A picture is worth 700,000,000,000 words.
Well, this one is, anyways! Especially animated as it is!Tonight, Ezra Klein, staff writer for The Washington Post, talked to Rachel Maddow about the difference in income growth trends under Democratic presidents versus Republican presidents.
After a couple of beers, I learned how to edit this clip so that I am now able to distill the meat from this interview between Maddow and Klein: everyone does better the further away Republicans are kept from the White House!
Proof positive.
That is amazing!
ReplyDeleteSadly, basic facts like these mean little to the Joe the Plumber types.
ReplyDeleteA sailing blog delving into politics?
ReplyDeleteIt's economics.
ReplyDeleteNote too, the very rich are better off under the Dems!
ReplyDeleteNo B-Sing!?
ReplyDeleteThis is a little bit deceptive. First of all, Ms. Maddow conveniently leaves out the Roosevelt years (I'm sure that that would have brought down the Dems at least a little). Second of all, 3 of those Democratic Presidents (Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson) presided in the office during a time of American preeminence (very little competition from abroad, zero outsourcing, etc.). And, thirdly, it totally ignores the fact that we've often had a divided government in Washington (Reagan, Bush 1, Nixon and Ike had a Democratic Congress, Clinton had a Republican Congress)......Oh, and, yes, one more thing - Nixon basically governed as a Democrat (domestically, anyway). It's probably not even fair to lump him in with Bush and Reagan......Now, this isn't to say that we shouldn't be voting Democrat in 2010/2012. We probably should be. But we should do so based on our common sense and an understanding of the present-day issues - and not on a bunch of selective #s from MSNBC.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a chart based upon numbers cobbled together by MSNBC, Hart. If you looked closer, you would have seen the name of Larry M. Bartels at the bottom of the chart. Bartels is the Donald E. Stokes Professor of Public and International Affairs Professor of Politics and Public Affairs and Director, Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University. Had you followed the link I provided, you could have been additional informed more about the numbers by Ezra Klein, Economics Columnist for the Washington Post.
ReplyDeleteIf you prefer your homespun financial statistics to that of pros like Martel and Klein, That's your choice. I'll stick by my post.
Ezra Klein is also a partisan. And I didn't say that they cobbled them together. I said that this Maddow (who absurdly says that she doesn't have an agenda) character selected them simply because they were useful to her/her point. You can literally prove anything via statistics.
ReplyDeleteThe stats? res ipsa loquitur. If you don't like his numbers, Hart, take it up with Bartels. Maddow is just reporting them. As far as agendas go, I'll opt for Maddow's: she never shrinks from calling a spade a spade.
ReplyDeleteBut why did not Mr. Bartels start his study at 1944, at 1940, at 1936, at 1932? You're not even a little curious? And, plus, I don't like the way that Maddow infers causality here. These are correlations (I don't doubt the numbers, btw - I'm just not exactly sure what they mean) and as I hope that Ms. Maddow and Mr. Klein know, you cannot derive causality from this type of research.
ReplyDeleteCome on, Doc. Let Will-the-Hack go. He doesn't like Maddow. For whatever reasons.
ReplyDeleteHi Doc. First, thanks for your visit and comment at Politics Plus.
ReplyDeleteI found it especially interesting that even the rich have better income under Democrats. If he were to include Roosevelt, then he could also include the last time Republicans destroyed our nation's economy under Hoover. But it seems more reasonable to begin ather the US emerged from a totally war based economy.
It probably feels good to blame one guy, Hoover, for the Depression (i.e., since the fellow happens to be a Republican) but it's also absolutely ludicrous. And, besides, whoever the leaders in Europe were, they had to have been far better than FDR. This, in that they got their countries out of the Depression a hell of a lot faster than he did......"Emerge from a war-based economy", only to have Democrats get us involved in Korea and Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, Vlad, I don't like ANY of these partisan cable-news talking-heads (Hannity, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Beck, etc.). I think that they're 1) divisive and 2) clearly representative of an absolute dumbing down of the discourse. Perhaps Mika Bzezinski put it best, though, when she referred to this stuff as "cartoon-like".
ReplyDeleteAnyone need a drink?
ReplyDeleteDon't buy Will a drink. He's already past his limit!
ReplyDeleteAt least that's better than your usual excuse (I left my wallet home), Vlad.
ReplyDeleteWhen you want to live like Republicans, vote Democratic!
ReplyDeleteWhat I always say!!!!
ReplyDelete