HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb 25, 2004 A brief review of recent Letters to the Editor of various publications shows the virtually nonstop bashing of our president by Democrats and their willing media cohorts is indeed having an impact. It is always interesting to see members of the public simply regurgitating what has been spoon-fed to them by the political left. If you believe the messages in the media, and indications are that many people do, President Bush is pretty much at fault for everything from global warming to Janet Jackson's Superbowl halftime fiasco. A key area of criticism has to do with the economy. One recent letter described the Bush economy as an "economic trainwreck." Of course, this is exactly what Democrats want everyone to believe in this election year. Polls show many voters now view the economy as a higher priority than protection from another terrorist attack, which, ironically, is a direct testament to how well the Bush administration has done in dealing with terrorism. Of course, Democrats (i.e. media) are not going to give Bush one shred of credit in this department, even as they talk down the economy as much as possible. During 2000 election campaign, President Bush warned of the teetering economy, that we were on the verge of falling into a recession. The Democrats fumed. "Stop talking down the economy!" became the left-wing mantra of the day. It's interesting how Democrats (i.e., media) have spent the better part of the last three years doing just that. (By the way, the country did fall into a recession in the 4th quarter of 2000, before Bush took office, just as he predicted.) For the record, the economy is not nearly in the dire predicament painted by the Democrat presidential "candidates" (and I use the term loosely). Inflation is low, interest rates are low, money is readily available, consumers continue to spend, and even the unemployment rate is within historical norms. Home ownership levels are at an all-time high. Since one would assume rich people always own a home, this ownership growth comes at the entry-level end of the market. In addition, the stock market--a prime indicator of economic confidence--is up significantly over the last year. Yet, if media reports and Democratic assaults are to be believed, one would think there would be a soup line on every corner. This is not to make light of the poor among us, or those currently out of work, but there are always poor and out of work people in this country. And statistics show the vast majority of poor people do not stay poor their whole lives. There is indeed movement between economic groups, another fact intentionally overlooked by the left. (It doesn't fit in with their philosophy that the poor need government to help make their way in the world.) In truth, the economy which has been exhibited thus far in the 2000's may very well be closer to reality than that evident in the late 1990's, when Y2K (remember that?) issues, a technological revolution fostered by the internet and other factors led the nation to believe the gravy train could not be stopped. (The Clinton administration was so bold it took credit for "ending economic cycles" as we knew them to that point. Right. Later we learned the Clinton team had actually overstated the state of the economy at the time.) There were factors which may not come together again for decades if at all. We became "irrationally exhuberant" as Mr. Greenspan stated at the time. The economy and the stock market bubbled and burst. Businesses which had been preparing for a coming boom found themselves to be overinvested in equipment, computers and people. Spending slowed to a crawl almost overnight, and still has not fully recovered. The biggest problem with the current economy in my book is the Democrats. It is their endless negative messages which continue to stifle consumer and business confidence. Consumer confidence rose significantly at the end of last year, only to fall in the latest data. Why the fall? Continuous coverage of Democratic primaries by all networks, coverage which includes one "candidate" after another telling us how bad we have it right now, how much Bush has messed it all up. The message is repeated in the press until it takes a life of its own and people believe it to be true. The average person does not understand how to dissect economic data, but if they have someone continuously telling them they are miserable, the message will eventually take root. There is an ancient philosophy which says one should not "shoot the messenger" of bad news. Does this same philosophy hold true, however, if the messenger has actually fabricated his story? ------------ Email Edward Abraham: eabra@myway.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
