r/WallStreetbetsELITE 8d ago

MEME Didn't see this coming

Post image
58.8k Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

296

u/rube_X_cube 8d ago

Americans have been trained like Pavlovian dogs to believe that Republicans “are good on the economy,” despite the fact that it is simply not true. Just factually, empirically, not true. At all.

98

u/DeletdButChngdMyMind 8d ago

And “small government”, LOFUCKINGL

55

u/KeyboardGrunt 8d ago

And "freedom of speech".

46

u/AsymmetricClassWar 8d ago

Pro-life*

*Conditions and terms apply; void after 9 months

5

u/sourmeat2 8d ago

*Conditions and terms apply; void after 9 months

You got 9 months?! Who can afford prenatal care in this economy?

3

u/Annual_Strategy_6206 8d ago

So that's 4 in a row real easy hypocracies that, turns out, are pretty damn important. And that Democrats are better on. Add the one below and we've got a five- fecta

2

u/CaindaX 8d ago

And "pro labor"

1

u/throwawayfinancebro1 8d ago

And about “law and order”

2

u/Popular-Copy-5517 8d ago

“Family values”

13

u/Shikatanai 8d ago edited 8d ago

They are small government and just believe that the government should leave people to live their own lives.

Except for your sex life

And your choice to have a kid

And what in your pants

And the books in the library

And expressing your opinion of them in public

And whether your company has a choice in buying advertising from social media they approve of

1

u/SitueradKunskap 8d ago

But they are for parent's rights.

...unless you want to do something other than than what they want.

You're following the best science and affirming your trans child? You ain't got that right.

You want your kid to wear a mask? No can do!

You want your kid to be taught evolution? No you don't.

You want your kid to get married at 13? ...actually, that's a right you do have.
As long as neither is trans, then it's grooming...

Man, republicans are such defenders of freedom. /S

1

u/Bright-Print3606 8d ago

You got it all wrong! Why would you wait 13 entire years for that?

1

u/Cautious-Seesaw 7d ago

You forgot haircuts.

1

u/10000Didgeridoos 7d ago

And which clients you choose to represent as an attorney.

And what prices your company charges for products which they have tariffed.

And what your university teaches and whom it hires.

And what your publication says about them.

1

u/froginbog 7d ago

It’s such a joke. Now the president literally cannot commit crimes. Insane

1

u/astrike81 7d ago

There's just less people to rule you with that same government. The kings of democracy

29

u/JIsADev 8d ago

The 08 crash forever changed my mind about them, so I'm shocked people still think Republicans are good for the economy

11

u/Mr-R0bot0 8d ago

The propaganda has caused irreparable brain damage.

4

u/phoonie98 8d ago

Fox News warped their brains

3

u/froginbog 7d ago

Now irreparable brain damages causes more republicanism

2

u/kafelta 7d ago

They are dumb

15

u/cleepboywonder 8d ago

The last admin that was a democrat that oversaw the start of a recession was LBJ, seriously. Clinton avoided dotcom, Biden avoided Covid, Obama avoided GFC, Carter was after the recession caused by Nixon, and then in 68 you have a small recession.

3

u/10000Didgeridoos 7d ago

Oh don't worry they spin this always as "HURRR THE DEM PRESIDENT GOT HANDED A GREAT ECONOMY BUY THE REPUBLICAN BEFORE HIM THEN THE NEXT REPUBLICAN WAS A VICTIM OF DELAYED EFFECTS OF THE DEM POLICIES FROM BEFORE HIM BRO"

Any economic gain is because of Republicans. Any downturn is because of Democrats. This is the cult. They actually think you can deficit spend AND cut taxes at the same time forever and it will just magically keep working. They try to juice the economy when they have power every single time doing this.

10

u/RingWraith75 8d ago

Right. Democrats are objectively better for the economy than Republicans. I forget the exact number but I believe 11 of the last 12 recessions happened under a Republican president.

1

u/SnuffedOutBlackHole 8d ago edited 8d ago

You have two general styles:

Try to work on the issues and get people to cooperate on solutions.

Put ideology first and try to force a complicated world into suddenly doing what you demanded.

When voters are frustrated they can tend to pick the latter, when only the former gets them closer to what they desire.

1

u/EtherBoo 8d ago

My favorite Republican defense "well it takes 4-8 years to see the impact of a president's policy on the economy".

It's always some mental gymnastics to justify whatever they want. It's a fucking cult.

0

u/Yeah_x10 8d ago

Dems were saying this plenty during Trump’s term to take away the credit from his 2017-2020 economic performance.

3

u/Suspicious-Map-4409 7d ago

No, they weren't. They were saying that Trump was riding on all the progress Obama's policies already did. There wasn't a delay in Obama's policies, they were put into place and caused a significant growth and it just kept growing during Trump first few years until he shit the bed with covid.

1

u/Advanced-Law4776 8d ago

Republicans run the deficit >2x democrats over last 100 years

1

u/Arctica23 8d ago

Remember the last time the United States had a balanced budget? I'll give you a hint, we didn't have a Republican president

1

u/Mobile-Mess-2840 7d ago

I wish I existed in the timeline where the Clinton 90's Booming Economy led into the Gore 2000's with manageable boom and bust cycles...and no Sub Prime garbage and no 9/11, as competent people would be in charge.

1

u/PiersPlays 7d ago

Yeah but it comes at the cost of providing a fairer and more inclusive society and who wants that‽ /s

0

u/scwt 8d ago

It depends how far back you go, but the average annualized S&P returns are pretty similar under Democratic and Republican presidents.

Clinton getting all of the upside from the dot-com bubble and Bush getting all of the crash kind of skews the average.

1

u/hopbow 7d ago

Annualized S&P doesn't really matter.

Also, Trump got COVID, which sucked but was also the biggest private profitability booster in this century. Bush had the war on terror and the patriot act, which boosted defense spending to ridiculous levels. 

Like you can't just say "oh the dot com boom and crash was just Clinton's lucky lady" and act like it covered years of policy decisions 

3

u/lynjpin 8d ago

Every single time a republican becomes president the economy craters

0

u/Zcrash 8d ago

I wouldn't say that it "craters" because usually republican presidents get to coast off the economic momentum made by the previous democratic president, while slowing doing that hurt the economy. Then when a new democratic president is voted in, they have to repair the damage done to get the economy growing again. I would say that the economy is cratering right now because it turns out that doing crazy shit that makes people nervous is enough to make a growing economy start shrinking.

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation 8d ago

Get those fuckin commie "facts" OUTTA MAH FAYCE!!!!one! /s

1

u/cruiserflyer 8d ago

Well, good for themselves.

1

u/codedbrown 8d ago

It’s the same in Australia. Each year the Conservative Party campaigns as being the better economic managers, and these claims are repeated by supporters. Yet it’s so plainly clear in the data that this isn’t true.

Classic example of Goebbel’s “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”

1

u/phoonie98 8d ago

Quite the opposite of good for the economy too. Just proves how ridiculously dumb and out of touch with reality most Americans are

1

u/notouchinggg 8d ago

american propaganda is stronger then russian

1

u/mittensofkittens 7d ago

Hey, not all of us. Some of us are very aware Republicans ruin everything they touch.

1

u/Popcornmix 7d ago

Every time the republicans took over they gave back a worse economy to democrats after the next switch in power

1

u/lurid_dream 7d ago

The democrats are just as complicit. They keep wagging their tails for their funding.

1

u/4_set_leb 7d ago

The proof is so readily available, I have no fucking idea why anyone tries to refute it.

1

u/Stone_Stump 7d ago

Republicans(largely, obviously we're in uncertain times) fall into the neoclassical school of economic thought. Economically their main goal is to physically grow the economy through "natural" means like lower taxes and red tape on business. Their school of thought can do well if there is a democratic counterbalance from the previous term, and the nation isn't in a recession. Democrats lean into the Keynesian perspective which focuses specifically on putting out fires, the thing Democrats are most tooled to do is fix recessions through government spending. Tldr both are good for the economy at different times. Disclaimer: none of what I've said takes into consideration that Republicans don't give a shit about climate change or pretty much any issue that isn't cultural, so it's possible for Republicans to implement what could be considered good policy from a strictly econ pov but end up with a ton of negative externalities.

1

u/enunymous 7d ago

I guarantee in 2028 polls will show that 60% of the population trust Republicans on the economy over Democrats. Makes zero sense

1

u/SignoreBanana 5d ago

You're certainly not the first person I've heard say this so who's not getting it.

1

u/W_Hinklebottom 4d ago

For real, I had to deprogram this out of me, but it took years. I was told it was the party of family values as well.

1

u/ImaginationNo1928 8d ago

They’re good for the super rich. And super rich spend a fraction of their gains to further brainwash the morons.

0

u/red286 8d ago

The only one that's ever been "good on the economy" was Reagan, and he fucked the working class so bad they're still walking funny 40 years later.

6

u/spaceforcerecruit 8d ago

Literally every economic issue in America can be tied directly back to him. Put it on a graph and the line changes very suddenly when he’s President. Dude wasn’t “good on the economy.” He was just a grifter stealing money from the public coffers and giving it to rich assholes same as every Republican President that came after him.

2

u/ReallyNowFellas 8d ago

It was right around the time of Nixon/Ford that wages stopped keeping pace with productivity. Pretty much every economic problem we have today can be traced to that.

2

u/Twisted1379 8d ago

Listen fella, I'm sure any day now the Money's going to start trickling down. Won't you look foolish then.

Any day now.

1

u/mossgreen23 8d ago

I agree with you. An argument could be made for bush 1 being the only competent president in my 43 years on earth and he couldn’t get past no new taxes.

1

u/Adezar 8d ago

No he wasn't, he just lucked out at being president when the PC became a thing. If he hadn't destroyed the tax base and left things as they were we would be in a massively different country now. He started the decline.

0

u/CapableRespond1110 8d ago

asked a guy I knew who was a hardcore “libertarian republican” why they were so good for the economy. Looked like he had bluescreened and just kinda muttered “well bc their republicans”

0

u/ChemEBrew 8d ago

Fucking eh! "didn't expect this"? You'd be regarded to think not.

-1

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In 8d ago

Please note the Pavlovian response has proven to not be true by proper scientists.

2

u/Dracoplasm 8d ago

Has it? Because I cannot find any indication of that. Do you have a source I could read? Would be crazy to find out that people and animals cannot be conditioned to react to certain stimuli in a certain way.

1

u/Maeserk 8d ago edited 8d ago

You have to cite something with a statement like that.

Also how is Pavlov not a proper scientist? He’s a graduated doctorate with a dissertation on the topic of the circulatory system. His shit is physiology. His entire process in his work on the Pavlovian process followed the scientific method too.