Skip to comments.Romney campaign seems to have forgotten about Bush’s economic crises
Posted on 05/01/2012 7:51:25 AM PDT by C19fan
Theres not much in politics that allows me to say, Im old enough to remember when. But heres one: Im old enough to remember when George W. Bush was president.
It was, after all, only four short years ago. And it didnt go so well. The Bush economy is one of the worst on record. Median wages dropped. Poverty worsened. Inequality increased. Surpluses turned into deficits. Monthly job growth was weaker than it had been in any expansion since 1954. Economic growth was sluggish. And thats before you count the financial crisis that unfurled on his watch. Add the collapse to the equation, and Bushs record goes from not so good to I cant bear to look.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Dear WaPo...take all of your negative descriptors of the Bush team, multiply them by a very large number, and we can then apply them to your cretinistic quota baby president.
Shove it up your smelly collective Obamas, journo-holes, your first grade understanding of econ doesn’t hack it any more.
Actually, it wasn't. The two dips during President Bush's terms were mild compared to some we've had and the gains were some of the strongest. Just because the media and politicians called it the 'worst economy in 50 years' doesn't make it so. You can't argue with the math.
Ezra Klein needs to have his parents get him back to his pre-school class. They are about to have milk break.
Good thing the democrats housing bill did something to stop the horrors. Good thing Oboma was elected on"hope and change" to keep poverty in the U.S. alive and well !!
Go welfare! Go Food stamps! Go homelessness! Go Oboma!
And no one at all seems to be curious about who caused the financial panic in Sept. 2008 that put Obama in office.
GDP averages for every President since 1948.
1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%
2009 (Barack Obama, Democrat), -2.6%
Bush inherited the Clinton/Greenspan recession (the one republicans weren’t allowed to talk about because it was caused by us talking about it...sarc)
and then after 9 months in office, he and Cheney steered our nation and our economy through the worst domestic attack since Pearl Harbor, right in the heart of our nation’s financial center
Oh, and our last REAL MAN of a president took the battle against terror to the terrorists’ sandboxes instead of ours
and also talked India and Pakistan out of nuking each other over terror attacks in Kashmir
Miss Him Yet?
The week it looked like the surge was working Pelosi and her MSM friends started attacking the economy and they never let up until Obama was riding high in Fall of '08 and sure enough people got terrified of the socialism coming and the economy crashed.
The headlines were relentlessly focused on the WOT until the surge. It was amazing how fast the media high-tailed it and turned to economic issues when Bush won in Iraq.
|2010 - Obama||9.6|
It seems to me that the US economy really started to sink when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took control of the Congress in 2006.
Ezra seems to have forgotten that the RATs essentially took control of the economy when Pelosi and Reed became House and Senate majority leaders in January 2007. That, coupled with the seven RINO Senators like McCain so eager to please the RATs left GWB essentially helpless.
That may be one of the first smart things he's done.
Never mind your lying eyes, comrades!
for the commander in chief
This is what happens when you are "Bi Partisan" with democRats and give them "half" of everything they want.
Of course the Dems count on their old saw, “If you tell a lie often enough, pretty soon people start to believe it.”
Actually we just emerged from a decade which government overspending and government meddling in the housing mortgage industry led to a leveraging by derivatives of government forced loans which led to "major economic distress".
The problem was not generated by Bush who attempted to regulate the grotesque interference by Congress and the Clinton Administration who forced banks to make uneconomic loans to minorities and aggravated the harm with shameful cronyism of Democrats and the bureaucrats in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who personally profited from cooking the books.
The problem was not Bush, nor was it lack of regulation but too much regulation and it certainly was not deregulation that led to "distress", it was government spending and government meddling.
This is an illustration of the truth being unable to get its boots on before the lie has gone halfway around the world.
Your reccolection is correct.
But my spelling isn’t!
“Your RECOLLECTION is correct!”
Well, especially when the Republican Party is being run by people who refuse to boot up.
Actually the true measure of the Bush economy should start post 9/11. The post 9/11 crash had nothing to do with Bush’s economic policies, but the dramatic recovery sure did.
To the author:
You need to get off the bar stool and stole living in the past. We are still four years into the saviors administration and nothing has improved.
Would that your team of psychologists could help you steer your life to the present and address the issues important now.
Why does everyone leave out of the equation some very important facts:
1) 9/11/01 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
2) The mess created by the democrat's attempt to manipulate the housing market (Freddie Mack/Fanny Mae which CAUSED the market crash 3) The democrats took control of Congress (both houses) in January 2007, placing road block after road block in the path of the Bush Admin with respects to domestic items. 3) Democrats impeding nearly all of the Bush Admin domestic policy beginning shortly after Bush's inaguration in 2001, and continuing through 2008.
Anyone who tries to pin the entirety of the economic mess we are currently in to G.W.B. is a liar.
Are you certain about the GDP for 2009? I’m not denying it; I’m just curious as to where you got it (and the whole list for that matter).
I’ll have to google again. It was something like WSJ or IBT. Remember that it was revised a few times so that may be either post or pre-revision which may be why you think it is different.
This article explains the difference a bit. It was revised down to -3.5%.
IE, worse than what the other source had.
I guess you can say things like that when factual information doesn't apply to your worldview. The majority of the time the economy was sizzling after we came out of the Clinton-Gore recession he inherited (exacerbated by 9/11). The surpluses never materialized - there never was a surplus, and the deficits were back before Bush ever enacted his own budget. The financial collapse his administration repeatedly warned of starting his very first year of office and Democrats pooh-poohed - some even calling efforts to reign it in over the years as racist (a 'lynching' of Franklin Raines, etc.). The fiscal situation was problematic before, but skyrocketed once Pelosi and Reid (with Obama's help as a U.S. Senator voting for the legislation) took the reigns of Congress and it has been all downhill since then.
Thank you. That helps. I guess the bottom line is that no matter what the real GDP figures may be, once Obama is reelected, they will be routinely adjusted to reflect rapid growth and a booming economy.