That is complete and utter bullshit. Agreed upon with you of course by other ignorant uneducated democrats.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance...-republican-president-better-for-the-economy/
It’s the economy, stupid!
"With presidential elections looming, the question is, who has been historically better for the economy — Republicans or Democrats? For that answer, let’s take a look at
Gross Domestic Product and
inflation. We’ll use government data going back to 1969, when
Richard Nixon took office.
Under the eight years of the Nixon/Ford administration, the economy grew by 100 percent with an average inflation rate of 6.3 percent. Under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush’s three terms, GDP rose 115 percent, with inflation at an average of 4.3 percent. George W. Bush’s eight years saw a 38 percent increase in GDP, with an average 2.7 percent inflation rate. Donald Trump’s four years as president saw GDP increasing 17 percent and inflation averaging 1.9 percent.
How did the Democrats do?
The economy grew 57 percent under Jimmy Carter, with an 8.9 percent average inflation rate. Under Bill Clinton’s eight years, the economy grew 56 percent and inflation was 2.6 percent on average.
Barack Obama’s administration saw an economic increase of 34 percent with an average of just 1.4 percent during his two terms. In three years, President Biden has overseen economic growth of 25 percent with inflation on average at 5.6 percent.
Here are the takeaways: In the 32 years that Republican presidents have held office since 1969, the average economic growth was 8.4 percent and average inflation was 4.75 percent. Under the 23 years of Democratic administrations, the economy grew on average 7.5 percent and inflation averaged 8 percent. "
So a Republican president is better for the economy, right?
Maybe. Maybe not so much. A good economist can easily argue that there is more to these numbers.
For example, the GDP numbers that I’m using above are in real dollars and don’t reflect inflation, which factored significantly during some of these periods. This is why I’m also taking inflation into consideration separately, rather than baking it in, so we keep things apples-to-apples.
There’s no argument that the huge GDP growth we saw in the 1970s and 1980s had a lot to do with inflation, both under Republican and Democratic administrations. But even during the Reagan/Bush growth period at 115 percent, GDP was at 26.7 times inflation, which was still better than Clinton’s 21.5.
Many argue, rightfully, that an administration’s policies can only affect so much in such a giant economy. Industry trends, technologies, banking crises, dot-com boom/busts, scientific discoveries, foreign trade, emerging markets, population movements and other demographic factors have more of an impact on a country’s economy than rules and regulations coming from Washington.
The definition of ignorance has spoken. 
