But once again, Bob omits the bad news when delivering the good news to tell only one side of the story. It's called "spin" in the political world, but it more accurately called a "lie."
One of the key economic factors that Bob chose to ignore were real wages, which are wages that have been adjusted for inflation. By looking at real wages, you're examining the spending power of an earner, with gas prices, health insurance, and other inflationary pressures already factored in. Unfortunately for Bob's analysis, the fact of the matter is that real wages have been essentially stagnant during the course of the Bush presidency. Despite recent gains, the average real wage in May 2007 was the same as in September of 2002. This is, of course, in contrast to the dramatic rise in real wages during the last years of the Clinton Administration.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf79c/bf79ce54f85ced46a72cb8829101da008caf9285" alt=""
But don't just take my word for it. Even the far right-wing Washington Times isn't impressed by the economy's performance, or the White House's spin, either.
3 comments:
Bob reminds me of Neil Cavuto of Fox Noise Channel. Neil always does stories trying to convince people that the economy is good.
My thoughts: If you have to keep reminding people that the economy is good, it's not.
DJ,
Your thought is absolutely right. Nobody had to tell me that the economy was going well in the 90s. My primary problems then were deciding how to spend and invest my money!
I still find it interesting that Bob is such a fan of the current "rich get richer and everybody else just gets by" policies of the Bush administration. My guess is that Bob, despite his WMUZ salary, speaking engagements, and CD sales, is really not all that well off financially.
So we can add "economics" to the long list of subjects that Bob is completely ignorant about.
I'm convinced Bob isn't qualified to be dogcatcher.
And yet, he's on the radio. Will wonders never cease?
Post a Comment