Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (220564)	2/23/2007 4:45:03 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

.."that are unique to the Bush admin. " You left off a tax policy that inordinately rewards the wealthy.

To: Katelew who wrote (220564)	2/23/2007 7:01:37 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Your reply makes my argument Weaker job creation than Clinton years Higher inflation Huge budget deficits Heard any of those 'weaker job creation' stories in the last year or so? No? Because job creation was has been very strong for the last two years. The Dem candidates had to drop the line in 2006. Inflation is NOT higher. Probably due to the Walmart effect, but even despite higher fuel costs, inflation is not overall higher. Budget deficits were higher but have been falling rapidly in the last couple of years, due to higher capital gains tax returns. And the traditional base figures of inflation, unemployment and GDP growth have continued very strong since 2004. Check'em for yourself, you won't see them reported too much. The Bush economy is a great story seriously under-reported. As for the economy under Bush, it has been strong. I don't have any research on the MSM treatment of the two economies you mention to evaluate your suggestion of bias. Negativity then and now which would be justified, imo, would be that which focused on these items: I just reported the figures from the study, which seem to accord pretty well with my impressions from reading the paper. 77% negative stories is hardly "negativity now and then" - it's more like "positivity now and then". The interpretation of the negativity of various income distributions and quintiles depends on several unspoken assumptions: that people don't move from one quintile to another, once poor always poor. That's a false assumption, provably so. Also it assumes that there should be little distribution in income and government should 'fix it' if there is. That's socialism. But then it goes with the territory, since most reporters are a) liberal and b) ignorant of economics. Do you seriously believe that had Al Gore been running for reelection in 2004, we would have seen 77% negative economic stories? Do you?