GOP vs Dem Prez recession record in last 60 years:

[Lobato1]

Eight to One​

Here's the count. You decide.

• Dwight Eisenhower: 2 recessions
  
• Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford: 2 recessions
  
• Ronald Reagan: 1 recession
  
• George H.W. Bush: 1 recession
  
• George W. Bush: 2 recessions

Here are the Democrats:

• John Kennedy & Lyndon Johnson: no recessions
• Jimmy Carter: one recession, the briefest of the era
• Bill Clinton: no recessions

My Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-madrick/the-republican-presidenti_b_147518.html
​

Very, very tough huh DIEHARD Cons?

Live with it.
​

Best Regards
Lobato1

 

[Bo-4]

Yep Lobo.. and the percentage of debt incurred under Puggy presidents is every bit as dominant!

 

[Sgt Staples]

Yep Lobo.. and the percentage of debt incurred under Puggy presidents is every bit as dominant!

Question, since it is congress that controls spending, which party controlled Congress for the most of those 60 years.

And I can tell you this, every budget that was proposed by either a Republican in the White House or a Republican in Congress that CUT SPENDING, and that includes Paul Ryan's current budget, has been shot down by either a Democratically controlled Congress or a Democrat in the White House, with the exception of the Gingrich/ Clinton budget.

 

[Lukey]

Maybe that's because (with the exception of Clinton) the economy doesn't grow enough under Democrat regimes to trigger the business cycle?

 

[Lobato1]

Translation: When I can't reply to theme of TP , I spin my usual BS

Nice try though, try again.

Best Regards
Lobato1

:deadhorse:Question, since it is congress that controls spending, which party controlled Congress for the most of those 60 years.

And I can tell you this, every budget that was proposed by either a Republican in the White House or a Republican in Congress that CUT SPENDING, and that includes Paul Ryan's current budget, has been shot down by either a Democratically controlled Congress or a Democrat in the White House, with the exception of the Gingrich/ Clinton budget.:deadhorse:

 

[OldGaffer]

Question, since it is congress that controls spending, which party controlled Congress for the most of those 60 years.

And I can tell you this, every budget that was proposed by either a Republican in the White House or a Republican in Congress that CUT SPENDING, and that includes Paul Ryan's current budget, has been shot down by either a Democratically controlled Congress or a Democrat in the White House, with the exception of the Gingrich/ Clinton budget.

It was Clinton vetoing republican budget busting, republicans have no street creds on being fiscal conservatives, none.

 

[Lobato1]

Fact that Dems always inherited GOP's recessions went right over your head huh?

Nice try though, try again

Best Regards
Lobato1

:violin:Maybe that's because (with the exception of Clinton) the economy doesn't grow enough under Democrat regimes to trigger the business cycle?:violin:

 

[Bo-4]

Yeah Sarge

It was Clinton vetoing republican budget busting, republicans have no street creds on being fiscal conservatives, none.

You should get back to your usual Marxist spiel as you are failing here. If what you said is true, then the Republican House is to blame for the deficit spending since Jan 2010 and not Obama.

You can't spin it both ways.

 

[Lobato1]

Al Gore VP's Senate tie breaking vote set Clinton's plan in motion

That GOPers then claimed they would take no responsibility for the disastrous results they predicted would happen.

Then when our economy skyrocketed, they then have tried to claim credit to this very day.
​

Sad.

Best Regards
Lobato1

It was Clinton vetoing republican budget busting, republicans have no street creds on being fiscal conservatives, none.

 

[Lukey]

Nice try though, try again

Best Regards
Lobato1

Not really. Not much goes "over my head." Your theory is, of course, crap. And my theory is just as valid.

 

[fairsheet]

Over the last 100 years, the empirical data proves that our economy does somewhat better with Democrats at the presidential helm, than with GOPs at the top.

 

[Lobato1]

This one certainly went over your head. Let's go over this again

Your original moronic contention & in your words not mine:

Maybe that's because (with the exception of Clinton) the economy doesn't grow enough under Democrat regimes to trigger the business cycle?

Now follow me very closely but this time try reading it:

V-E-R-Y, V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y​

Each & every Dem administrations have inherited a "Recession" from each & every outgoing Con administration see?

This means the business cycles were going south per se, when Cons left office.

Capiche?
​

Best Regards
Lobato1

 

[NightSwimmer]

Meh... Facts: You can't trust them. They have a pronounced liberal bias.

Just go with your gut feelings and never say anything that won't fit on a bumper-sticker.

 

[Lukey]

Over the last 100 years, the empirical data proves that our economy does somewhat better with Democrats at the presidential helm, than with GOPs at the top.

Now try digging a little deeper and see how it does when Congress is in the hands of the party that doesn't control the White House.

 

[Lukey]

Your original moronic contention & in your words not mine:



Now follow me very closely but this time try reading it:

V-E-R-Y, V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y​

Each & every Dem administrations have inherited a "Recession" from each & every outgoing Con administration see?

This means the business cycles were going south per se, when Cons left office.

Capiche?
​

Best Regards
Lobato1

I'm afraid not (but I applaud your delusion of self importance, it is important to believe in oneself). At any rate, the idea that the economy turns on a dime and responds to immediate electoral results is absurd. The lag time between cause and effect with respect to economic upswings and downturns (often ranging from six months up to as much as several years) doesn't really lend itself to such a simplistic (timestamp) analysis as your source has done and (frankly) anyone who attempts to make such an argument shows their lack of sophistication. In fact, there's likely way more factual data to back up my "moronic contention" than there is to back up the one in your link.

 

[Lobato1]

Do you realize you've corroborated my contentions proving me right?

& in your words not mine:

At any rate, the idea that the economy turns on a dime and responds to immediate electoral results is absurd. The lag time between cause and effect with respect to economic upswings and downturns (often ranging from six months up to as much as several years) doesn't really lend itself to such a simplistic (timestamp) analysis as your source has done and (frankly) anyone who attempts to make such an argument shows their lack of sophistication.

As I had previously stated:
Each & every Dem administrations have inherited a "Recession" from each & every outgoing Con administration see?

This means the business cycles were going south per se, when Cons left office.

Capiche?
​

As for the rest of your BS & again in your words not mine:

In fact, there's likely way more factual data to back up my "moronic contention" than there is to back up the one in your link.

Are you saying that those recessions in the Republican Administration's years listed on my reference did not happened?

Best Regards
Lobato1

 

[Lukey]

& in your words not mine:



As I had previously stated:
Each & every Dem administrations have inherited a "Recession" from each & every outgoing Con administration see?

This means the business cycles were going south per se, when Cons left office.

Capiche?
​

As for the rest of your BS & again in your words not mine:


Are you saying that those recessions in the Republican Administration's years listed on my reference did not happened?

Best Regards
Lobato1

Oh, yes, and did I mention most economic policy comes out of Congress, which may or may not be in the hands of the same party as the President at any given time? Please, feel free to invest time in these foolish theories as that will only curtail the time you have available to make a coherent argument against Republicans in defense of Obama's Marxist agenda.

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

Maybe that's because (with the exception of Clinton) the economy doesn't grow enough under Democrat regimes to trigger the business cycle?

Are you being serious?

Thx

 

[YouCantHandleDaTruth]

Now try digging a little deeper and see how it does when Congress is in the hands of the party that doesn't control the White House.

Like between 2001 - 2007?

Are you on medicine?

Thx

 

[Lukey]

Are you drunk all day?

Thx

This ain't Crossfire Cappy. Maybe you should rephrase that.