From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. facts
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:15:35 CST


In article <BxC827.J9r@eis.calstate.edu>, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> > >In <1992Nov2.022055.7768@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> > ->>	I've been really wondering about the GOP tactic of trying to
> > ->>convice the public that they are not really miserable. Assuming that
> > ->>things are really better then they seem, it strikes me as poor
> > ->>political judgement to tell the general public that they are wrong.
> > 
> >  Get ready for "happy time" stories in the media. They are now going to tell
> > us that maybe our attitude is making us think that life in the USA is worse 
> > than it actually is. Nightline ran a "happy time" story last night and will
> > run another on friday.
> > 
> >  Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
> 
> Yup; the media has been badmouthing the economy for ten years,

"ten years"?  Are you saying that there was no bad news in the media about
the economy before 1982 (such as in the 1970's)?
>                                                                 trying to
> portray every bit of good news as having a rotten side, and hyping
> anything even remotely bad, because they knew that as long as the economy
> was O.K., the peepul would NEVER elect a democrat president. So congress
> did all they could to scuttle the economy, and the national press (except
> for the Wall Street Journal) has emphasized the negative.

Have you been reading the WSJ?  They've had a lot of articles on how 
poor the economy is doing (for the last two years).

>                                                            But things
> aren't now, and never were, as black as they painted it.

Conservative economist Milton Friedman had this to say:

FORBES: "How's the economy?"
FRIEDMAN: "If you look closely, and pay attention to the short-term
	money supply movement, it looks very scary."
and
FORBES: "Does this mean that you're disappointed in Bush?"
FRIEDMAN: "[Laughs.]  Disappointed is putting it very mildly.  I believe the Bush
	presidency has been very close to a disaster."
	(_Forbes_, August 17, 1992)
>                                                           The economy IS
> on the rebound, however weakly (and the weakness is due mostly to the
> lingering efects of the 1990 tax hikes) and will continue to do so.

Your right that the economy is *slowly* improving.  Last month GDP reached
the same point it was at in July 1990 (the start of the recession).

> Neither Bush NOR Clinton will be responsible for the improvement, but
> watch for Dan Rather to point out about a zillion times that as soon as
> Clinton was elected, the economy started to take off.

You yourself just said "The economy IS on the rebound", but you don't 
want Rather to say "the economy started to take off"?

>                                                        (It won't take off;
> it'll continue to stagger up 'till Slick Willie and George Mitchell pass
> the first tax hike, at which time it'll plummet, and
> Clinton/Mitchell/Foley will pronounce it a "delayed reaction to the
> fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan/Bush". )

The economy will continue to pick up, Clinton's targeted tax cuts will help.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7958 alt.politics.clinton:15923 alt.politics.bush:13232 alt.rush-limbaugh:9078