Thanks W
Tweet
As if it wasn’t good enough to have Cheney, Limbaugh, and Gingrich on the wrong side of history there’s almost nobody I’d prefer to have on the opposite side of the issues from President Obama than George W. Bush. Bush left the White House in shame, the nation in shambles. One of the major reasons the American people trust Barack Obama so much with the future of the country is that he’s the exact opposite of Bush’s failure.
78 Responses to “Thanks W”
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
If that was the case, I wouldn’t be hearing “Bush did it too!” as a response to almost every criticism of the Obama administration.
On this one issue to be sure, Obama is different from Bush. But on many others, especially having to do with ethics and reform, he’s exactly the same. There is certainly no daylight between them on fiscal responsibility, government transparency, or breaking of campaign promises. Heck, we’ve even got a fired whistleblower a la Joe Wilson.
Here’s a story that should receive some coverage on your blog:
http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2009/06/17/obama-denies-same-sex-health-benefits-to-federal-workers/
A fundraiser gets cancelled, so Obama does something weaselly, saying one thing, but doing another.
This is not the opposite of George Bush.
“You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money”
Says the asshole who squandered a Federal surplus.
The difference is that the guiding principle of the GOP is smaller government, and when it comes to this they are complete failures.
If you want fiscal responsibility and smaller government(e.g., Clinton reforming Welfare, running a budget surplus), vote for a Democrat. We’ve got seven years to find out if Obama can pull off a similar responsible government/thriving economy accomplishment, and if he does he’ll go down as one of our greatest presidents.
Clinton started attacking the deficit immediately. Obama’s own plans call for him to run $600 billion deficits eight years from now.
While the stimulus is certainly defensible from an economic standpoint, using the need for a stimulus to set new higher spending baselines for domestic programs is not. There is no reason the budget shouldn’t return to at least Bush-era deficits by 2012 assuming the end of the recession.
I agree that Democrats have a better record on the deficit overall. Would be nice if they could keep that superior record. But Obama seems to see Republican irresponsibility as an excuse for his own, rather than an opportunity to fix what they broke and get credit for it.
It’s pure Chicago politics. He’s got people to pay off. Clinton didn’t roll that way.
Clinton didn’t inherit a crippling recession with a huge and growing unemployment rate.
Your concern trolling is cute though. Admitting there’s a perfectly logical reason for a stimulus bill (unemployment) then throwing out a baseless accusation of “Chicago Politics.”
If the stimulus bill does a good job of getting the unemployment rate lowered in a reasonable amount of time, it’s not “Chicago Politics,” it’s good governance, and it guarantees an Obama/Biden re-election in 2012.
(But I’m sure you’ll be posting here right up until November 2008 about how Obama “shouldn’t overplay his hand,” needs to “reach out to the Republican minority,” and absolutely must “establish consensus.”
Thank you, bastard love child of David Broder and whoever the hell that Bullmoose Blogger jagoff was.)
err, make that November 2012. I need a nap.
“Clinton didn’t inherit a crippling recession with a huge and growing unemployment rate.”
Oh really? Maybe not as bad, and the recession had different causes, but he did inherit a recession.
“Your concern trolling is cute though. Admitting there’s a perfectly logical reason for a stimulus bill (unemployment) then throwing out a baseless accusation of “Chicago Politics.””
The stimulus bill is defensible. The new higher spending baselines under the guise of stimulus are not defensible. neither is the use of the stimulus to further expand federal power at the expense of the states, something even blue state governors are chafing under.
“If the stimulus bill does a good job of getting the unemployment rate lowered in a reasonable amount of time, it’s not “Chicago Politics,” it’s good governance, and it guarantees an Obama/Biden re-election in 2012.”
Unemployment will drop regardless of the stimulus. That’s the administration’s own projection.
Running a $600 billion deficit two years after a recession ends will make his reelection impossible without an inept GOP nominee.
Right wing corporatist “Adam Herman” is becoming increasingly dishonest. Apparently he needed some time to warm up.
“Adam” apparently gets his economic nonsense from fiction writer Amity Shlaes.
Yes Bush sent gitmo detainees to Bermuda-a British terroritory WITHOUT first notifying the British. Wait that was the ‘genius’ Obama.
Republican President Reagan more than DOUBLED the US debt.
Republican President Reagan and Republican President Bush 1 more than QUADRUPLED the US debtt.
Republican President Bush 2 more than DOUBLED the US debt again once all of his debtor bills are added up.
All three of the last Republican Presidents vastly expanded government spending and “outlays” (expenditures).
Much of the Republican’s reckless debtor politics is obscured by corporatists like “Adam Herman” who pull the “Two Santa Clause Theory” of “Republican “Economics”" shenanigan of raising the debt and then acting like it’s someone elses fault.
No.
ALL OF THE VAST INCREASES IN US DEBT OF THE LAST 30 YEARS IS ENTIRELY THE REPUBLICAN’S RESPONSIBILITY.
That’s just a mathematical fact.
But now that the country is teetering on the edge of another (Republican) Great Depression and needs to borrow money, NOW right wingers are whining about the debt.
Well, when Republicans were in control of all three branches of government THEY increased the US debt AND increased government spending.
But hey, Republicans and right wingers never take responsibility for ANYTHING, that’s especially true when they can act as obstructionists and torpedo the efforts of those trying to clean up after their messes.
“Maybe not as bad”
Oh, please. Qualitatively worse, as in Great Depression worse.
“neither is the use of the stimulus to further expand federal power at the expense of the states, something even blue state governors are chafing under.”
Like how Schwarzenegger just asked the Fed for a bail-out? Now you’re just making shit up. The state coffers are in trouble, and they’d love more money from the Fed (of which they’re already getting a boost). Until you cite a reputable source, you’re fantasizing. Governors with some exceptions are hungry to feed from the Federal trough right now. And while it’s unseemly, they’re doing what they can given the results of Bush’s disastrous economic legacy. Even before last year’s melt-down, real job and wage growth was totally stagnant under Bush and a Republican Congress. There’s a reason, despite the blowjob nonsense, that reality-based Americans remember the 1990′s fondly — it’s because people were getting an actual raise every year to keep up with the cost of living. Not so much under a Republican government.
“Running a $600 billion deficit two years after a recession ends will make his reelection impossible without an inept GOP nominee.”
If the unemployment rate stabilizes and hopefully drops, he’s a shoe-in. Remember, it’s Republicans like Dick Cheney, not Democrats, who believe that deficits “don’t matter.” Most Americans don’t like deficits, but they really hate being out of work.
THen he’s a shoo-in, because unemployment will drop no matter what the President does.
And yes, states want the money. They don’t want the strings, however, and some of those strings are 10th amendment violations.
BTW, if you’re going to refer people to my blog, at least advertise what I’m about. People who like corporate shills are going over to my site and leaving disappointed because there ain’t enough corporate shilling. At least give me time to do some shilling.
“And yes, states want the money. They don’t want the strings, however, and some of those strings are 10th amendment violations.”
Which is the same as saying, states want the money with no strings attached. Obama isn’t going to do that.
Why is that a problem legally or politically?
Shorter Oliver (and that’s a challenge):
“Bush should just STFU while Obama blames him for everything! How dare he actually defend himself?”
J.
And now right winger “Adam Herman” is citing the far right’s second favorite Amendment: The ‘State’s Rights’ 10th Amendment that was (is) regularly used as an excuse for Slavery and Secession.
If States don’t want the Federal money they can refuse it. But Republicans are trying to have it both ways. Republican welfare States have almost always TAKEN more in Federal money than they put in.
Republicans are first in line for a government handout but Republicans are always last in land when it comes to living up to any National responsibility.
Republicans: No loyalty to our American Nation.
Why do right wingers hate our American Nation?
Fox and Clear Channel think serial spouses Gingrich and Limbaugh have the “moral high ground” against Obama
Jaim, you’re forgetting that the deficit didn’t start dropping under Clinton until 1995. Hey, anybody remembered what happened a year earlier?
“SaveFarris”, I remember what happened under the two Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush: They QUADRUPLED the US debt.
I remember what happened during Republican Bush 2′s Presidency: He more than DOUBLED the US debt.
Republicans are DEBTORS.
It’s the Republican Debtor Party.
“Bush should just STFU while Obama blames him for everything! How dare he actually defend himself?”
Actually, the life-lesson here is if you’re the simpleton who ruined the economy and started two wars you couldn’t finish, you should STFU.
People who shit the bed shouldn’t complain about the manner in which the mess is cleaned up.
NR, your gibberish might be more relevant if Obama hadn’t quintupled the debt in less than 120 DAYS
Clinton didn’t inherit a crippling recession with a huge and growing unemployment rate.
Unemployment when Clinton took office in January 93: 7.3%
Unemployment when Obama took office in 7.6%
Clinton, of course, famously ran on the slogan of “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Now, in fairness, unemployment in the 91-92 recession peaked at 7.8% in June while currently it is still increasing in the hope and change era. As for whether the recession was “crippling” or not, let’s look back at news stories from that time:
If America’s economic landscape seems suddenly alien and hostile to many citizens, there is good reason: they have never seen anything like it. Nothing in memory has prepared consumers for such turbulent, epochal change, the sort of upheaval that happens once in 50 years. Even the economists do not have a name for the present condition, though one has described it as “suspended animation” and “never-never land.”
The outward sign of the change is an economy that stubbornly refuses to recover from the recession. The current slump already ranks as the longest period of sustained weakness since the Great Depression. That was the last time the economy staggered under as many “structural” burdens, as opposed to the familiar “cyclical” problems that create temporary recessions once or twice a decade. The structural faults represent once-in-a-lifetime dislocations that will take years to work out.
Among them: the job drought, the debt hangover, the banking crisis, the real estate depression, the health-care cost explosion and the runaway federal deficit. “This is a sick economy that won’t respond to traditional remedies,” said Norman Robertson, chief economist at Pittsburgh’s Mellon Bank. “There’s going to be a lot of trauma before it’s over.”
- Time Magazine, Sep. 28, 1992
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976602,00.html
Maybe this is why President Clinton shortly after taking office proposed — what else — a stimulus package. Thankfully Republicans largely killed it, with the result being a $4 billion bill that extended unemployment benefits. As we know the economy went on to recover quite nicely.
Link about the Clinton stimulus:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/22/us/gop-senators-prevail-sinking-clinton-s-economic-stimulus-bill.html
I love how Josh over at TPM describes it:
Former President George W. Bush deviates from his much-touted practice of not criticizing his successor to commit another crime against the English language:
The economy was not well when Clinton took office, but it was far worse when Obama got sworn in. Unemployment is but one measure. Clinton inherited the irresponsibility of Reagan-Bush but the very fundamentals of the market were upended under Bush II. We got out of that despite GOP obstruction and Clinton’s economic plans (the biggest mistake was the corporate friendliness of post 1994 legislation which helped lead to the mess we have now) and we’ll get out our current situation despite… GOP obstruction.
Also, the idea that Obama won’t be elected because of deficits is kind of silly. A teeny tiny portion of people vote based on deficits and those folks are already voting Republican. People are always “against” big gov’t spending except when its in their neighborhood.
‘On this one issue to be sure, Obama is different from Bush. But on many others, especially having to do with ethics and reform, he’s exactly the same. There is certainly no daylight between them on fiscal responsibility, government transparency, or breaking of campaign promises. Heck, we’ve even got a fired whistleblower a la Joe Wilson.’
Riiiighttt…..so Obama has lied the nation into a war of choice, predicated on falsehoods and fearmongering; has destroyed the US and global economies with reckless malfeasance; has submitted his budget without including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; has thrown thousands of people into secret prisons for years without a trial, without evidence of their supposed crimes, and subjected them to torture in defiance of international and US law, and then repeatedly lied to the American public about it?
Is that the kind of ‘fiscal responsibility and governmental transparency’ you’d like to see return to the White House?
Wasn’t 8 years of lies and incompetence enough for you?
“Bush should just STFU while Obama blames him for everything! How dare he actually defend himself?”
Exactly what rock solid defense do you foresee Bush employing?
‘I’m not responsible for the fallout from 8 years of my disastrous reign,’ doesn’t seem very credible to me.
The economy was not well when Clinton took office, but it was far worse when Obama got sworn in. Unemployment is but one measure.
What other metrics are you looking at?
Clinton inherited the irresponsibility of Reagan-Bush but the very fundamentals of the market were upended under Bush II.
What fundamentals are you referring to?
We got out of that despite GOP obstruction and Clinton’s economic plans (the biggest mistake was the corporate friendliness of post 1994 legislation which helped lead to the mess we have now)…
Which legislation helped lead to the current mess? If you say the repeal of Glass-Steagall, please explain explain how it contributed.
Are you also saying that Clinton then does not deserve credit for the economic expansion under his watch? Or was the boom solely the result of legislation passed in 93-94, such as NAFTA and the tax increase, which are rarely associated with expansions in economic activity?
LOL,
Colin calls bullshit and asks for specific answers in place of propaganda. This should be interesting.
NR, your gibberish might be more relevant if Obama hadn’t quintupled the debt in less than 120 DAYS
Are you having trouble distinguishing between debt and deficit again, Farris?
What other metrics are you looking at?
Is it your position that Pres. Obama inherited a better or roughly equal economy to Pres. Clinton’s? That is a fearsomely stupid hypothesis, friend, so I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt.
What fundamentals are you referring to?
Giant tax cut for the rich that put American financial health in a tailspin — not what I’d call insurance of continued demand growth.
Lower job creation than any president since Hoover.
Growth powered by unsustainable funding sources – loans, home refinances, etc.
No energy policy, refusal to enact new fuel efficiency standards — oil shock.
That enough?
Running a $600 billion deficit two years after a recession ends will make his reelection impossible without an inept GOP nominee.
Well, that’s a given.
So right wing corporatist “Colin” has found a cheerleader in the right winger “Amused Observer”, the terrorist sympathizer who doesn’t even have loyalty to his own son, let alone to our American Nation.
“Colin” is the innumerate mathematician that thinks that 10 and 99 are almost identical numbers because they’re both ‘double digits’.
If I recall correctly, “Colin” was also the fool who dismissed a 60% reduction in unemployment as “nothing to write home about”.
Right wingers “Colin” and “Amused Observer” are cut from the same clothe, both are completely dishonest and see this blog as a playground to practices their deceits.
What’s revolting about both of them is that unlike right wing suckers like “Dennis” or “Jay”, both right wingers “Colin” and “Amused Observer” are too smart not to know what the inevitable results of their toxic policies are.
“Colin” asks disingenuously what other “metrics” than “unemployment” might be looked at to show that “The economy was not well when Clinton took office”, completely disregarding the fact that the previous 12 years under Republican President Reagan and Bush 1 QUADRUPLED the US debt, presided over the beginning of right wing economic policies that sold off much of America’s manufacturing base to foreign nations like totalitarian China, as well as began the dismantling of sensible ‘liberal’ regulations that ultimately unraveled into the current Great Recession.
“Colin” goes on to ask disingenuously “What [economic] fundamentals are you referring to?”
I’ll leave that to Republican fool John McCain to explain what ‘economic fundamentals’ are.
Republican McCain’s failure to understand economic “fundamentals” and his bizarre, doddering, completely out of touch approach to economic “fundamentals” was a big part of what lost him a lot of sensible moderates support.
As to why the right wing’s* repeal of Glass-Steagall contributed to the economic mess, it allowed corporate banks to gamble recklessly in ways that hadn’t been allowed for almost 70 years, gambles that cumulatively meant that the entire economic system was gambled into the hole.
I’m not a fan of NAFTA. Trade agreements by right wingers* have sold out America’s manufacturing base, hurt American laborers, left foreign laborers increasingly abused, and disastrously hurt the global environment.
And while it’s completely counter intuitive, tax increases correlate with economic expansion remarkable well.
America’s highest tax rates are correlated with times of America’s greatest strengths.
And that’s not even accounting for how well-invested taxes such as that done with investing in the (socialist) National Highway System directly contributed to a vast economic expansion in America.
* I include a lot of “Democratic” leaders under “right wing”. The “DINO” equivalents of “RINO’s”.
(Dem’s In Name Only / Republicans In Name Only)
Colin calls bullshit and asks for specific answers in place of propaganda. This should be interesting.
I agree, but probably not for the same reasons you think.
Is it your position that Pres. Obama inherited a better or roughly equal economy to Pres. Clinton’s? That is a fearsomely stupid hypothesis, friend, so I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt.
My position is that Obama inherited a worse economy. That said, the 91-92 recession was no picnic either as evidenced by the Time article and the manner in which Clinton’s message on the economy resonated in the 92 campaign.
Giant tax cut for the rich that put American financial health in a tailspin — not what I’d call insurance of continued demand growth.
Lower job creation than any president since Hoover.
Growth powered by unsustainable funding sources – loans, home refinances, etc.
No energy policy, refusal to enact new fuel efficiency standards — oil shock.
That enough?
Based on your response I am not sure you know what market fundamentals are. If you do a google search for a definition you are likely to come up with this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=T1K&defl=en&q=define:market+fundamentals&ei=0G06SoitGs6OlQei4PHgDQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
economic variables such as productivity, inflation rates, real interest rates, consumer preferences, and government trade policy
Nothing you offer up really meets this definition. Nonetheless I will indulge these points one by one:
Tax policy
Bush reduced the top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 35%, the capital gains tax from 20% to 15% and dividend tax rate from 39.6% to 15%. I am not sure how this counts as the “upending” that Oliver describes. I am also unsure of how this contributed to an economic decline, but perhaps you can explain.
job creation
Unemployment under Bush was rather unexceptional. Here is a month by month look at the unemployment rate:
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=2001-01&EndYear=2009-01&submit1=Create+Report
The high under Bush was 7.2% in December 2008, his last full month in office, while the low was 4.4% in March 07′. At Bush’s presidential midpoint it was 5.2% in January 05′.
Sources of growth
I think that most observers would agree that the housing boom was a product of Fed policy, not action by the White House. Indeed, Paul Krugman warned of this in 2002:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html
Now, maybe you can fault Bush for reappointing Greenspan, but this was a pretty uncontroversial move at the time. Likewise Bush can perhaps be faulted for not eliminating the mortgage interest deduction or reining in Freddie and Fannie, but then again those were pretty difficult to achieve politically. Indeed, Obama’s policies thus far seem bent on preserving housing prices rather than deflating the sector.
energy policy
Actually, there was an energy bill signed in 2005 and an increase in CAFE standards signed by Bush in 2007 from 27.5 mpg to 35 mpg. As with most government interventions in the economy this achieved little positive.
The oil shock, meanwhile, is likely due to the weak dollar (indeed, this is probably also why oil is rising at the moment):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90041682
Given that this is a function of the Fed instead of the White House, I don’t see how Bush is culpable. Besides, if you want lower oil consumption and to make alternative fuels more attractive, high oil prices are great.
Unemployment under Bush was rather unexceptional.
So was job growth and/or creation. We had negative job growth, in fact, which is a pretty good trick.
I don’t typically respond to NR rants, but because this one was unusually lucid I will do so:
Colin” asks disingenuously what other “metrics” than “unemployment” might be looked at to show that “The economy was not well when Clinton took office”,
Actually I was more curious about metrics when Obama was sworn in.
I’ll leave that to Republican fool John McCain to explain what ‘economic fundamentals’ are.
Republican McCain’s failure to understand economic “fundamentals” and his bizarre, doddering, completely out of touch approach to economic “fundamentals” was a big part of what lost him a lot of sensible moderates support.
This doesn’t answer my question.
As to why the right wing’s* repeal of Glass-Steagall contributed to the economic mess, it allowed corporate banks to gamble recklessly in ways that hadn’t been allowed for almost 70 years, gambles that cumulatively meant that the entire economic system was gambled into the hole.
Analysis by a number of economists indicates otherwise:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/09/glass-steagall.html
And while it’s completely counter intuitive, tax increases correlate with economic expansion remarkable well.
America’s highest tax rates are correlated with times of America’s greatest strengths.
Correlation as well all know does not equal causation. Also, high rates and a high tax burden are not the same, particularly if those high rates have an extremely high income threshold that only target a relative few number of people.
And for all the alleged evils of free trade, US manufacturing output hit a new high in 2006:
http://www.cafehayek.com/hayek/2007/09/the-state-of-ma.html
Colin’s right. there was an energy policy under Bush/Cheney. It’s just that no one could look at it except Dick.
We had negative job growth, in fact, which is a pretty good trick.
No, sorry, that’s just not true:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html
It may have been historically low, but it wasn’t negative.
Colin’s right. there was an energy policy under Bush/Cheney. It’s just that no one could look at it except Dick.
You can see it right here:
http://www.doi.gov/iepa/EnergyPolicyActof2005.pdf
Frankly I wish that there wasn’t an energy policy, which is unneeded and counterproductive.
It may have been historically low, but it wasn’t negative.
Doesn’t exactly bolster your case.
Doesn’t exactly bolster your case.
Well, yes it does given that your assertion was flatly false.
Republican’s Energy Policy: Invade an Oil Dictatorship by using American blood and treasure and then hand the spoils to crony corporations.
Republican’s Energy Claim: Oil would go down to $20 a barrel.
REALITY: Oil skyrocketed in price, gas prices skyrocketed, with the predictable consequences of empowering energy producing nations: Iran, Russia, and Venezuela while hurting America and Americans.
Republican Cheney’s energy ‘policy’ ended up empowering America’s enemies (though it personally enriched Republican Cheney’s friends).
Republican’s added bonus for their friends in Iran: By toppling Iraq, the traditional counterweight to Iran, Iran became the regions heavyweight.
So to recap: Republican energy ‘policies’ empowered America’s adversaries in Iran, Russia, and Venezuela as well as burdening America’s with exorbitant energy costs.
But Republican Cheney‘s oil cronies managed to loot billions in the process, with Cheney’s personal cronies skipping out to Dubai with their loot.
Thanks, W.
We had negative job growth, in fact, which is a pretty good trick.
No, sorry, that’s just not true:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html
It may have been historically low, but it wasn’t negative.
Colin, your cite covers the period from January 2001 through December 2006.
This is from 2009:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
There were 3 million jobs created, which isn’t very good at all, but it is a far cry from negative growth.
You misunderstand, Colin. My complaint was not that your time span was too narrow–it’s that it was too broad. Choose a broad enough time frame and you’ll never see job shrinkage as long as the working population continues to grow.
I don’t know if Duros was referring to the entire span of Mr. Bush’s tenure in office or if he was talking about the trendline. If you look at the monthly employment statistics for 2008 you’ll see we experience negative growth every single month.
Doesn’t it take something like a half-million new jobs a year just to correct for population growth?
If that’s correct it would take 4 million new jobs over eight years to correct for population growth.
So if there were only 3 and you needed 4 than you’ve got a negative 1 million jobs.
Negative growth.
Bah! I bollixed the link!
According to the chart “Colin” linked to, the US population grew by 22 million but only 3 million jobs were added.
Assuming one job was needed to keep every family of four fed and clothed, there would need to be over 5 million new jobs needed to keep those families fed and clothed.
Negative growth.
I don’t know if Duros was referring to the entire span of Mr. Bush’s tenure in office or if he was talking about the trendline.
The negative job growth reference doesn’t make sense either from the span of Bush’s tenure or the trendline. There was no steady trend under Bush, but rather fluctuations. From Jan 01 to June 03 unemployment steadily rose. From that point until March of 07 it steadily declined. From early 07 until 09 it rose again. I don’t have the time to go to the BLS website and play with the numbers, but I imagine that unemployment is a decent proxy for job creation.
If Duros meant that there were periods under Bush that job growth was negative that’s fine but meaningless, since just about all presidents have periods of negative job growth at some point.
According to the chart “Colin” linked to, the US population grew by 22 million but only 3 million jobs were added.
Assuming one job was needed to keep every family of four fed and clothed, there would need to be over 5 million new jobs needed to keep those families fed and clothed.
Negative growth.
This is bizarre logic. Look, 3 million jobs were created, that isn’t negative. Up is not down. Now, you can make the case that creation didn’t keep pace with the growth of the labor pool — which would be reflected in a rising unemployment rate — but you can’t say that job creation wasn’t positive.
just about all presidents have periods of negative job growth at some point.
Among administrations, the duration and severity of these periods differ.
Among administrations, the duration and severity of these periods differ.
Granted, but Duros simply said that we had “negative job growth” without any qualifiers. If he had said that job growth was less robust than other presidents he would have been on point. But a flat-out assertion that job growth was negative is quite plainly false.
But a flat-out assertion that job growth was negative is quite plainly false.
That depends on the endpoints you choose.
Quaker would make a great running back.
Right wing con-artist “Colin’s” prevaricating language: “less robust” actually means: worst on record.
Let me just say I’m lovin’ this.
If I say “We had rain last month,” am I necessarily implying that it rained non-stop for the entire month?
And again, if population increases by 22 million, but only 3 million jobs are created, as was under Republican W, that’s “negative growth”.
It’s like walking 3 miles an hour on a treadmill going 22 miles per hour.
“Negative growth” doesn’t even began to capture how badly you’ll be thrown off that treadmill.
That depends on the endpoints you choose.
And because no endpoints were chosen we have to assume he was referring to the entire presidency.
And again, if population increases by 22 million, but only 3 million jobs are created, as was under Republican W, that’s “negative growth”.
This is Orwellian. 3 million jobs were created. That isn’t negative. End of story.
That depends on the endpoints you choose.
Actually, the more I think about this the more ridiculous it is. The assertion by Duros that “We had negative job growth, in fact, which is a pretty good trick” was in response to my statement that “Unemployment under Bush was rather unexceptional” in which I cited statistics for Bush’s entire tenure.
The response only makes sense as encompassing Bush’s entire time in office. During that time job creation was positive.
End of story. Anything else is just absurd spinning.
How about “George W. Bush’s presidency, coupled with six years of Republican control of Congress, was the worst since Hoover’s when it comes to economic growth.”
I can live with that one.
Based on your response I am not sure you know what market fundamentals are. If you do a google search for a definition you are likely to come up with this: economic variables such as productivity, inflation rates, real interest rates, consumer preferences, and government trade policy
Well it’s possible I misunderstood, but it’s also possible that you should have been more specific if you had a specific definition of ‘fundamental’ in mind. I’ll be happy to address any fundamentals you liked, but we’ll go with your response. I tend to view things like taxation, energy policy and job creation as fundamental in the economy, but to each their own.
Tax policy
Bush reduced the top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 35%, the capital gains tax from 20% to 15% and dividend tax rate from 39.6% to 15%. I am not sure how this counts as the “upending” that Oliver describes. I am also unsure of how this contributed to an economic decline, but perhaps you can explain.
Gladly.
I understand that as an economic libertarian you tend to view the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer as a healthy market operating as it should, but the rest of us don’t see it as such. When real wages fall, and wealth continues to concentrate upward, demand naturally remains soft and will decrease.
job creation
Unemployment under Bush was rather unexceptional. Here is a month by month look at the unemployment rate:
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp?StartYear=2001-01&EndYear=2009-01&submit1=Create+Report
The high under Bush was 7.2% in December 2008, his last full month in office, while the low was 4.4% in March 07′. At Bush’s presidential midpoint it was 5.2% in January 05′.
Others have already done an adequate job answering your claims about Mr. Bush’s job creation numbers.
Sources of growth
I think that most observers would agree that the housing boom was a product of Fed policy, not action by the White House. Indeed, Paul Krugman warned of this in 2002:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html
Now, maybe you can fault Bush for reappointing Greenspan, but this was a pretty uncontroversial move at the time. Likewise Bush can perhaps be faulted for not eliminating the mortgage interest deduction or reining in Freddie and Fannie, but then again those were pretty difficult to achieve politically. Indeed, Obama’s policies thus far seem bent on preserving housing prices rather than deflating the sector.
‘Ownership Society.’
energy policy
Actually, there was an energy bill signed in 2005 and an increase in CAFE standards signed by Bush in 2007 from 27.5 mpg to 35 mpg. As with most government interventions in the economy this achieved little positive.
You were correct about the CAFE standards, my mistake. Also what I should have said was no coherent energy policy, none that was aggressive enough in reducing our vulnerability TO said oil shock.
The oil shock, meanwhile, is likely due to the weak dollar (indeed, this is probably also why oil is rising at the moment):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90041682
And what causes a weak dollar?
“And what causes a weak dollar?”
Borrowing too much money to fund government spending that nobody is willing to find support for taxation unless it is the other guy. The key is to promise the most to the masses and claim to tax only a small minority to pay for it all.
You may not have noticed but the projected budget is much larger for the next 10 years going forward then it was for the last 8 years going back. Much larger.
Traditionally the way a government handles a check they can’t cash is to inflate thier way out of it.
You may not grasp how the creation of money by the government has a tendency to decrease it’s worth but don’t worry the whole world will help with the lesson.
Well it’s possible I misunderstood, but it’s also possible that you should have been more specific if you had a specific definition of ‘fundamental’ in mind. I’ll be happy to address any fundamentals you liked, but we’ll go with your response. I tend to view things like taxation, energy policy and job creation as fundamental in the economy, but to each their own.
Except the person invoking the term was Oliver Willis when he said “Clinton inherited the irresponsibility of Reagan-Bush but the very fundamentals of the market were upended under Bush II.”
I merely addressed the term with the accepted definition.
When real wages fall, and wealth continues to concentrate upward, demand naturally remains soft and will decrease.
And tax cuts cause this how? Because when the rich have more money they decide to pay their workers less?
In any case your premise is incorrect as real wages have slightly risen over the past 15 years or so as this GAO report notes:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ed5ihFI7DDAC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=employee+total+compensation+rising&source=bl&ots=Zr5bOKBcqn&sig=V7o_A0OuwugYB3pSu8uS6S3moAA&hl=en&ei=GpI7SpeQBYHVlAfZmryiDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5
Further, real wages aren’t the correct metric to look at, but total employee compensation which includes benefits such as health care. In real terms these have grown.
‘Ownership Society.’
If you can explain how the ownership society — which achieved little other than things like expanded health savings accounts and the “American Dream Downpayment Initiative” designed to provide down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families caused the housing bubble I’m all ears.
You were correct about the CAFE standards, my mistake. Also what I should have said was no coherent energy policy, none that was aggressive enough in reducing our vulnerability TO said oil shock.
So your complaint is, what, that Bush didn’t didn’t make the U.S. independent from foreign oil in 8 years? I imagine you are angry that Democrats blocked proposals to expand domestic drilling?
You are aware, of course, that using alternative energies would have raised energy costs and provided a drag on the economy right? After all, if alternative energy cost the same or was cheaper we would already be using it.
And what causes a weak dollar?
There are many factors which you can read about here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market#Economic_factors
Perhaps foremost among them is interest rates. As you can see a decline in interest rates in the US corresponds pretty well with the increase in oil prices:
http://www.mortgageguideuk.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/us-rates.gif
How about “George W. Bush’s presidency, coupled with six years of Republican control of Congress, was the worst since Hoover’s when it comes to economic growth.”
I can live with that one.
Really? Economic growth was the worst since Hoover? I think this is the first time I have seen this argument made. Perhaps you can explain this a bit further.
To help you here are a couple of graphs of GDP growth rates (the most accepted definition of economic growth) for the past 60 years or so:
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=354
(interesting to note here is the sharp decline in volatility that begins in the early 1980s, which economists have referred to as the “great moderation”.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
If population grows so that five million more people begin looking for jobs during a period of time when only three million jobs are added, that’s negative job ‘growth’.
Two million people are added to the unemployed.
That’s MATH, “Colin”.
It’s ‘Orwellian’ to say otherwise.
No, that means that jobs didn’t keep pace with population growth which results in higher unemployment. If you have more jobs than 8 years prior then job growth occurred. This is not only simple math but simple English.
But if you are so sure of your position, please try to find a reputable source that says job growth was negative under Bush, because currently you are the only one making that claim.
Job growth was negative under Bush.
The phrase is an imperfect one, but in common usage it’s absolutely correct. Of course job growth has to keep up with adults entering the workforce, or else we see the practical equivalent of negative growth.
Honestly, do you really think your semantic masturbation will hide the fact that the Bush/GOP years were abysmal for the American economy in terms of job growth and wage growth? Are you really trying to defend three million jobs created total over eight years compared to, say, the Clinton years, when tens of millions of jobs were created?
Yeesh. You wing-nuts really are lost in the wilderness. The first problem is admitting you have a problem (i.e., actual Republican governance ca. 2001-2008).
Job growth was negative under Bush.
The phrase is an imperfect one, but in common usage it’s absolutely correct. Of course job growth has to keep up with adults entering the workforce, or else we see the practical equivalent of negative growth.
You can keep making this claim but it doesn’t make it true. Isn’t either correct either in mathematical terms or with accepted definitions found in the English language. Again, just give me one reputable source to back up this claim.
But then again, you also made the claim that economic growth was the worst under Bush since Hoover, which you can’t seem to substantiate even after I did you the favor of directing you to some graphs.
It’s rather obvious that you’re not about to let facts get in the way of your argument.
Jaim,
You are speaking of that which you do not understand. Neither volume nor repetition will add credibility.
Right winger “Colin” concedes that under Republican President Bush “jobs didn’t keep pace with population growth which results in higher unemployment”.
In the reality based world, an increase in “unemployment” means “negative job growth”.
But in right wing con artist “Colin’s” world, “higher unemployment” under a Republican means positive job growth.
Orwellian indeed.
Right winger “Colin” ironically provides a chart that supports “Jaim’s” position that Republican President Bush has had the worst economic record of any President since Hoover.
“Colin’s” chart only goes back to Truman however.
Nonetheless the chart he links to shows that not only did Republican President Bush have the lowest payroll expansion (tying with two other Republican Presidents: Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush) at 02.3%, Republican President Bush also had the lowest Jobs created per year in office of any of the Presidents.
More than that, the chart reveals that job growth has been historically best under Democratic Presidents and payroll expansions were also best under Democratic Presidents.
So not only does “Colin’s” chart show that Republican President Bush had one of the lousiest economic records since at least Truman, it also supports the assertion that Republican Presidents have worse economic records than their opponents.
Democratic Presidents have BETTER economic records than Republicans
News Reference,
I know that you are not interested in facts or an honest debate, but I will engage anyway. Jaim said that economic growth under Bush and the GOP Congress was the worst since Hoover. The most accepted measure of economic growth among economists is real GDP growth. So far I have yet to see any evidence that such growth was weaker under Bush than any president since Hoover. Perhaps you can provide some?
But in right wing con artist “Colin’s” world, “higher unemployment” under a Republican means positive job growth.
Of course it is possible to having rising unemployment and positive job growth. I make no apologies for your inability to understand this reality.
And, dammit, I thought I told you I was a right-wing hit man, not con artist.