Here's a fun interactive graph
https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president
Comments
-
Wrong bored
-
You are aware of the Dazzler's maff skills, right?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
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.
-
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.
-
Hosing debacle was all on the dems for laws requiring the loaning unlimited funds to people who couldn't/wouldn't pay it back.
-
TranslationRubberfist 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.
Biden is about to fuck it up -
That’s not even close to what happened but not shocking that you’d be horribly misinformed.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.
-
Feel to give your version and inform the class.Rubberfist said:
That’s not even close to what happened but not shocking that you’d be horribly misinformed.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.
-
Certainly is. Started under Carter and expanded under Willy.Rubberfist said:
That’s not even close to what happened but not shocking that you’d be horribly misinformed.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.
-
"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. -
PurpleThrobber said:
Feel to give your version and inform the class.Rubberfist said:
That’s not even close to what happened but not shocking that you’d be horribly misinformed.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.
We’re waiting!
-
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.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. -
Just do what you're told to do, dumbfuckHustlinOwl said:
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.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. -
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.Rubberfist said:
That’s not even close to what happened but not shocking that you’d be horribly misinformed.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.
-
While I tend to agree, presidents get the blame or credit, thems the political rules.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.
I think they can do more to hurt the economy than help. -
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.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.
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. -
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
-
I was told the stock market would crash if Biden won
-
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.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.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.
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.
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.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.
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.
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!
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?GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.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.
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.
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!
But you're the self anointed chief of the partisan idiots, so this response is extremely on-brand for you.
Pretty sure you don’t know what “partisan” means in terms of political parties.
-
Hard to remove laws/rules once they have them in there.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.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.
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. -
It's part of what happened, it's not all of what happened.Rubberfist said:
That’s not even close to what happened but not shocking that you’d be horribly misinformed.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.
-
Both parties had a role in the financial crisis but the Rats played a bigger role in the Fannie and Freddie meltdown. Clinton was the first to use his leverage on okaying bank mergers in order to increase the number of low income home loans.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.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.
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.
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!
But you're the self anointed chief of the partisan idiots, so this response is extremely on-brand for you.
The by the time of the meltdown which started in 2007, Fannie and Freddie were no longer even the biggest players in the secondary mortgage market, Wall Street had moved in and they started buying up even more of the crappy paper FF were already buying. But FF had already set the industry standard. The simple fact is that if Fannie and Freddie had never existed there never would have been a housing meltdown in 2007-2008. -
So, our federally owned student tuition debt is $1.6 trillion of which 10.9% is delinquent by more than 90 days. There is plenty of Republicans to blame for this but this was an democratic initiative taken by the dem congress and barry. It certainly isn't a conservative initiative. I'm sensing a pattern here. You leftards just love to swallow.
"By cutting out the middleman, we'll save the American taxpayers $68 billion in the coming years," Obama said when he signed this change into law. "That's real money." As a result, federal student loan debt shot up from $154.9 billion in 2009 to $1.1 trillion by the end of 2017.
Dec 1, 2016 — CNNMoney Op-Ed: An alternative to the student debt crisis. Obama's student loan policy is costing twice as much as expected ... at a cost to the federal government, which lends about $100 billion in student loans each year.
-
So let's recap your argument here. You're asserting that the biggest factor for the 4 million+ home foreclosures that occurred during the financial crisis was primarily lawsuits supported by democrats that combated the practice of discriminating against minority loan applications. This, more than MBSs, CDOs, Freddie & Fannie negligence, decades-long financial deregulation, and an overall environment of "lend to anyone with a pulse", was the reason for the financial crisis.NorthwestFresh said:
Red-line lawsuits that led to defaults weren’t a small part of the 2007 collapse, they were at the forefront.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.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.
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.
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!
But you're the self anointed chief of the partisan idiots, so this response is extremely on-brand for you.
Even by your standards of fucking stupid, this one's a doozy. -
I mostly agree with this. Democrats were generally more supportive of expanding home ownership (though Bush and other republicans played plenty a role themselves), which ultimately caused the financial crisis. The exacerbation of that crisis, i.e. the bank mergers, was a primarily GOP-led undertaking (as you just noted). Anyone trying to tell the whole story as being a single party's fault is hilariously stupid. The very fact that Trump rode his wave of populism to the presidency was due in no small part because of the very fact that both parties played such a cooperative role in the destruction of the economy.SFGbob said:
Both parties had a role in the financial crisis but the Rats played a bigger role in the Fannie and Freddie meltdown. Clinton was the first to use his leverage on okaying bank mergers in order to increase the number of low income home loans.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.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.
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.
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!
But you're the self anointed chief of the partisan idiots, so this response is extremely on-brand for you.
The by the time of the meltdown which started in 2007, Fannie and Freddie were no longer even the biggest players in the secondary mortgage market, Wall Street had moved in and they started buying up even more of the crappy paper FF were already buying. But FF had already set the industry standard. The simple fact is that if Fannie and Freddie had never existed there never would have been a housing meltdown in 2007-2008. -
No, I didn’t say that at all. You’re spinning fast so a major part of the 2007 collapse isn’t blamed on the Democrats who sued lenders into making high-risk loans. Didn’t really matter to the banks, there was zero chance the UniParty wasn’t going to bail them out, but the millions who defaulted on loans had no recourse or bailout.GreenRiverGatorz said:
So let's recap your argument here. You're asserting that the biggest factor for the 4 million+ home foreclosures that occurred during the financial crisis was primarily lawsuits supported by democrats that combated the practice of discriminating against minority loan applications. This, more than MBSs, CDOs, Freddie & Fannie negligence, decades-long financial deregulation, and an overall environment of "lend to anyone with a pulse", was the reason for the financial crisis.NorthwestFresh said:
Red-line lawsuits that led to defaults weren’t a small part of the 2007 collapse, they were at the forefront.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.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.
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.
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!
But you're the self anointed chief of the partisan idiots, so this response is extremely on-brand for you.
Even by your standards of fucking stupid, this one's a doozy.
The UniParty doesn’t care about citizens. You voted for bankers, Wall Street, and large corporations when you voted for Biden-Bush 2020. Stop lying about me absolving the GOP. I clearly didn’t do so, you Liar. The Romney GOP is much more dishonest than the AOC Democrats, who at least tell you their plans in the open. I respect that. AOC and Trump have a lot on common that way. -
The banks and mortgage companies didn’t care about making those crap loans because they knew they weren’t going to be holding the crap paper.
There was a ready market, mostly created by Fannie and Freddie, but then put on steroids by Wall Street, for all of those garbage loans.
Banks and mortgage companies made money by making the loans not by servicing the loan. The implied Federal backing of Fannie and Freddie made all of this possible without it there never would have been a housing meltdown -
Community reinvestment act, under Carter, rewritten under Clinton coupled with the Financial Services Modernization act under Clinton, paved the way for the crisis. The requirement to extend loans to people who can't cover them, coupled with mechanisms that allowed for securitizing the debt removed borrower and lender responsibilities and accountability. Democrats are very good at fucking up economies with selective regulation.SFGbob said:The banks and mortgage companies didn’t care about making those crap loans because they knew they weren’t going to be holding the crap paper.
There was a ready market, mostly created by Fannie and Freddie, but then put on steroids by Wall Street, for all of those garbage loans.
Banks and mortgage companies made money by making the loans not by servicing the loan. The implied Federal backing of Fannie and Freddie made all of this possible without it there never would have been a housing meltdown -
Worked in banking during that phase a bit. The CRA people would come sauntering through big-dick swinging because they knew if they didn't get their way, they had a pipeline to the very top. Hated those motherfuckers. Some real shitty loans processed in the name of "Community Reinvestment". Mostly a big scam to fund the burgeoning homeless 'non-profit' industry.Southerndawg said:
Community reinvestment act, under Carter, rewritten under Clinton coupled with the Financial Services Modernization act under Clinton, paved the way for the crisis. The requirement to extend loans to people who can't cover them, coupled with mechanisms that allowed for securitizing the debt removed borrower and lender responsibilities and accountability. Democrats are very good at fucking up economies with selective regulation.SFGbob said:The banks and mortgage companies didn’t care about making those crap loans because they knew they weren’t going to be holding the crap paper.
There was a ready market, mostly created by Fannie and Freddie, but then put on steroids by Wall Street, for all of those garbage loans.
Banks and mortgage companies made money by making the loans not by servicing the loan. The implied Federal backing of Fannie and Freddie made all of this possible without it there never would have been a housing meltdown
