Bush Has a Good Economic Record

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:49 am

Yet Democrats cited no good evidence for their claims that the administration has produced a stagnant economy, widening disparities of income and wealth, high unemployment, and a heavy burden of government debt (supposedly resulting from an unwise military intervention in Iraq).

How does the performance of the U.S. economy really compare with other advanced economies over the eight years of George Bush's presidency? Data published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the International Comparison Program (ICP) (a cooperative venture coordinated by the World Bank) and the U.S. Census Bureau allow a nonpartisan, factual assessment. Here are some of the findings:

- Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

Jeff Dreger · Post by **Jeff Dreger** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:31 am

is it really your honest opinion that the economy today is better or at least not worse than the economy of 8 or even 4 years ago? I don't see how anyone can put the blame for a bad economy as a whole solely at the feet of a president any more than they can give the president credit for a good economy... nevertheless, I don't think that I or the country is in a better economic situation generally than we were before and I really don't think that the 6 years that the GOP controlled the entire federal government there was any improvement in spending or earmarks or anything else related to fiscal conservatism... they talked as they needed to for the campaigns and then proceeded to walk much like the democrats before and after them in congress

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:45 am

Jeff Dreger wrote:is it really your honest opinion that the economy today is better or at least not worse than the economy of 8 or even 4 years ago? I don't see how anyone can put the blame for a bad economy as a whole solely at the feet of a president any more than they can give the president credit for a good economy... nevertheless, I don't think that I or the country is in a better economic situation generally than we were before and I really don't think that the 6 years that the GOP controlled the entire federal government there was any improvement in spending or earmarks or anything else related to fiscal conservatism... they talked as they needed to for the campaigns and then proceeded to walk much like the democrats before and after them in congress

Jeff, the title of thread is the same as the title of the article... I agree that the state of the economy cannot be blamed on one person.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:13 pm

about time (clicky)

Americans enjoyed higher average income in 2006 for the first time since 2000, when the last economic expansion ended, the latest tax data show.
Adjusted gross income reported on tax returns in 2006 averaged $58,029. In 2006 dollars that was an increase of $739, or 1.2 percent, from the $57,289 average in 2000, analysis of Internal Revenue Service data showed.

Total income increased by $619.2 billion or 8.3 percent, all of which went to those making more than $75,000, and 42 percent of which went to the roughly one in 400 taxpayers who made more than $1 million in 2006.

Average income fell sharply in 2001 and in 2002, when it dropped to $51,870, off nearly 10 percent from 2000, tax data show. The average grew slightly in 2003.