Democratic Party, the party of fiscal responsibility

Yes there is spin, but the numbers themselves don't lie. Take the following report. There is some spin there, but the numbers are real . . . and kind of appalling.

September 27, 2004
Evaluating Bush's Economic Performance: A Field Guide for the Perplexed
by Robert Freeman

Forbes Magazine's online edition performed a valuable public service in July when it ran a story comparing the economic performance of the ten postwar presidents. Forbes is the right-leaning business publication that goes by the tagline, "Capitalist Tool." Its publisher, Steve Forbes, is a big hitter in Republican circles and ran as a Republican candidate for president in 1996 and 2000.

The magazine proposed six different metrics by which a president's economic performance should be judged. They are: GDP growth, real disposable personal income, employment, unemployment, inflation, and deficit reduction. All are mainstream benchmarks with their data easily accessible to any serious inquirer.

It is a measure of Forbes' integrity that it let the chips fall where they may: the top three performing presidents - Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy - were all Democrats while the bottom three performers - Nixon, Eisenhower, and Bush the Elder - were all Republicans. The middle of the pack was a mixed bag of all the rest: Reagan; Ford; Carter; and Truman.

Interestingly, however, Forbes did not include the current occupant of the White House in the comparison. In fairness, George W. Bush's first term is not yet over, though the fact of a short duration did not stop Forbes from including Gerald R. Ford or John F. Kennedy in its evaluation. Both served less than full terms.

One wonders if the reason Forbes did not include Bush is that Bush would have come out rather poorly for the comparison. The numbers are readily available. Surely they ran them.

Read the rest of the story


JS, here are the numbers, stripped of hyperbole.

Real GDP growth: Clinton=3.2% -- Bush=2.4%
Real disposable personal income: Clinton=10.4% rise -- Bush=9.3% rise
Employment: Clinton=11 million new jobs -- Bush=1 million fewer jobs
Unemployment: Clinton=4% -- Bush =5.4%
Inflation: Clinton=2.3% -- Bush=2.9%
Deficit Reduction: Clinton=$183 billion -- Bush=$0 ($422 bilion deficit increase)


Now, you can spin those numbers any way you like. Good luck! :yelwink2:

 

You think lower job growth is good? No wonder you think Bush is a great President! Rush Limbaugh is not a good source of facts, my friend.

The discussion was about the economy, did you forget? Or are you just changing the subject because the facts don't back you up.

I should be used to you ignoring all the facts in your opinions, mon ami. But, just for the record . . . the recession happened on Bush's watch, the econmic boom happened on Clinton's watch. There is no disagreement on this. There are calendars online if you don't have one.

Read the posts above, Sourdough. Those numbers reflect Bush's NON-MILITARY government spending. If you add the Iraq War costs, deficits go through the roof. The fact is: George Bush has spent government money at a higher rate than Clinton, at the same time reducing America's income, causing an unprecedented National Debt. The facts are undeniable.

I know you think Bush's beligerent miltary posture makes him the best thing since sliced bread. But this discussion is about the economic well-being of America and George W. Bush has been a lousy, lousy president in those terms.

 

The word is "you're". I disagee with you a lot Sourdough, but I haven't called you ignorant. And you're making a mistake if you imagine that.

OK, Einstein. I'd love to see you back this preposterous statement up. Deficits go up when you spend more than you bring in. It's just that simple. War has nothing to do with it, unless you don't bring in enough money to cover your war debts, ala George Bush. Roosevelt and Truman sold War Bonds, instituted rationing, and increased taxes to pay for WWII. Bush is leaving his war debts for your grandchildren to deal with. And how many times do we have to repeat it for you? Bush's NON-MILITARY spending went up while he cut taxes and brought America's income down. There is the deficit--pure and simple.

It's all you ever do either, Sourdough. That is what political debate is all about. Did you want me to argue your side of it, too?

Remember Pearl Harbor? Roosevelts economy had to endure it and America's economy had unprecedented growth during WWII. Yes, 9/11 hurt the stock market, but it did not increase US government spending. Bush did.

That's right, when you run out of logic, just call the opposition names and suggest they must be part of a great conspiracy. Look up "McCarthyism" in the dictionary.