AUG: +151,000 jobs. Unemployment rate steady at 4.9%. AUG details here!.. Jobs since Obama took office?... Unemp. rate under Obama?

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Bush Was Better Than Obama? (Or.. Not!)

Do you miss him yet? 
Billboard in Minnesota 2010 (New York Daily News)


With the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Library, many Bush apologists are climbing out of the proverbial woodwork.  


The following comment was found at Huffington Post as a reply to an article about unemployment:


Even with losing 750,000 jobs a month, he  (Bush) still created 3 million for his entire Presidency. And there were 10 million more people in the workforce than there are now. He also generated the most revenue of any President, and did so with lower tax rates. He did all of this after inheriting a recession from Clinton, dealing with the near financial catastrophe that was 9/11, fighting 2 wars, and being handed the biggest real estate crisis and capital crisis the world has ever seen. I'd say he did a pretty DAM GOOD job economically. I don't agree with all of his policies or his proclivity for spending, but only the most economically ignorant people in the world think he was a total failure.


The Iraq War

The Bush administration LIED its way into the Iraq War. (If you haven't yet seen it, check out the MSNBC program "Hubris" on the selling of the Iraq War.)  Thousands of people lost their lives and thousands more are permanently injured based on lies.  That in and of itself makes him a total failure. 

Inherited Recessions

The recession he inherited from Clinton was minor compared to the complete economic meltdown that Obama inherited from Bush. The total number of jobs was still increasing in January 2001 when Bush took office.  The total number of jobs had already decreased by 4.6 million before Obama set one foot into the Oval Office.  Bush created one million jobs, not three million, during his Presidency.


9/11:  No Democratic Obstruction

9/11 was a national and an economic crisis, but Bush had solid support from BOTH parties in dealing with this crisis, and it simply did NOT impact the economy and the jobs situation as much as the 2008 financial crisis did.

Housing Crisis



The housing crisis was created in large part by the deregulation of the economy under the complete control of the Republicans in the early 2000's.

Labor Force Numbers
There were at maximum 3,000,000 more people working during early 2008 than now, not 10,000,000.  As of January 2013, we have MORE people in the labor force (working or looking for work) than we ever had during the Bush years... We have never had as many people in the labor force as we have over the last few months.



Remember why the number of people employed is down compared to what it was in early 2008:  The unregulated economy thanks to complete control of the country by the Republicans in the years 2001 through early 2007.

Gee, thanks, George, and you fun-loving Republicans!



And if you DON'T believe that Bush was so wonderful, you may wish to throw a shoe:

4 comments:

  1. Bush didn't inherit a Clinton recession. The recession began in Bush's term.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Technically you are right, though GDP fell precipitously in mid 2000, we didn't go into a recession until early 2001:

      "The actual burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1991.
      The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began."

      This is from Wikipedia. As I wrote above, we were still adding jobs when Bush took office.

      Delete
  2. The total market share of sub-prime housing loans doubled between 2004 and 2006. That is when the SEC, all appointed by Bush, de-regulated the Net Capital Rule to allow Goldman-Sachs, Lehman Brother, Bear-Stearns, Morgan Stanley and Merril-Lynch—and only those five lenders—to regulate themselves with regard to their own collateral offerings in the housing market.

    The sub-prime loans that failed were almost exclusively from private lenders who were NOT bound by the stricter Community Reinvestment Act rules that governed low-income home loans.

    The weight of failed loans went to middle-class dreamers and irresponsible speculators who counted on ever-rising housing prices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that information. The Bush apologists are also reviving the "CRA caused the crash" b.s.

      Delete

I appreciate intelligent comments and questions, including those that are at odds with anything posted here. I have elected not to screen comments before they are published; however, any comments that are in any way insulting, caustic, or intentionally inflammatory will be deleted without notice. Spam will also be immediately deleted.