Clinton inherited a recession from the elder Bush, and under his admin, we had the greatest prosperity we've known. Then the younger Bush took over, and left office w/ the economy in a freefall. Obama then led the longest peacetime recovery we've had. Trump took over, and became the worst jobs President in American history. Then 16 million jobs were added under Biden, and the market broke records. So, no - what I said isn't "demonstrably untrue."
Let’s dig into this with some data and reasoning, avoiding partisan cheerleading.
The claim hinges on how we define "good for the economy" and what metrics matter—GDP growth, unemployment, stock market performance, wages, or debt?
I’ll look at Republican presidents since Reagan (George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump) and compare their economic records to the broader picture, keeping in mind that presidents don’t fully control economies—Congress, the Federal Reserve, global events, and prior policies all play roles.
George H.W. Bush (1989–1993):
Real GDP growth averaged about 2.3% annually, decent but not spectacular. Unemployment rose from 5.4% to 7.8%, partly due to a recession in 1990–1991 tied to the Savings and Loan crisis and oil price shocks after Iraq’s Kuwait invasion. The deficit grew, but he signed the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, which helped set up fiscal stability for the '90s. Stock market (S&P 500) grew modestly, about 50% over his term. Not a disaster, but not a golden age either—economic headwinds weren’t all his fault.
George W. Bush (2001–2009):
GDP growth averaged 2.1% annually, hampered by two recessions—the dot-com bust (2001) and the Great Recession (2007–2009). Unemployment started at 4.2%, dipped to 4.4% in 2006, then spiked to 7.8% by his exit amid the financial crisis. The S&P 500 was flat over his tenure, losing about 3% total—ugly for investors. Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 boosted disposable income but ballooned deficits, and deregulation debates linger over the housing bubble’s collapse. Wars and 9/11 spending didn’t help. Hard to call this "good" unless you cherry-pick early years.
Donald Trump (2017–2021):
Pre-COVID, GDP growth averaged 2.5% annually (2017–2019), solid but not Reagan-esque (3.5% average). Unemployment hit a 50-year low of 3.5% by late 2019, and wages ticked up slightly for low earners. The 2017 tax cuts juiced corporate profits, and the S&P 500 soared 67% from inauguration to January 2020. Then COVID hit—GDP tanked 3.4% in 2020, unemployment peaked at 14.8%. Recovery started by his exit (6.7% unemployment), boosted by massive stimulus he signed. Debt exploded, though—$7.8 trillion added in four years. Strong pre-pandemic, but the crash complicates the story.
Reagan (1981–1989) as Benchmark:
GDP growth averaged 3.5%, unemployment fell from 7.5% to 5.4%, and the S&P 500 doubled. Tax cuts and deregulation fueled a boom, though deficits tripled, and the 1987 crash spooked markets briefly. Often romanticized, but tangible gains set a high bar.
Counterpoints:
- Democratic presidents like Clinton (3.9% GDP growth, 4% unemployment by 2000) and Obama (1.6% average GDP but 4.7% unemployment by 2016, post-crisis recovery) had strong runs too.
- Economic cycles don’t align neatly with parties—Republicans often inherit slowdowns (H.W. Bush, W. Bush) or crises (Trump).
- Policy lags mean presidents reap or suffer from predecessors’ actions—Clinton benefited from H.W. Bush’s deficit deal, Trump from Obama’s recovery.
Verdict:
Saying Republicans haven’t been "good" since Reagan oversimplifies. H.W. Bush was steady but uninspiring, W. Bush got hammered by crises (some self-inflicted), and Trump delivered pre-COVID gains but faltered in the crunch. Reagan’s era was uniquely robust, but "not good" dismisses pockets of growth and context—like Trump’s pre-2020 numbers rivaling Clinton’s early years.
It’s more accurate to say Republicans haven’t consistently matched Reagan’s highs, but "not good" is too blunt. Data shows mixed bags, not a clear party fail.
@Grok
