« Sarah Palin's Non-Pregnancy, Another Look | Main | The Cottonseed Oil Industry Responds To "The Awful Truth About Cottonseed Oil" »

The Fundamentals of the Economy Suck

As the nation slides further into the Republican-generated recession which began in December, 2007 we have refreshing news out of Washington from President Bush. He's actually being honest with the American people now that the election is over...

Using the word "recession" for the first time to describe the U.S. economy, President George W. Bush demanded that Congress adopt his approach to an auto bailout and require car companies to pay back any federal aid.

Bush dared not tell the truth about the economy prior to election day, although the economy had worsened to the point where even trolls knew we were in serious economic straits, but now that the election is over it's okay for the (R) politicians to use the "R" word to describe the economy's status.

That's how Republicans govern. They lie to the voters to control them.

Fortunately, change has arrived - too late to save the economy from tanking, but President Clinton handled the economic recession he found when entering office and I'm confident President Obama will have equal if not greater success.

At 12 months, the current recession is already the longest since a severe 16-month slump in 1981-82. Many economists say this downturn will ultimately set a new record for the post-World War II period.

During Bush's eight years in office, the United States has fallen into two recessions. The first one started in March 2001 and ended in November of that year.

Good job, George. Now please get out of the way and let a President who cares about this country and its people fix the mess you've created.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.1/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.1/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (3)


some points, Lee....

first, the 90-91 recession was over by the time Clinton took office in Jan 93. Heck, it was over before he won the election in Nov 92. per the NBRE there was a 10yr expansion from '91 til '01. Since there was a Republican president (GHW Bush) for the first 2 years of that historic expansion, and a Republican congress for 7 years (94-01) of it, do they get no credit for it?

second, if the current recession started in Dec 07, doesn't the DEMOCRATIC congress share blame for it? since they took office in January of that year?

and what do you mean tht Bush dared not tell the truth about the economy prior to the election? i distinctly remember several statements coming out of the white house starting nefore the election about the current economic climate. And wasn't the financial bailout archestrated back before the election?

The White House refused to embrace the term recession until Monday, when a panel for the National Bureau of Economic Research gave official word that the economy is in a recession and has been since last December.

"Our economy is in a recession," Bush said flatly. "This is in large part because of severe problems in our housing, credit and financial markets, which have resulted in significant job losses."

So in other words, Bush didn't call it a recession until the NBER determined that it was. that seems like prudence to me. if the ecomomy was merely bad, but not in a recession, wouldn't the POTUS calling it a recession pre-maturely lead to a fall in confidence, a fall in consumer and business spending and hasten the country into a recession that may be avoidable.

Now, did I like Bush's economic policies? Not all fo them, but I at least try to look at the situation with an open mind.

"So in other words, Bush didn't call it a recession until the NBER determined that it was. that seems like prudence to me."

Odd, a large number of Americans knew we were in a recession long before the NBER issued their press release stating the same, but the President didn't? Is that what you're suggesting?

No, the President knew we were in a recession and chose not to tell the American public. There is a political "prudence" to that, yes - which was the point of the post. It's not honest, but it certainly was politically prudent to wait until after the election.

You raised some interesting points about the 1992 recession.

It was precipitated by George HW Bush's Gulf War and resulting spike in oil prices - interesting that the current recession was precipitated in large part by the same factors resulting from his son's choices, no?

And the NBER announced that the recession ended in 1992 following Clinton's election. Clinton ran against GW Bush on a platform which promised to lead us of out of the recession, and it was a few weeks after the November, 1992 election that the NBER declared that the recession had ended prior to election day.


The timing of at least one of NBER's determinations begs questions. A few weeks after the 1992 election, NBER announced that the recession had ended 21 months earlier in April 1991. The 1992 election was framed by candidates Bill Clinton and Ross Perot as an economy still in a recession, a characterization that helped Mr. Clinton win and that subsequently proved false.

I recall the recession being a major factor in Clinton's election, and on election day 1992 the nation, as far we knew, was still in a recession, but yes -- post election day 1992 the NBER declared the recession had ended earlier. You are correct.

The Sun article linked in this comment speaks more about the political ramifications of NBER's timing of their recession announcements if you're interested...

But we were certainly in a protracted economic decline on election day 1992, a decline that was turned around during the stunning Clinton recovery that followed.

Since they now declare that current recession began 12 months ago, the "political prudence" of the NBER making the announcement now, after election day just as they did in 1992 -- is underscored.

Nonetheless, Bush's war got us into this recession, and 12 months later Bush is now willing to tell the American people. I've been writing and talking about this recession for 11 months now -- Bush chose not to...

And you need only look at the "blame"Jimmy Carter gets for the 1970 economic meltdown - blame foisted at him by Republicans - to recognize the hypocrisy of suggesting the two Bush recessions were the fault of Congress.

Oh wait, you are only suggesting that the 2007-2009 recession was the fault of the Democratic congress.. my bad *wink.


Lee, you have to remember that the GOP NEVER does anything wrong to screw up our economy. They don't mind socialism when the wealth is spread up wards, but they scream when the average American can receive some of the wealth.

And yes, almost every GOP President is involved in a recession. You would think they would learn from their past mistakes, but no, just blame the Demo's.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.