One of my Liberal friends posted this. I actually can't disprove it

One of my Liberal friends posted this. I actually can't disprove it...

Other urls found in this thread:

ballotpedia.org/State_debt
princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/Presidents_Blinder_Watson_Nov2013.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>democrats reap the benefits of republican policies

Unemployment rates mean nothing without labor force participation rates

Aside from WV, those poor states are also filled with nogs

Your first mistake is pretending that the president creates jobs

First two are garbage because economic policies take years to show results and it's congress who sets them. The charts say Notning about who controls state governments or congress. (Btw a "red" or"blue" state is decided purely on how they vote presidentially). The bottom one is a combination of blue states having more people (so more commerce takes place) and blue states being on the money making end of division of labor. Red states are more agricultural and feed the blue states.

Oh yeah, like I'm really going to trust truthfulpolitics. com

3 of the darkest states on that map are consistently red

Wtf is going on in North Dakota?

And if it was the other way around you would claim the opposite

Oil. Duh.

Oil

what a shocker, cheap labor tends to vote for the party that brought them in to the country

>source: wikipedia
grade: F

Democratic states also have more debt per capita
ballotpedia.org/State_debt
The Dem states are consistently higher than GOP states

Also, it's time to protest the obvious bias against whites in the media and the government

Look up standards of living and cost of living expenses in different states. Montana has low GDP? So what. CA is a shithole that costs a gorillion dollars a month

>Source: "Presidents and the US Economy", by A.S. Blinder and M.W. Watson
Well for one that graph shown isnt found in the cited source, read:
>princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/Presidents_Blinder_Watson_Nov2013.pdf
as such, I would disregard both images as inauthentic

post this

THIS ISNT EVEN WORTH DEBATING. GRAPHS ARE FAKE AND NOT FOUND WITHIN CITED WORK.
>princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/Presidents_Blinder_Watson_Nov2013.pdf

/thread

>argue for me
>I cannot research or analyze
>reposting faceberg flotsam
>one-post
>writing prompt

The graph is pretty clear that Reagan was the only consistently strong republican candidate.

They'll just bring up Clinton, JFK LBK, Carter...

>one-post

It was 2 when you wrote that. Are you just mindlessly spewing memes you don't even understand. Back to lurking you newfaggot kike.

Both parties are globalists opening the borders, both parties will result in the collapse, civil war and/or balkanisation, or a mix.

/thread

/thread

democrats just lie about the numbers more.

I'll take lagging indicators for a thousand alex

Please don't parrot this. At best I can nitpick about the first graph not being found in the huge cited text but then it might actually be (didnt read 200 pages in 5 min) or simply not in this version.

Make it a 100 words. Present proofs.

Most of this is right but
>defeated the soviet union
they defeated themselves

You might want to check the appendix, seems like the numbers are there.

last bit of the conclusion, formatting might be off:

tl; dr it's luck

It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly “good luck.” Specifically, Democratic presidents have experienced, on average, better oil shocks than Republicans, a better legacy of (utilization-adjusted) productivity shocks, and more optimistic consumer expectations
(as measured by the Michigan ICE). The latter
comes tantalizingly close to a self-fulfilling
prophecy in which consumers correctly
expect the economy to do better under Democrats, and 33 then make that happen by purchasing more consumer durables. But direct measures showing increasing optimism after Democrats are elected are hard to find.
These three “luck” factors together (oil, productivity, and ICE) explain 46-62% of the 1.80 percentage point D-R growth gap. The rest remains, for now, a mystery of the still mostly-
unexplored continent. The word “research,” taken literally, means search again
. We invite other researchers to do so.

All you'll get are excuses. The truth is that Presidents have little control over growth. Massive market expansion like you saw in the 90's is what is needed to get to 4% growth or higher. And even with his "shitty liberal policies," as Sup Forums refers to them, he still managed exceptional growth which surpassed "MUH SAINT REAGAN."

>2017
>Believing GDP numbers

It's easy to raise the GDP when it counts government spending.
Government just throws money at things.
Progressives create problems, and conservatives make sure those problems can never be solved.

Fracking boom