The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Oh golly, the Wall Street Journal||Date: 12/3/2012 12:49 AM|
|Author: Goofyhoofy||Number: 1841795 of 2007394|
Well, if you read the WSJ rather than the left wing blog that references it, you'd see why Bush was left out of the chart.
I did read it. I see that they produced a chart topping several columns with the data they wanted to highlight, and threw away a mention of the President who shall not be named in Paragraph 49 or something of the text.
Do you not know how to manipulate a story to your own liking? (Hint: this is one of the ways.)
Well, first, that's not the point of the article and of Goofy's problem with it, which was an opinion piece and second, George Bush inherited a recession that lasted through most of his first year in office and was exasberated, obviously, by 9/11.
The recession lasted eight months, and was the mildest in the modern era, showing a -0.3% decline in GDP decline, peak to trough. It probably goes without saying that 9/11 happened in September. It was two months later that the economy emerged from recession, so it is fairly difficult to pin the recession on that, wouldn't you say?
In fact, if you fairly evaluate the economy during years 2, 3, and 4 of The President who shall not be named, you'd have to say it was, well, pretty dismal performance, in spite of massive tax cuts and economic policy prescriptions passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President.
And the Wall Street Journal is worried about Obama's second term, following an economic collapse which occurred during Bush's second, an economic catastrophe unmatched since the Great Depression.
OK. Apologize for them if you like. I'd prefer it if they stuck to economic analysis rather than partisan cheap shots. But then it's thoroughly Murdoch, so what else would you expect?
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|