This Article in the New York times says that the economy grew 2% in the 3rd quarter. It also say that this growth is expected to slow back down, but thats not the important part is it? With the election looming what do you think each candidate would say about this report?
I think it would be fun for responses to be from the perspective of Obama or Romney. Be them in a political statement, Spin this!
Romney: Today in various campaigns throughout Iowa and Ohio he stated that this type of growth is unacceptable. Its too slow, and is due largely to Obama's focus on 'small shiny problems'. He said, "Obama would rather focus on little things, like saving big bird...than the larger economy". (Despite the fact that HE..brought up PBS and Sesame Street in the first place). He also mentioned the 'failed' stimulus package of late from Obama. He stated that Obama 'promised this plan would boost GDP growth to 4%..and he failed us'. Well..actually this was just a sheer projection from the (non-partisan) Congressional Budget office at the time..not a Presidential 'promise'..but regardless...Romney won't be called out by anyone whilst on his own stump. No Candy Crowley to fact-check over the dim of applause and country music in this case. Despite the fact that our economy has seen steady growth for the past three years--Romney would rather focus on the relative 'failings' of our economy in proportion to how he believes it could be better with his own leadership.
ReplyDeleteAt another rally in Ohio today, Paul Ryan talked about the Romney platform's focus on poverty. Apparently this is a (new) focal point to their campaign, where they promise not to cut spending on the lower classes's impoverished. However this runs contrary to the actual provisions of the Paul Ryan/Romney agenda, where at least 60% of cuts will be made directly to these classes in the first days of their office holding.
Moral of the story? Politics is all spin. All about garnering votes, and making overarching superficial statements. Its salesmanship. Ever wonder why Ohio and Iowa suddenly became so important to the Republican party in the past few months? Their presidential campaign has been there 8 times in the past month alone. Coincidence that no Republican presidential candidate has ever been elected without winning Ohio? Absolutely.Not. Its all about the votes in our electoral structure. Not the issues. Its all about style and grace...over substance. In the same way that the lyrics of an American Idol contestant aren't important in comparison to the presentation--That mirrors a great deal of how our Presidential race is carried out.
I think Andrew definitely has the right idea here, the closest thing we get to facts in presidential elections these days are snippets from associated think tanks and the congressional budget office, which on their own say almost nothing, even to the trained economist. However, candidates take these little things, like a relative economic contraction caused more by excess military spending the previous quarter than by broad market factors, and turn them into an indictment of the president's economic policies that is both unfair and inaccurate. Is it any wonder that in light of this endless spin the public tends to ignore the issues and vote on feel or partisan lines?
ReplyDelete