Recessions

[Arkady]

Since the end of WWII, here's the percentage of each president's time in office that the nation has spent in recession. From best to worst:

Clinton 0%
Johnson 0%
Kennedy 2.9%
Obama 7.1%
Carter 12.5%
Truman 14.2%
GHW Bush 16.7%
Reagan 16.7%
GW Bush 21.9%
Ford 27.2%
Eisenhower 28.1%
Nixon 28.5%

I color-coded it by party. Notice any odd pattern?

Before you guess that this is because Democrats leave recessions to their Republican successors, the numbers don't support this. Since WWII we've had recessions start during the following presidencies (in parentheses is the number of recessions starting during each presidency)

Truman (1)
Eisenhower (3)
Nixon (2)
Carter (1)
Reagan (1)
GHW Bush (1)
GW Bush (2)

The following presidents had no recessions start on their watch:

Kennedy
Johnson
Ford
Clinton
Obama

So, nine out of eleven recessions started under Republican presidents. A single Republican had more recessions start on his watch than all the Democrats combined. And the only Republican without a recession to his name was Ford, who had less than two and a half years in office, limiting his opportunity.

 

[resident_evil]

As far as I know or care you pulled these numbers out of your ass.

 

[Arkady]

As far as I know or care you pulled these numbers out of your ass.

I did not. The dates of the presidencies are widely available, and I assume most educated people know them off the top of their heads. But, if you need help, I can point you to sources for that. As for the dates of the recessions, they can be found here:

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

So, Obama's been in office for 70.62 months. Of that time, there was a recession for approximately five months (from when he took office in late January 2009 to some point in June 2009 when the economy bottomed out). 5/70.62=0.0708, or approximately 7.1%. Exact figures are impossible since the NBER doesn't specify which exact day a recession begins and ends -- just a month. So, I rounded the start date of the presidency to the nearest month and used that for the calculation. Different methods will achieve slightly different numbers, but the overall pattern won't be changed.

 

[Colorforms]

As far as I know or care you pulled these numbers out of your ass.

She kind of did. The Clinton recession started in mid 2000 with an economic slowdown. Like all of Arkady's figures, they are out of context and very deceptive. For example, Barry's recession was the tail end of the housing bubble in 2008. So even though Barry spent part of his administration in recession, he was not responsible for the housing bubble.

 

[Arkady]

Since the end of WWII, here's the percentage of each president's time in office that the nation has spent in recession. From best to worst:

Clinton 0%
Johnson 0%
Kennedy 2.9%
Obama 7.1%
Carter 12.5%
Truman 14.2%
GHW Bush 16.7%
Reagan 16.7%
GW Bush 21.9%
Ford 27.2%
Eisenhower 28.1%
Nixon 28.5%

I color-coded it by party. Notice any odd pattern?

Before you guess that this is because Democrats leave recessions to their Republican successors, the numbers don't support this. Since WWII we've had recessions start during the following presidencies (in parentheses is the number of recessions starting during each presidency)

Truman (1)
Eisenhower (3)
Nixon (2)
Carter (1)
Reagan (1)
GHW Bush (1)
GW Bush (2)

The following presidents had no recessions start on their watch:

Kennedy
Johnson
Ford
Clinton
Obama

So, nine out of eleven recessions started under Republican presidents. A single Republican had more recessions start on his watch than all the Democrats combined. And the only Republican without a recession to his name was Ford, who had less than two and a half years in office, limiting his opportunity.

Just to flesh it out a bit, if you want to go back to Hoover, instead of WWII, it changes the numbers a bit. Then Truman (who bore the demobilization recession at the end of WWII) goes up to 19.3%, FDR comes in at 9.6%, and Hoover at 89.5% (presumably the worst in American history -- he took office in March of 1929, the economy went into recession five months later, and never came out until he was out of office.)

 

[Arkady]

She kind of did. The Clinton recession started in mid 2000 with an economic slowdown. Like all of Arkady's figures, they are out of context and very deceptive. For example, Barry's recession was the tail end of the housing bubble in 2008. So even though Barry spent part of his administration in recession, he was not responsible for the housing bubble.

No. You are simply ignorant of history. There was never a Clinton recession. The economy continued to grow throughout the Clinton presidency and only hit its peak for that cycle in Bush's third month in office:

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

Facts matter.

Also, a "recession" isn't an "economic slowdown" (which could suggest merely a reduction in the rate of growth, of the sort we had at points of the Clinton presidency, and which would mean we were going into recession every few months even in extremely strong economies). Instead, a recession is the period between an economic peak and trough. In order to have a recession, you need to have a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, not just a slowdown:

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

 

[Arkady]

Since the end of WWII, here's the percentage of each president's time in office that the nation has spent in recession. From best to worst:

Clinton 0%
Johnson 0%
Kennedy 2.9%
Obama 7.1%
Carter 12.5%
Truman 14.2%
GHW Bush 16.7%
Reagan 16.7%
GW Bush 21.9%
Ford 27.2%
Eisenhower 28.1%
Nixon 28.5%

I color-coded it by party. Notice any odd pattern?

Before you guess that this is because Democrats leave recessions to their Republican successors, the numbers don't support this. Since WWII we've had recessions start during the following presidencies (in parentheses is the number of recessions starting during each presidency)

Truman (1)
Eisenhower (3)
Nixon (2)
Carter (1)
Reagan (1)
GHW Bush (1)
GW Bush (2)

The following presidents had no recessions start on their watch:

Kennedy
Johnson
Ford
Clinton
Obama

So, nine out of eleven recessions started under Republican presidents. A single Republican had more recessions start on his watch than all the Democrats combined. And the only Republican without a recession to his name was Ford, who had less than two and a half years in office, limiting his opportunity.

Another interesting side note: by far the two worst economies in living memory were the recession that started in 2007 and the one that started in 1929. In each case, the trouble started near the end of eight consecutive years of Republican presidencies. The other three periods when Republicans ruled the roost for at least eight years didn't end particularly well, either. The Reagan/Bush era ended with only a moderate recession, but with very severe social problems (e.g., all-time records for teen pregnancy and violent crime), and fiscal trouble (what was, at that point, a record deficit). The Nixon/Ford era had a late recession and also a growing hyperinflation problem. The Eisenhower era had three separate recessions start.

By comparison, periods with at least eight years of Democrats ruling the roost, in that time, ended with strong economies (2.7% unemployment at the end of 1952, 3.4% at the end of 1968, and 3.9% at the end of 2000). I find it interesting how well things tend to go when we have more than a few years of Democrats in the White House. It'll be interesting to see if that run continues with Obama. Right now, job creation is decent, unemployment has been falling, poverty is coming down, deficits are plummeting, stock markets are soaring, etc. It's unlikely we'll match the FDR/Truman, Kennedy/Johnson, or Clinton years, in terms of having such a strong labor market at the end, but if present trends continue, it'll be a respectable labor market by the end of 2016.

 

[Colorforms]

No. You are simply ignorant of history. There was never a Clinton recession. The economy continued to grow throughout the Clinton presidency and only hit its peak for that cycle in Bush's third month in office:

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

Facts matter.

Also, a "recession" isn't an "economic slowdown" (which could suggest merely a reduction in the rate of growth, of the sort we had at points of the Clinton presidency, and which would mean we were going into recession every few months even in extremely strong economies). Instead, a recession is the period between an economic peak and trough. In order to have a recession, you need to have a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, not just a slowdown:

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

You can pretend that you're not trying to deceive people all you want, but you're always brutally dishonest. The Clinton recession technically began under Bush, however, the economy had started to flatline in mid 2000. There was nothing that Bush could have done to avoid Clinton's recession. That's why it's called the Clinton recession.

I realize that honest debate is beyond your capability. I'm just setting the record straight.

 

[Arkady]

You can pretend that you're not trying to deceive people all you want, but you're always brutally dishonest. The Clinton recession technically began under Bush, however, the economy had started to flatline in mid 2000. There was nothing that Bush could have done to avoid Clonton's recession. That's why it's called the Clinton recession.

I realize that honest debate is beyond your capability. I'm just setting the record straight.

The economy did not start to flatline in mid 2000. It continued to improve. The GDP continued to rise and the unemployment rate continued to fall (from 4.1% in August 2000, down to 3.9% in December 2000). In fact, 4th quarter GDP growth was stronger than third quarter GDP growth, so you could even speculate we were accelerating out of a soft patch when Clinton left office.

Of course, it's possible that even a competent president wouldn't have been able to avoid the recession of 2001. After all, that had already been, by a big margin, the longest economic boom in all of American history, so maybe we were due to take a breather no matter what. I certainly can't prove otherwise. But the fact is the economy kept on growing until Bush's third month in office. And, according to the NBER, it may have been possible to avoid recession as late as September 2001 (in other words, if the economy had picked up by then, then the "soft patch" would have been too short to qualify as a recession).

But, no matter how we speculate about it, the fact remains the economy didn't spend so much as as single day of the eight Clinton years in recession. It fell into recession only after Bush took office, which is why that recession is called the first Bush recession (the second being the one we fell into near the end of his presidency).

With so very many recessions having started under Republican presidents, I understand your desire to shift one to the Democratic column. It's an embarrassment of riches, I'm sure, and your generosity is much appreciated. But I'm afraid I must politely decline.

 

[Colorforms]

The economy did not start to flatline in mid 2000. It continued to improve. The GDP continued to rise and the unemployment rate continued to fall (from 4.1% in August 2000, down to 3.9% in December 2000). In fact, 4th quarter GDP growth was stronger than third quarter GDP growth, so you could even speculate we were accelerating out of a soft patch when Clinton left office.

Of course, it's possible that even a competent president wouldn't have been able to avoid the recession of 2001. After all, that had already been, by a big margin, the longest economic boom in all of American history, so maybe we were due to take a breather no matter what. I certainly can't prove otherwise. But the fact is the economy kept on growing until Bush's third month in office. And, according to the NBER, it may have been possible to avoid recession as late as September 2001 (in other words, if the economy had picked up by then, then the "soft patch" would have been too short to qualify as a recession).

But, no matter how we speculate about it, the fact remains the economy didn't spend so much as as single day of the eight Clinton years in recession. It fell into recession only after Bush took office, which is why that recession is called the first Bush recession (the second being the one we fell into near the end of his presidency).

With so very many recessions having started under Republican presidents, I understand your desire to shift one to the Democratic column. It's an embarrassment of riches, I'm sure, and your generosity is much appreciated. But I'm afraid I must politely decline.

No speculation required:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-80312

According to the Council of Economic Advisers, the median date of these five data series is October 2000 - at least three months before George W. Bush took office. We also know that the stock market started to decline in March of 2000, business investment began to fall in the third quarter of 2000, and initial jobless claims began to rise at the end of 2000 - more evidence that the U.S. economy in late 2000 was in fact "on the front end of a recession," as Vice President-elect Dick Cheney observed on Meet the Press on December 3, 2000

 

[marvin martian]

Since the end of WWII, here's the percentage of each president's time in office that the nation has spent in recession. From best to worst:

Clinton 0%
Johnson 0%
Kennedy 2.9%
Obama 7.1%
Carter 12.5%
Truman 14.2%
GHW Bush 16.7%
Reagan 16.7%
GW Bush 21.9%
Ford 27.2%
Eisenhower 28.1%
Nixon 28.5%

I color-coded it by party. Notice any odd pattern?

Before you guess that this is because Democrats leave recessions to their Republican successors, the numbers don't support this. Since WWII we've had recessions start during the following presidencies (in parentheses is the number of recessions starting during each presidency)

Truman (1)
Eisenhower (3)
Nixon (2)
Carter (1)
Reagan (1)
GHW Bush (1)
GW Bush (2)

The following presidents had no recessions start on their watch:

Kennedy
Johnson
Ford
Clinton
Obama

So, nine out of eleven recessions started under Republican presidents. A single Republican had more recessions start on his watch than all the Democrats combined. And the only Republican without a recession to his name was Ford, who had less than two and a half years in office, limiting his opportunity.

The only patterns I notice are you (again) lying by omission, and bad data...

 

[Arkady]

No speculation required:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-80312

What I find fascinating is how incredibly thick-witted right-wingers are. I mean, if I hadn't seen it repeatedly myself, I'd consider it implausible that anyone could be stupid enough to cite a CNN iReport to make a point. It's as if the right-wingers don't realize that's like citing a Politicaljack post to back an argument. iReport is simply a place for anonymous people to post whatever ramblings they feel like sharing, without any vetting. That particular piece comes from "cher" -- some anonymous persona whose iReport profile has since been deleted.

This is not, of course, the first time a dumb right-winger has cited iReport as evidence here. It happens repeatedly:

You cited the same piece of drivel in the past:
https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/something-has-been-replaced-with-nothing.75160/page-2

Dawg citing the same trash (it gets a workout from right wingers):
https://www.politicaljack.com/threa...-on-another-vacation.66133/page-4#post-990143

Constitutional Sheepdog:
https://www.politicaljack.com/threa...ada-ranch-standoff.68416/page-12#post-1043374

 

[Arkady]

The only patterns I notice are you (again) lying by omission, and bad data...

Which data is bad, exactly? What relevant information did I omit?

Yeah, I know: you didn't have any particular omissions or bad data in mind -- you just figure that when someone makes a point that bothers you emotionally, you can vaguely accuse the person of lying and then move on. Do you get a sense for why everyone thinks you're a clown?

 

[Colorforms]

What I find fascinating is how incredibly thick-witted right-wingers are. I mean, if I hadn't seen it repeatedly myself, I'd consider it implausible that anyone could be stupid enough to cite a CNN iReport to make a point. It's as if the right-wingers don't realize that's like citing a Politicaljack post to back an argument. iReport is simply a place for anonymous people to post whatever ramblings they feel like sharing, without any vetting. That particular piece comes from "cher" -- some anonymous persona whose iReport profile has since been deleted.

This is not, of course, the first time a dumb right-winger has cited iReport as evidence here. It happens repeatedly:

You cited the same piece of drivel in the past:
https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/something-has-been-replaced-with-nothing.75160/page-2

Dawg citing the same trash (it gets a workout from right wingers):
https://www.politicaljack.com/threa...-on-another-vacation.66133/page-4#post-990143

Constitutional Sheepdog:
https://www.politicaljack.com/threa...ada-ranch-standoff.68416/page-12#post-1043374

As I said, Arkady, I'm just setting the record straight. I've already been through the "your source is not worth my time" BS with you with every source that I have ever used. Again, you're just not capable of honest debate. Sorry Arkady, you're too far beneath me.

 

[Arkady]

As I said, Arkady, I'm just setting the record straight. I've already been through the "your source is not worth my time" BS with you with every source that I have ever used. Again, you're just not capable of honest debate. Sorry Arkady, you're too far beneath me.

You reference a website that features unvetted individuals posting un-fact-checked material through pseudonym identities. Then you act as if it's somehow out-of-order for me to scoff at your source. You're a joke. If you want to be taken seriously, step up your game.

 

[Colorforms]

You reference a website that features unvetted individuals posting un-fact-checked material through pseudonym identities. Then you act as if it's somehow out-of-order for me to scoff at your source. You're a joke. If you want to be taken seriously, step up your game.

This isn't my first post to you, Forest. I have yet to find a website or author that you deem worthy of rebutting. Like I said, this isn't a debate, because you're too dishonest to debate.

 

[middleview]

The only patterns I notice are you (again) lying by omission, and bad data...

Ah...the old "liar, liar" tactic....that'll work.

 

[Arkady]

This isn't my first post to you, Forest. I have yet to find a website or author that you deem worthy of rebutting. Like I said, this isn't a debate, because you're too dishonest to debate.

Try a reputable news source or official outlet.

 

[Lukey]

I did not. The dates of the presidencies are widely available, and I assume most educated people know them off the top of their heads. But, if you need help, I can point you to sources for that. As for the dates of the recessions, they can be found here:

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

So, Obama's been in office for 70.62 months. Of that time, there was a recession for approximately five months (from when he took office in late January 2009 to some point in June 2009 when the economy bottomed out). 5/70.62=0.0708, or approximately 7.1%. Exact figures are impossible since the NBER doesn't specify which exact day a recession begins and ends -- just a month. So, I rounded the start date of the presidency to the nearest month and used that for the calculation. Different methods will achieve slightly different numbers, but the overall pattern won't be changed.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/31/15-reasons-why-americans-think-were-still-in-a-recession/

 

[Addy]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/31/15-reasons-why-americans-think-were-still-in-a-recession/

Neat link/read, the number 1 reason given at the top of the list if changed would/could help resolve some of the workers' economic woes apparently.

1: Wage Stagnation: Why America’s Workers Need Faster Wage Growth—And What We Can Do About It, Elise Gould, EPI
Economic Policy Institute:
“The hourly compensation of a typical worker grew in tandem with productivity from 1948-1973. …. After 1973, productivity grew strongly, especially after 1995, while the typical worker’s compensation was relatively stagnant. This divergence of pay and productivity has meant that many workers were not benefitting from productivity growth—the economy could afford higher pay but it was not providing it.