After Friday's discouraging jobs report, there was increasing talk on the right about the benefits of George W. Bush's record, as if the nation would be better off turning back the clock to 2008.
As Jeremy Holden noted, "Bush economic revisionism approached satire [last] week, as the conservative commentariat began suggesting that voters miss the former president remembered for pursuing economic policies that drove the national economy into a historic recession and financial crisis." Fox ran a picture of Bush with the headline, "Miss me yet?"
I hope that's a rhetorical question.
Just for fun, I put together this chart this morning, showing job-creation numbers for every year since 2001, Bush's first year in office. In the image, the lighter color shows job losses/gains in the overall economy, while the darker color reflects just the private sector.
Context, of course, is key. When Bush took office in 2001, the economy had slowed, but it was a mild downturn compared to the global financial collapse that was underway in 2009. And yet, note that the economy added jobs in President Obama's second year, which is more than we can say for his Republican predecessor. In Obama's third year, 2011, more private sector jobs were created than in seven of the eight years Bush was in the White House.
Even this year, after just five months, some of which have been far from adequate, the economy has added more jobs than in Bush's first three years in office combined.
For that matter, note than when the economy added jobs under Bush, the private sector lagged the overall economy, while under Obama, the opposite is true, with the private sector generating the job growth. There's a reason for this: Bush relied on government jobs while the private sector scaled back, while under Obama, the public sector has lost jobs while businesses expanded.
By contemporary Republican standards, this means Bush was a far more effective big-government socialist than Obama.
Ezra Klein had an item about a month ago, highlighting some of the economic lowlights of the Bush/Cheney era.
To make it look weaker, you add back in some context. Monthly job growth from March 2001 to December 2007 -- so, from the pre-2001 recession peak to the pre-2007 recession peak -- was 68,000. That's one of the weakest expansions on record. Meanwhile, poverty and inequality were increasing even as median incomes were falling. Oh, and while Bush's deficits weren't huge, they came during a period of growth -- normally, periods of growth are when you cut the deficit, as we saw in the 1990s. So these were deficits of an unusually irresponsible sort.
To make it look absolutely awful, you add in the fact that there was a huge credit bubble inflating beneath the economy that George W. Bush did nothing to stop and that his choice for Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, did much to inflate. So as weak as the decade's economic numbers look, they're much, much worse when you realize they were artificially pumped up by the bubble, and Bush's record is much, much worse when you add that the economic collapse began on his watch, and the long-term cost of the tax cuts and Medicare Part D and the war in Iraq.
In other words, the more you actually know about Bush's economy, how it compares with other periods in our economy and the role it played in the financial crisis, the worse it looks.
Do I "miss" Bush's economic policies? No, I really don't.
Leave a Comment:
"...the more you actually know about Bush's economy, how it compares with other periods in our economy and the role it played in the financial crisis, the worse it looks."
That says it all right there. And yet the sheeple would have US return to those same failed policies by voting for the GOP, stupid sheeple!
Real Men don't do ( or understand) charts!
Real Men invade countries! Hoo-Raah!
Yes, and unfortunately for humanity - those "real men" have yet to be tried by the Hague!
And yet, you're upset when I call you sheeple, sheeple, really?!?
"...the more you actually know about Bush's economy, how it compares with other periods in our economy and the role it played in the financial crisis, the worse it looks."
The problem is, 75% of the electorate doesn't know/care about the history of "Bush's economy". All they need to know is that they felt better from 2001-2008 than they have from 2009-2012 - mostly because the current president has blown far less smoke up the collective American's backside...
Sadly this is a problem we see all to often with this administration, they just don't attack with the truth often or loudly enough. I think This is due to, I think , how I perceive, President Obama, as quite modest and unpretentious.
Follow this link, please. This article on PolicyMic is one of the best-researched and most intelligent expositions you'll ever find of how we got where we are now, and why: http://www.policymic.com/articles/9124/unemployment-is-high-by-republican-design-as-gop-sabotaged-obama-s-job-proposals
Excellent link indeed, m'lady (perhaps now you have another fan), though I suspect the author is a frustrated (former?) GOPper: after expounding well and at length about the nature of the Rape-Public-Con-Men's program of unpatriotic obstructionism, he seemed unable to follow through to the conclusion to which that might seem to lead - affirmatively supporting Democratic policy initiatives. Still, definitely a worthy read, thanks!
There's a reason the rwnj's went ballistic downplaying 69,000 net jobs created. It's because there were 87,000 net private-sector jobs created. Public-sector jobs declined 18,000 net.
They were specifically spinning in order to hide the fact that Obama is not a socialist. Falsely characterizing of him with that epithet clearly what they've staked the election cycle on.
Facts are, as usual, not on their side.
the first time that I heard that Bush made that famous "miss me" quote was right before he walk out of the room while Obama, McCain, Pelosi, etc. were trying to figure out how to fix his Wall Street mess. Bush told the SEC not to do it's job......
the rethugs have an extreme case of ADD - ADHD . They can't remember what happened 6 months ago , much less yesterday. And they want to keep everyone dumb.
Blair, you're right and that's why the GOP has success playing on emotions that still linger fearfully following the near calamitous Bush economic crash, which really didn't manifest itself until handed off to Obama's administration. Frankly, I'd love to run a super-Pac that could deliver simple postcards -- flash cards, if you will -- to every voter. A fact a day in clear and simple terms.
IIRC Reagan changed how the military was counted in UE rate, previously not counted/neutral, he changed it so they they counted as "working" therefore made UE number drop artificially in his "magic turn around." How many now returning vets are UE?
I showed the graph to one of my conservative friends at work and I said, "What do you think of this? Don't you think this counters Romney's assertion that the economy is recovering, but just not as rapidly as it should?" My friend's response: "Yeah, if the data is accurate, maybe." In other words - If the data doesn't fit your narrative, it must be suspect! Oh well, I tried. Thanks for the graph Steve.
Talk about cherry picking data! "In Obama's third year, 2011, more private sector jobs were created than in seven of the eight years Bush was in the White House" and "Even this year, after just five months, some of which have been far from adequate, the economy has added more jobs than in Bush's first three years in office combined." I can look at the chart and see 2004-2005 kicked butt on anything Obama has done. But take a look at the unemployment chart from the BLS at: data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 plug in 2001-2012 and see how well the Bush policies did before the housing collapse. Absent the housing collapse that was brewing for years his policies were the right ones to recover from a 9/11 attack.
I do applaud you finally showing the jobs creation chart all the way back to 2001 - unlike so many manipulative graphs I've seen that only start at 2008 though.
yea keep dreaming mad cow maddow!
"mad cow maddow"... can you guys come up with insults more original and less misogynistic, please?
Never come at neoCons with an argument based on facts and logic. They will just plug their ears and chant lalalalalalalala. Then sometime in the night, they'll nuke some innocent political bystanders out of shame and frustration. Next morning they will be just as intransigent and stubborn as the day before. Doesn't that sound vaguely like the Taliban?
This is a ridiculous comparison Steve. Two different times, two different circumstances. You really like throwing red meat into the den and watching the fur fly.