signalmankenneth
Verified User
Reminder: The Economy Is Still Bush’s Fault
August 14th, 2009, Author: Andrew Perez, Categories: Politics, The Spin Cycle
In case anyone has forgotten, President Bush is still responsible for the sorry state of the economy.
Bruce Bartlett, a former Republican economist who was influential in the development of supply-side economics and ultimately fled the GOP as it grew more insane, has penned a thorough take-down of the conservative activists who are blaming our current economic situation on President Obama. He explains why they’re dead wrong and why the Bush economy was an all-around failure:
Throughout the Bush years, many conservative economists, including CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, extravagantly extolled Bush’s economic policies. As late as December 21, 2007, after the recession already began, he wrote in National Review: “the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.” In a column on May 2, 2008, almost six months into the recession, Kudlow praised Bush for having prevented a recession.
But the truth was always that the economy performed very, very badly under Bush, and the best efforts of his cheerleaders cannot change that fact because the data don’t lie. Consider these comparisons between Bush and Clinton:
• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much.
• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected.
• Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s.
• During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office.
• Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.
And a new report by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez shows that the economy under Bush created the greatest income disparity in U.S. history:
Of course, Republicans don’t think wealth disparity is a big problem. It’s just an unintended side effect of the free market, but we can’t do anything about it, because regulating the market to ensure that everyone benefits from a strong economy would unfairly inhibit the top percentile from fully utilizing their natural abilities and talents and would thus make the United States a communist state. The only thing stopping poor people from becoming rich is the fact they’re all so damn lazy. Let’s all just hail Milton Friedman and forget I said anything.
August 14th, 2009, Author: Andrew Perez, Categories: Politics, The Spin Cycle
In case anyone has forgotten, President Bush is still responsible for the sorry state of the economy.
Bruce Bartlett, a former Republican economist who was influential in the development of supply-side economics and ultimately fled the GOP as it grew more insane, has penned a thorough take-down of the conservative activists who are blaming our current economic situation on President Obama. He explains why they’re dead wrong and why the Bush economy was an all-around failure:
Throughout the Bush years, many conservative economists, including CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, extravagantly extolled Bush’s economic policies. As late as December 21, 2007, after the recession already began, he wrote in National Review: “the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.” In a column on May 2, 2008, almost six months into the recession, Kudlow praised Bush for having prevented a recession.
But the truth was always that the economy performed very, very badly under Bush, and the best efforts of his cheerleaders cannot change that fact because the data don’t lie. Consider these comparisons between Bush and Clinton:
• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much.
• Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected.
• Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s.
• During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office.
• Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.
And a new report by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez shows that the economy under Bush created the greatest income disparity in U.S. history:
Of course, Republicans don’t think wealth disparity is a big problem. It’s just an unintended side effect of the free market, but we can’t do anything about it, because regulating the market to ensure that everyone benefits from a strong economy would unfairly inhibit the top percentile from fully utilizing their natural abilities and talents and would thus make the United States a communist state. The only thing stopping poor people from becoming rich is the fact they’re all so damn lazy. Let’s all just hail Milton Friedman and forget I said anything.
