History Shows Businessmen Make Bad Presidents

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Warren G. Harding

Warren G. Harding

The thought of being president terrified Harding, nonetheless, he surrounded himself with a number of truly great cabinet members, Secretary of State Charles Evan Hughes, Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover and perhaps one of America’s greatest Treasury Secretaries, Andrew Mellon, as well a few of his Ohio political cronies, like Harry Daugherty. The latter would end up sinking Harding’s reputation for good by linking him to the unseemly but somewhat overblown Teapot Dome scandal in which a few members of Harding’s administration were bribed to sell land cheaply to oil companies. Some of those men went to jail, but Harding was never personally involved in the scandal.

Harding inherited a catastrophically bad economy from Woodrow Wilson and the country was locked in a recession when he entered office. However, Harding turned the economy around by introducing an economic program opposite of President Obama’s. Harding’s economic policy was essentially one of public sector austerity. He reduced taxes, dramatically cut government spending and ended many regulations, dropping unemployment to just under two percent by 1926. In addition, he dramatically reduced the federal government’s debt. These policies jump-started what became known as the Roaring Twenties, during which the country experienced almost a decade of incredible economic growth.

Harding did not just return the country to “normalcy” he unleashed its incredible economic potential. Harding’s successor, Calvin Coolidge, has been revived by Ronald Reagan and modern conservatives as one of America’s great, successful presidents, but it’s time that Harding gets some credit too.
http://bearingarms.com/top-five-underrated-presidents/
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
- George H.W. Bush (oilman)

- Warren Harding (newspaperman)

- Andrew Johnson (tailor)

- Herbert Hoover (mining)

Trump's claim to fame is his success as a businessman - but the track record shows that being a successful businessmen doesn't translate into being a successful president.

Yet it sure does translate into a bloviating ego-maniac.

Don't know which is bigger, Trump's ego or his displays of it:

The Trump Tower sign may lead to new regulations about what can be installed on buildings along the Chicago River.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Bill Clinton, lawyer, with zero business experience added 23 million jobs during his watch.

What? Are you stoned?

George Bush Sr. handed Clinton a roaring economy? On what alternative history novel can I find this data?

Apparently so. The economy grew by 5% most of 1992. Even after the Fed contracted the money supply. Clinton stepped in when the economy was growing for 22 consecutive months, after contracting because of said money supply contraction. That ended in March of 1991. From 1993 to 1997 the economy grew 3.3% however real income plummeted with his tax hikes that cost him the Congress.

After Newt Gingrich had his way and many taxes were cut (there are literally dozens) the economy grew at a much better rate of 4.4% and real income went up 1.7% instead of going down like it did from Clinton and his democrat congress. A big part of that tax cut he publicly opposed was capital gains. The Clinton economy includes 2001-2002, before the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003.

Don't forget Clinton gave us the current depression by enforcing Jimmy Carter's mortgage make over which cause the real-estate/housing/banking failure.

Clinton rode the coattails of Reagan's economy. And he wrecked the Mercedes.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Its only meaningless when Republicans are not ranked at the top of the heap!

No, it is simply meaningless, even if all the top were Republicans. The first Republican was Lincoln, a man of vision. He knew if the US had not preserved the union, the Nation would never grow into a superpower!

Lincoln was pro big business, more than Reagan. The South wanted to remain agrarian, as a small nation independent of foreign entanglements. For Lincoln, that would not do, he saw the Nation as one very large country, he knew the rise of so called, "robber barons' was inevitable. He was never the goofy hick popular literature made of him, he was the person responsible for the USA becoming a super power.

The question, "who is greater Lincoln or Washington?" Those who choose Lincoln have a higher capacity for status, this is an empirical finding.

You are a Pinko Commie whose signature is “Hard work never hurt anybody - but why take the chance !!!”:dunce:
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
What? Are you stoned?



Apparently so. The economy grew by 5% most of 1992. Even after the Fed contracted the money supply. Clinton stepped in when the economy was growing for 22 consecutive months, after contracting because of said money supply contraction. That ended in March of 1991. From 1993 to 1997 the economy grew 3.3% however real income plummeted with his tax hikes that cost him the Congress.

After Newt Gingrich had his way and many taxes were cut (there are literally dozens) the economy grew at a much better rate of 4.4% and real income went up 1.7% instead of going down like it did from Clinton and his democrat congress. A big part of that tax cut he publicly opposed was capital gains. The Clinton economy includes 2001-2002, before the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003.

Don't forget Clinton gave us the current depression by enforcing Jimmy Carter's mortgage make over which cause the real-estate/housing/banking failure.

Clinton rode the coattails of Reagan's economy. And he wrecked the Mercedes.
Right, the current president benefits from the past. Clinton would have had gays in the military and the health care when he was in his first term. Then he chilled when the Republicans took over in congress.
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
Ford moved the needle 3.0% in his tenure. Carter brought it back down the same amount. When Bush Jr. left office the ratio had increased 39.8% from when Ford took office, not 61.8%.

Nope. Federal debt to GDP level reached its lowest level in Reagan's first year (30.6%), second lowest level in Ford's first couple months (4th quarter 1974 at 30.7%), then Nixon (3rd quarter 1974) with 30.79%, then Carter (1st quarter 1980) with 30.87%.

You can see all this here, and then playing around with the endpoint dates:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S/
I'm not sure where "Mocking You" gets his numbers but I stand by my source which is readily accessible in chart form - by president.

It is based on data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the White House for the 2012 Budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt
 
Last edited:

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned

MarcATL

New member
If "oatmeal" were to take the time to check the data, rather than spouting the "conservative" line, he would know that American reached its lowest federal debt/GDP ratio since WW2 under Carter Administration.

Federal debt/GDP ratio at the end of the Carter Administration 32.5%

Federal debt/GDP ratio at the end of the Reagan Administration increased by 20.8% to 53.1%/GDP.

Federal debt/GDP ratio at the end of the Bush Sr. Administration
increased by 13.0% to 66.1%/GDP.

Under the Clinton Administration the debt actually decreased by 9.7% to 56.4%/GDP.

Under the Bush Jr. Administration it increased 27.8% to 84.2%/GDP.

The Obama Administration inherited a financial meltdown and was the first Democratic president since Roosevelt where the federal debt/GDP ratio increased.

During the post WW2 period there have been 4 Republican presidents (Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.) have run federal debts that have exceeded the GDP by a grand total of 61.8%.

Much of this debt can be attributed to the Republican's bright idea to cut taxes for the wealthy under the guise that it would stimulate the economy - the net result was that these cuts were financed with borrowed money and the promised economic benefits never materialized.

Only the conservatives would argue that financing tax cuts with borrowed money makes business sense!

[url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt[/url]
The Republicans are foolishly insane or insanely foolish.

One of the two.
 

MarcATL

New member
So are the Democrats... the question is who is going to implode first...

I tend to think they will both implode at the same time... since they both operate basically the same way.
What different results are Democrats expecting after doing what same thing?
 
Top