Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArellaNova
Mr. Mephisto,
Actually, your diagram there is pretty accurate. But what it fails to explain is the overall effects of political legislation on the economy. Economic growth or decline is measured by quarters. Each quarter reports reflect changes that have taken months and years to come into effect. Such as tax cuts. Regans economic policies didn't take hold till the early 90's.
All of those blue lines are honest to God growth, but they have the wrong name to them. All that growth is due to the policies of one....Ronald Regan.
Kinda makes you wanna hit something, doesn't it.
The red arrows? Same deal. Owed to the economic policies of Bill Clinton.
hmmm.......  |
Wow. Obviously you are saying democrats are more efficient.
Because it took Reagan and Bush the Elder 14 years before we started seeing gains in the middle of the Clinton presidency, but it only took Clinton 8 years to bring it completely around the other way.
See, this argument is what we call a load of crap. Either it takes 4 years, 8 years, or damn near 15 years for a president's economic policies to take effect. It doesn't make sense that it took Reagan's policies 14 years to have their effect, and Clinton's policies only 8. It's also exceedingly convenient that no matter what happens to the economy, the president gets to blame the last guy.
That's great for the president, since no president can EVER be held accountable for his economic blunders while in office.