Lots of people CONSIDER Reagan to be a good economic President.
I, personally, do not consider him to be that.
The national debt TRIPLED during Reagan's administration.
EXACTLY!
Is there any measurable way the country does better with Republican presidents?
- Thread starter Mina
- Start date
Lots of people CONSIDER Reagan to be a good economic President.
I, personally, do not consider him to be that.
The national debt TRIPLED during Reagan's administration.
EXACTLY!
BartenderElite
Verified User
The bolded is laughable, and such a poor narrative. Republicans expect a mixed-race President to solve racism.
Sorry - that one is on people who tried to marginalize him and make him an "other," by starting the birther movement, using his middle name in a derogatory way, and the rest. It's so absurd that a minority is expected to "fix" racism.
Maybe I'm not being clear. I'm not looking for you to identify one particular indicator where one particular president outperformed another. For example, the job creation was higher during the Carter years than the Reagan years, and the poverty rate declined on Obama's watch whereas it rose on Bush's, but that's not the kind of thing I'm looking for. Instead, I'm trying to identify if there are any indicators where the Republican eras, on average (taking all of them together), had better trends than the Democratic eras, on average.
So far I've tested quite a few indicators and the only one I've found that looked better for the Republicans was inflation, and even that one only looked better for them using one of the two methods of scoring I thought of (the Dems looked better in terms of average inflation rate). So, I'm wondering if you can think of others that look better for the Republicans.
Yes. I see the Reagan era as a huge lost opportunity, economically. We had two massive pieces of stimulus hitting simultaneously. On the monetary front, the Fed handed the economy some unprecedented rate cuts, flooding the market with money. On the fiscal front, we had a huge increase in budget deficits. Between those two things, you'd expect a huge increase in prosperity in the short term, albeit with longer-term negative impacts (from the public and private debt run-up). Yet look at the poverty rate. In 1988 it was exactly where it had been in 1980. With all that stimulus, the people who most needed the help didn't get a bit of it.
It's a bit like if an Olympic sprinter was simultaneously taking massive amounts of steroids and a huge hit of human growth hormone, but even with both those things, his times didn't actually improve at all.
Granted, that's just how things looked from the perspective of poor people, and that stimulus did help the rich a lot, and the middle class a little.... but even with the middle class, the income growth was pretty anemic considering how much stimulus was happening. Very nearly all the extra growth was going to the rich. That's a damned waste.
The racism against Obama was met by Obama's own brand of racism. He had a choice of being an American President who happened to be of African-American culture or a "Black President". He chose the latter course as demonstrated by his actions and comments about Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.
That's not to say problems of race don't exist. It's to say that the cure for racism is not more racism.
rac·ism /ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
"a program to combat racism"
BartenderElite
Verified User
It's on racists to stop racism. The objects of racism can't do much about it.
BidenPresident
Verified User
For corporations and the upper class. Otherwise, bad for the vast majority of Americans.
First, it's important to understand the cause of racism. Asking a dumbass scared of his/her own shadow who believes they are being replaced is unlikely to correct themselves. Most racism is a combination of fear and ignorance.
Second, bullshit on those who are objects of bigotry and prejudice. They have a right to vote. Why do you think 40% of Americans won't vote this fall or in November 2024? Do you hold them responsible like you do the racist morons?
There was nothing that former President Barack Obama said about Treyvon Martin or Michael Brown that was not also said about tons of white people, because what former president Obama said about those two incidents were correct...and should have been said by everyone.
So you never objected to something Trump said as President "that was not also said about tons of white people"?
The fact you follow the partisanship taking sides on racism is part of the problem. President Obama should have been a President for all Americans, not just those of his chosen culture. President Trump should have been a President for all Americans, not just the racist assholes and pedophiles.
Nope...never did.
I have called him a classless, clueless, ignorant, stupid, unprincipled fucking moron...but that is only because he definitely is a classless, clueless, ignorant, stupid, unprincipled fucking moron.
President Obama WAS a president for all Americans...whether you realize it or not.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Good point.
Yes, I do. I voted for him thinking he was the guy that was most likely capable of uniting our country. Instead, we got a beer summit.
Agreed on Trump.
Disagreed on Obama. Sure, he did some good things, but on the previously mentioned issues, he chose racial sides on pending legal matters. That's not being a President for all Americans. That's being a racially partisan President. Something he has in common with Trump.
Another lie for Lyinfish.
I voted for McCain and then Romney.
Well see Mr. Tiny Penis, you are not as smart as you think you are which is the mark of a classic liberal arrogant asshole
These are the same people who were praising Trump's actions regarding the economy just weeks into his presidency completely disregarding the high he was riding coming from Obama's economic recovery. They really do believe presidents can make that kind of economic change in a mere few weeks.
This forum seems to have a bunch of angry incels banging away their rage on their keyboards...but you also sound like old farts who need to be seen as still relevant. Weird combo.
But for sure there is a deep seated rage coming from a few of you. I hope you are taking your heart pills on time.
But for sure there is a deep seated rage coming from a few of you. I hope you are taking your heart pills on time.
Are you saying during Democratic presidents their policies caused the teen birth rate to decline faster than under Republicans presidents and then, when a Republican replaced a Democrat the birth rate continued to decline under the Republican policy but at a slower rate? Remember, it takes a year for a new president's budget and many of his policies to take effect.
What Democratic policy and which Republican policy caused those declines to occur?
It is hard to believe Clinton's liberal leadership caused teens to have less sex or Bush's abstinence policy.
Let's look at the actual teen birth rate rather than the rate of decline. Teenager Girls 15-19: Per 1,000 Women
https://www.statista.com/statistics/259518/birth-rate-among-us-teenagers/
1991-2020. I started with 1993 because it was the first year of the Clinton presidency.
1993: 59
1994: 58.2
1995: 56
1996: 53.5
1997: 51.3
1998: 50.3
1999: 48.8
2000: 47.7
2001: 45
2002: 42.6
2003: 41.1
2004: 40.5
2005: 39.7
2006: 41.1
2007: 41.5
2008: 40.2
2009: 37.9
2010: 34.2
2011: 31.3
2012: 29.4
2013: 26.5
2014: 24.2
2015: 22.3
2016: 20.3
2017: 18.8
2018: 17.4
2019: 16.7
2020: 15.4
Average per presidential term:
Clinton 56.6
Clinton: 49.5
Bush: 42.3
Bush: 40.6
Obama: 33.2
Obama: 23.3
Trump: 17
Democratic Presidents Average: 40.65
Republican Presidents Average: 33.3
Between 1993-2020 the teen birth rate under Democrats averaged 7.35 higher than Republicans.
Based on your conclusions Republican policies resulted in lower teen birth rate then Democrats. Trump's leadership caused the lowest teen birth rates since the data has been kept.
Now, I certainly don't agree with your conclusions that party policies account for these changes in the teen birth rate and I bet you are having problems believing Trump's policies caused the lowest birth rate, but that is the argument that you are making.
As for red and blue states, we both know teen birth rate is related to socio-economic class and the blue states have a higher class with fewer poor minorities than many of the red states.