upvote

points

by crims0n2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby sigmoid102 hours ago|
next
[-]
The fact that consecutive Republican administrations in this graph fared even worse suggests that is not the case.
reply
upvoteby lostlogin2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I’d have called Reagan very conservative, am I missing something?
reply
upvoteby bobthepanda2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Are you misreading the word consecutive as conservative?
reply
upvoteby nxm1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Let's not omit the fact that Covid hit in Trump's last year in 2020, where he had a booming economy and lowest unemployment late historically amongst minorities.
reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> Surely some of that is lag time in economic policy

Why? What if constantly launching foreign wars, leveraging up the financial system and running up deficits isn’t sound economic policy?

reply
upvoteby crims0n2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Wasn't trying to be political, just making an observation that 4 years is probably too short of a time to credit policy changes within a single administration.
reply
upvoteby frogperson2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Threatening all of our allies with war and tarrifs is a great way to tank confidence in the US and its businesses. Ask me how I know.
reply
upvoteby DaSHacka1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Oh, so every Republican administration dating back to FDR did the same?
reply
upvoteby bryanrasmussen2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Did you look at the graph?

Eisenhower had two terms = 8 years - did poorly.

Kennedy + Johnson two Democratic terms in a row = 8 years, did well.

Nixon + Ford, two Republican in row = 8 years, did poorly.

Carter 1 term, did well.

Reagan Bush - 3 terms Republicans 12 years, did poorly.

Clinton 2 terms 8 years did well.

Bush the second, 2 terms 8 years did poorly.

Obama 2 terms 8 years did well.

Trump, 1 term did extremely poorly

Biden 1 term did well.

So this 4 years thing you're talking about you mean that we can't be sure about Biden, Trump, or Carter. Fair enough, is the 8 years good enough or is that also too short to draw a conclusion?

reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross27 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> making an observation that 4 years is probably too short of a time to credit policy changes within a single administration

Correct. But across repeated administrations, some of which held power for two terms, one can identify patterns. Post-Reagan Republicans have been a consistent trash fire for the American worker.

reply
upvoteby Braxton19801 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Why aren't you trying to be political? What exactly do you think "political" is?
reply
upvoteby kingkawn1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yet it tracks for decades with successive D/R presidents, suggesting that this 4 year excuse is not enough to dismiss the correlation
reply
upvoteby lazide2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I suspect the administrations are as much a sign of the shifting tides than a cause.

Conservative approaches tend to be…. Conservative. Which is the opposite of growth.

reply
upvoteby lostlogin2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
WW2 really got the US economy going, so maybe the issue it a lack of scale in the warring?
reply