Liberals BTFO as always
Liberals BTFO as always
GDP isn't a good measure of standard of living in a nation.
tfw literally just learned this on my macroeconomics homework 20 minutes ago
economic policy isn't Veeky Forums
The president controls the economy
Well, I guess Veeky Forums is full of retards so at least you'll fit in.
the President has no effect on the economy
Looks like Veeky Forums is full of you
Implying that there are only two opposite positions to be taken is seriously ridiculous. However, the president's effects on the economy are not in the ballpark of as direct or drastic as you're implying. The Fed and Congress have nearly all the policy-making power when it comes to the economy, and the president can only impact those indirectly and in a limited capacity. For instance, the success you think Reagan had with the economy was actually almost entirely the result of blessed Paul Volcker, peace be upon him.
Perhaps you have heard of Obamacare
Who wrote and passed the affordable care act durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Obama had nothing to do with his signature legislation
Is this the line Dems are going with?
go back to /int/ or /pol/ you faggot cuck
being this much of a libtard
I think the idea is that the President can't really do much to help the economy and should gtfo of the way. That was Reagan's mantra as opposed to Obama, who sticks his grubby fingers everywhere. OP's chart pretty much verifies this idea
Calculate the variance, SD, and variance of error to see if your data is worth a shit. Then calculate the variance and covariance of your two data sets to see if correlation actually exists before you make a claim of it.
Why do I keep seeing links to pol on this board?
Same guy doing it?
Yeah same one who also spams "try r9k"
Do you know what a strawman is
Making up a point that nobody mentioned and shooting it down. Just like you did
I don't see why anyone tries to argue otherwise, it's widely known that GDP growth and market performance has grown mainly under democrats, especially because of WW2, Dotcom, and the 2008 Financial Crisis
by end of Obama era GDP grew 5.4%
by end of Reagan era GDP fell 6.1%
showcasing GDP change on the bottom of the list, with reagan era GDP fluctuating at 7.9%, as if it's a good thing
am I being massively trolled here or is everyone on Veeky Forums supremely retarded?
cut tax revenue
increase military expenditure
surprisingly end up with increased public debt for some reason
Nixon will be remembered as the last sane republican president [he just failed in actually getting caught in his corruption]
Stocks =/= the economy. The fact that interest rates have been held low enough to create this bubble speaks volumes towards stagnant economic growth
See picture. Bill Clinton is the only case where this is close to true. Or are you referring to Jimmy Carter's years of booming economic growth lol? Reagan's years blew even Clinton out of the water without creating a bubble. Try arguing your case instead of just shilling without statistics or facts
Lmao learn to read a chart idiot.
double the national debt
shills on the internet still try to blame Bush
The last time we came near 10% gdp growth in a quarter was Reagan, so your Nixon comment makes no sense whatsoever.