JohnnyLongtorso,
Not to sound like a broken record, but WTF? Nice graph, as has been pointed out, but the employment certainly fluctuates. No new information there.
Not sure what "Good job Texas Presidents" is meant to say either. The Republic of Texas only had a few presidents, and all of them died long before the 20th century began. In the time period covered, only one US President was born in Texas, and poverty, according to the graph, fell from about 20 percent to about 12 percent during his tenure.
More broadly, what are we meant to take from this graph? There doesn't seem to be any correlation to anything. Even the purple "recession" periods don't show any monotonic increase or decrease. In some case it's up, in some cases it's down, and in some cases it's just sort of flat.
And, when I try to look at periods wherein congress was controlled by Republicans, sometimes I see unemployment going up and sometimes it's going down. Similarly, I see times when Democrats controlled congress and unemployment went up and sometimes it's down.
So, what's your point?
It should be pretty obvious that I was making fun of krazen's factually inaccurate comment about "Texas presidents" reducing poverty. Hence why it was, you know, quoted.
