Fox's Neil Cavuto Wants to Know: Is This the Bush Recovery?
Here's a lesson for the Associated Press: Try as you might to lower yourself into the lowest recess of gutter sludge, but all your efforts will be thwarted. Because the Fox News has taken up permanent residence there…
The opening segment of yesterday’s Your World (10/15/09) focused on the Dow reaching 10,000. Neil Cavuto asked, "What was once the Bush recession is now the Bush recovery? Or is it a bit of a stretch? Jim Lacamp says give credit where it's due." Not surprisingly, he thought credit was due to George W. Bush.
First of all, hahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha! Neil Cavuto and everyone else over at News Corp. think they're people. They still haven't figured out that they're cartoons. Amazing.
Second of all, that speculation is just flat out preposterous. Everyone knows that this is the Nixon Recovery. (Finally, that guy's getting a little vindication.)
RSS
In reality, things really aren't that much better than they were in January. The market probably dropped to far because of panic. The market has probably recovered too much because big investors are moving back into the market buying up bargin basement priced stocks. The main difference between the market today and the market hitting it's low in March is "confidence" vs. "panic".
And top that off with 2 of the 30 stocks in the DOW being replaced with other companies and you have to acknowledge it is artificially inflated.. You put GM (which isn't even traded on the NYSE anymore) back in the DOW and you would knock 200 points off of it instantly.
Right now the near 10% unemployement and 250,000 jobs lost a quarter are better indicators of the state of the economy than the Dow hitting 10,000.
If FOX wants to give Bush credit for it, I'm willing to help.
If President Obama gets credit for the market recovery due to his administration's intervention, because it happened under his watch, the premise being that even though he is still early on in his time in office, he is responsible for it, THEN he has to be assigned responsibility for the good, the bad, and the ugly that has gone on since he took office.
I happen to think (though am happy to be proven wrong–I really don't care which way it is) that there is still the influence of the previous administration's decisions and actions for a time, maybe a year or two, maybe longer in some cases. This would include the markets, it would include the messes we are facing as a nation.
To sum it up, I believe there is shared responsibility that can be attributed to both sides during a transition period before an administration gets to claim full credit for successes and at the same time be assigned responsibility for economic problems resulting from decisions or lack thereof.
Neil Cavuto raises a fair question. I don't care whether he's right or wrong. If I'm missing the humor (other than the Nixon reference)…sorry 'bout that!
How about if we sit the difference. Obama can get the credit for rebuilding conference in the market and 25% market increase this year. Bush can get credit for the 250,000 jobs still being let every quarter.