The unemployment rate dropped to 4.6%.

CBS Story on Unemployment

These low rates (combined with low interest rates, positive economic growth, and low unemployment) are amazing in spite of a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and a global effort against terrorism.

Why isn't the economy portrayed in a positive light by the liberal media?

The economy in most of the country, in contrast to states like Michigan led by a first term democrat Jennifer Granholm, is doing fine.

Yet, the press continues to pain the economy in the worst possible light.

Questions for debate.

1. Do you agree with my premise that the media is presenting the economy in a negative way in spite of the evidence?

2. Should Bush's approval numbers be higher based on the economic news?

3. Is the economy doing good, bad, or indifferent in your view?

No, I don't agree with that premise. The press presents the situation the way it is - both positives and negatives. Make a search on CNNfN and you'll find loads of articles with both bullish and bearish attitudes. There are many reasons to be worrying - high oil prices, zero percent savings rate among general population, creeping inflation, stratosferic budget deficits, slowdown in real estate market combined with higher interest rates (just wait till it's time for people with all those adjustable-rate mortgages to adjust their monthly payments when their fixed-rate term comes up... the number of foreclosures has already jumped.)
That being said, the economy seems to be going OK at the moment. Bush's low approval ratings show that it's not all about economy.

P.S. I remember how just a couple of years ago aevans and others were arguing like there's no tomorrow how little influence the president has over the economy.. of course, the topic of conversation back then was Clinton, not Bush.

1. Do you agree with my premise that the media is presenting the economy in a negative way in spite of the evidence?

On the basis of the CBS article you linked, no. I counted at least two instances of "on the one hand... abc but on the other.... xyz", which doesn't strike me as particularly biased in either direction.

If your contention is that only unqualified praise is acceptable reportage I can recommend some nice dictatorships with state-controlled media you might prefer.

2. Should Bush's approval numbers be higher based on the economic news?

Are Bush's numbers low primarily because of his economic stewardship? No, they're low because of Iraq, oil prices, general boredom, Iraq, scandals within the administration, running out of ideas, defecits, Iraq, and... oh, Iraq, amongst other things.

3. Is the economy doing good, bad, or indifferent in your view?

Most globalised economies, the UK included, seem to be a mixed bag. Good performance in one area is counter-balanced by slow-downs and closures in others. This modern trend in Anglo-Saxon economies does seem to be a cushion against outright recession, and doesn't seem to have inhibited growth too much. It remains to be seen if this is a new paradigm or just an extended run of good luck, however.

1. Do you agree with my premise that the media is presenting the economy in a negative way in spite of the evidence?
The economy is so complicated that presenting it as all negative or all positive is ridiculous. Plus the media spends more time covering Brangelina than the economy anyway so it's hard to get a very clear picture.

2. Should Bush's approval numbers be higher based on the economic news?
The vast majority of people don't follow the national economy; they follow their financial situation. If unemployment is 3% but they get fired the economy doesn't look so good. Recently, the economy seems to be doing well for the richest people and so-so for everyone else. Also, if the big city, liberal, east coast, ivy league, immoral, elites were so good at tricking America, George W. Bush wouldn't have gotten elected in the first place.

3. Is the economy doing good, bad, or indifferent in your view?
It looks like the economy is doing okay but it's impossible to tell. Especially going forward so much of what makes the economy good or bad is up to unpredictable events and unforseen trends.

1. Do you agree with my premise that the media is presenting the economy in a negative way in spite of the evidence?
I find it mildly ironic when the citation you use fails to back up your premise to start the discussion. The article is fairly balanced when discussing the economy. Unemployment is down, but job growth is slow. Its balanced. Or would you prefer a more "Fox"ian perspective "Unemployment is down, ain't Bush great?!!!"

2. Should Bush's approval numbers be higher based on the economic news?
Not really, there are many factors that go into an approval rating, the economy being just one. In addition, the economy is mixed. Unemployment is down, but gas prices are high. Bush's approval numbers aren't poor because the economy is doing OK. There are a host of other reasons (Iraq, Katrina, NSA, energy policy, etc).

3. Is the economy doing good, bad, or indifferent in your view?
Its mixed from what I've seen. There are unquestionably some positive indicators: GNP is up, as is productivity, and unemployment is down. The negatives are slow job growth, growth in poor job sectors (low wage), gas prices are up, food prices are up, savings is down, debt is up, markets are slowing. The general answer is that the economy is "ok". As you've indicated, Michigan is struggling. Granholm certainly hasn't helped her cause, though asking a trial lawyer to lead an economic renaissance might be a bit of a reach.

edit: edited to correct comment on Granholm.

1. Do you agree with my premise that the media is presenting the economy in a negative way in spite of the evidence?

I don't agree with your premise, but I do agree that the positives of the economy do not get as much attention as they might.


2. Should Bush's approval numbers be higher based on the economic news?

I think we as Americans tend to be highly affected by economic conditions, so I think Bush's numbers reflect in part Americans feelings about the economy.

3. Is the economy doing good, bad, or indifferent in your view?

I think the overall American economy is doing fairly well, but that we are facing several very important problems. Costs for American made products, mostly services, are increasing. The benefits of the economy seem to be helping widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Energy, education, housing, and medical costs continue to eat larger and larger chunks out of the household budget. The American government is spending what seems well beyond its means while a pending crisis of Social Security shortfalls and likely retirement crises as 401Ks prove to be less desirable than pensions.

The bush adjustments have not seemed to improve any of these problems, but, from the low point of 2002, there is plenty of positive news. Yet the stock market has still not recovered to its 1999(?) high of over 12,000.

1. Do you agree with my premise that the media is presenting the economy in a negative way in spite of the evidence?

I don't particularly agree. The media has certainly not pointed out how well the economy is doing, but then that isn't really news. I haven't seen them focusing on the negative to the exclusion of the positive.

2. Should Bush's approval numbers be higher based on the economic news?
Bush has done a poor job in using the economic news to his benefit. It really is one of the areas that he could be using to help himself. I think that Bush and outgoing Treasury Secretary Snow had problems communicating and this has lead to some of the communications difficulties with the public.

3. Is the economy doing good, bad, or indifferent in your view?
In my view, it is excellent. Unemployment down. Inflation manageable. Interest rates low (although increasing slightly). Exports are up, imports are down. Compared to other industrialized nations, the United States is booming.

1. Do you agree with my premise that the media is presenting the economy in a negative way in spite of the evidence?

No

2. Should Bush's approval numbers be higher based on the economic news?

Not only no, but HELL no. After all, wasn’t it argued (by you and others) that Bush couldn’t be blamed for bad economic news? Well, then the same principle should apply to so-called “good” news.

3. Is the economy doing good, bad, or indifferent in your view?

It’s doing so-so, and tilting downward.

And, mmm, let’s see, we created a paltry 75,000 jobs in May (welcome to Wal-Mart, can I help you?). Wage growth is practically non-existent, orders placed with US companies have fallen, the prime rate has been raised 16 times in one year (and a 17th time is a possibility), the real estate market is teetering (largely as a result of the interest rate rising), oil prices are at record high levels, and we’re still in the big suck. Nope, nothing wrong here.
Sources:
Business Week
CNN Money

Gotta love those unemployment figures. They don’t take into consideration those who have burned through all their benefits (a whoppin’ 6 months worth-yippee) and are NO LONGER COUNTED as unemployed (and are charmingly referred to as "discouraged"), though many still are.

A paltry .1% unemployment decrease is hardly huge news. But the media reports that unemployment is down!! And you still call that misrepresentation and negativity? I think they’re sugar-coating it, quite frankly.

The economy may indeed be better. but I haven't seen it in action. Jobs are starting to appear again but they pay next to nothing--Great for the company bottom line--horrible for the emplyee who needs to pay bills. I am glad wall street is happy i guess. I am just tired of seeing jobs that ask much and return little.
It is a long way from 2000 when wages were good and jobs led to better opportunity.

just got a new job with a new company an hopefully they're honest about the opportunity they mention. the last one had harder and harder jobs for the same pay. Apparently the "satisfaction" of the job well done was supposed to be reward enough.

I don't think the news is all that biased. bush's numbers cant be saved right now. it is too late for average news to save him. even his own wont stand by him. bush needs a big win to get better numbers and i dont forsee anything coming up for him.

I would say the economy is indifferent. I am sure someone is profiting, but not around here.

As many have pointed out already, CBS, which is traditionally thought of as part of the liberal media, is the article which you use to back up your claim the economy is doing well.

But besides that terrific piece of irony, I would still contest your belief. Ancedotally, I haven't seen much, if any, news on the economy recently. The economic TV "gurus" are all staunch conservatives (Kudlow, Cramer.... though these are a far cry from handling pure economic issues). There haven't been many attacks, at least right now, on economic performance.

Certainly not. If its not a story, its not something people care about. Bush is still recuperating from a bad 2005, so the focus is seemingly on defense.

Overall, I think the economy is doing alright. These successes always seem to be followed by some setback. The give and take is like some wicked faustian bargain completely invisible to us in the 1990's.

So here we are: higher employment with lower wage growth. Low wage growth means companies are not having difficulties finding employees (If they were, they would have to raise wages). The job market, therefore, is still pretty loose, with potential workers accepting any job they can find. It doesn't take an economist to figure that out.

I also have my fears of stagflation with higher oil prices. If prices rise as a result of a negative supply shock, interest rates will have to climb as well which will push the entire economy backwards. I'm still pretty optimistic, but it is definitely a concern.

Of course, little of this has anything to do with Bush.

There is nothing ironic about this. You and the other liberal posters have obviously misinterpreted my reference to the 4.6% unemployment news as a reference to the generally anti-Bush, poor-economy tone of the liberal media.

CBS is a liberal network. But one can't take one story and "prove" otherwise anymore than one can take a few years of temperature data and declare the world is going to end unless we fundamentally change our economy and style of life.

Oh I forgot. CBS is promoting that too.

Bad tone to Bush economy

Negative Bush economic coverage

Here are few links with references to what I was talking about. I keep forgetting that what is self evident to any objective human must be backed up with "references" in this forum.

Lets break this down for a second. If we assume that a 4.6% unemployement rate is a good thing, and we also know that CBS reported this, we know for sure that CBS reported something good about Bushes economy. Now, your premise is that the liberal media portrays the economy in a negative light. But this article seems to be portraying the economy in a positive light. So the citation itself is proof of the opposite, thats all I'm saying.

And by the way, I'm not liberal.

This point is well taken without the global warming.

Of course the "Media research Center" (I find the quotations appropriate) is going to find something liberal about the media.

Wikipedia

It seems like they made their conclusion, then started looking for evidence. Hardly fair and balanced.


And this, of course, is why exports have gone up. As the value of the US dollar declines, our goods get cheaper to foreigners abroad. So, the increase in exports is evidence of a faltering US dollar.

I imagine you were JUST as outrages when this 'Liberal press' of yours went wild over the Clinton 'sex scandal', dragging out every minute of the investigation in every newspaper in the country, while completely ignoring the fact that the unemployment rate at the time had dropped to the lowest point in over 40 years, 3.9%. How irritated you must have been when the media was crawling with coverage of his did-he-didn't-he oral sex story while missing out on the economic good news of the century.




I know, we're just CRAZY here, always asking you to justify your opinion (which you believe to be the unassailable truth) with sources and facts. It must get so irritating for you. Its a wonder you stay.

So Ted, tell us your opinion on the fact that the US currently has the largest deficit, in real dollars, in all of US history. Tell us your opinion of the steady and alarming drop of the value of the US dollar on international markets as the world loses faith in the US currency. Yes, the low unemployment, even if it is just a monthly average, is a good sign. But are you asserting thats the only sign that exists, that there are no negative or conflicting signs at all?

If you DO believe that, then I am going to have to be really annoying (forgive me) and insist you back up that opinion, (which I'm sure you feel is self-evident to any objective human) with evidence. Call me crazy.

The economy is doing quite well and seems to be moving in the right direction as well.

I have always thought the media has put a negative light on the economy during a Republican Administration. But that is just my opinion.

Personally I have never been better off in my health, family, love, and personal success.

And I don't have to prove I am doing better to anyone... I simply am...

Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath in a federal court during a civil proceeding. And then, he used the power of the presidency to cover up that lie including an attempt to libel the young woman involved (spreading the story that she was a "stalker", etc.).

If wasn't about illicit sex. If it were, he would have been impeached during his first term.

The liberal press did their spin though and turned it into a "private" matter rather than a question of whether a president should be exempt from the rule of law. They succeeded in duping most people which is why Clinton left office with a 60% approval rating instead of handcuffs. With respect to the liberal press and Clinton, it was "mission accomplished" to coin a phrase. The liberal press also did a great job covering up the allegations of Juanita Broddrick and Kathleen Willey even though both women were (and are) democrats, not GOP operatives. Oh, and Paula Jones was cast by the media as "trailer trash" who put her in the double-wide next to Tonya Harding and Amy Fisher.

Why? Because Clinton was one of *them*. They protected him and hero worshipped him for that reason.



Who's Ted?

The US dollar has dropped but that helps exports. We have a deficit but our economy keeps growing so the debt load is far less for us as a nation (as a %) than it is for the ordinary person posting in this forum. Furthermore, interest rates are very low. As a result, our "large" debt is relatively easier to deal with than the "lower" debt of the 18% interest Carter dark ages.

Low unemployment is only one metric, for sure. But so is growth, inflation, and the cost of money.

The point of the post is to point out that Bozell's group has documented proof that the major media reports negative econonomic news 62% of the time in spite of these positive trends.

Why is that? I know that answer (their corporate culture is liberal, democrat, and anti-business) but am interested in YOUR take.

And at the risk of sounding snippy, nearly everything posted in this and every other forum is "opinion". And that includes whatever "proof" you might reference.

There are very, very, very few undeniable truths in this world. Most everything is up for debate including everything in this forum.

But, I like to point out the obvious from time to time and one of those obvious observations is that the "major media" in this country, by that I mean the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are liberal and pro-democrat. Of course, people will argue with that too and point out, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the media is owned by "corporations" as though it's self evident (to them it may be since they suffer from blind class envy) that "corporations" and "CEO's" are obviously conservative republicans.

My goodness, such vitriol. If you believe liberals are somehow less human than you, why do their opinions bother you so much? Why do you bother paying attention to them? If you “know” that it’s all hokum, why don’t you just tune out?

And yeah, I’ll argue that the media is anything but liberal. It has been proven time and time again to those with objective eyes to see.

And btw, it’s really obnoxious when you refer to yourself as some kind of all-knowing oracle, and anyone with opposing views “just doesn’t get it”. I’m sure it has never occurred to you that maybe YOU are the one who “doesn’t get it”.

Shouldn't liberal moral relativism be applied to me as well?

If the left can ask us to put ourselves in the shoes of terrorists so we can "understand them as people" before we judge them, if lefties like Michael Moore can project Saddam-led Iraq as a happy land filled with Kite flying children, why can't the same courtesy be applied to this forum's sage "Lordhelmet"?

What I posted wasn't "vitriol", it was my opinion. Just because you don't concur with it doesn't make it untrue, unwise, or "offensive" to anyone beyond yourself.

And frankly, I'm a believer in "free speech" which is a deeply held American tradition and a constitutionally protected right.

Free speech doesn't just mean a left winger's right to burn a flag or shout down a conservative speaker at an "open minded" university. It also give people like me the right to tell that left winger that he's full of bovine scatalogical.

What you deem "obnoxious", I deem wisdom. What you deem "truth", I deem obnoxious.

I understand that free speech works both ways. I wish the left would start believing in it too.

Firstly, I notice you completely ignored my question: according to your logic, ALL of that should have been ignored because the Clinton economic figures were so incredibly rosy, including the lowest unemployment rate in half a century, significantly lower than it is now.

Secondly, Please Lordhelmet, give us a break. NONE of that is true. The media tore Clinton a new one, pouring over his 'trial' and the kangaroo court presided by that nutbar kenneth Starr second by second, to the exclusion of all other news. I am not seeking to exculpate Clinton for his idiotic actions, but to pretend that the media was on his side and PROTECTED him during that media circus is inane.



Nice dodge Ted. Yes, in the short term the plummeting dollar is good for Exports, and bad for imports. But what do you think of it, and the effect it has had on the currency market worldwide? With people literally fleeing from investing in the dollar (as partially reflected in commodity prices), pretty much every economist alive, including notably the hardly-left-wing magasine 'The Economist' is saying this is incredibly dangeous, and entirely due to Bush Jr's profligate spending habits. Sentiments echoed by the way by both the outgoing federal reserve chair Greenspan, and his incoming replacement. So do you feel justified in ignoring all of them Lordhelmet, do you feel confident you know more about the economy than they do?

Where DID you get your doctorate in economics by the way?



Well if you already 'know the truth' then why come here at all? I mean all you are going to find here is irritating people who keep unreasonably asking you to 'evidence' things you know to be patently true, and people who keep posting contrary facts and counter-evidence, unaware that no evidence can alter what you KNOW to be true...




Obvious eh? Funny, thats not what most studies I have read say...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2534

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002

But then, why let facts get in the way of what you personally KNOW to be true...

Besides, there are plenty of stories on FOX reporting the potential pitfalls and difficulties with the economy too. Are they also leftist liars according to you?



As the people of this board are coming to realise, those two things are rarely mutually exclusive.

You know lordhelmet, if Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke were to see your thread and some of the responses, including mine, they’d probably be aghast at the sophomoric level involved.


1. Do you agree with my premise that the media is presenting the economy in a negative way in spite of the evidence?



The above from lordhelmet's link:

For as long as I can remember, “job growth” and “unemployment” numbers have been reported in tandem. Doing it this way does not bias CBS’s story .

2. Should Bush's approval numbers be higher based on the economic news?

No. The economy is a complex thing. Portions which might be good for wage earners might be bad for investors and visa versa. Until the fed raised the prime rate in May, the stock market had been doing well. It seemed to tumble when Bernanke didn’t signal a pause in interest rate hikes.


3. Is the economy doing good, bad, or indifferent in your view?

That depends on how it impacts a person or group. When I took economics in 1963 at the University of Texas at Arlington (1963-1964), 2% was considered frictional ujnemployment, that is, unemployment in a dynamic economy where people are moving from one job to another. Today a higher rate seems acceptable (4.6?), which often reflects a trade-off between inflation and full-employment.

Employment and unemployment figures hardly tell the whole story, unless just having a job, regardless of job quality is the goal. We have to consider dead end jobs and underemployment. Here are some interesting figures from Bloomberg:



http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...O_9k&refer=home

The average unemployment during Bush's entire term is LOWER than it was during Clinton's entire term.

Furthermore, we were entering a recession when Clinton left office.

Convenient facts you've left out.

The hyper growth lasted 2 years and it was the run-up to y2k. After that came and went, companies were stuck with trillions of inventory on the shelves and no more demand to fill it. Look it up. Check NASDAQ and high tech electronics firms in the Q1 and Q2 of 2000. Notice anything? It was imploding. And that rippled through the US economy (and thus the world) later that year and in the first quarter of 2001 when Bush took office.



It's all true. Yes, the media covered it non stop. But they also helped position the issue as a "sex scandal", not a "legal scandal". Like I said, if it were about sex, Clinton would have been thrown out long ago.



Why do you keep calling me "Ted"? The Economist? Yes, the UK economy is so vibrant, isn't it? And Canada's? please spare me. The left wing elite that you put so much stock in didn't get it during Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton (as far as the major drivers) and they don't get it now.

Ph.D? Don't insult me like that. I've known and worked with many and frankly, I wouldn't trust them to feed my dog in the morning let alone set national policy. Again, puh lease.



fair.org? Why not post truthout.org and moveon.org? They represent about the same level as "truth" as those two facades. And, with respect to the "studs" you put your faith in.... well, don't ask, and don't tell.

When truthout reported that Karl Rove had been indicted and given 24 hours to get his affairs in order, I didn't notice anybody here starting an anti-Rove thread based on that one report. Of course, you were on vacation and didn't notice how liberals practiced restraint, did you?

Oh, I'm sorry, were you mentioning something about leaving out facts?

The recession that hit the US started well after Clinton left office, into Bush Jr's first term. On the other hand (speaking of facts you left out) Clinton inherited a massive serious recession from Bush Sr, and still did wonders for the economy.

And you STILL have dodged my question. Clinton has unemplyment figures lower than Bush Jr does now, so should the media have ignored all the sex scandal stuff and focussed just on that? That is exactly what you are saying in this case, xcept that the 'bad news' in the Bush Jr case is FAR worse, and the unemployment numbers are not as good...







PLEASE stop with your unevidenced slander and answer my question for a change. You even quoted it, before completely ignoring it.

A HUGE number of outlets, including ones not in your list as being 'leftist', and internationally acclaimed economic gurus like Greenspan, are speaking volumes about the danger of the current US economy. PLEASE explain to us why you feel justified in dismising or ignoring all of that. Greenspan is not the 'left wing elite', nor is the Economist magasine, and even if it were, unlike you, they evidence their prognosies and analysies.

Oh and as an aside, the Canadian economy is currently one of the strongest on the planet.



Right. So now, as well as 'knowing' better than everyone else on the board, and 'knowing' better than the majority of the planets economists (and all scientists involved in climate study) you know 'know' more than anyone with an education. You already explained in great detail your irritation at having to 'evidence' your 'true and unimpeachable knowledge'...

Out of curiosity LordHelmet, is there anyone you are NOT smarter and more knowledgable than?



Yes, I can see how you could have missed the other of the two studies I posted, after all it was right there and you even quoted it again. But I suppose 'poisoning the well' is easier than having to deal with disagreeable facts, right Lordhelmet?

After all, you 'Know' better than all of those facts anyways...

That's a dishonest statistic. The year before Clinton took office the unemployment rate was 7.5%, the year before Bush took office the unemployment rate was 4%. The unemployment rate went down every year under Clinton. Yes, Bush inherited an economic downturn (among other things) but he also inherited a 4% unemployment rate from Clinton. Over the course of Clinton's term the unemployment rate went down 3.5%, it went up .8% under Bush. I don't see how Bush gets let off the hook for inheriting an economy better off than it was in 1992, while Clinton gets blamed for inheriting the 1992 economy and having it improved drastically over the course of his term.

There is nothing dishonest about my statistic. Bush Sr. handed Clinton the peace dividend and a fresh victory in Iraq. Both were squandered. Clinton had the advantage of three factors (1) y2k which was a huge driver in the economy (2) the rapid rise of the internet and related e-commerce and dot.com startups, IPO's, and the resulting bubble in the stock market and (3) the rapid rise in the telecomm sector.

Bush inherited a virtual stop in y2k spending, a dramatic drop in telecomm spending, and overcapacity and bust in the dot com sector.

You can deny if you must. But those are the facts, Jack.

Besides, presidents don't have that much to do with the economy anyway. Economists know that, I know that, and educated people should know that.

But the PRESS doesn't know that and that was the point of this thread in the first place.

Why do they continue to provide 62% negative coverage of the economy (with respect to Bush) when it's doing quite well by historical standards and measurably better than the vast majority of the Clinton years?

The unemployment rate in 1992 was 7.5%. Under Clinton, for whatever reason it got better every year. Now, obviously, Presidents don't control the economy. I know that. But that statistic you cited is just misleading. Under Clinton the unemployment rate went down dramatically, and went down every year, even before the tech boom. And it's not like everyone threw away their computers after 2000. Bush inherited a much better employment outlook than Clinton did; 3.5% better. You can't just ignore that and say Clinton inherited a better economy than Bush Jr. The unemployment rate even in the worst part of the 2001-2003 recession was never close to the Bush Sr. levels. Clinton inherited a 7.5% unemployment rate, Bush inherited a 4% unemployment rate. Your statistic leaves off that fact. The unemployment rate got better under Clinton, and worse under Bush.

For whatever reason? So, since "presidents don't control the economy" what do you attribute it too? And why do you continue to compare Bush and Clinton and defend Bubba for something he had nothing to do with? Of course I realize that HE was in front taking credit for it as though he personally ran the levers of our business sector from under his oval office desk.... when it wasn't occupied by Monica that is.

I take issue with Clinton getting credit for something he had nothing to do for. Yet, you KEEP giving him credit EVEN though you admit that you "understand" that the presidential impact on a US economy is minimal. Why?

My thread is on the press's "perception" of the two economies under Bush and Clinton. "It's the economy stupid" said James Carville which is a cynical reaction to the reality that people vote via their pocketbook.

The economic cycle of the late 1990's has been well documented. So has the burst of the tech bubble (which Greenspan predicted and even helped precipitate via his raising of interest rates in 2000). Clinton didn't invent cell phones, the internet, and the mass of hardware/software development that occurred during the mid to late 90's in reaction to the "y2k bug". Those are historical facts. They aren't subject to politics.

Just think back to your cell phone and computer (if you even had one) in 1996 and compare it with what you have today.

Presidents have a major factor on foreign policy and that's how Bush and Clinton should be judged. Clinton failed in my view. With Bush, the jury is still out. The difference is that the republicans tended to support Clinton abroad and attack him at home while the democrats attack Bush from both angles endlessly.

I know Presidents don't control the economy very much. I don't think Clinton should be given very much credit for the 90's economy. But when you look at unemployment numbers, under Clinton the rate became lower, and under Bush they became higher. That's not a judgement of their economic policy, it's just a more accurate representation than


Also Al Gore invented the internet, so there.

Hey, I didn't invent the numbers. We have government agencies spending billions of tax dollars hiring those guys with green eyeshades who fill in those spreadsheets.

And the Inconvenient Truth (sorry Algore) is that the average unemployment rate under Bill Clinton was higher than it has been under George W. Bush.

If you doubt what I say, then do the math yourself.

With respect to Gore and the internet, I think that you're onto something. But, Gore, when he invented DARPA NET out of a conspiracy to communicate with his sources of pot from universities on the west coast didn't realize it would grow beyond his wildest expectations and keep him well stocked beyond anything that he experienced at Harvard or while lugging that typewriter around nam. And now we get to see the results of his permanent THC-induced brain damage in Panavision and Technicolor at your local theater.

Happy Days, Indeed!

I realize that's true, it's just meaningless. The reason Bush has a lower average unemployment rate is because he came after Clinton. The reason Clinton has a higher average unemployment rate is because he came after Bush Sr. You could be the president with the best economic policy ever, if you took office after Hoover you'd have a high average unemployment rate. All I'm saying is the statistic isn't wrong, it's meaningless.