TLHR thinks I'm a right wing dupe and/or a closet supporter of supply side who is carrying water
for Reagan and dissing Clinton??? That's an unfortunate resort to ad hominem mind-reading which
has no basis in fact. It cannot be found in my post to you (in which I AGREE with you that GOP
presidencies have worse economies on average than Democrats, just not that all recessions were
during GOP administrations, which isn't true). And I didn't 'refuse to give Clinton credit,' exactly,
but rather explained what his courageous and politically risky actions as to fiscal policy actually were.

I'm to YOUR left, I am a virulent critic of Reagan and the Bushes, and I was to the left of Clinton
(preferring Jerry Brown in the '92 primaries). I cast my first presidential ballot for McGovern,
the first of my every presidential vote for Democrats, and I am now or have been the proverbial
'card-carrying' dues paying member of nearly every human rights, environmental, good government
cause. I haven't changed my general belief in all these things, even if I've trimmed some of my most
extreme positions in the light of experience, common sense and better facts. Still about 80-85%
rock solid on my original positions. Still loathe Reagan, the Bushes, Nixon, etc. But let's be clear
on the facts-- neither of the Bushs' recessions qualify as severe. Both were very mild by historical
standards, by how much contraction occurred in the economy and by how many quarters they lasted.
Please, let's not make our case by false assertions. That's what Republicans are for, LOL!!

Economics is hard to argue by cases, because cases aren't ever entirely comparable. TLHR him- or
herself makes special circumstance pleading for FDR's recession in '38, and Truman's recession,
but doesn't seem to realize there are ALWAYS unique circumstances in every presidency, many
of which are inherited from previous administrations. The Fed, or world circumstances, trump
whatever a president may do in fiscal policy as to causing recessions.

Frankly, as is relatively well known, recessions are always caused by
a) the Fed tightening monetary policy to avoid inflation, or
b) a huge price runup in a basic commodity like oil. Expansions of the economy
occur with looser monetary policy, and/or looser fiscal policies (higher spending).
Unlike the '60s, before the paradigm-shattering occurence of 'stagflation' (which was supposed
to be impossible given the Phillips Curve historical data showing unemployment and inflation always
went in opposite directions), looser fiscal policies began to cause far tighter monetary policies,
making government spending far less effective to fight economic slowdowns. Whatever benefit
was gained by increased spending would be offset by the drag of higher interest rates.

Therefore, both Clinton's and Carter's fiscal policies were quite stringent, to allow for the now more
effective looser monetary policy. The GOP in later presidencies didn't get that message, or got it late.

Used to be the only supposedly 'legitimate' increases in government
spending were for 'defense' or wars. WW II got the economy humming in
explosive growth, whereas ramping down military spending after the war
slowed the economy down, and Truman got the economy moving again with
Korean War spending. TLHR mentions the slowdown, but forgets the new war
spending. Eisenhower ended the Korean conflict, AND refused the
military's request for vast increases in spending, as the rare president
with the ability to say no to the military industrial complex's ravenous
appetite, and suffered recessions as the direct result. (Even Ike's
Interstate Highway System creation and huge attending expenditures were
sold as a 'defense' program).

Kennedy got the economy moving again with military spending (campaigning
on a non-existent 'missile gap,' and sparking a huge buildup in nuclear
arms building, even though when he came into office, we already had a
sizable advantage in missiles). His initiative of going to the moon was
also military spending in disguise. JFK had very little in the way of
domestic spending increases or initiatives. Johnson kept the economy
rolling with the huge spending for his Vietnam escalation, AND his
domestic programs on top of it, but by refusing to raise taxes (until
'68) to pay for the 'guns and butter' spending, set up a worsening
inflationary spiral.

Nixon INHERITED the end result of LBJ's policies, with a recession in
'69 as the Fed moved to stamp out inflation, but with no budget of his
own taking effect until late in the year. How does one attribute a
recession in a president's first year to anything he did, generally,
since the bulk of the year would be under the fiscal policies of the
previous president and Congress (budgets run from October 1 to
September 30th, so the incoming president doesn't influence much until
the last quarter of his first year, when his own budget comes into effect)?
I hold no affection for Nixon, but he nothing to do with the recession in
his first year, which should properly be viewed as a Johnson recession, IMO.

For, to a great degree, Nixon as a domestic president was the last
bigger government spending advocating liberal president we ever had. He
proposed and got passed some of the largest increases ever in domestic
spending next to Johnson, including Medicaid, a 1-year jump to a
permanent 20% increase in Social Security payments, as well as proposing
but not getting passed such liberal wet dreams as a nationalized health
care system and a 'negative' income tax that would directly pay people
who were below a given level of earnings. He put price and wage controls
on the economy (a liberal idea, not a conservative one), and had his Fed
Chairman, Arthur Burns, pump up the money supply, to try fight inflation
without increasing unemployment. These ideas didn't work, setting the
stage for far worse inflation once the controls were lifted, AND setting up
the tripling of oil prices (as the oil producers became upset about being paid
in steadily declining value dollars).

Ford inherited Nixon's worsening of the '60s inflation and the lingering effects of
the Nixon oil price hike shock (admittedly making it still worse with his 'WIN'
('Whip Inflation Now') policies, and the Fed tried to stomp out the inflation by
very tight monetary policy, causing (along with the military spending going down
as we withdrew from Vietnam) a recession worse than Reagan's would be in terms
of how much the economy shrunk, and how many quarters it lasted, although not
as bad for unemployment as Reagan's.

Carter got a lenient monetary policy out of his original Fed Chairman
appointee G. William Miller, forestalling recession until HE got his own
oil price shock, and then appointed Paul Adolph Volcker, who caused the
recession by tightening monetary policy. However, Carter was not a
traditional Democrat on fiscal policies, but a fiscal conservative who
didn't use large government spending increases to pump the economy. In
fact, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter committed to and
got passed first a 3% real increase in military spending (on top of 12%
inflation, meaning a 15% increase in nominal dollars), and then a **5%**
real increase, to be done annually for the next 5 years. But Carter was
frugal enough elsewhere in his budget that he actually proposed a
balanced budget for the next year, trimming enough in other areas to
offset both the increase in military spending AND the rest of the
deficit, which was averaging about $50 billion a year.

Reagan went with what amounted to a military Keynesian spending program
with his doubling of the last Carter military budget and his tax cuts.
However, the red ink caused by cutting taxes AND spending hugely on
defense (which otherwise would have been hugely stimulative to the
economy) made the Fed under Volcker REALLY tighten down on monetary
policy, causing unemployment to rise to over 10% for the first time
since the Great Depression. Arguably, Reagan was following the
Kennedy/Johnson model on steroids, but in a 10% inflation/7%
unemployment condition, these policies didn't work as they did in the
'60s, but exactly the opposite, until perversely, he started his 7 years
of tax increasing, and then growth recommenced, inflation fell, and
unemployment dropped, greatly aided by a large drop in oil prices to
down below $10 a barrel.

Bush's economic situation was inherited from Reagan, and there wasn't a
lot he could do about it then. (Since he was a co-author of those
policies as Reagan's VP, he inherited his own mess, and not unfairly
shares the blame for what he inherited). His own very brief, shallow
recession was caused by the spiking of oil prices to over $40 a barrel
at the invasion of Kuwait (which he engineered), and the large
overhanging need to liquidate about 1/3rd of all commercial real estate
projects, which were under Resolution Trust Corporation receivership,
and finance the $500 billion 30 year payoff cost of the S&L failures.
(Unfortunately, the S&L debacle was due to BOTH parties' corruption, as
Lloyd Bentsen told Michael Dukakis when he warned him not to make the
S&L failures an issue in the campaign).

The economy eventually returned to expansion after Bush cut his tax
hike/cap freeze deal with the Democratic Congress on domestic spending,
allowing the Fed to relax monetary policy 10 times in a row. Not the
historical Democratic prescription for economic growth (higher domestic
spending and/or war spending), but a return to fiscal discipline, ala
Eisenhower-era GOP policies. That fiscal discipline had been Carter's
policy, and became Clinton's policy, but weren't FDR or Truman's of
JFK's or LBJ's policies.

This little trip down memory lane is to show that it is hard to
characterize the two parties' presidencies as being consistent on
economic policy, historically. Neither JFK or LBJ would have recognized
Carter's or Clinton's policies as mainstream Democratic policies of the
past, so timid they were as to willingness to pump prime the economy
with government spending, and frugal as to upping military spending.
Nixon's policies WERE of the vintage Democratic stripe, but failed
because conditions had changed. Reagan's policies were a twisted version
of the JFK/LBJ model, but failed (until abandoned) because conditions
had changed. Then Carter and Clinton followed Eisenhower-era fiscal
policies, which didn't work for Ike very well for gdp growth, but
worked for them, because conditions had changed once again.

So, it isn't the policies per se that can be blamed, but the intelligence
with which they were used given the economic circumstances.
Democrat presidents did what was required, and/or what they could get
away with (LBJ's economic policies were not sustainable, but came home
to roost after he left office). Republican presidents had a knack for
doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, but it was DIFFERENT wrong
things in each case, and in most cases, acquiesced to by Democratic-majority
Congresses. Not for nothing is the Republican Party known as 'the stupid party,'
even sometimes by Republicans themselves.

Phillip Schuman