995
Comments (44)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
20
IAmCovfefe 20 points ago +20 / -0

I agree that Obama’s last two years were flat, but cutting off 2009-2014 is a bit misleading. He took over after the housing market collapse in 2008 when the market was at its lowest point of the recession, so his administration benefited from the market slowly bouncing back from that.

But for Trump to start with the market at a higher level, it’s quite an indicator to see it skyrocket immediately after election night 2016. It’s clear that Wall Street sees economic opportunity under Trump.

9
Slim 9 points ago +9 / -0

I agree- no need to hide them. Although the left claims that all this 2016-2019 growth belongs to Obama, so leaving off the first 3 years makes sense by that broken logic as it belonged to Bush.

5
Licensetomeme 5 points ago +5 / -0

Agreed. But I also think it's important to note, too, that typically after recession, you'd see a resurgence in growth. The fact that it would stagnate at a point in time when it should have been pointing upwards (all this even after the stimulus) is telling of his failed policies.

That being said, I can't even completely put the blame on Obama. A large part of that is the Fed's doing.

3
DonaldTheKing 3 points ago +3 / -0

But that only helps the rich get richer reeeeeee!

3
Wyrmshadow 3 points ago +3 / -0

I never got a job from a poor person. My paycheck isnt autosigned "Hobo"

2
flipping_some_tables 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nice catch, yeah that is misleading. Ive looked at the market levels during his presidency and they didn't look that flat.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0