 |
|
That analysis is too simplistic.
Posted on: October 10, 2016 at 19:16:48 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72858
Member For:
21.60 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
There are tons of variables in play, many of which are outside of a president's hands, and many of the policies that they are able to implement have impacts over very long time frames. I would also note that the policies of Democrats and Republicans have morphed over time adding another complicating factor. For instance the Republicans were the party fighting to free the slaves and the Democrats were the party of the KKK back in the day.
Trying to go back 16 election cycles would be a bit like trying to predict our football season based upon our historical record from widely divergent teams and coaches with much different philosophies and talent. Saying that we beat team "X" 80% of the time over the years may be extremely misleading as to our chances of winning on a given Saturday. There are a ton of factors to consider and our historical record might carry very little weight in such a calculation.
I would also note that the state of an economy can be very misleading. Back in 2006 & 2007 things looked very rosy, even exceptional in the economy, even to the financial "experts" at the Federal Reserve. In reality, however, we were on the edge of a cliff and their idiotic policies were on the verge of shooting us over that edge.
Before the Titanic hit the iceberg people might consider the captain to have been doing a bang up job, so to speak, but the reality was quite different. If he handed the wheel over to his co-pilot and headed off to bed before they hit the iceberg would it have really been fair to say that history showed he was a great pilot and the co-pilot was the worst ever?
Probably not.
Just a couple of articles on the net today that might be relevant:
Poor America: 7 in 10 Americans have less than $1,000 in savings
http://planetfreewill.com/2016/10/10/poor-america-7-in-10-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings/
Bill Clinton is not responsible for the economic boom of the 90s
http://globalintelhub.com/bill-clinton-is-not-responsible-for-the-economic-boom-of-the-90s/
Trying to go back 16 election cycles would be a bit like trying to predict our football season based upon our historical record from widely divergent teams and coaches with much different philosophies and talent. Saying that we beat team "X" 80% of the time over the years may be extremely misleading as to our chances of winning on a given Saturday. There are a ton of factors to consider and our historical record might carry very little weight in such a calculation.
I would also note that the state of an economy can be very misleading. Back in 2006 & 2007 things looked very rosy, even exceptional in the economy, even to the financial "experts" at the Federal Reserve. In reality, however, we were on the edge of a cliff and their idiotic policies were on the verge of shooting us over that edge.
Before the Titanic hit the iceberg people might consider the captain to have been doing a bang up job, so to speak, but the reality was quite different. If he handed the wheel over to his co-pilot and headed off to bed before they hit the iceberg would it have really been fair to say that history showed he was a great pilot and the co-pilot was the worst ever?
Probably not.
Just a couple of articles on the net today that might be relevant:
Poor America: 7 in 10 Americans have less than $1,000 in savings
http://planetfreewill.com/2016/10/10/poor-america-7-in-10-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings/
Bill Clinton is not responsible for the economic boom of the 90s
http://globalintelhub.com/bill-clinton-is-not-responsible-for-the-economic-boom-of-the-90s/
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
That analysis is too simplistic. - JeffB MU - 10/10 19:16:48