The New York Times has published an analysis that “proves” that Democratic presidents are better because “Virtually any reasonable look at the data shows a big Democratic advantage.” They base this on data around the GDP and jobs.
Not surprisingly, Trump is at the bottom of the list of 14 presidents dating back to Roosevelt, it is the NYT after all. The one that caught my eye, however, was Carter. Jimmy Carter was president from 1977 to 1981 and he is touted by the NYT as number 6 on the list of 14, surpassed by only one Republican, Reagan, and well ahead of Eisenhower at number 9. Well, I lived through those times, and I want to assure you that Carter deserved a one-term presidency. Interest rates at 20% plus, hyper-inflation (think of what those two do to your “data”) plus the Iran hostage situation with military failures.
There is a value to statistics, but when evaluating Presidents, a simplistic approach such as this is nearly criminal. No, Roosevelt’s “reign” wasn’t the greatest ever, it was a mixed bag of a horrible, long Depression, 1939 was 6 years into his terms and the country was worse than ever. Without World War II, no telling what his Presidency would be remembered for. How about his promise that Social Security payments would “never” be taxed?
Another slanted, biased and untrue “analysis” from the NYT.
Wait until future historians assess the huge deficits piling up now. There are only three ways to deal with that—push the deficits onto future generations and hope that the Fed has the power to control interest rates; increase productivity in the economy which the US has done quite nicely; and, inflation. Which one will it be?
No comments:
Post a Comment