Sunday, September 12, 2010
Evidence Front (AKA, Mad-Dow's Disease)
Rachel Maddow brought out a chart the other night that really made Republican Presidents look shitty. It was a graph that showed how income growth (from 1948 to the present - for everybody but especially for poor folks) has been significantly better under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones. And, yes, folks, it was actually quite a compelling proffer that she made....But then I started to think about it.................................................................................................First of all, I found it a little convenient that the study starts in 1948, after the Depression/the Roosevelt era. It would have been, to me anyway, very interesting to see how the inclusion of those years would have impacted upon the overall averages. Secondly, I think that it's also important to point out that 3 of these Democratic Presidents (Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson) presided in office during a period of American preeminence (not a lot of foreign competition, outsourcing, etc.). Thirdly, the study flat-out ignores the Congressional component. During the Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan (parts of it, anyway), and Bush 1 years, for example, there was a Democratic Congress in addition (and, yes, a Republican Congress when Clinton was in the White House). And then, lastly, there's Nixon. I underscore this in that damned if that fellow didn't act exactly like a Democrat in office (his domestic agenda, especially). Ergo, it probably isn't even remotely fair to lump him in with Bush and Reagan......................................................................................................Now, this, of course, isn't to say that we AREN'T better off with a Democrat in the White House. My God, there's AT LEAST a 50-50 chance that we are. But to have selectively taken what is clearly only a correlation, and to have extrapolated from it causality - what can I say here, you are kind of getting into the propaganda realm. Take it with a big grain of salt, I guess is what I'm saying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
If I recall correctly, eight years of Eisenhower had steady growth,above 3%.
I put Ike right up there with Truman and Kennedy. In fact, those are probably my 3 favorite Presidents of the last century (Bush Jr. and Nixon being my 2 LEAST favorite).
I think the unprecedented use of the filibuster shows that we have never had a more obstructionist Congress than the 111th (the current Congress). In the past when Congress was controlled by the opposing party they were still willing to work with him.
You think the Republican Congress should receive some credit for the economy doing better under a Democratic President... I say the economy did better under Democrats IN SPITE of the fact that the Congress was Republican-controlled some of the time.
Also... of course we did better when we followed a more protectionist trade policy! Maybe Nixon warrants a "least FAVORITE", but, at least in my book, not a worst. The worst (in my lifetime) were definitely Reagan and bush Jr. We're better with a Democrat in the WH, it isn't "propaganda", it's a fact.
Democrats: Economy better now than it was before Obama.
The Clinton Boom Was Real - Then Bush Happened
Myths Debunked: Republicans Are Better for the Economy than Democrats.
Eisenhower was a moderate. The Republican Party of today would probably label him a RINO. The economic policies of today's far-Right oligarchy supporting middle class hating Republicans have been, and will continue to be (if they regain power) disasterous.
Post a Comment