Bushies Are Really Sucking On The Crack Pipe
Tweet
Now they’re claiming that the Bush economy is stronger than Clinton’s.
The White House says the economic surge that began five and a half years ago on President Bush’s watch is more robust than the much-touted expansion during the Clinton administration.
“This is a much stronger expansion in a lot of ways,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto told The Examiner. “It’s much deeper and more measured.”
Fratto’s assertion was disputed by Gene Sperling, economic adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, who spoke to The Examiner in his capacity as former National Economic Adviser to President Bill Clinton.
“That’s a rather absurd claim,” said Sperling, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. “In terms of job creation, in terms of wage growth, in terms of business investment, in terms of poverty, there’s absolutely no comparison.”
“The expansion during the 90s was exceptionally strong,” he said. “And this has been a historically weak expansion in virtually all of those measures.”
That is clearly some prime rock they’re smoking over there at 1600 Penn.
Look, one of the things about a strong economy is that you don’t need to repeat over-and-over again that the economy is strong. People will either feel it or they don’t. They felt it during the Clinton years, and while the Bush era has not been as dismal a failure as his father’s, it’s more or less staying in place and not the boom we saw under President Clinton. That’s why only 38% approve of the Bush administration’s handling of the economy (which are about the same Thirty Percenters who think things are going well in Iraq).
40 Responses to “Bushies Are Really Sucking On The Crack Pipe”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
The same thing about being a Christian. Real ones don’t have to talk about what a good Christian they are. It’s obvious.
Tom fucking Delay is actually comparing himself to Jesus Christ. That is blasphemy.
And chickengeorge’s fake christianity is an insult.
regardless of how it compares to the Clinton economy, it is a good economy. One can argue housing bubble under W or techno bubble under Bubba. Matters not, both good economies. Be honest. Its a good economy.
Conversely, one could argue that if the economy was so bad, one wouldn’t have to keep repeating it — it would be self-evident.
Or one could (I know I’m treading close to heresy here) cite some evidence, even anecdotal, that things aren’t just rosy.
I remember the tech bubble of the 90′s, when I didn’t have any stake in the tech industry and STILL wanted to know how long these companies could keep going with record high stock prices and record high losses…
And I’m just old enough to remember a seriously bad economy, under Jimmy Carter. I don’t need to cite polls about how people “think” things were, we had the “triple doubles” to look at — unemployment, interest rates, and inflation all above 10%. THOSE, folks, are how you demonstrate an economy is in the toilet, not simply saying that “it must be bad if they keep saying it’s good” and citing polls.
Polls are useful for some things. For the most part, though, they’re worthless — and people who cite them (or, in Oliver’s case, depend solely on them to make his “arguments”) are either too intellectually lazy to find real evidence, or too weak-willed to have their own opinions.
Or both.
J.
Conversely, one could argue that if the economy was so bad, one wouldn’t have to keep repeating it — it would be self-evident.
Or one could (I know I’m treading close to heresy here) cite some evidence, even anecdotal, that things aren’t just rosy.
I remember the tech bubble of the 90′s, when I didn’t have any stake in the tech industry and STILL wanted to know how long these companies could keep going with record high stock prices and record high losses…
And I’m just old enough to remember a seriously bad economy, under Jimmy Carter. I don’t need to cite polls about how people “think” things were, we had the “triple doubles” to look at — unemployment, interest rates, and inflation all above 10%. THOSE, folks, are how you demonstrate an economy is in the toilet, not simply saying that “it must be bad if they keep saying it’s good” and citing polls.
Polls are useful for some things. For the most part, though, they’re worthless — and people who cite them (or, in Oliver’s case, depend solely on them to make his “arguments”) are either too intellectually lazy to find real evidence, or too weak-willed to have their own opinions.
Or both.
J.
Jay Tea: “Or one could … cite some evidence, even anecdotal, that things aren’t just rosy.”
Here you go, Jay. This guy comes off as a bit alarmist at times, but he makes some valid points, such as:
“According to Bob Chapman of The International Forecaster, ‘US debt was up 10.1% to $4.085 trillion and accounts for 58.8% OF ALL THE CREDIT ISSUED GLOBALLY LAST YEAR. The US is producing more debt than the rest of the world combined.”
Ah, yes. One of the hallmarks of a robust economy is the production of record levels of debt.
To that end, he quotes the AP: “the Commerce Dept stated that the nation’s personal savings rate for 2006 was a negative 1%, the worst showing in 73 years.”
Is that another sign of a strong economy, Jay? When consumers spend more than they make?
Or maybe we should just ask the 3400 Circuit City employees who got fired because they were making too much money, so the management decided to replace them with people making minimum wage and getting no benefits.
Conversely, one could argue that if the economy was so bad, one wouldn’t have to keep repeating it — it would be self-evident.
This economy was designed like a garbage scow
The entire quadrant knows it. That’s why they’re learning to speak Democrat in 2008.
I’m not saying that the Administration should be hauling garbage, I am saying the Administration should be tossed out, IN the garbage.
Oliver, the Clinton team actually did mention it over and over again. And they do now. Since Clinton has no lasting legacy (lets face it, nothing big happened during his tenure), the economy is the basket in which he has all his eggs.
There is one reason alone that Bush is getting bad marks on the economy: gas prices. People are paying high prices for gasoline, therefor the economy must be bad.
It’s strange, but in other polls when people are asked about their own economic health, they report that it is pretty damned good.
This is anecdotal, but an in-law of mine was complaining about the status of the economy. Yet in the past two years, he has purchased a brand new Ford F-150, a brand new Kawasaki motorcycle, and was able to get a $2000 paint job on his wifes car. I asked him exactly how the economy was doing so badly if he was able to afford all of that and he didn’t have an answer.
Its funny that Sperling mentions ‘business investment.’ What he’s talking about is all the venture capital that went to dot.com startups, most of which went bust and brought the economy crashing back to reality. The 90′s economy was built on a bubble – the tech bubble.
I’ve told before to watch the movie Startup.com to get a glimpse of what it was like. You had a bunch of guys that were 3-4 years out of college with no startup experience and no executive experience attempting to create companies from the ground up. Venture capitalists were throwing gobs of money around to companies that were built around pretty good ideas, but couldn’t cut it when it came down to the nuts and bolts. Govworks.com had at one point, 250 people working for them after starting out 8 mos earlier with 10 people. Then they went bust not long after that. The whole ride took about 2 years and it was at that time, that the country was at the height of that economic boom. It was also during this time that the Enron’s, Worldcomms and Tyco’s were busy engaging in practices that would leave a lot of people jobless and broke.
So people certainly ‘felt it’ in the late 90′s. They also felt it afterwards — up the tailpipe when the whole facade came crashing down.
see today’s Paul Krugman column today about all the lies told by the Bushies. If you tell a lie enough (and the news media reports it) people begin to think it’s the truth. This is just another example. Rush et al will repeat it, and many ignorant people will believe it.
Gas prices only? huh. Other than the median wage has decreased over the last 6 years, I can’t think of any reason people would think the economy isn’t great.
Other than the median wage has decreased over the last 6 years
It hasn’t been over “the last six years.” The figures you are citing were from the years 1999 to 2005 and considering the POP! of the tech bubble, that isn’t surprising.
Try to stay more current.
Mary: Yes, we can always count on Paul Krugman for an impartial look at the Bush administration’s economic policies.
Thanks, but no thanks.
midderpidge: It is quote possible that a lowering of median income is not a bad sign.
Every minimum wage job added to the economy lowers the median wage, does it not?
And every minimum wage job contributes to family income, does it not?
And every person hired at minimum wage is a symbol of a business increased prosperity, is it not?
Next time you’re counting cows (economically speaking) let’s not count the hooves and divide by four, please.
“quote” should be “quite”
Frank, why do you even bother to post that crap? Did you bother look to see if family income had risen (i.e. counted your own damn cows) before you decided to share your speculation?
Hmmm. In 2005 the median household income went up 1.1%!!! Hooray! Frank’s theory is correct. Good job Frank.
Your speculation aside, Frank, middle class wage stagnation is indeed a bad thing, and will be a major contributing factor in the GOP’s 2008 repudiation at the polls. The only mystery is why all these Cons insist on waging class warfare on behalf of a class they’re not and never will be a part of.
Oh. Wait.
-Income inequality is up. -Poverty is up.
-Average individual wages have fallen for men and women.
-working-age family income is down.
-uninsured numbers are up.
Sorry Frank. I thought you had one there. Maybe replacing one decent paying job with two minimum wage jobs isn’t so great after all.
Yeah, of course, Paul Krugman is a “Lib” so all his work must automatically be marginalized.
Fact is, there’s just no comparison of the strength of Clinton Economy vs. the Bush Economy. Clinton wins hands down.
Under Clinton, the US Economy created 23 million new jobs in 8 years. The first four years under Bush, ZERO.
Under Clinton, unemployment rate dropped steadily and he left with it at 4%. Under Bush, the lowest it has ever been is when he took office.
GDP growth, in 2000 dollars:
Under Clinton:
1992 3.3
1993 2.7
1994 4.0
1995 2.5
1996 3.7
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 4.5
2000 3.7
Average: 3.6%
Under GW Bush:
2001 0.8
2002 1.6
2003 2.5
2004 3.9
2005 3.2
2006 3.3
Average: 2.6%
Clinton wins under almost every metric!
Bush wins if you measure drop in taxes paid by Corporations and the rich, size of annual deficits, and size of trade imbalances.
Speaking of taxes, since the economy is so robust it’s time Congress repealed all of Bush’s tax cuts meant to stimulate the economy. Even the families who are doing so well wouldn’t mind funding at least a small portion of Bush’s wars in these times of plenty.
My guess is those who think things are great don’t work for the companies that eliminated their pension programs, cut back on the quality of healthcare insurance if they provide it at all, haven’t had to amke many trips to the grocery stoes of late where it nearly impossible to get out of there without dropping at least $50. This list could go on.
Much of the sentiment, and what many economist point to in a successful economy, is due to optimism – or the lack thereof. How good can one feel of the prospects when we’re constantly told that we have to look over our shoulders into eternity, worry about any direct infrastructure jobs being off-shored or given to scab laborers.
This administration is reaping what it has sewn. They flooded the system with money wasted on wars and cronyism. All it did was inflate the numbers while no real benefits accruing to the middle class. Most folks I know live paycheck to paycheck while wondering when the bottom might fall out. The statistics support that for many who cashed in their home equity during the last 5 years of near zero interest rates it already has.
-Average individual wages have fallen for men and women.
-working-age family income is down.
“average individual wages” is a meaningless term. Take any two people: If one person becomes unemployed, average wages drop by half — until he gets another job!
How many people do you know whose wages have decreased?
“working age family income is down” is another meaningless statistic. If the family size increases, and there is a new working age member, without a job, the “WAFI” goes down. If a family member goes to school, and reduces his number of hours worked, the “WAFI” goes down.
If anyone in the family changes jobs, resulting in a cut in pay, FOR ANY REASON, the WAFI goes down.
Why don’t you simply look at GDP, or total jobs?
Afraid that will make Bush look good?
We know, we know = “Clinton good, Bush bad!”
Stop making it seem like the world was just a happier place when Pres. Clinton (>sigh
Frank has no explanation for why the indicators he hates were positive under Clinton, and negative under Bush, though. He just has HATE HATE HATE for the middle class, and slavish ball-licking for the rich. Bark for your masters, Frank!
Most folks I know live paycheck to paycheck while wondering when the bottom might fall out.
And what, in 2000 they were floating on a sea of liquidity? Cmon.
People aren’t ready to admit that the late 90′s economic boom was a facade marked by an super inflated stock market (Can anybody explain Yahoo! stock selling at close to $400 a share?), dot.coms that were employing numerous people, many of which were drowning in red ink, and companies that reporting profit margins held up by fancy pyramid schemes.
All of that came crashing down in 2000 and took awhile for it to recover.
Terms like “working-age family income” are meaningless terms created by think-tanks (Usuall the Economic Policy Institute) with an agenda. They’re not providing us with any raw data. They’re taking the data and interchange words like ‘average’ and ‘median’ to the point where what they’re saying is pointless.
Real wages have increased every year for the last 10 years. Read here and educate yourselves because what is used is the raw data, and not made up numbers by organizations that have agendas.
I’m sorry Frank, that should have read average Median wage for men and women have both decline. Is that better?
Not that you made much of an argument about average wages anyway”
“average individual wages” is a meaningless term. Take any two people: If one person becomes unemployed, average wages drop by half — until he gets another job!
Since you are touting the Bush job creation rates in the same post. More jobs should mean more money, more wages by your logic.
From 2000-2005 GDP was up 12.5%, productivity was up 16.6% and yet median household income was down 2.7% and the poverty rate rose to 12.6% from 11.3%.
That growth in GDP has not been reflected in worker’s wages.
ball-licking for the rich
Dr. AGH: That’s disgusting. you’re a pig.
“average Median wage” is just as meaningless. As the number of people with lower wages increase, the AMW will drop.
If there is only one wage increase above the median wage, and many below it, the AMW will drop.
There is no way that the growth in GDP has not been reflected in worker’s wages — either in discretionary spending, or lower prices — it is there.
Stop putting several statistics in the same sentence, and pretending they are related.
That’s like putting 51 women wearing perfume in a room with 49 men wearing no cologne or aftershave, and then saying the average person in the room is wearing perfume.
fix italics
Jay, your consistent argument that the expansion of the ’90s was all dotcom froth (and trust me, I know, I worked at a startup that burned through way more money than the Startup.com guys. We actually went to see the movie when our company was flaming out.) is just not consistent with the evidence. Sure, the Clinton administration touted its achievements (and God knows I would rather the not much happening years of the ’90s than the shitstorm that is the ’00s – less dead people) but people felt the economy was doing well – and its more than just gas prices – repetition be darned.
What it’s like, Frank, is having 10 people in a room who make 100,200,300,400,500,600,700, 800,900, and 1,000,000. The median wage is $550, half make more, half make less. The average wage is $100,450.
The point is there isn’t a corresponding rise in wages for the average American linked to the 12.5% growth in GDP and the 16.6% increase in productivity.
midderpidge: Why should there be?
Is there some sort of rule that if productivity goes up, there should be a raise?
Kinda defeats the purpose, no?
“Well, we’ve upped productivity, so let’s throw the the profits into a raise for the employees, so no one else — management, shareholders — gets anything.”
Why is the stock market the end all and be all of measuring prosperity (as witness, Oliver’s interminable supply of graphs several years ago),until it achieves record highs for output?
Then it’s back to wages for the bad news on Bush.
I know, I know, Clinton’s Presidency was the Golden Age — I think even coffee tasted better — but come on, if he gets credit for a good economy, then so should President Bush.
This economy sucks….
with the exception of corporate profits.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20070404
Yes, PBen, those evil corporate profits, socked away under the mattresses of those capitalist pigs!
It looks like they’re spending money on things that other people get wages to make, it looks like they’re consuming goods that allow small businesses to thrive, and it appears that their earnings plump up Pension Plans, but they’re not fooling you, eh, PBen?
They’re keeping it all to themselves, aren’t they?
MWa – ah – ah – ah – ah – ah – ah – ah!
Wellstone, Clinton wasn’t President in 1992.
Frank: “It looks like they’re spending money on things that other people get wages to make, it looks like they’re consuming goods that allow small businesses to thrive, and it appears that their earnings plump up Pension Plans…”
Where does it show that? I don’t see any of that stuff on PBen’s link.
Jay, your consistent argument that the expansion of the ’90s was all dotcom froth (and trust me, I know, I worked at a startup that burned through way more money than the Startup.com guys. We actually went to see the movie when our company was flaming out.) is just not consistent with the evidence.
Oliver, the largest segment of the economic growth in the 90′s driven by the tech sector, much of which was not supported by any of the fundamentals.
but people felt the economy was doing well – and its more than just gas prices – repetition be darned.
That’s the whole point Oliver. People ‘felt’ the economy was doing well. It’s the reason why they took the money they had in 401K’s and dumped it all into tech stocks. It’s the reason why people at Enron and Worldcomm were dumping the money they had right back into the company. Everything ‘felt’ right.
That doesn’t mean it was right.
The experts who run the polls say that gas prices today contribute largely to the perception held by a majority of the public that the economy isn’t doing well. It’s easy to see why. When they get that electric bill in the mail or they have to pay $2.80 for gasoline, its something tangible that they can see. Ask the average person what they know about CPI and they’ll probably wonder if its a different version of CSI.
Shorter Tony Fratto: this economy has a great personality!
Anybody check out the poll question on FoxNews.com? Apparently, 76% of FoxNews.com visitors think that the Bush economy is better than Clinton’s.
Link
As George Carlin might say, “Holy jumping fuckin’ shitballs!”
Goddammit, I don’t know what the problem is with that…. Let’s try it again…
Cavuto Poll
“The experts who run the polls say that gas prices today contribute largely to the perception held by a majority of the public that the economy isn’t doing well.”
So … what specifically will Democrats do to bring down the cost of fuel (crude oil, natural gas specifically) and the cost of refining crude oil? All I have heard is pie-in-the-sky talk about “alternative energy” and the usual doomed-to-fail schemes of windfall profits taxes and price controls.
Likewise, could someone explain how elevated fuel costs are Bush’s fault? What could have been done to keep fuel costs down?
If elevated fuel cost is the problem and Democrats supposedly have a “new direction” for America, then let’s hear it.
ND: Are you PBen’s attorney?
Frank: “ND: Are you PBen’s attorney?”
Not officially, no. I just wanted to know what you were talking about.
Before his selection in 2001, Bush used to claim that his friendship with the Saudis would keep gas prices low. That only seems to be in effect before elections, otherwise excess profits are the oil-boyz game. When gas prices were rising abnormally for Clinton, he released some oil reserves and prices dropped pdq.
I’m sure guys like you work hard to make that so. However, employment was better, the worker participation rate was higher, poverty was decreasing, and stocks were higher even after the crash. The Bush economy is fueled by a housing bubble which could have more drastic effects when it’s over, and debt. Debt, bigtime.
Yes, they are. Productivity increases did not lead to pay increases but corporate profits
and CEO pay increased dramatically.
…Strong productivity gains and subdued wage growth boosted before-tax profits to 11.6% of national income in the fourth quarter of 2005, the biggest share since the summer of 1966. See full story.
For all of 2005, before-tax profits totaled $1.35 trillion, up from $1.16 trillion in 2004 and just $767 billion in 2001.
Meanwhile, the share of national income going to wage and salary workers has fallen to 56.9%. Except for a brief period in 1997, that’s the lowest share for labor income since 1966….
Try reading fact-based articles: it opens a whole new world of truth over GOP faith-based articles.
Mike:
“Likewise, could someone explain how elevated fuel costs are Bush’s fault?”
He championed the military invasion of a major oil producing nation.
“What could have been done to keep fuel costs down?”
Diplomacy with oil producing nations; research on and implementation of energy conservation and alternative energy production; rewarding socially responsible companies… and why reward oil companies and war profiteers for greed and treason?
Ooops… sorry, Mike, I was responding to the previous and less perspicacious Mike.