First, here is a close-up of GDP Growth, YoY from '76 on.
The snakey red and blue line is a 13 Yr. Exponential Average.
Yea Clinton, Meh Reagan, Boo Bushes. 'Nuff said?
I've also done the Lazear cloud plot for Reagan and Bush II. The results are not remarkable.
Red dots are Reagan data points, Orange squares, Bush II.
Green line is best fit to all points, slope is -0.93, correlation coefficient is -0.46. Meh! Slope is steeper than for the entire historical data set, due to Reagan's outliers. Correlation is weak at -0.46, and almost the same as for the entire set.
Blue line is best fit, after eliminating the two extreme Reagan outliers, which are probably flukes, anyway.
Red line is fit to St. Ronnie data only, orange line ditto for Shrub.
Average GDP Growth for each is shown in pink: 3.40% for St. R; 2.16% for the weed.
With the caveat that the data set is too small to be statistically robust, and the data are cherry picked out of a larger set, what does this suggest?
1) Reagan was far better than Bush. He wasted money on star wars, mostly at home. Shrub wasted money spending it in Iraq, while simultaneously causing an oil price shock that badly harmed our economy.
2) The cumulative effect of Republican economic policies is making it ever more dificult to grow GDP.
3) The GDP growth trend line over time is grim. Barack Hoover Obama is not likely to make it any better any time soon.
And a speculation:
Those who call themselves "Conservatives" revere Reagan and old Goldwater (the OTHER Barry.) Each of them would be decried as flaming Librullz by today's whacked out wingnuts.