Editor’s Pick
APRIL 17, 2009 5:37PM
Over Last 100 Years, Multi-term GOP Presidents = Bank Crisis
OK, correlation does not equal causation; but this is modestly humorous. Over the last century, any time you had a multi-term GOP president (in other words, long enough to do real damage) you had a pretty substantial collapse in the banking industry (i.e., near fundamental economic collapse). For the statistics junkies the R does not equal 1...it assuredly can be described as R<>1 but R is notably greater than 0. Just putting down a list of presidents over the last century and then mapping the major bank panics over the same time period reveals some interesting stuff.
The yellow highlighted line items represent multi-term GOP presidents with banking panics associated with them. Those in blue/cyan represents multi-term GOP presidents where no such panic occurred. Eisenhower and Nixon are the two non-panic GOP presidents. A simple business cycle recession took place near the end of Eisenhower's presidency. He's also the president to kick-off the largest public works program in world history with the Interstate highway system. Richard Nixon, of course, was president during the stagflation years of the oil shocks though a lot of his economic woes likely came out of spending for Johnson's Great Society programs.
The other presidents with panics associated with them are Theodore Roosevelt with the famous bank panic of 1907 where JP Morgan had to step in as the lender of last resort. His notable power led to demands that a non-private lender of last resort be created. This was the impetus to create the FED which was established in 1913. Prior to the creation of the FED the last central bank in the US was abolished by Andrew Jackson in the early part of the 1800s which resulted in most of the 1800s being characterized by constant bank panics and runs. We then have Coolidge and the Great Depression followed by Reagan and the Savings and Loan crisis. Finally, we have George Bush and the most recent melt down.
Again, it's an interesting view; but that's about it. While the press puts up silly comparisons between Texas secession and 1861, we thought we'd put some silliness up of our own.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
al loomis
Don Rich
icemilkcoffee
Lisa Solod Warren
Eric Root
Saturn Smith
Salon.com
Comments
So what you point out is no surprise...compare the number of crises that followed two-term Democrats, and it looks a lot more significant.
I recall reading an article, don't remember where, that showed Democratic presidents had much better news for Wall Street then Republicans.
1873 - Grant, Republican generally the modern version
1893 - Cleveland, Democrat, but is consider extension of 1873 Depression, and it is marked as starting under Benjamin Harrison, Republican
Except for Buchanan, arguably, these happened under presidents in bed with Wall Street.
It's true. Obama inherited an economic collapse from Bush. Bush inherited a strong economy from Clinton and demolished it. Clinton inherited a sucky economy from Bush I and rebuilt it. Yes, it takes years; but the last few presidents have all *had* years to prove their mettle (in Reagan/Bush's case, 8 Reagan + 4 Bush = 12 years Repub in a row), and the Republican ones have wreaked havoc in their terms, while the Democratic ones have spent all their time fixing what the Republicans did. Maybe if we could get two Democratic presidents in a row, the way the Repubs had 12 years of Reagan/Bush, we could see what the Democrats can *really* do. We haven't had more than 8 years of Democrats since Roosevelt. You know, that dude who seriously fixed a Republican economic debacle so well that, for the first time in history, there wasn't another crash for like 50 years.
Think if Clinton or Carter had been president during the 1980s, that would be the case? I imagine stations such as Fox would be in a frenzy to put all the above facts on TV, loudly attributing them to Clinton and Carter, don't you?
I, too, have seen and heard Elizabeth Warren speak in-depth about all this. If the white men who run this nation, and always have, weren't so morally challenged, maybe we wouldn't need regulation....but we know the answer to that one, even though Reagan called ours a "Christian" nation....one of the most un-American remarks I 've ever heard by any president (isn't freedom of religion one of our most basic rights?)! And what a smear on Christianity to call the corrupt USA a "Christian" nation....Bush called himself a "Christian", too....
That's right, if we'd never lent money to brown people, everything would be peachy keen!
I hear this claim all the time, and no one who makes it can tell me how many of those bad loans were made under CRA requirements, but they are damn sure that the whole mess is the fault of brown people expecting to be treated like white people.
Virtually, NONE. The CRA ran just fine for 30 years without incident, then, somehow or other, caused the system to meltdown all at once??? Fact is, on the order of 75% of the toxic mortgages were originated by Mortgage Companies, which are not, and were not, subject to CRA. Repeat: not subject to CRA. That is a fact.
That banks felt pressure, for market share reasons, to hop in the barrel headed for Niagra Falls is a problem. But not due to CRA.
The toxic mortgages were created simply because a diminishing number of Americans made enough money to afford a standard mortgage. No more difficult to understand than that. Both the Wingnuts and Obamanauts, for different reasons, need to distance themselves from the Distributional Answer. It is still the correct answer.
my personal opinion is that jackson is one of the greatest presidents who ever lived. boy-O should think about some of what jackson accomplished. jackson was a populist president, and he took on the crooked bankers of the time directly. he called them a "den of vipers" (sound familiar????) and evicted them forcefully. no president since then has ever had the guts/audacity/courage to take on the banking establishment since (or arguably even prior) to then.
more details see the great book, "creature from jekyll island"
IOW, the CRA stuff was just another myth perpetrated by the Repub party.
Apropos of Repub myths, the GOP has about a dozen huge myths that it always continues to perpetrate. Eg, their taxes myths. They say taxes are bad for the country. BUT any Economist worth his Ph.D. can tell you that our country has done better during periods of higher taxation relative to periods of lower taxation.
Another huge Repub myth is that to get lower taxes we must elect a Repub prez. Once again, any Economist worth his Ph.D. can tell you that Reagan and Bush 41 both promised no new taxes and then raised taxes after a few years in the WH.
For example and specifically speaking: Reagan and big daddy Boosh (Bush41) quadrupled the national debt( debt = taxes, unless you believe St. Reagan) from 900 million dollars under Carter(our most moral prez, imo) to 4.3 billion dollars --in only 12yrs. Lil' Georgie Bush, the Shrub (per the unsinkable Molly Ivins) then just about tripled that figure, raising the National Debt from 4.3 billion to about 11.8 billion -- in only eight years. IOW, Repub party spending IS the party of rampant/egregious/gross spending.
The reason is that the Repub party is totallly committed to wealth for the one percent who are already grossly wealthy. They call it Trickle-Down Economics; btw, another Repub party myth. T-D Economics(TDE) never worked under Reagan, daddy Boosh or lil' Boosh. It has not worked for the last 28yrs. It is NOT, NOT, NOT and did I say NOT the economic engine that drives our economy. That is because no matter how much the super rich spend it can never be enough to drive our economy or any other economy in the world; there just are not enough of them. Do the math, it is very simple. Compare the spending of the 1% super rich to the spending of the other 99% of working Americans. Even if your definition of the super rich were greatly expanded to include 10% of our population, the spending of the 90% still far, far, far and way-far surpasses the spending of the super rich, even if you include the very rich in that category.
IOW, the real economic engine that drives our economy is the economic activity of the average person, the spending of the mid and lower socioeconomic classes, you and me. IOW, only Trickle- Up Economics(TUE) really works. Trickle-Down Economics never works. It never floats all boats, which diversifies spending and gives great stability to our economy. It only floats a very few boats. Can we call them the Robber Barons.
Common sense tells us that the 8100 families who own 90% of the wealth of America cannot even begin to equal the spending of the mid and lower socioeconomic classes. After all, exactly how many TVs or cars can the entirety of the 1% of the super rich buy, certainly NOT even close to enough to drive the economic engine of our national economy.
Trickle-Up Economics floats all boats, even those of the rich, very rich and super rich. BUT the BIG problem is that they are no longer willing to wait to EARN their wealth, now it is far quicker and far easier to steal it by putting a Reagan or a Boosh in the WH.
A side note. I can guarantee that in 2012 we will be asked by the Repub party to vote for Jeb Bush or Newt Gingrich for prez and Sarah Palin for veep. BTW, check out their religions and prepare to be amazed. These are the moral majority, the party of God and the Pro-Life and Family Values people. I, too, am a Catholic, but most assuredly not like them.
BTW, that brings up another Repub party myth. The Pro-life and Family Values myth. Any Economist worth his Ph.D. can tell you that poverty EQUALS abortions and EQUALS human degradation. For example, just look at the very Catholic Latin countries. Just recently, none other than Fuller Theological Seminary studied this phenomenon and proved it to be totally true.
My guess is that the Pope(s) know/knew this and do not care. That is because non of this mess is actually about Pro-Life and Family Values. Now I've got your attention! All of the Catholic Churches(my religion) constant efforts to support the Repub party is really all about, what I can only think to call, Dominion and Domination, ie, power. IOW, one can call it the endless lust for political power. That's also why the Church supported Hitler(the Reich will live for a thousand years) via the Reichskonkordat of 1933. Remember Rove said the Repubs will abolish the Dem party. Never forget that our democracy depends on having two approximately equally powerful political parties. Without those two political parties we have no democracy.
For another clue about where the Catholic Church and the GOP are headed one has but to remember the May, 2000 speech by Scalia, an extreme Catholic and an extreme Republican. Scalia caled for the end to our Rule of Law. He also called for the end to democracy in America. And this guy is a judge, a Supreme Court Justice!!! If Scalia thinks that, you can bet that Clarence Thomas(Catholic) also thinks the same way. Roberts and Alito, both Catholics, are very likely on that same path.
Btw, you'll have to do some serious digging to find Scalias speech, it was given discreetly. While studying hate militias, I came across it.
The Repub party is made up of the Cons(conservatives) the Neocons and now the Theocons. Since 1978(Pope John Paul II) was a staunch supporter of the Repub party as was his top advisor, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI. It is very safe to say that the Cons, the Neocons and the Theocons are totally against democracy. In a representative democracy the people make the decisions; they abhor that freedom and rule by, for and of the people. The aforementioned want to rule by a kind of British "Divine Right of Kings" mentality.
It is safe to say, that the Catholic Church, via Hitler, the Nazis and the Fascists(Republicans are Fascists), attacked the entire Free World. It is now equally safe to say that, once again, the Catholic Church via the Repub party has attacked the USA and even much of the rest of the democratic Free World.
The endless lust for power(Dominion and Domination) is the reason why. The Church cannot decide whether it is a religion or a political power. At least since 1095(the First Crusade, their were nine crusades, 1095-1272) the Church has very definitely leaned heavily toward being a political power.
Personally, I think it is an abomination unto God and His creation: The Family of Man. Could it be that the Church IS the present day Judas Iscariot to man and possibly to God, and driven by it's endless lust for power. Ohhh wellll... Time will tell.
Now back to my main thread---
Sorry for running on, but I can go on all day long debunking Repub party myths. My sister, a staunch Repub never learns, she just cries and screams at me when I give her these facts. My brother, another staunch Repub, with an MBA is beginning to listen and understand, especially as he watches his investments go down, down and down, as our economy is dying because a very few extremely greedy sectors profit while everyone else pays the price for their greed, amply demonstrated by putting a Repub in the WH and/or in the congress. Greedily skimming money off the top of the economy is a very dangerous thing to do and only benefits a very few sectors, like the financial, oil, telecoms, pharma, insurance and about six other sectors of our economy.
I can go on like this for many hours, if you dare to ask me. But be prepared to listen, and listen, and LISTEN!!!
All of the best, to all of you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2678226
http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html
http://crooksandliars.com/node/26208
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/graphs-2.html
Rob St. Amant's post helped me to be able to insert videos in posts and comments, but I'm still confused as to how make these comment links live - anyone kind enough to PM instructions would have my eternal gratefulness.
It is a specifically racist myth, and it is meant to appeal to racists of both the conscious and unconscious sort.
These are the people Janeanne Garafolo was talking about in her comments that got philos777 so worked up...I guess the shoe fit a little too well.
T-D Economics(TDE) never worked under Reagan, daddy Boosh or lil' Boosh. It has not worked for the last 28yrs. It is NOT, NOT, NOT and did I say NOT the economic engine that drives our economy."
"Trickle-Down Economics never works. It never floats all boats, which diversifies spending and gives great stability to our economy. It only floats a very few boats. Can we call them the Robber Barons."
"Common sense tells us that the 8100 families who own 90% of the wealth of America cannot even begin to equal the spending of the mid and lower socioeconomic classes."
"...the Cons, the Neocons and the Theocons are totally against democracy. In a representative democracy the people make the decisions; they abhor that freedom and rule by, for and of the people."
"our economy is dying because a very few extremely greedy sectors profit while everyone else pays the price for their greed, amply demonstrated by putting a Repub in the WH and/or in the congress."
BEAUTIFUL!