![]() | On 2 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was Moved to U.S. economic performance by presidential party. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not needed 2600:8805:C980:9400:11B:E10B:B081:770E ( talk) 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Says who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.147.125 ( talk) 19:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The commentary section should be removed and the information in it moved to other sections or removed. The section doesn't add anything. Amthisguy ( talk) 21:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Such a lie that there's been more growth un democrats. They have made the worst presidents other than Kennedy and well he was taken out. 2600:1700:5800:3B60:5C38:9E26:844:21D ( talk) 17:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree, if you just ignore the data, the economy is entirely based on vibes and feels. If you feel Democrats oversee worse economies, it's clearly a fact!
It would be interesting to get an expanded inflation section. DemocratGreen ( talk) 02:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
DemocratGreen, in
your reversion you ask Would it not be more accurate to refer to real gdp in a section regarding inflation?
but the source refers explicitly to nominal GDP, not real GDP:
weaker GDP growth and lower employment growth under Republicans could be responsible for the differential inflation performance [2]
does that address your objection? soibangla ( talk) 21:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Other studys especially by Forbes shows this to be a lie. Do more research and redo the info don't mislead your readers, i know this site is ran by democrats. 129.222.252.236 ( talk) 12:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to U.S. economic performance by presidential party. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 05:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
U.S. economic performance under Democratic and Republican presidents → ? – The title seems to be a bit long for an article. I was hoping that someone can suggest a shorter article title that would work well. Interstellarity ( talk) 02:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
If you sort on a column with negative numbers, they go in order like this: -0.1, -1, -10, 1, 2, 3. The sorting should be -10, -1, 1, 2, 3. Can anybody fix this? If you want to see “worst” and “best” you need to mentally reverse all the negatives. 73.74.143.160 ( talk) 14:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This article has multiple issues. The first sentence is an unsourced conclusion summarizing the data in the article. It then says that the reasons are debated while the commentary section further down states that the performance under different parties is not "completely attributable to policy choices". The "Reasons for over-performances by Democratic presidents" section is also pretty muddled and doesn't identify a reason why the political party in power has anything to do with economic performance. Based on this it seems misleading to draw the conclusion in the header. There are way too many factors that go into economic performance and external events can affect the data far more than who is President. If we can stick to just presenting the data without the purpose of the article seeming to push an opinion, we may be able to save it, but I think because it's not clear that the political party of the President has any effect on the economy, this article seems unnecessary and misleading (concurrence above) and it doesn't seem encyclopedic so I'm nominating it for deletion. MonsterMash51 ( talk) 00:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
It then says that the reasons are debated while the commentary section further down states that the performance under different parties is not "completely attributable to policy choices".
![]() | On 2 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was Moved to U.S. economic performance by presidential party. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not needed 2600:8805:C980:9400:11B:E10B:B081:770E ( talk) 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Says who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.147.125 ( talk) 19:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The commentary section should be removed and the information in it moved to other sections or removed. The section doesn't add anything. Amthisguy ( talk) 21:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Such a lie that there's been more growth un democrats. They have made the worst presidents other than Kennedy and well he was taken out. 2600:1700:5800:3B60:5C38:9E26:844:21D ( talk) 17:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree, if you just ignore the data, the economy is entirely based on vibes and feels. If you feel Democrats oversee worse economies, it's clearly a fact!
It would be interesting to get an expanded inflation section. DemocratGreen ( talk) 02:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
DemocratGreen, in
your reversion you ask Would it not be more accurate to refer to real gdp in a section regarding inflation?
but the source refers explicitly to nominal GDP, not real GDP:
weaker GDP growth and lower employment growth under Republicans could be responsible for the differential inflation performance [2]
does that address your objection? soibangla ( talk) 21:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Other studys especially by Forbes shows this to be a lie. Do more research and redo the info don't mislead your readers, i know this site is ran by democrats. 129.222.252.236 ( talk) 12:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to U.S. economic performance by presidential party. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 05:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
U.S. economic performance under Democratic and Republican presidents → ? – The title seems to be a bit long for an article. I was hoping that someone can suggest a shorter article title that would work well. Interstellarity ( talk) 02:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
If you sort on a column with negative numbers, they go in order like this: -0.1, -1, -10, 1, 2, 3. The sorting should be -10, -1, 1, 2, 3. Can anybody fix this? If you want to see “worst” and “best” you need to mentally reverse all the negatives. 73.74.143.160 ( talk) 14:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This article has multiple issues. The first sentence is an unsourced conclusion summarizing the data in the article. It then says that the reasons are debated while the commentary section further down states that the performance under different parties is not "completely attributable to policy choices". The "Reasons for over-performances by Democratic presidents" section is also pretty muddled and doesn't identify a reason why the political party in power has anything to do with economic performance. Based on this it seems misleading to draw the conclusion in the header. There are way too many factors that go into economic performance and external events can affect the data far more than who is President. If we can stick to just presenting the data without the purpose of the article seeming to push an opinion, we may be able to save it, but I think because it's not clear that the political party of the President has any effect on the economy, this article seems unnecessary and misleading (concurrence above) and it doesn't seem encyclopedic so I'm nominating it for deletion. MonsterMash51 ( talk) 00:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
It then says that the reasons are debated while the commentary section further down states that the performance under different parties is not "completely attributable to policy choices".