Economic Boom Continues

Unemployment Still Below Long-Term Average

By Adam C Posted in Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Unemployment fell to an incredibly low 4.5% in February. And even the WaPo admits that "wages grew briskly," which numerical means "over the 12 months ending in February, wages grew by 4.1 percent."

Due to the MSM's coverage of economic news, "President Bush continues to get lukewarm ratings for his economic stewardship. Just 41 percent of the public approves of the president's handling of the economy, compared with 57 percent who disapprove."

But despite the media's best efforts, it's hard to hide a booming economy.


« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing.Comments (50) | Appealing To The "Center" ...Comments (14) »
Economic Boom Continues 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

The media is very succesfully hiding it.
Tomorrow or the next the NYT and/or the WaPo will run a tear jerker about kids losing their insurance benefits and having to do without an ipod because their parents had a job dislocation or some such thing.
One of the secrets of the American Capitalism's success is the ease with which the labor force readjusts to changing econmic needs either by relocation or retraining, but not a word will be heard.
If a tree falls in the forest with no being around to hear, does it make a sound?

They've done a great job hiding the strength of the economy.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

If a tree falls in the forest and the MSM doesn't report it, the President can still talk it up.

that times are good?

Until then, this will be the "worst economy since the great depression". When a Dem gets elected, our 10% unemployment rate will be "the most wonderful economic success of the century".

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. And I tried, too.

Its always fun to blame the evil media, and often times, blame is justified. But let me ask all of you the following question...

How many speeches has GW Bush given over the years in which he praised the growing economy ? The only significant speech that I recall came early in Bush's first term when Bush went out of his way to claim the country was in a recession. That was classic.

The point is, unlike Reagan or Clinton, GW Bush rarely has devoted efforts to describe the economy in glowing terms. In fact, in the majority of Bush's speeches and press conferences we see a president who instills fear rather than hope. And thats why Bush's poll numbers have remained in the low 30's for so long.

While its true that the country is currently enagaged in war in the middle east, the fact is, Bush has spent far too much time on that issue and not enough time on domestic issues. Thats one reason why the democrats took over congress in 2006. A lesson to be learned for presidential candidates is not to repeat the Bush mistake. We want strong leaders on defense to be sure, but we also want a president who will provide words that encourage hope for the future, not fear from the past.

So, with respect to the positive economic news coming out, do you really think Reagan or Clinton would have ignored this ?

but I can't help with proof. I'm probably part of the problem, as I'm very busy at work and choose not to tune into political speeches very often (no doubt in the minority around here). As I've blogged here before, I just get too daggone aggravated with the anti-war crowd and Democrat "rebuttals" to pay too much attention. I get plenty of information here and don't have to worry as much about my head exploding.

That being said, if the President spoke about it every day, it would eventually become common knowledge. Heck, he should break out some Perot type charts and educate us.

BTW- Nobody that I know is out of a job (willingly or otherwise). The proof is all around us if we would just take a look.

You said>"That being said, if the President spoke about it every day, it would eventually become common knowledge. Heck, he should break out some Perot type charts and educate us."

Not only are you correct, but there has been talk among congressional republicans as to why the Bush administration didn't speak up more often on the strong economy, particulary leading up to the 2006 elections.

If one looks back, not a day went by without someone in the Clinton administration going on TV describing the strong economic numbers. Same thing with the Reagan administration. The fact is, if an administration, republican or democrat, wants to get out the good news, THEY must do it and not rely on the mainstream media. During the Reagan years the economy had a huge recovery with over 20 million new jobs being created. How do I know that ? Because the Reagan administration went on the offensive each and every day to let the citizens know about it.

Economy great, media silent - It's all Bush's fault! What a quaint reality-based worldview you have.

We want strong leaders on defense to be sure, but we also want a president who will provide words that encourage hope for the future, not fear from the past.

Could you provide some examples of the president providing words that encourage "fear from the past" instead of hope for the future? I'm pretty sure you're just making this up as part of your regularly scheduled sniping/trolling, but I'm willing to consider actual evidence to the contrary if you have any.

said just last week when the stock market corrected itself a bit that the economy is now failing miserably and that Bush Administration policies are solely responsible.

Can he be wrong?

Harry Reid is a political hack and nothing more. But that doesn't mean we as republicans must blame the mainstream media each and every time something we like isn't reported.

Perhaps if the administration sent out some cabinet members from commerce, labor, etc...and starting SELLING the American people on the good numbers, then the media would have something to report.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. The Clinton and Reagan administrations didn't rely on the media to do their work for them. They had to go out each and every day on TV and radio to sell their good news.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service