Is our President getting a raw deal on the economy?

Question

We have record highs on the stock market 4.4% unemployment under 3% inflation deficit is starting to shrink revenues are increasing. During the Clinton admistration we had similar fiqures but not as good as these yet Clinton was praised everyday for it. Why is it that this president never gets a mention considering he inherited a recession.

Hey dude you need to move out of Detroit I moved from NY because of high taxes and lack of opportunity. You need to stop the mantra Bush lied the congress saw the same info that he did and so did former president, Congress voted for war seeing the same info the president did if you keep repeating BS does not make it true.

Hey Russ put down the pipe you can take any statistic and make it a negative I will give you an example (poitive) we have 90% employment (negative) we have 10% unemployment same statistics

Answer 1

Because the media is biased. Consider this, which I copied from the Yahoo message boards:

A Tale of Two Economies

Try the following 'growth test.'
Imagine you have been vacationing on the moon for the past three months before coming home to the following two headlines. Which economy would have enjoyed the better performance in growth terms?
Here is the first AP lead:

"(Blank's) economic growth accelerated in the third quarter as a rebound in exports and consumer spending helped lift gross domestic product after an anemic second quarter."
Here's the second AP lead:

"The (Blank) economy turned in a remarkably strong performance in the summer despite surging energy prices and the battering the (Blank) took from hurricanes, although business growth was slightly lower than the government previously estimated."

It's tough to tell from the Associated Press's lead paragraphs in its recent coverage of economic growth in two Western countries in the third quarter of 2005.

The first country, despite the glowing praise from the AP, saw it's economy grow 0.7% in the third quarter. The second, which faced an uphill battle and came in lower than expectations, earned 3.5%.
If you answered 'France' and 'the U.S.,' give yourself a pat on the back.
Imagine if the U.S. posted a 0.7% growth rate under President Bush?

Somehow, one suspects you wouldn't find any flowery prose about that.

As economist Donald Luskin points out in his blog, 'The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid,' "Funny how when U.S. GDP figures come out, there is always a mention of the sluggish job market or high energy prices.
Words like "mild," "slight" and "modest" riddle the page of U.S. GDP numbers, which for the last couple years have been running at consistently high levels above 3% annualized," he says. "Yet the AP's coverage of France's piddling 0.7% growth is littered with words like "accelerated," "rebound," "lift" and "expanded."

And Old Media wonders why the federal government has to pay public relations scribes to get its message out to the people. It's becoming increasingly obvious it wouldn't get if left to the usual suspects.
An email sent to me Jan. 5, 2006 from Newsmax.com

Answer 2

Seems you are unclear on a few concepts!
Stock market is very marginal- 6 years of growth have netted less than 1/4% per year, adj. for inflation it is a loss!
Unemployment numbers have been fudged by this administration
if unemployment had been calculated in the Clinton admin the same way it is today Clinton would have had a (- 8%) unemployment rate
and we are not paying down the deficit as in the Clinton administration. it is just reducing the amount of new red ink!

Answer 3

Clinton promoted the economy in a sustainable manner, he balanced the budget, paid off our nations debt. W has created a huge budget deficit and national debt, he cut the tax base and increased spending, the economic growth is artificial, based on an unsustainable level of war commerce, the value of the dollar is falling, and unemployment is deceivingly low because people have been unemployed so long that their benefits have lapsed and they are no longer counted

Answer 4

Have you seen the budget deficit?

How about how many jobs have been lost since 2000?

Or the increasing poverty levels?

I could go on but these things are basic and you can find them yourself.

There's a reason why Clinton is praised in the books and Bush isn't. It's because he was a better president and a better economist.

Answer 5

The liberal media will never give him a pass. While the economy is good, more attention is given to the war in Iraq. Also, the economy doing well is not as newsworthy as it would be if it was all going south.

Answer 6

Yes, for two reasons. First most of our attention is in Iraq. Secondly, Bush will never get a fair shake with the current leftist media. It appears their hatred of the man gets in the way of their reporting. This is irregardless if the man is right or wrong in whatever he has done.

Answer 7

Dude, seriously come to Detroit for a bit. unemployment is near 8%, and our businesses are leaving us like crazy. How many more years do the republicans have to be in office before they start to take RESPONSIBILITY for what is going on on their watch? I've heard these "Clinton did this" and "Clinton did that" remarks for 6 FREAKING years, and I'm getting pretty sick of it. Let's see, Impeach a dude for a BJ, but don't impeach for GOING TO WAR OVER A LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE????? Wow, I wouldn't complain if I were you.

Answer 8

Are you kidding me? The economy IS the only thing positive that Bush has going for himself.