I've seen some reports from Big Media about these stories, mainly from FNC, but for some reason they're not being covered nearly enough. I wonder why? Could it be because BM wants people to believe the economy is still in the tank? *DING DING DING DING DING* We have a correct answer. They sure don't want to over cover the fact that the economy is doing better than it has since Clinton's recession. Don't want too much good news to surround Bush. Can't have that.
Story 1
Story 2
Story 3
Filed under GOP
Technorati Tags: Economy, Bush, GOP, Big Media
Story 1
Story 2
Story 3
Filed under GOP
Technorati Tags: Economy, Bush, GOP, Big Media
3 comments:
I'm sorry - you mean the Bush recession? Because the economy started failing in 2001.
Oh, and I 'spose you missed the fact that although, yes, it is doing better than 2001, it's doing nowhere near as well as the Administration projected it would be. The rate of unemployment didn't drop anywhere near as much as they'd said it would, and neither is the GDP up as much as they said it would be.
I don't think anyone's disputed that it's better than it was, but the main problem is that it's not as good as it should be.
If you want to look it up, the recession actually began sometime in the year 2000. A year before Bush went into office. Here's an article from December 2000.
http://tinyurl.com/otcn4
The thing I really like is the fact that you honestly believe politicians have control over the way the economy runs.
Politicians can only cause an economic slump if they intentionally work towards it - so unless you're suggesting Clinton was an evil treasonous man who wanted America to fall, the assertion is actually quite counter-intuitive.
That said, your article is a suggestion, not a statement. A lot of probablies and possiblies. The actual slump is generally considered to have started in 2001. 2000 just had pre-tremors.
The other thing that amuses me is that under Clinton, the American economy was basically the best it had ever been - but when that's brought up, conservatives (like John) dismiss this as the "internet bubble". Yet this crash is apparently unrelated to the internet bubble coming down... and is somehow Clinton's fault.
Assuming the logical conclusion however - that it was an inevitable slump after an unsustainable bubble, the important thing to see then, is whether or not the policies put in place to counteract the slump meet the projected improvements they were meant to bring. They don't. Simple as that.
Yeah, the economy's doing well - heck it's the biggest economy on the planet isn't it? But it's not doing as well as it's meant to be.
Post a Comment