Obama's "awesome" market performance was due to the real estate crash. He was inaugurated near the bottom. Stocks had nowhere to go but up.
The only reason stocks "grew" was due to QE and Porkulus devaluing the dollar. It's basically the same reason why stocks didn't crash thru the floor when Trump was POTUS during COVID... All of that deficit spending, sorry, 'stimulus', cheapens the dollar ... Stocks rise as a result due to inflation, not growth.
Clinton's market was flat until the Rs won the House in 1994. People we're spooked by possible liberal spending. Growth didn't continue until Gingrich's Contract with America. Moreover, the .com bubble distorted the market badly heading into the 'W-tard' Bush years. The media went from declaring the end of the business cycle in late 1999-2000 to "Bush's fault" in January 2001.
Moreover, both Bush and Clinton benefited from the end of the cold war engineered by Reagan (who was loathed as badly as Trump by the scumbag liberals all over the fucking planet as well as the war obsessed Neocons here at home (Neocons aren't conservatives ... They're liberals that like war wayyyyy too much). That peace dividend probably did more for the economy over the past 30 years than anything else.
So, yeah, just looking at raw numbers, you are right ... But the gains are all an illusion.
Fair retort but Quantitative easing ended in October 2014 and stock market still ripped from 14-16 under Obama.
Furthermore if you were to chalk up Obama gains to deficit spending, Trump's 4 years saw the deficit massively exceed any Obama years. Partially due to Covid but also due to Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy:
So under Trump GDP and stock gains underperformed the Obama years, despite the fact that Trump presided over larger deficits and lower taxes on the top 1%.
Only thing I will discount in your post is the market "ripping" from 14-16 ... it was mostly flat. Frankly, that's probably the most "real" growth the market had seen since the early/mid 1990s ... there wasn't any currency manipulation going on or media hyped bubbles to make their political icons look better.
Other than that, I am not arguing your overall point. The numbers are what they are. There's a lot more to it than who is POTUS at the time though ... and I think you know that :-) .
As far as Trump is concerned, yep, big time deficit spending continued, and half of that was due to China Flu. I'm not discounting that spending just because I supported the guy overall. I hate what deficit spending has done to this country. I find things like stimulus to be a complete waste. Since every single 'stimulus' plan in my lifetime required deficit spending, any economic gains from stimulus are pissed away as the value of the dollar drops. Sure it helps the short term, but they're quite damaging over the long haul. I don't care if they're direct payments to taxpayers or "shovel ready jobs" in bills like Porkulus ... they are all worthless and do long term damage to this country.
Tax cuts for the wealthy though? Define wealthy. I've been able to keep a lot more of my earnings thanks to that tax cut ... I am not rich by any means, but I am also not exactly living paycheck to paycheck. That's the fruits of my labor though ... I started out with pretty much NOTHING. I didn't piss away my late teens/ early 20s in a drunken stupor or study a worthless subject in college while working full time to pay tuition (that was in the early 1990s ... wasn't exactly easy to do as it was earlier in this country's history since tuition was already preposterous at the time ... I wish someone could explain why these fucking schools can get away with ridiculous tuition rates without so much as a peep from our media, but I digress).
When half of this country pays nothing in federal income tax, any tax cut is going to be for the "wealthy". Also, I think it's more productive if you'd ask why in the hell congresscritters REFUSE to cut spending than criticizing tax cuts ... a 10% across the board spending cut coupled with a relatively small tax cut would work wonders for this country. I think the last time that happened was when JFK was POTUS (again, I think ... I could certainly be wrong).
Finally, the House has a lot more of a direct impact on the economy than POTUS (after all, they control the purse strings), but most of us tend to blame/promote the President at the time. That's not intended to be deflection from your argument, nor is it always the case. While the POTUS has the bully pulpit to 'promote' a particular piece of legislation, the ultimate power rests in the House since, again, the House controls the purse strings.
Basically the House is more likely to cause a short term reaction in the markets, while the POTUS' agenda will dictate a more longer term reaction. I'm also well aware that POTUS must sign onto whatever the House is passing, but that's also the result of compromise. If every POTUS rejected House spending bills until they got exactly what they wanted, the Government would have to shut down (not like that's a bad thing, but those scumbags never come to agreement on anything that benefits people anymore ... you can see it in the bills they pass ... a tiny percentage of it goes to the USA, the rest seem to be donations to foreign governments ... sickening).
One thing I do know ... the system is broken beyond repair at this point. Deficit spending isn't necessarily a bad thing ... if you have a gigantic economy, carrying a couple trillion in debt isn't the end of the world ... in fact, it can help keep you competitive on the world market since your currency will not be as strong. However, we are far beyond that point, and have been for a long, long time. They may as well spend as much as possible. The sooner this shitshow implodes, the better. Far less people will be harmed the earlier that can happen. THe more this is dragged out, the harder it is going to be to recover.
Obama's "awesome" market performance was due to the real estate crash. He was inaugurated near the bottom. Stocks had nowhere to go but up.
The only reason stocks "grew" was due to QE and Porkulus devaluing the dollar. It's basically the same reason why stocks didn't crash thru the floor when Trump was POTUS during COVID... All of that deficit spending, sorry, 'stimulus', cheapens the dollar ... Stocks rise as a result due to inflation, not growth.
Clinton's market was flat until the Rs won the House in 1994. People we're spooked by possible liberal spending. Growth didn't continue until Gingrich's Contract with America. Moreover, the .com bubble distorted the market badly heading into the 'W-tard' Bush years. The media went from declaring the end of the business cycle in late 1999-2000 to "Bush's fault" in January 2001.
Moreover, both Bush and Clinton benefited from the end of the cold war engineered by Reagan (who was loathed as badly as Trump by the scumbag liberals all over the fucking planet as well as the war obsessed Neocons here at home (Neocons aren't conservatives ... They're liberals that like war wayyyyy too much). That peace dividend probably did more for the economy over the past 30 years than anything else.
So, yeah, just looking at raw numbers, you are right ... But the gains are all an illusion.
Fair retort but Quantitative easing ended in October 2014 and stock market still ripped from 14-16 under Obama.
Furthermore if you were to chalk up Obama gains to deficit spending, Trump's 4 years saw the deficit massively exceed any Obama years. Partially due to Covid but also due to Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy:
https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/images/deficit-trends-viz.svg
Also QE resumed under Trump in 2019.
So under Trump GDP and stock gains underperformed the Obama years, despite the fact that Trump presided over larger deficits and lower taxes on the top 1%.
Agree about neocons though.
Only thing I will discount in your post is the market "ripping" from 14-16 ... it was mostly flat. Frankly, that's probably the most "real" growth the market had seen since the early/mid 1990s ... there wasn't any currency manipulation going on or media hyped bubbles to make their political icons look better.
Other than that, I am not arguing your overall point. The numbers are what they are. There's a lot more to it than who is POTUS at the time though ... and I think you know that :-) .
As far as Trump is concerned, yep, big time deficit spending continued, and half of that was due to China Flu. I'm not discounting that spending just because I supported the guy overall. I hate what deficit spending has done to this country. I find things like stimulus to be a complete waste. Since every single 'stimulus' plan in my lifetime required deficit spending, any economic gains from stimulus are pissed away as the value of the dollar drops. Sure it helps the short term, but they're quite damaging over the long haul. I don't care if they're direct payments to taxpayers or "shovel ready jobs" in bills like Porkulus ... they are all worthless and do long term damage to this country.
Tax cuts for the wealthy though? Define wealthy. I've been able to keep a lot more of my earnings thanks to that tax cut ... I am not rich by any means, but I am also not exactly living paycheck to paycheck. That's the fruits of my labor though ... I started out with pretty much NOTHING. I didn't piss away my late teens/ early 20s in a drunken stupor or study a worthless subject in college while working full time to pay tuition (that was in the early 1990s ... wasn't exactly easy to do as it was earlier in this country's history since tuition was already preposterous at the time ... I wish someone could explain why these fucking schools can get away with ridiculous tuition rates without so much as a peep from our media, but I digress).
When half of this country pays nothing in federal income tax, any tax cut is going to be for the "wealthy". Also, I think it's more productive if you'd ask why in the hell congresscritters REFUSE to cut spending than criticizing tax cuts ... a 10% across the board spending cut coupled with a relatively small tax cut would work wonders for this country. I think the last time that happened was when JFK was POTUS (again, I think ... I could certainly be wrong).
Finally, the House has a lot more of a direct impact on the economy than POTUS (after all, they control the purse strings), but most of us tend to blame/promote the President at the time. That's not intended to be deflection from your argument, nor is it always the case. While the POTUS has the bully pulpit to 'promote' a particular piece of legislation, the ultimate power rests in the House since, again, the House controls the purse strings.
Basically the House is more likely to cause a short term reaction in the markets, while the POTUS' agenda will dictate a more longer term reaction. I'm also well aware that POTUS must sign onto whatever the House is passing, but that's also the result of compromise. If every POTUS rejected House spending bills until they got exactly what they wanted, the Government would have to shut down (not like that's a bad thing, but those scumbags never come to agreement on anything that benefits people anymore ... you can see it in the bills they pass ... a tiny percentage of it goes to the USA, the rest seem to be donations to foreign governments ... sickening).
One thing I do know ... the system is broken beyond repair at this point. Deficit spending isn't necessarily a bad thing ... if you have a gigantic economy, carrying a couple trillion in debt isn't the end of the world ... in fact, it can help keep you competitive on the world market since your currency will not be as strong. However, we are far beyond that point, and have been for a long, long time. They may as well spend as much as possible. The sooner this shitshow implodes, the better. Far less people will be harmed the earlier that can happen. THe more this is dragged out, the harder it is going to be to recover.