Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal editorial page believes President Obama has an "economic growth deficit," and publishes an image comparing GDP by year under Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.
Now, in a comparison like this, context is everything. Reagan and Clinton didn't inherit global economic catastrophes, didn't need mandatory Senate supermajorities to pass legislation, didn't have debt-ceiling fiascos to put up with, didn't have the luxury of getting economic boosts from the Fed lowering interest rates, etc. All of these relevant details went unmentioned.
But Jon Chait notices something else omitted from the WSJ visual.
No George W. Bush! Possibly there wasn't enough room. Or possibly the lesson of the most recent former president, whose tax cuts are set to expire and who presided over poor economic growth, might not offer the lesson the Journal editorial page is seeking to convey.
The WSJ also left out George H.W. Bush, probably for the same reason.
Leave a Comment:
George W who? Anyone who has been listening to the GOP knows there was no president between Obama and Clinton!
(s/o)
Haddie,
i get your point :), but we went through a hell of a lot for "not having a president between Clinton and Obama", not the least of which is the financial collapse, and the iraqi war which cost us thousands of lives.
also, not to mention the fact that voter suppression and other tactics were used by w. bush to win both elections in 2000 and 2004, which makes the 8 years of his "presidency" that much worse.
If you referred to it by its correct name The Murdoch Street Journal , things would be clearer.
It the paper version of Faux news , creating its own reality as it goes.
If it wasn't so pathetic it would be funny, but then I guess they keep John Stewart's writers from having to work too hard.
If it wasn't for Rupert, we would not have the Fox & Friends cartoon hour. You should be grateful for this. I know I am.
They have it on at the Gym , mercifully with the sound off (but close caption)
I try to ignore it.....but it's like a car wreck you can't take your eyes off of
I have some rather heated discussions with a couple of hospital administrators about this type of crap.
My wife had to have two surgeries on her arm. Okay, so you're a little on edge to begin with.
In the first incident, I'm in a large waiting room. Probably around 9 PM. There are three of us there. Some inane thing on the TV. This one woman gets up and changes the channel to Fox. I got up and changed it back to whatever mind numbing thing was on. As she got up the second time, I simply glared at her. She sat down.
Second time. 8 AM. Lots of people in the waiting room. They've got Fox on. After trying to simply tune it out, I went up and asked them to turn it off. The receptionist was taken aback and said she couldn't change it. Asked for a supervisor. She gave me some stupid line. At that point I explained that I was extremely offended by what was on and she could change the channel, or I could rip the set off the wall. Channel changed.
In both cases we're talking about religious hospitals (for profit).
@Dogjudge: I assume you have seen/read 1984.
Same thing happened at my eye doctor's office. The receptionist apologized, said that the doctor had insisted Fixed Noise be on full blast in the waiting room. As this doctor is a smarmy misogynist, it was easy just to smile at the receptionist and tell her I was taking my business elsewhere and would make sure others knew to stay away.
That makes 4 local businesses I've shed in the last year for that reason. Hope it "takes."
Bose headphones with noise cancelling technology are the solution.
I just cover my ears. I really don't care what other people think.
Oh look a nice bowl full of cherries...er Facts!
You need wings to stay above this stuff.
Go here you can customize the chart....dips with St Ronnie Papa Bush and Invisible W
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual
Yep, the absence of W jumps right out at you. Kind of like saying that the Space Shuttle had a perfect record....if you leave out a couple of data points called Challenger and Columbia.
Well duh, you have to remove the statistical outliers to get good data. We should thank them for cleaning up the chart for us.
"The WSJ also left out George H.W. Bush, probably for the same reason."
That's an ironic mention because the real ghost in the GOP closet is not Norquist but HW.
The negotiators in this, Boehner and McConnell, as well as other top Republicans were in office in 1992 when Bush did the "right thing" and raised taxes for the good of the country.
However the lesson they learned is that when Republicans not named Reagan raise taxes, they lose Repbulican votes and don't pick up any Democratic ones in recompense.
Sure fella, the electorate and the country is exactly the same as it was in 1992. Sounds like a job in the Romney Campaign is in order for you, they need pollsters.
Why respond at all with such banality?
Bush...? Bush who? What are you talking about? We have always been at war with Eastasia.
It's funny; with all the news about how inept Romney's pollsters were, how dimwitted his 'numbers' guys were, you would think the WSJ might be doubly cautious about simply flattering the biases of their intellectually challenged business leaders with false figures.
But hey, they would just stop reading the WSJ, wouldn't they? No fact that I don't like shall enter my brain they seem to say.
The lesson that the WSJ doesn't want it's intellectually cloistered clientele to understand too well is that tax cuts don't lead to either short-term or long-term economic growth. Jeez, they just pulled a Mitch. As in when the Senate scuttled the CRS report on the very same economic phenomenon.
Of course, any upcoming economic growth due to housing picking up and other demand coming back on line will be attributed to the magnificent GOTea House understanding of economics and the Bush tax cuts. Get ready for it.
Benen,, I love you, man..
War on Christmas? War on religion? No, but they are having a war against Obama. Too bad they are taped otherwise they could rewrite history as it happens and make Obama evil.As it is only their sheep are buying the crap.
so, can someone pull together a complete chart?
see above my earlier post # 3.1...google US annual GDP growth....hundreds of charts saying the same thing . Republican Fiscal policy sucks
Yes, while I too would really like to forget those two were ever elected (let alone re-elected) as President --- our current economic woes (and deficit) are DIRECTLY TIED to the last George Bush! To just skip EIGHT YEARS -- and the years directly PRECEDING is absurd!
So true.
Well, this is today's media, so you have 2 choices. You can have partial information (geared to favor the GOP) or you have no information at all because the Republicans had the entire article completely removed due to factual accuracy.
I agree with Ginjg. Let's see a complete chart. Could someone please put one together which includes the Bushes?
Take a moment to bask in the knowledge of the Romney presidency that will never be. While your doing that, here is some fake friday news that maybe could have happened.
The White House Chief of Staff, Jacob "Jack" Lew had requested several years of Mitt Romney's tax returns as valid ID to gain admittance for luncheon with the President.
A chagrined former candidate Romney was later heard leaving the premises voicing his trademark faux chuckle as staff discovered that a toilet had overflowed due to an excess of tissue stuck in the bowl.
No matter what the GOP and the right do, NOTHING will erase the stain and stigma of George W. Bush's presidency from Americas history. Especially for those of us who had the misfortune to live through it. He and Cheney are the epitome of everything wrong in the Republican party and why the GOP can no longer to be trusted with the White House or Congress.
I copied this from a comment thread earlier this year. I don't know who made the original calculation, but I like it:
---------------
I compared the deficit as a percent of GDP for each presidential administration to see how the budget inherited by each president (i.e., the fiscal year in progress when the president took office) compares with the last budget passed on to the next president (i.e., the fiscal year in progress when the president left office). Here are the results since 1945:
Truman: 7.2% deficit inherited, 1.7% deficit left (5.5% reduction)
Eisenhower: 1.7% deficit inherited, 0.6% deficit left (1.1% reduction)
Kennedy/Johnson: 0.6% deficit inherited, 0.3% surplus left (0.9% reduction)
Nixon/Ford: 0.3% surplus inherited, 2.7% deficit left (3.0% INCREASE)
Carter: 2.7% deficit inherited, 2.6% deficit left (0.1% reduction)
Reagan: 2.6% deficit inherited, 2.8% deficit left (0.2% INCREASE)
Bush I: 2.8% deficit inherited, 3.9% deficit left (1.1% INCREASE)
Clinton: 3.9% deficit inherited, 1.3% surplus left (5.2% reduction)
Bush II: 1.3% surplus inherited, 9% deficit left (10.3% INCREASE)
So over the last 66 years, all Democratic administrations have presided over decreasing deficits, while all Republican administrations, except Eisenhower, have presided of INCREASING deficits.
And the fiscal trends would have surely continued on under the Once and Future King Romney and his Global Thinking sidekick, Paul the Budgetier.
Apparently they can't do math, either, since their own data show Mr. Obama going from -3.1 to +2.4 in the space of a year. Which seems to mean the growth that year was +5.5.
Fox Facts, the Ultimate Oxymoron,,,,,
Yes, Rach needs to cover WSJ's epic fail when comparing 2 term presidents. Put b43 in there to make an accurate comparison. DC is the village, and just like 2004's "The Village", b43 is "that of which we do not speak."