Krugman: Delusions of Triumph

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25KRUG.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

Republicans, we hear, are frustrated by polls showing that the public has a poor opinion of George Bush's economic leadership. In their view, the good news about Mr. Bush's economic triumphs is being drowned out by the bad news from Iraq.

A recent article in The New York Times, citing concerns of "Republican elected officials, pollsters and strategists," put it this way: "The creation of nearly 900,000 new jobs in the last four months — a development that might otherwise have redefined the race in Mr. Bush's favor — has been largely crowded out of the electorate's psyche by images from Iraq."

Funny, isn't it? In 2002, Republican strategists used the impending Iraq war to distract the public from the miserable economic news. Now they're complaining that Iraq is taking voters' focus off the economy.

But is the economic news really that good? No. While the recent economic performance is better than in the administration's first three years, it isn't at all exceptional by historical standards. And after those three terrible years, the economy has a lot of ground to make up.

[xray s]

1. # of jobs is not what we have to look at

the income and benefits of the old jobs lost vs the new jobs gained is the key issue.

Income growth is anemic. The loss of benefits is a hemorrhage. The economy is in the toilet, but the guys in Washington with their statistical heads up their asses still spin the numbers.

[shraby]

2. That's because they have jobs

with good benefits.

[ResistTheCoup]

3. Exactly

Remember? Rove was going to run on "the war".

And it just shows how clueless the Repugs are. Gee, so a few hundred/thousand people are dying - shouldn't the improving economy take everyone's mind off of that?

x(

[tom_paine]

4. KICK

[yellowcanine]

5. Not to mention that economic growth is mostly a result of the massive

spending made possible by 500 billion dollar annual budget deficits.