Off the Charts: Among the Best Presidents or the Worst, in Economic Terms

T

The Dude

Banned
Published: March 23, 2012

Off the Charts: Among the Best Presidents or the Worst, in Economic Terms
Measured by stock market performance since he entered office, President Obama’s administration has been among the most successful of the last hundred years. Measured by economic growth, it ranks near the bottom. The charts show the changes in gross domestic product for the first three years of each administration, and in the stock market from Inauguration Day through March 20 of the next election year. All figures are adjusted for inflation and annualized.
PERFORMANCE DURING EACH PRESIDENTIAL TERM SINCE 1913

Stock market return

F. D. Roosevelt 1ST TERM
1933-36
+32.8%
Eisenhower 1ST TERM
1953-56
+21.6
Clinton 2ND TERM
1997-00
+19.2
Coolidge
1925-28
+18.2
Obama
2009-12
+16.4
Wilson 1ST TERM
1913-16
+12.4
Reagan 2ND TERM
1985-88
+12.0
Truman
1949-52
+11.4
Harding-Coolidge
1921-24
+10.8
Clinton 1ST TERM
1993-96
+10.5
Kennedy-Johnson
1961-64
+7.8
G.H.W. Bush
1989-92
+7.2
Eisenhower 2ND TERM
1957-60
+4.7
Reagan 1ST TERM
1981-84
+0.7
G.W. Bush 2ND TERM
2005-08
+0.3
F. D. Roosevelt 3RD TERM
1941-44
–1.8
Johnson
1965-68
–2.1
Nixon
1969-72
–2.9
Roosevelt-Truman
1945-48
–6.4
G.W. Bush 1ST TERM
2001-04
–7.8
Carter
1977-80
–9.4
F. D. Roosevelt 2ND TERM
1937-40
–11.2
Wilson 2ND TERM
1917-20
–12.2
Nixon-Ford
1973-76
–12.9
Hoover
1929-32
–27.1
Change in gross domestic product

F. D. Roosevelt 3RD TERM
1941-43
+17.3%
F. D. Roosevelt 1ST TERM
1933-35
+6.0
Truman
1949-51
+5.5
Harding-Coolidge
1921-23
+5.4
Kennedy-Johnson
1961-63
+5.2
Johnson
1965-67
+5.1
Clinton 2ND TERM
1997-99
+4.7
Carter
1977-79
+4.3
Reagan 2ND TERM
1985-87
+3.8
Coolidge
1925-27
+3.4
Eisenhower 1ST TERM
1953-55
+3.2
F. D. Roosevelt 2ND TERM
1937-39
+3.1
Clinton 1ST TERM
1993-95
+3.0
Eisenhower 2ND TERM
1957-59
+2.5
G.W. Bush 2ND TERM
2005-07
+2.5
Reagan 1ST TERM
1981-83
+2.4
Wilson 2ND TERM
1917-19
+2.2
Nixon 1ST TERM
1969-71
+2.1
G.W. Bush 1ST TERM
2001-03
+2.1
Nixon-Ford
1973-75
+1.5
G.H.W. Bush
1989-91
+1.4
Obama
2009-11
+1.4
Wilson 1ST TERM
1913-15
–0.6
Hoover
1929-31
–3.0
Roosevelt-Truman
1945-47
–4.4
Note: The stock returns are based on the Dow Jones industrial average until 1928 and the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index after that. The calculations do not include dividends and are adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price Index. G.D.P. figures for all administrations since 1948 are based on changes from the fourth quarter of the election year through the fourth quarter of the year before the next election. G.D.P. figures for earlier terms are based on annual, rather than quarterly figures.
 
christiefan915 said:
Wow, that's really interesting and informative. You wouldn't have thought it from the way RWs talk.
Click to expand...

Would you find it ironic that he says he will dedicate his remaining time in office to closing the income gap when the stock market has done so well under his watch which has helped the 1% grow their wealth and increase the divide?
 
so its wrong for the wealthy to share the good fortune this country provides them with the people?
 
The Dude said:
Obama 5 th highest return ever
Click to expand...
Interesting list by very simplified. For example. The Harding/Cooledge administration saw unparalleled growth in both stocks and GDP but it was also in a very large measure their policies that were responsible for the great depression.

Another example, the anemic growth in GDP under Obama is due in a large measure to the great recession handed to him by the previous administration and due to the obstructionism of congressional republicans who prevented the amount of stimulus spending, predicated on Keyensian economics, needed to grow the economy out of a recession.

Another example is the explosive growth during FDR's third administration had far, far more to do with the outbreak of WWII than any policy implemented by his administration.
 
Last edited:
evince said:
so its wrong for the wealthy to share the good fortune this country provides them with the people?
Click to expand...
Yes but there is nothing wrong with requiring them to invest their wealth, either directly into public service by taxation or through investment into the free market economy. The wealth is theirs but the currency belongs to the people and it needs to be kept in circulation so that it can do it's work for all the people by growing the economy. I do have problems with redistributive policies. I don't have a problem with "use it or lose it" policies that keeps currency in circulation.
 
cawacko said:
Would you find it ironic that he says he will dedicate his remaining time in office to closing the income gap when the stock market has done so well under his watch which has helped the 1% grow their wealth and increase the divide?
Click to expand...
Nope. Not at all. Would they have made that wealth without the support of this nations infrastructure and a highly skilled work force? No way in hell could they. It's time to invest some of those profits into our nations decaying infrastructure that plays a huge part in producing that wealth and rewarding those who do the work to produce that wealth.

In fact, considering that in the past five years we have a situation in which profits have been privatized and loses have been socialized that have permitted the gross inequality to grow so disproportionately and under those circumstances it is not only justified to redistribute some of that wealth it's morally necessary. Now if loses had been privatized then no you wouldn't have moral justification for redistribution of wealth but that hasn't been the case in the last 5 years, has it?
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
Would you find it ironic that he says he will dedicate his remaining time in office to closing the income gap when the stock market has done so well under his watch which has helped the 1% grow their wealth and increase the divide?
Click to expand...

To be honest anything economic is really low on my agenda. The sitting president always gets the blame for what's happening in the economy and often it's over stuff that's beyond his control. How many threads have we seen blaming Obama for the rise in gas prices, for example, but no threads when those prices drop.

My comment refers to the posters who highlight every bad economic issue during Dem presidencies and when the same happens under Repubs, they still find a way to blame it on Dems. "Carter wrecked the economy but reagan made it recover." "The economy was great under Clinton but he get's no credit, it was all the tech bubble." "bush had unemployment averaging 5.3% but Obama increased it to 1874%." Blah blah blah. It's all so partisan.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Interesting list by very simplified. For example. The Harding/Cooledge administration saw unparalleled growth in both stocks and GDP but it was also in a very large measure their policies that were responsible for the great depression.

Another example, the anemic growth in GDP under Obama is due in a large measure to the great recession handed to him by the previous administration and due to the obstructionism of congressional republicans who prevented the amount of stimulus spending, predicated on Keyensian economics, needed to grow the economy out of a recession.

Another example is the explosive growth during FDR's third administration had far, far more to do with the outbreak of WWII than any policy implemented by his administration.
Click to expand...
Cherry picker extraordinaire
It's not an anomaly it happens over and over
 
I wonder if stock market Worshipers were this enamoured of Bush when the market broke 15,000 back in 2008?

But now, five years later we are supposed to be jumping for joy that the market finally reached the same level it was at five years prior? Will these market Worshipers be as thrilled when their stock turns to shit in the next implosion? When companies declare their stocks worthless in bankruptcy?

But the most amazing buffoonery of this thread is this notion that an irrational Wall Street fueled by the wreckless irresponsible Fed policy of QE somehow equates to economic growth and job creation.

But then, the author is another uneducated Liberal dimwit who doesn't give a shit about his fellow man, people who have given up looking for a job or the many black youth wallowing in economic dispair with 25% unemployment rates, as long as he can foolishly rub people's noses in his imagined wealth.

This is the selfish immoral mindset of the typical "caring" Liberal leftist. They care so much that they want to steal and use OTHER peoples money to fund their immoral corrupt partisan political desire to create a permanent dependent class to ensure a permanent reliable voter base.
 
Truth Detector said:
I wonder if stock market Worshipers were this enamoured of Bush when the market broke 15,000 back in 2008?

But now, five years later we are supposed to be jumping for joy that the market finally reached the same level it was at five years prior? Will these market Worshipers be as thrilled when their stock turns to shit in the next implosion? When companies declare their stocks worthless in bankruptcy?

But the most amazing buffoonery of this thread is this notion that an irrational Wall Street fueled by the wreckless irresponsible Fed policy of QE somehow equates to economic growth and job creation.

But then, the author is another uneducated Liberal dimwit who doesn't give a shit about his fellow man, people who have given up looking for a job or the many black youth wallowing in economic dispair with 25% unemployment rates, as long as he can foolishly rub people's noses in his imagined wealth.

This is the selfish immoral mindset of the typical "caring" Liberal leftist. They care so much that they want to steal and use OTHER peoples money to fund their immoral corrupt partisan political desire to create a permanent dependent class to ensure a permanent reliable voter base.
Click to expand...
Poor people have lots to say about the evil stock market!
Greed is the devil
 
The Dude said:
It's is if unlike republitools, you put your savings in stocks not cd's
Click to expand...

You leftist dullards can't seem to square your moronic talking points; I thought all those greedy Wall Street types were greedy Republicans?

If people do not save or invest in CDs, who will provide the loans for mortgages and business startups? Stock brokers? How did that work for us before 2008?

You're an economic dimwit of stupendous proportions. How old are you? Five?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top