Here's a fun interactive graph

HustlinOwl

I know facts, graphs and numbers and shit for conservatives is like kryptonite to Superman, but should check this out. If you think the President has a huge effect on the economy then it's pretty interesting.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president

doogie

Wrong bored

PurpleThrobber

HustlinOwl said:

I know facts, graphs and numbers and shit for conservatives is like kryptonite to Superman, but should check this out. If you think the President has a huge effect on the economy then it's pretty interesting.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president

You are aware of the Dazzler's maff skills, right?

It's comical you think Obama 'saved' the economy. He was still figuring out where the bathrooms were in the West Wing.

Paulson gets credit for that save.

Rubberfist

Presidents have very little impact on the economy and next to no impact on the stock market.

Timing is everything. The stock market was incredible during the Clinton years but that’s only because we had one of the the biggest tech booms of all time. Bill Gates has infinitely more impact on that economy than Bill Clinton did.

The tech bubble burst under Bush but that wasn’t my his fault. We had a good recovery after that. I remember Fox host getting really frustrated in 2006 because the media was sufficiently praising the “Bush Boom.” Those cries went silent when the housing bubble burst and again that wasn’t Bush’s fault.

Obama got lucky in that he came into office on the tail end of one of the worst recessions of all time and thus his economic and stock market record looks good.

Trump took over a good economy and happily took credit for trends that were already in place. I always thought it was dumb of him to constantly tout “his” stock market and economy numbers cuz that shit can turn on a dime and as we’ve seen that’s exactly what happened. None of this was his fault just as none what what we say before the pandemic had anything to do with him.

The economy and stock market are too big and too complex for one man to have much of an impact.

Sledog

Hosing debacle was all on the dems for laws requiring the loaning unlimited funds to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay it back.

RaceBannon

Rubberfist said:

Presidents have very little impact on the economy and next to no impact on the stock market.

Timing is everything. The stock market was incredible during the Clinton years but that’s only because we had one of the the biggest tech booms of all time. Bill Gates has infinitely more impact on that economy than Bill Clinton did.

The tech bubble burst under Bush but that wasn’t my his fault. We had a good recovery after that. I remember Fox host getting really frustrated in 2006 because the media was sufficiently praising the “Bush Boom.” Those cries went silent when the housing bubble burst and again that wasn’t Bush’s fault.

Obama got lucky in that he came into office on the tail end of one of the worst recessions of all time and thus his economic and stock market record looks good.

Trump took over a good economy and happily took credit for trends that were already in place. I always thought it was dumb of him to constantly tout “his” stock market and economy numbers cuz that shit can turn on a dime and as we’ve seen that’s exactly what happened. None of this was his fault just as none what what we say before the pandemic had anything to do with him.

The economy and stock market are too big and too complex for one man to have much of an impact.

Translation

Biden is about to fuck it up

Rubberfist

Sledog said:

Hosing debacle was all on the dems for laws requiring the loaning unlimited funds to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay it back.

That’s not even close to what happened but not shocking that you’d be horribly misinformed.

PurpleThrobber

Rubberfist said:

Sledog said:

Hosing debacle was all on the dems for laws requiring the loaning unlimited funds to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay it back.

That’s not even close to what happened but not shocking that you’d be horribly misinformed.

Feel to give your version and inform the class.

Sledog

Rubberfist said:

Sledog said:

Hosing debacle was all on the dems for laws requiring the loaning unlimited funds to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay it back.

That’s not even close to what happened but not shocking that you’d be horribly misinformed.

Certainly is. Started under Carter and expanded under Willy.

WestlinnDuck

"The economy and stock market are too big and too complex for one man to have much of an impact."

But not too big and complex for a US Congress and a President to have an impact. Increase taxes on private sector activity and you get less private sector activity. Subsidize sloth and you get more sloth. Import cheap foreign labor and you get lower wages for citizens. Basic econ 101.

doogie

PurpleThrobber said:

Rubberfist said:

Sledog said:

Hosing debacle was all on the dems for laws requiring the loaning unlimited funds to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay it back.

That’s not even close to what happened but not shocking that you’d be horribly misinformed.

Feel to give your version and inform the class.

We’re waiting!

HustlinOwl

Rubberfist said:

Presidents have very little impact on the economy and next to no impact on the stock market.

Timing is everything. The stock market was incredible during the Clinton years but that’s only because we had one of the the biggest tech booms of all time. Bill Gates has infinitely more impact on that economy than Bill Clinton did.

The tech bubble burst under Bush but that wasn’t my his fault. We had a good recovery after that. I remember Fox host getting really frustrated in 2006 because the media was sufficiently praising the “Bush Boom.” Those cries went silent when the housing bubble burst and again that wasn’t Bush’s fault.

Obama got lucky in that he came into office on the tail end of one of the worst recessions of all time and thus his economic and stock market record looks good.

Trump took over a good economy and happily took credit for trends that were already in place. I always thought it was dumb of him to constantly tout “his” stock market and economy numbers cuz that shit can turn on a dime and as we’ve seen that’s exactly what happened. None of this was his fault just as none what what we say before the pandemic had anything to do with him.

The economy and stock market are too big and too complex for one man to have much of an impact.

Thanks @RubberFist, that's basically the point. Most are about timing and not policy. Protectionism and penitential wars that can kill off half the planet are where the POTUS can have some impact. I'm for a certain amount of protectionism, but not really sure on best practice.

RaceBannon

HustlinOwl said:

Rubberfist said:

Presidents have very little impact on the economy and next to no impact on the stock market.

Timing is everything. The stock market was incredible during the Clinton years but that’s only because we had one of the the biggest tech booms of all time. Bill Gates has infinitely more impact on that economy than Bill Clinton did.

The tech bubble burst under Bush but that wasn’t my his fault. We had a good recovery after that. I remember Fox host getting really frustrated in 2006 because the media was sufficiently praising the “Bush Boom.” Those cries went silent when the housing bubble burst and again that wasn’t Bush’s fault.

Obama got lucky in that he came into office on the tail end of one of the worst recessions of all time and thus his economic and stock market record looks good.

Trump took over a good economy and happily took credit for trends that were already in place. I always thought it was dumb of him to constantly tout “his” stock market and economy numbers cuz that shit can turn on a dime and as we’ve seen that’s exactly what happened. None of this was his fault just as none what what we say before the pandemic had anything to do with him.

The economy and stock market are too big and too complex for one man to have much of an impact.

Thanks @RubberFist, that's basically the point. Most are about timing and not policy. Protectionism and penitential wars that can kill off half the planet are where the POTUS can have some impact. I'm for a certain amount of protectionism, but not really sure on best practice.

Just do what you're told to do, dumbfuck

Goduckies

Rubberfist said:

Sledog said:

Hosing debacle was all on the dems for laws requiring the loaning unlimited funds to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay it back.

That’s not even close to what happened but not shocking that you’d be horribly misinformed.

As someone who worked in banking for 15 years, yes that is exactly how it happened. Dems would use the CRA to sue banks to give loans to minorities, will the only way they qualified in large numbers was through stated income and other such crap. And pick a payment loans It was fine when the housing market was going up, but it leveled off for a bit and those loans and defaulted as well as investor homes and then it all went to hell.

GrundleStiltzkin

Rubberfist said:

Presidents have very little impact on the economy and next to no impact on the stock market.

Timing is everything. The stock market was incredible during the Clinton years but that’s only because we had one of the the biggest tech booms of all time. Bill Gates has infinitely more impact on that economy than Bill Clinton did.

The tech bubble burst under Bush but that wasn’t my his fault. We had a good recovery after that. I remember Fox host getting really frustrated in 2006 because the media was sufficiently praising the “Bush Boom.” Those cries went silent when the housing bubble burst and again that wasn’t Bush’s fault.

Obama got lucky in that he came into office on the tail end of one of the worst recessions of all time and thus his economic and stock market record looks good.

Trump took over a good economy and happily took credit for trends that were already in place. I always thought it was dumb of him to constantly tout “his” stock market and economy numbers cuz that shit can turn on a dime and as we’ve seen that’s exactly what happened. None of this was his fault just as none what what we say before the pandemic had anything to do with him.

The economy and stock market are too big and too complex for one man to have much of an impact.

While I tend to agree, presidents get the blame or credit, thems the political rules.

I think they can do more to hurt the economy than help.

GreenRiverGatorz

Sledog said:

Hosing debacle was all on the dems for laws requiring the loaning unlimited funds to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay it back.

It was? The version of history I'm familiar with has both parties allowing F&F to grow unfettered (lol) for decades. To say nothing of the overwhelming bipartisan support for other financial deregulations like the repeal of Glass Steagall.

But I'm curious to hear more about your version of history where it was all the dems fault and the GOP is absolved of all sins.

Goduckies

As to the economy and Presidents, I would rather look at the presidents and congress, back in slick Willie's time, he worked with Newt and that brought huge positives and roared the economy. Under Bush, he was hamstrung by a democratic congress most the time and it slowed. Obama won and in 2 years the GOP took over congress and helped keep a check on him and the market came.back. what normally would have happened is it would have stalled and it was showing that at the end of the Obama years, but when Trump won, he cut regulation (this is where a president and his polices can make a huge difference) and we kept pushing to new heights. 2 years ago, pelosi won and it has slowed again, then Covid. Plus Trump tired to win the war on trade with China and he was doing well(hence the release of covid) and the economy went poof. Also under Obama and now Trump after covid, the fed made huge injections into the market pushing it up as well. If Biden wins within a year we will be in a recession imo

insinceredawg

I was told the stock market would crash if Biden won

NorthwestFresh

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Sledog said:

Hosing debacle was all on the dems for laws requiring the loaning unlimited funds to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay it back.

It was? The version of history I'm familiar with has both parties allowing F&F to grow unfettered (lol) for decades. To say nothing of the overwhelming bipartisan support for other financial deregulations like the repeal of Glass Steagall.

But I'm curious to hear more about your version of history where it was all the dems fault and the GOP is absolved of all sins.

You think it was GOP attorneys suing lenders for red-lining obviously risky (at best) loan applications? I’m not saying they are absolved, but mandating high-risk loans to people who can never pay them back wasn’t a part of the GOP platform. Obama was even one of the Democrats who sued banks before he got into politics to force them into lending to poor minorities.

He “unintentionally” bankrupted many of them that he knew couldn’t pay back the loans and didn’t give a shit afterward, but hey, they got loans!

GreenRiverGatorz

NorthwestFresh said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Sledog said:

Hosing debacle was all on the dems for laws requiring the loaning unlimited funds to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay it back.

It was? The version of history I'm familiar with has both parties allowing F&F to grow unfettered (lol) for decades. To say nothing of the overwhelming bipartisan support for other financial deregulations like the repeal of Glass Steagall.

But I'm curious to hear more about your version of history where it was all the dems fault and the GOP is absolved of all sins.

You think it was GOP attorneys suing lenders for red-lining obviously risky (at best) loan applications? I’m not saying they are absolved, but mandating high-risk loans to people who can never pay them back wasn’t a part of the GOP platform. Obama was even one of the Democrats who sued banks before he got into politics to force them into lending to poor minorities.

He “unintentionally” bankrupted many of them that he knew couldn’t pay back the loans and didn’t give a shit afterward, but hey, they got loans!

Did I say that? Red-line lawsuits are but a small chapter in an incredibly dense textbook about the drivers of the financial crisis. Anyone who thinks the narrative is that one party was evil while the other helplessly stood by is a partisan idiot.

But you're the self anointed chief of the partisan idiots, so this response is extremely on-brand for you.

NorthwestFresh

GreenRiverGatorz said:

NorthwestFresh said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Sledog said:

Hosing debacle was all on the dems for laws requiring the loaning unlimited funds to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay it back.

It was? The version of history I'm familiar with has both parties allowing F&F to grow unfettered (lol) for decades. To say nothing of the overwhelming bipartisan support for other financial deregulations like the repeal of Glass Steagall.

But I'm curious to hear more about your version of history where it was all the dems fault and the GOP is absolved of all sins.

You think it was GOP attorneys suing lenders for red-lining obviously risky (at best) loan applications? I’m not saying they are absolved, but mandating high-risk loans to people who can never pay them back wasn’t a part of the GOP platform. Obama was even one of the Democrats who sued banks before he got into politics to force them into lending to poor minorities.

He “unintentionally” bankrupted many of them that he knew couldn’t pay back the loans and didn’t give a shit afterward, but hey, they got loans!

Did I say that? Red-line lawsuits are but a small chapter in an incredibly dense textbook about the drivers of the financial crisis. Anyone who thinks the narrative is that one party was evil while the other helplessly stood by is a partisan idiot.

But you're the self anointed chief of the partisan idiots, so this response is extremely on-brand for you.

Except for the part where I said the GOP isn’t absolved, of course. I’m not a Republican, I’m a Trump populist. I hope the GOP loses the Senate as much as you do. Red-line lawsuits that led to defaults weren’t a small part of the 2007 collapse, they were at the forefront. That led to more subprime lending along with the incredibly stupid Zero down loans that were destined to fail with a housing market dip. Remember when “underwater” was a thing?

Pretty sure you don’t know what “partisan” means in terms of political parties.