Why doesn't Bush get credit for the strong economy?

[Lanya]

URL: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer

[R.R.]

Because the liberal mainstream media downplays every bit of good economic news as somehow bad.

[Brassmask]

Because the liberal mainstream media downplays every bit of good economic news as somehow bad.

Actually, it has to do with how the rich are getting a lot richer and no one else.

The alleged rising tide is swamping and sinking the smaller boats and the yachts are making out like bandits.

The tide rose all the boats during the '90's and no one complaining.  What's different now?

[sirs]

Actually, it has to do with how the rich are getting a lot richer and no one else.  The alleged rising tide is swamping and sinking the smaller boats and the yachts are making out like bandits.  The tide rose all the boats during the '90's and no one complaining.  What's different now?

Oy     

[domer]

Leaving aside the issue of equity, which I deem crucial, crediting Bush for a "strong" economy at a time like this would be like remarking how well you feasted last night as your house burns down.

[kimba1]

Because the liberal mainstream media downplays every bit of good economic news as somehow bad.

media??
pretty much the news tends to say the economy is strong but.if there is no money in the pockets it`s a hard sell telling people their doing ok.
remember that article stated personnal income growth is stagnant,which is true
but everything cost more.
rising housing cost maybe a major factor.
a good percent of home owners go to food kitchens now .

[Plane]

Leaving aside the issue of equity, which I deem crucial, crediting Bush for a "strong" economy at a time like this would be like remarking how well you feasted last night as your house burns down.

Is equity so crucial that you would rather have equity than prosperity?

I think it possible that the understanding some people have of equity is in opposition to prosperity.

[sirs]

Is equity so crucial that you would rather have equity than prosperity?  I think it possible that the understanding some people have of equity is in opposition to prosperity.

I'm afraid Plane to many, that's indeed the absolute goal.....everyone to have the same, no rich, no poor, just an incredible abundance of mediocrity.       

[Xavier_Onassis]

The popular media are pretty much always total numbskulls on the economy. The economy is a boring story because the average American knows nothing about it and cares less. The economy is passed off as the figures ever day on the Dow Jones Index, which is certainly less meaningful than the S&P 500 or the Wiltshire 5000.

The war has apparently been quite profitable. I am not rich, but I live on very little and have a variety of investments in mutual funds, so I certainly can't complain about the last two years. I don't hold the president directly responsible for the economy, because it's certainly far more complicated than one guy.

A president can crash the economy, but it's a lot harder for him to make it go up.
What is going to happen soon is a major devaluation of the dollar against the Euro, the Yen and the Yuan. This will benefit a few US industries for a short period, but it's not really a good thing for me, because I plan to travel more after I retire.

I am a long ways from having to worry about the inheritence tax.

I think it is foolish to take the usual simplistic bull we hear on the TV about the president (whomever he might be) and the economy seriously, and I don't do this.

[Brassmask]

Is equity so crucial that you would rather have equity than prosperity?  I think it possible that the understanding some people have of equity is in opposition to prosperity.

I'm afraid Plane to many, that's indeed the absolute goal.....everyone to have the same, no rich, no poor, just an incredible abundance of mediocrity.       

It is possible that there could be an incredible abundance of excellence?  How about we all succeed together? 

[Plane]

Is equity so crucial that you would rather have equity than prosperity?  I think it possible that the understanding some people have of equity is in opposition to prosperity.

I'm afraid Plane to many, that's indeed the absolute goal.....everyone to have the same, no rich, no poor, just an incredible abundance of mediocrity.       

It is possible that there could be an incredible abundance of excellence?  How about we all succeed together? 

In a marathon, you expect thousands of people to show up , and each one to cross the finish at a diffrent time .

In a three legged race you kinda expect slower times and I suppose that if you were to rope all of the participants of a marathon together you would get some very slow times indeed.

But if you must all cross the finish together you must simply go at a rate the sloest can manage.

[sirs]

Is equity so crucial that you would rather have equity than prosperity?  I think it possible that the understanding some people have of equity is in opposition to prosperity.

I'm afraid Plane to many, that's indeed the absolute goal.....everyone to have the same, no rich, no poor, just an incredible abundance of mediocrity.       

It is possible that there could be an incredible abundance of excellence? 

No.  Average means average, means mediocrity.  Purely hypothetically speaking, no rich and no poor means middle, means neither good nor bad, it means "just enough", it means mediocrity.  In the real world though, there will always be poor.  Always.  There will also always be those who don't give a rat's a$$, and just sit on their butt's, and simply not care.  Always.  The best we can do is help those that really need it, when we can

[Plane]

Is equity so crucial that you would rather have equity than prosperity?  I think it possible that the understanding some people have of equity is in opposition to prosperity.

I'm afraid Plane to many, that's indeed the absolute goal.....everyone to have the same, no rich, no poor, just an incredible abundance of mediocrity.       

It is possible that there could be an incredible abundance of excellence? 

No.  Average means average, means mediocrity.  Purely hypothetically speaking, no rich and no poor means middle, means neither good nor bad, it means "just enough", it means mediocrity.  In the real world though, there will always be poor.  Always.  There will also always be those who don't give a rat's a$$, and just sit on their butt's, and simply not care.  Always.  The best we can do is help those that really need it, when we can

Let me quibble with you Sirs , I do not think that in a situation in which the excellent were tied to the slow that the result would be an advradge , I think that it would be much less than the medium of the pack as it runs free.

[sirs]

Let me quibble with you Sirs , I do not think that in a situation in which the excellent were tied to the slow that the result would be an advradge , I think that it would be much less than the medium of the pack as it runs free.

As i said, I was speaking purely hypothetically, Plane.  Reality has taught us there will alwys be poor, and there will always be those who are unmotivated to better themselves, beyond simply surviving.

[Plane]

Let me quibble with you Sirs , I do not think that in a situation in which the excellent were tied to the slow that the result would be an advradge , I think that it would be much less than the medium of the pack as it runs free.

As i said, I was speaking purely hypothetically, Plane.  Reality has taught us there will alwys be poor, and there will always be those who are unmotivated to better themselves, beyond simply surviving.

Perhaps I am wrong but I think History shows that failure can lead to widespread poverty , and this can happen fast.

Widespread prosperity requires a long period of of successes.

I think that allowing Thomas Alava Edison to make good money even after he already had good money was a nationally good idea , even though Edison produced more failures than successes , he had the wherewithall to bridge over his failures and get by with one project in five bringing money in.