I had to laugh when I read the latest column in Nate Silver's Political Calculus in the New York Times. The piece is headlined: "Obama has lost Advantage over G.O.P. on Economy." The column is incredulous to report that the latest polls show that voters do not prefer the approach of president Obama over that of congressional Republicans when it comes to the economy. All that was missing was a byline indicating that the report was coming straight from the heart of the liberal media bubble.
Here is a sample of what is supposed to pass for analysis:
It is not clear what is causing the decline, but it doesn’t seem to be the actual economy. There are increasing signs that the recovery is accelerating. Recent reports on jobs and housing have been unexpectedly strong. And all the while, the stock market has been bullish.
Let's see. Last quarter the economy was first reported to have declined by 0.1% which was then revised to the robust growth rate of the same 0.1%. Is that the accelerating recovery to which the Times piece refers? The unemployment rate is indeed better than it was; for the first time last month the rate was actually lower than it was when Obama took office. The problem, of course, is that the rate is down only because millions upon millions of people have despaired of finding work and are no longer looking. Given the way the government calculates the unemployment numbers, this brings the rate down. Are Americans really expected to celebrate that countless numbers of their countrymen are now so discouraged that they no longer even search for work? But the Times tells us that jobs and housing are "unexpectedly" strong. That word "unexpectedly" tells us all we need to know. Jobs and housing are not strong; they are historically extremely weak. The self appointed gurus in the media, however, tell us each month what we should expect when the numbers come out. Lately, these gurus have given out predictions that were slightly too low. As a result, the numbers, we are told, are "unexpectedly" strong.
Let's be clear. For some people in some portions of the country, things are better now than they were a year ago. for many others, however, it is just the reverse. Obama has had four and a half years to turn things around and he has failed to do so. Indeed, for almost all of 2013, Obama has done nothing to promote growth but rather has focused on gun control, climate change, immigration and golf, particularly golf. All of his efforts on the economy seem to have been focused on raising taxes. For most Americans the issue is not whether or not they agree with his approach to growing the economy. No, for most Americans the point is that Obama is not doing anything at all to try to grow the economy.
Only someone living in the center of the liberal media bubble could have missed this fact. Unless and until Obama decides to focus on the economy and to suggest some course of action that is designed to bring growth, his poll numbers will continue to languish. I wonder when the geniuses at the New York Times will realize this basic truth.
Here is a sample of what is supposed to pass for analysis:
It is not clear what is causing the decline, but it doesn’t seem to be the actual economy. There are increasing signs that the recovery is accelerating. Recent reports on jobs and housing have been unexpectedly strong. And all the while, the stock market has been bullish.
Let's see. Last quarter the economy was first reported to have declined by 0.1% which was then revised to the robust growth rate of the same 0.1%. Is that the accelerating recovery to which the Times piece refers? The unemployment rate is indeed better than it was; for the first time last month the rate was actually lower than it was when Obama took office. The problem, of course, is that the rate is down only because millions upon millions of people have despaired of finding work and are no longer looking. Given the way the government calculates the unemployment numbers, this brings the rate down. Are Americans really expected to celebrate that countless numbers of their countrymen are now so discouraged that they no longer even search for work? But the Times tells us that jobs and housing are "unexpectedly" strong. That word "unexpectedly" tells us all we need to know. Jobs and housing are not strong; they are historically extremely weak. The self appointed gurus in the media, however, tell us each month what we should expect when the numbers come out. Lately, these gurus have given out predictions that were slightly too low. As a result, the numbers, we are told, are "unexpectedly" strong.
Let's be clear. For some people in some portions of the country, things are better now than they were a year ago. for many others, however, it is just the reverse. Obama has had four and a half years to turn things around and he has failed to do so. Indeed, for almost all of 2013, Obama has done nothing to promote growth but rather has focused on gun control, climate change, immigration and golf, particularly golf. All of his efforts on the economy seem to have been focused on raising taxes. For most Americans the issue is not whether or not they agree with his approach to growing the economy. No, for most Americans the point is that Obama is not doing anything at all to try to grow the economy.
Only someone living in the center of the liberal media bubble could have missed this fact. Unless and until Obama decides to focus on the economy and to suggest some course of action that is designed to bring growth, his poll numbers will continue to languish. I wonder when the geniuses at the New York Times will realize this basic truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment