The Lost Bush Decade: Eight-Year Period Is Weakest in Decades

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sargon20, Jan 12, 2009.

  1. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,389
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    As King George battles the overwhelming evidence that his entire Reign of Error has been a disaster the proof is already in. The real challenge for Karl Rove and the other criminals is how it can all be blamed on liberal democrats.

    [SIZE=+2]Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years[/SIZE]
    Eight-Year Period Is Weakest in Decades
    [SIZE=-1]By Neil Irwin and Dan Eggen
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]Monday, January 12, 2009; A01[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]
    [/SIZE]
    President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.
    The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans' incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush's father.

    Bush and his aides are quick to point out that they oversaw 52 straight months of job growth in the middle of this decade, and that the economy expanded at a steady clip from 2003 to 2007. But economists, including some former advisers to Bush, say it increasingly looks as if the nation's economic expansion was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets. Those booms, which the Bush administration encouraged with the idea of an "ownership society," have proved unsustainable.

    "The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

    "For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."

    From 2002 to 2006, the housing boom generated about 600,000 to 800,000 jobs that otherwise would not have been created -- about 10 percent of total job growth in that span, according to the consulting firm IHS Global Insight. Such data, expert say, suggest the economy was not as fundamentally strong as it seemed.

    "Some of the recovery, some of the expansion, was based on very shaky foundations," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight.

    "It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade."

    The president's current aides say they are proud of their economic record. They note, for instance, that they attempted to rein in the growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing finance companies whose vast expansion they see as a central cause of the financial crisis. Independent analysts generally view them only as contributors to the crisis.
    "It does look like a great eight years, aside from the last quarter, unfortunately," Edward P. Lazear, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, said in a recent interview. "In the long term, things look good. The reason things look good is this economy will rebound, and it will rebound strongly. . . . We expect things to turn around, and I would say early in President Obama's administration."

    Even excluding the 2008 recession, however, Bush presided over a weak period for the U.S. economy. For example, for the first seven years of the Bush administration, gross domestic product grew at a paltry 2.1 percent annual rate.
    The administration also failed to gain traction on some of the fundamental economic and fiscal issues facing the nation -- including solidifying the finances of Medicare and Social Security, simplifying the tax code, or making health care more affordable. Resolution of those issues might have left the government more flexibility to respond to the current crisis by lowering the nation's future budget deficits.

    The federal government had a modest budget surplus when Bush took office in 2001, but ran a deficit -- funding itself to a significant degree with borrowed money -- of 4.9 percent of gross domestic product in 2004 and 4 percent in 2005, even as the economy was growing at a healthy pace.

    Bush did not steer the country toward a more sound long-term fiscal position. After winning reelection, he made a failed push both to tweak Social Security to stabilize its long-term finances and create private accounts for Americans to invest in the stock market. Democrats aggressively fought the plan, but indicated they were willing to work on a compromise to ensure the program's long-term financial stability if Bush would take private accounts off the table, which he declined to do.

    Keith B. Hennessey, Bush's chief economic adviser, said the administration "tried everything" it could to broker a deal on Social Security, including sending subtle signals to Democrats that it would negotiate on private accounts.

    Changes to Medicare were also elusive for the administration. When Bush entered the White House, the program faced a long-term funding deficit. It still does, and its cost is expected to balloon in the years ahead. In fact, the administration's addition of a prescription drug benefit enlarges Medicare's long-term funding imbalance.

    The administration had planned to try to deal with the problem after a successful overhaul of Social Security. That day never came, though, and officials figured that if they couldn't reach a deal on the relatively simple problem of fixing Social Security, they would have no shot at fixing the vastly larger and more complex problems facing Medicare.

    Bush made a more concerted effort in 2007 to overhaul the health-care system, with a plan that many independent experts thought could make care more affordable for poor and middle-income families. But by the time the president made the push, he was already highly unpopular. The proposal went nowhere.

    "The retirement of the baby boom is not a distant thing, and the rapid rise in medical care costs goes on year after year," said Alice Rivlin, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and senior economic official in the Clinton administration. "It's easiest to fix those things when the economy is doing well, and we didn't fix them when we had the chance."

    A Bush-created commission proposed a detailed overhaul of the tax code in 2005 that aimed to make taxes more fair and less complex, also winning plaudits from tax experts. But passing such a plan wasn't a high priority for the White House, and the effort stalled.
     
  2. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,389
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    "On tax reform, I think they themselves were not very interested in it," said Kevin A. Hassett, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and an adviser on Bush's reelection campaign.

    As achievements, Bush and his advisers point to the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which many analysts credit for keeping the last recession mild, even as the cuts contributed to the large deficits that followed. Bush and other administration officials play down the role of the tax cuts in feeding the deficits, arguing instead that increased spending on counterterrorism, national security and the military after the Sept. 11 attacks was the primary, and unavoidable, cause.

    Bush also boasts about his record on trade, including the signing of 11 free-trade agreements with countries in Asia, Africa and Central and South America. But he also failed in bids to land several other prominent trade pacts and saw the collapse of negotiations to curb global agricultural subsidies, known as the Doha Round.

    One constant for Bush has been an optimistic, even rosy, economic outlook. Throughout much of past year, even as the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve began preparing for the worst behind closed doors, Bush and his aides trumpeted the fundamental strength of the U.S. economy and dismissed Democratic proposals for a second stimulus package. A White House fact sheet released on Sept. 5 was titled: "American Economy Is Resilient in the Face of Challenges."

    Two days later, the administration announced the federal takeover of Fannie and Freddie, setting in motion the most sweeping government intervention in the economy since the Great Depression.

    That takeover, experts widely agree, was necessary. But even those sympathetic to the president's ideas are skeptical of his overall legacy.

    The highest praise Hassett offers for Bush's economic legacy is that "the economy was caught up in a storm while he was president, but it wasn't his fault."

    "In the end, to the extent there ends up being a defense of the Bush presidency" on economic issues, "that's about the best you can get."
     
  3. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,595
    Likes Received:
    884
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    I would have to point out, however, that there really was NEGATIVE growth in GNP.

    Unfortunately, what your posts are kinds glossing over is that DEBT is treated by the government as "product".

    DEBT, as can be clearly seen in retrospect is NOT a durable product... it is, in fact, a LIEN on future productivity.

    Eliminating the regulations on lending and removing banks lending cielings created a frenzy of borrowing... and all that borrowing was cited as GROWTH in GNP, when it fact it was Debt secured only by unsupported speculation or house values. With no corresponding increase in middle class income... those inflated property values were a lie.

    Consumer led growth is predicated upon easy credit... consumers buying on credit is consumers placing liens on their own future productivity.

    If you take out money BORROWED on our own future productivity ( which must include the bailouts) The GNP of the US FELL during the Bush presidency.
     
  4. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,389
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Have you seen http://www.iousathemovie.com/? It's not a pretty picture at all. I think it's all over. Only a matter of time before all the dominoes we lined up fall.
     
  5. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Phil and Sargon, you are both complete, utter, partisan, idiot, marching Obamabots.

    You take any F#$%ing statistical computation in the galaxy, and tie in an abysmal final year, and you have shit.

    Take Barry Bonds. Are the last 5 years of his career a disaster because he sucked in the last year?

    Brett Farve's last 8 years blow because his TD/INT ratio took a shit in '08?

    Warren Buffet is a dipshit because he returned a negative performance over the last 8 years to Berkshire shareholders?

    Would you sell the Yankees because they didn't win the Series last year?

    Just brilliant, brilliant pontificating on absolute, amateur bullshit rhetoric and garbage use of statistics.

    Like calculating the average amount of terrorist attacks on the month of September, 2001.

    Exploiters and opportunists. The both of you. That's putting it lightly.
     
  6. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    :rofl: @ Star...Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.
     
  7. pym

    pym New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Star....Star.....Star......
    You equate the fiscal collapse of the USA{and by 'it's a global economy'} and the rest of the world with selling the fucking yankees??!! WTF!! Oh yeah .....fuzzy math/voodoo economics. How very Reaganesque.

    You equate going from 1 trillion dollars of fiscal debt. to 11 trillion as a trivial matter? At what dollar amount do we ALL declare the sky has fallen.
    Me? that revelation occured at the advent of declaring IRAQ a clear and present danger. I'm sure YOU did NOT question that global ramification at all.

    Go up-stairs and borrow your mom's calculator....try and fathom the depth of 11 trillion dollars of debt.

    But hey....i bet you were first in line for Bush's income tax rebates.
    Real economy boosters those turned out to be.

    Your analogies are childish and foolish.

    It's OK to question Staus Quo. Sometimes a pre-existing equalibrium MUST be challanged. Stick your head out the basement window and move some air....man.
     
  8. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Very interesting and informative clip. Would love to see the full movie.
    Everyone knows the economy is in very bad shape, but this goes in much more detail to explain just how bad it really is. Hopefully this destroys any of the notions that any one person or group is to blame.
     
  9. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,389
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    The ideology REQUIRES it that's why they ignore it. The motto that tax cuts work sits atop the entire scam. Blow that away and it all falls apart so they simply ignore it. Kick it down the road. Me me me want money now now now. The future isn't my problem.
     
  10. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Nose, meet face. I mean that literally.

    And god, I hate sports analogies. I never understand them.
     
  11. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Either way, you're one lib that knows the underlying faux pas in these statistics. :rolleyes:

    Whether you choose to admit it....that's your call.

    Nice redirect on the sports, too, beeeoooch.
     
  12. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    I don't often admit things in private that I don't in public, and as you know, we agree on certain very basic economic principals which I would nonetheless die before putting into practice in the same ways you would. Much as I even occasionally give your economic ideas a second thought. It's the ramifications of them that are so disturbing to me, and what it says or perhaps implies about you--and you don't even know it--and the system that produced them. You do understand, don't you, that I think capitalism isn't altogether a bad system, and that I know what it's given me in particular, but that I can't take credit for anything other that what I've made on my own? And that I'm still willing--no--wanting, to help up those less fortunate than I am. And--oh, try to denigrate this one--to contribute to society at large in all those crazy things like arts and education and so on.

    And do NOT patronize me by telling me that that's conservative ideology at it's best. I know you live in the tp'd, egged house and I will find you.

    Some day maybe we'll sit down with a beer (for you, perhaps; I'll have a single malt) and we'll talk about it. Until then, I'll just have to hate you.

    That being said, nose, you know your friend face, don't you? Where's she been lately, btw?


    P.S. I didn't actually read all the statistics in this post; they might have made my little head spin. I just dumped on you by rote. It's easy by now. :wink:
     
    #12 B_Nick8, Jan 14, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2009
  13. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest


    Yippiddeedooda, yippideeyah....Gulp....ramifications of what???? Very simple edict...build a good product...you will be rewarded...add employees...provide stability, growth..your employees build families..houses...lives...that's what the system produces...no?

    Perfectly said. You take credit for what you've made on your own. How are we different here? Okay, do the lib thing and spin this.

    Help me understand how I am different. Please. I won't pull a Midlife, but my charity contributions aren't something to sneeze at beeeoooch.

    .

    Huh? You libs can't throw for shit.

    That's fine. You're buyin.

    Flippin' lib
     
  14. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    How many times do I have to try to differentiate between ideas that are simple and those that are simplistic?...I am not talking about the basics of your economic ideas but the ways in which the results of them, particularly unregulated, would be brought to bear upon greater society. It's about management. And regulation. And balance. But I digress.

    As far as taking credit for what's my own, that's only because my family brought me up to have to. If they had been different people, I never would have had to work at all but that was not an option for us. We therefor learned differently from our peers and, straddling both sides of the fence so to speak, I'm a lot more grateful and yes, perhaps a little more guilty than some. Be that as it may, it all falls into perspective.

    I'm not necessarily saying your charitable contributions aren't considerable although I can guarantee they're not what they could be and probably aren't what they should be. And if you tell me one more time that voluntary charitable contributions can and will and should take the place of/make up for governmental subsidies or 'redistributions of wealth' I will throw up. They won't and never will. No matter how marvelous a human being you may think you are you don't do what is necessary or right. [Oh, I know, 'right' is terribly subjective but my right always is just that. G'head. Ask me] No one does. I give until it hurts...I think. And of course, I don't at all.

    As far as throwing at your house, it's clear to me, at least, that you've been targeted by your own admissioon, quite accurately, twice. So we libs have quite an arm as far as I can tell.

    And I will buy you all the liquor in Christendom. Just past the one that makes you lean over into my chest and moan, "Oh, Nick, you were right all along."
     
  15. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Please do digress because the economic ideas that I promote are indeed the most beneficial to all of society. I agree with the above...except that dump 'unregulated' plug.

    First sentence....key. Note to libs.

    Never said marvelous. And never said char. contributions should take the place of gov subs. I didn't used to hurt to give. But now it hurts to do anything.:rolleyes:

    If you libs could throw as far as you could fantasize about reality....I'd be worried.

    ?? Find me a booze that strong.
     
  16. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Ever heard of Absinthe? And a roofie. I will stop at nothing in my ruthless pursuit.

    You know you want me.

    :biggrin1:
     
  17. milkluver

    milkluver New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    God
    i know i am fucked up right now but, i do hope hoe president find that rotten son of a motherfuckin rotten piece of rotten no good piece of shit and i dont care if they kick me off this site bcuz bush is just as bad as he his and every1 one else gets mad fuck them 2 they can kiss the pink part of my asshole if they can find it lolololololololol
     
  18. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Ummmmm.... can someone post an ad on Craigslist for a translator to decipher the previous post?
     
  19. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    I got it....milkluver is a human sphincter...his mouth [the pink] emits output that passes as flatulence.

    stick a cork in that arse
     
  20. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,535
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    110
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL

    Epic.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted