Bush economy sucks
On the first day of the new economic quarter, Brad deLong of Berkeley’s
economics department (and a very nice guy, I’m told by friends who’ve
taken his grad classes) does a clean-up of bad economic analysis put out on the web, on one site in particular.
…An 0.3% upward revision in the second quqrter’s growth rate will raise
the 2004 annual GDP growth rate by 0.075%, and the 2003-2004 average
growth rate by 0.0375%. That’s not enough to cause anybody to change
their image of the strength of the economy under George W. Bush. And
this idea of a “Bush boom”… Over his term so far, the economy has
grown at an average rate of 2.5% per year. That’s a slower rate than
economic growth during… Clinton II, Clinton I, Reagan II, Reagan I,
Carter (yes, really), Nixon I, Johnson, Kennedy-Johnson, Eisenhower I,
and Truman. As measured by the growth of real GDP, the economy has
grown more slowly in only three presidential terms in the last 13: Bush
41, Nixon-Ford, and Eisenhower II. As measured by the growth of
employment, we have to go all the way back to Herbert Hoover to find
something worse.
Why is no one baying for this man’s head like they did for Jimmy
Carter? I admit Kerry is no Ronald Reagan (although he did claim
Reagan’s mantle in the debate), but this administration has been pretty
bad for the mass of Americans pocketbooks.
Ecto blogging software
13 May 2005 at 9:35 am.
It is obvious to me why it is tolerated. Bush almighty has come down from on-high to save us all from the evil forces, that we mostly created, that lurk in shadowy alleyways of our fair society. Long live King Bush, what a load of BS.