (14)

Oct. 1926 - Nov. 1927, COOLIDGE, REPUBLICAN, (13)

Aug. 1929 - March 1933, HOOVER, REPUBLICAN, (43) (handed off to F. Roosevelt )

May 1937 - June 1938, F. ROOSEVELT, DEMOCRAT, (13)

Feb. 1945 - Oct. 1945, TRUMAN, DEMOCRAT, (8)

Nov. 1948 - Oct. 1949, TRUMAN, DEMOCRAT, (11)

July 1953 - May 1954, EISENHOWER, REPUBLICAN, (10)

Aug. 1957 - April 1958, EISENHOWER, REPUBLICAN, (8)

April 1960 - Feb. 1961, EISENHOWER, REPUBLICAN, (10) (handed off to Kennedy)

Dec. 1969 - Nov. 1970, NIXON, REPUBLICAN, (11)

Nov. 1973 - March 1975, NIXON, REPUBLICAN, (16) (handed off to Ford)

Jan. 1980 - July 1980, CARTER, DEMOCRAT, (6)

July 1981 - Nov. 1982, REAGAN, REPUBLICAN, (16)

July 1990 - March 1991, BUSH SR., REPUBLICAN, (8)

March 2001 - Nov. 2001, BUSH JR., REPUBLICAN, (8)

Dec. 2007 - June 2009, BUSH JR. REPUBLICAN, (18) (handed off to Obama)



Frustrating, isn't it?

[StanUpshaw]

Here's the other part you guys can't handle:

Handle what our resident statistician said:

All of that work and this data isn't statistically significant in the slightest. Imagine that.

[Chigworthy]

I'm going to look to leaders of my party for guidance on this issue, then craft a retort to all those in favor of the opposite side. I may even get up in arms a bit with you folks and post unreasonable assertions that support my side.

[Bob Impact]

Handle what our resident statistician said:

Is it fallacious to appeal to authority if I appeal to my own authority?

But seriously, I do appreciate the work involved highfly but this data does mean fuck all. For one you're implying FAR more causation than the data allows, second, any first semester economist could tell you that there are way more factors involved in the economy than the president, not the least of which are no less than 6 major wars. Not to mention long range hypothetical impacts that cannot truly be accounted for (for an accessible example, the theorized link between Roe v. Wade & economic/crime rate benefits).

In any case, by writing the last paragraph I've given your argument far too much credence already. Unless you plan to analyze the full scope of the data and factors involved I'm afraid you've done a lot of cross referencing for no good reason.

[high fly]

Is it fallacious to appeal to authority if I appeal to my own authority?

But seriously, I do appreciate the work involved highfly but this data does mean fuck all. For one you're implying FAR more causation than the data allows, second, any first semester economist could tell you that there are way more factors involved in the economy than the president, not the least of which are no less than 6 major wars. Not to mention long range hypothetical impacts that cannot truly be accounted for (for an accessible example, the theorized link between Roe v. Wade & economic/crime rate benefits).

In any case, by writing the last paragraph I've given your argument far too much credence already. Unless you plan to analyze the full scope of the data and factors involved I'm afraid you've done a lot of cross referencing for no good reason.


Sounds like another way of denying the information posted. I just posted what I found and didn't imply anything.
Even if you want to say it is all merely coincidence, it is rather obvious that recessions occur a lot more frequently and in greater severity when a Republican is president. I await an explanation as to why that keeps happening.
Rather than listen to a first-year economist, I prefer to just post hard facts. Even with post-grad economists, opinions often vary widely. But the facts I presented do not. They are historic facts.
Poor economic performance occurs far more often when Republicans are elected president and the better economic growth occurs when Democrats are in the White House, whether by accident or design.
I also believe economic policies affect the economy.
Stiglitz' book the Roaring 90s is one I liked for its explanation of how Clintonomics worked.
For example, at the time it passed in '93, the tax increase reduced the deficit significantly. Lending institutions (we weren't borrowing as much from China then) were lending to the government to finance the deficit. The reduction made a hundred or so billion dollars available to be loaned to business. This gave a jolt to the economy. That, along with flatlining discretionary spending, reducing the size of the federal government and wise trade policies that ended up helping to boost exports 90% in his term were major factors in the incredible success of Clintonomics (a term used derisively by Republicans predicting recession but they don't use it any more).

[StanUpshaw]

High fly on a fact finding mission

http://i.imgur.com/Z3Y9c.jpg

[Crispy123]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MrBeQJ81v4w/TKeHcBLtXlI/AAAAAAAAACc/hTHcOvEcRp4/S1600-R/SnarkyGirls.png

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MrBeQJ81v4w/SMrxt37CgvI/AAAAAAAAAAo/i_I8B0XZgNY/s400/bonus.jpg

[high fly]

High fly on a fact finding mission

http://i.imgur.com/Z3Y9c.jpg

Naw, man, that's Republicans up the trying to get away from the facts.....

[Bob Impact]

I'm at a loss. It's been explained to you several times why this is a fruitless endeavor but you're simply not going to listen to any of it anyway so sure, you're right.

This is why I don't even fuckin' bother trying to teach people shit any more. You don't want to learn, you don't want to understand, you want to make whatever point you want to make against the other side.

[high fly]

I'm at a loss. It's been explained to you several times why this is a fruitless endeavor but you're simply not going to listen to any of it anyway so sure, you're right.

This is why I don't even fuckin' bother trying to teach people shit any more. You don't want to learn, you don't want to understand, you want to make whatever point you want to make against the other side.

I agree with you there are other factors besides any administration's policy that have an impact, but would add the response to those factors also come into play. What has taken place in the real world for over 100 years is economic performance during Republican administrations is far worse than under Democratic administrations that, in the same period of time, faced those same factors at one time or another.
But since those numbers over a long period contradict preconceived notions you have, you choose to refuse to learn and refuse to see an unmistakable trend.

Interestingly, those Democratic administrations tended to be more successful despite being handed off economies in worse shape than some of those handed off to Republicans.
Note that on 4 occasions Republican administrations handed off a recession to a Democratic administration, while only one Democratic Party administration handed off a recession to a Republican president. That should have helped skew things in favor of economic performance under GOP administrations but, alas, despite having this thumb on the scales, it didn't happen.
Overall, the Democratic presidents in that period were handed off worse economies than the Republicans, yet things still turned out better under the Democrats.
In more recent times we have had 6 Republican and 6 Democratic Party presidents since World War II, but 9 of the 12 recessions in that period took place under Republican administrations.
Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton did not have recessions begin on their watch, bit for the Republicans that only happened under Ford.

Given the above, I find it odd that anyone would back the Republicans on economics, given their poor performance over the last 112 years.
Some just seem to insist on backing a loser.

[StanUpshaw]

http://www.mrscienceshow.com/2009/05/correlation-of-week-zombies-vampires.html

Republicans cause zombie movies and democrats cause vampire movies. It's an unmistakable trends. The facts don't lie.

[Crispy123]

http://i.imgur.com/Cq8Ze.jpg

[high fly]

http://www.mrscienceshow.com/2009/05/correlation-of-week-zombies-vampires.html

Republicans cause zombie movies and democrats cause vampire movies. It's an unmistakable trends. The facts don't lie.

I agree.
No sense arguing with scientific proof, especially when it explains why the economy does better under Democratic Presidents than under Republicans, even though Republicans tend to get a head start and Democrats labor under the burden of being handed off recessions, including the Great Depression.
Yep, it's all right there.
I knew I could count on you to respond to facts with pertinent facts of your own.
Democratic presidents also have a lucky rabbits foot while Republicans depend on a horseshoe nailed over the door that doesn't work, obviously...

[sailor]

http://i.imgur.com/Cq8Ze.jpg

chewbacca defense (http://youtu.be/clKi92j6eLE)

[hanso]

http://i.imgur.com/f89Fa.png

[Chigworthy]

http://i.imgur.com/f89Fa.png

This numerical data further cements my support for a side of this issue.

[Bob Impact]

This is the dumbest thread I've seen here in a long time.

[high fly]

How about some more official stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis going back to World War Two!:

Percentage change in job growth from beginning of term:
1) Johnson ………… 21.3% ………. DEMOCRAT
2) Truman ………. 21% ………. DEMOCRAT
3) Clinton ……….. 20.7% ………. DEMOCRAT
4) Reagan ……….. 17.7% ………. REPUBLICAN
5) Nixon ………. 13.2% ………. REPUBLICAN

6) Carter ……….. 12.8% ………. DEMOCRAT
7) Eisenhower ……….. 7.1% ………. REPUBLICAN
8) Kennedy ……….. 6.7% ………. DEMOCRAT
9) Ford ……….. 2.6% ………. REPUBLICAN
10) Bush ……….. 2.4% ………. REPUBLICAN
11) Bush ………. 2% ………. REPUBLICAN


Annualized job growth:
1) Johnson ………… 3.8% ………. DEMOCRAT
2) Carter ………. 3.1% ………. DEMOCRAT
3) Clinton ………. 2.4% ………. DEMOCRAT
4) Kennedy ……….. 2.3% ………. DEMOCRAT
5) Truman ………. 2.2% ………. DEMOCRAT

6) Nixon ………. 2.2% ………. REPUBLICAN
7) Reagan ……….. 2.1% ………. REPUBLICAN
8)Ford ………. 1.1% ………. REPUBLICAN
9) Eisenhower ……….. .9% ………. REPUBLICAN
10) Bush ……….. .6% ………. REPUBLICAN
11) Bush ………… .3% ………. REPUBLICAN

Annualized growth of gross domestic product:
1) Kennedy ……….. 5.3% ………. DEMOCRAT
2) Johnson ………… 5.3% ………. DEMOCRAT
3) Clinton ……….. 3.6% ………. DEMOCRAT
4) Carter ………. 3.4% ………. DEMOCRAT
5) Reagan ………. 3.4% ………. REPUBLICAN

6) Ford ………. 3.1% ………. REPUBLICAN
7) Nixon ………. 2.4% ………. REPUBLICAN
8) Eisenhower ……….. 2.3% ………. REPUBLICAN
9) Bush ……….. 1.9% ………. REPUBLICAN
10) Truman ………. 1.8% ………. DEMOCRAT
11) Bush ………. 1.4% ………. REPUBLICAN

Annualized per capita disposable personal income:
1) Johnson ………… 4.1 ………. DEMOCRAT
2) Kennedy ……….. 3.1% ………. DEMOCRAT
3) Reagan ……….. 2.7% ………. REPUBLICAN
4) Nixon ………. 2.6% ………. REPUBLICAN
5) Clinton ……….. 2.3% ………. DEMOCRAT

6) Ford ………. 2.1% ………. REPUBLICAN
7) Carter ………. 1.8% ………. DEMOCRAT
8) Eisenhower ……….. 1.3% ………. REPUBLICAN
9) Bush ………… 1.3% ………. REPUBLICAN
10) Truman ………. .8% ………. DEMOCRAT
11) Bush ……….. .1% ………. REPUBLICAN

See charts accompanying this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011102301.html

[hanso]

This is the dumbest thread in that some of those posting don't face facts, and still back supply side/trickle down/voodoo economics.