4 ms·
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.
by crims0n 9mo ago
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.
- lazide 9mo agoI 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.
- frogperson 9mo agoThreatening 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.
- DaSHacka 9mo agoOh, so every Republican administration dating back to FDR did the same?
- bryanrasmussen 9mo agoDid 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?
- kingkawn 9mo agoYet it tracks for decades with successive D/R presidents, suggesting that this 4 year excuse is not enough to dismiss the correlation
- Braxton1980 9mo agoWhy aren't you trying to be political? What exactly do you think "political" is?
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago> 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.