Due to the " reward" involved, I certainly shall not even attempt to visit Fox news.com or watch their television show.
A rose by any other name smells as sweet... but let' s see if I can' t call your bluff. You find a biased news article from FoxNews -- that' s a news article, not opinion, commentary, or debate -- and I think I speak for everyone on this side of the issue that we' ll accept your interpretation of what news agencies are biased which ways as the correct and valid read on how the talking heads are leaning.
Beef,
I' d like to point out one immenent flaw in your logic, if I may. You assume that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is biased, by virtue of the fact that they are an agency of the executive branch of the government, just like any government office that is not a courthouse.
If you look at what is really the case, you' ll notice that the people in charge of the BLS are the same ones who were in charge under the Clinton administration. Was the group biased then? If so, are they really so fickle as to flip-flop their beliefs along with changes in administrations?
As I am just joining this conversation, I' d like to point out some realities (pardon me if I am repeating some already stated - I' d rather not go back and read all of the lengthy posts):
1) The unemployment rate right now is 5.5%. The unemployment rate when Clinton was re-elected in 1996 was 5.7%... and everyone was raving about how well the economy was doing. In fact, that was the Democratic Party' s semi-unspoken slogan in both 1992 and 1996: " It' s the economy, stupid."
2) The top 1% of wage-earners in America pay earn 6% of the national income, but pay 10% of the tax dollars that make it to the government - and that' s
after their " unfair" tax shelters and breaks.
3) The top 50% of wage-earners in America pay 96% of the taxes - again, that' s dollars counted at the bottom line, after all tax breaks and adjustments.
4) " Tax breaks" given to the bottom 50% of wage-earners through the Bush tax cuts well exceeded 4% of all the tax dollars " refunded." If you' re any good at math, you realize that that means many of the people in that category ended up being " refunded" money they never paid.
5) There are two ways to give tax breaks - to the suppliers, or to the demanders. Generally, this is analagus to either the richer or the poorer.
If you give money to the lower group of wage-earners, they spend more of it, giving the economy a more immediate boost in terms of GDP, however, this boost is short-lived, as for as soon as the money stops being given them, they obviously stop spending the additional amount they no longer have.
However, if you give tax breaks to the upper group of wage earners, indeed, they spend less on final goods immediately, but instead save more of the money in the form of investment - which builds what we call " capital," or the
ability to produce - a permanent enhancement to the economy that shifts not current aggregate demand, but long-term aggregate supply - also known as the economy' s " potential output."
Both types have their place, but as the economy was originally sufferring from what was mostly a supply-side issue (oil, specifically, as well as manufacturing will to produce), the latter made far more sense in the case of the recession of 2001 (which lasted only two months, btw... check the definition of a recession in whatever economics books you have lying around).