This might be the wrong way to look at it. The concise list would be to list the ways in which America is better because of the Bush administration. Anyone have an mp3 of crickets chirping?

Shannon wrote:
This might be the wrong way to look at it. The concise list would be to list the ways in which America is better because of the Bush administration. Anyone have an mp3 of crickets chirping?

touche

Decius wrote:

Via the Democratic Caucus...

I'm rerecommending this chart because of the data it contains and not because of the conclusions it seeks to have you draw from that data.

The Bush Administration is certainly directly responsible for some of the changes on this list, such as international opinion of the US, and the increases in our budget and trade deficits.

However, in many respects this chart is pure partisan bullshit. The most starkly annoying aspect is the inclusion of US dependence on foreign oil as a percentage of total oil consumption by the party that faught domestic oil exploration in Alaska. You're blaiming your partisan enemy for the inevitable consequences of the policies you advocated. That's as low as it gets.

Many of the items on this list, such as the increase in oil prices and the amount of job creation, are related to aspects of the business cycle or developments in the global economy that aren't the direct responsibility of the Bush administration. Some, such as changes in the cost of insurance and the number of people insured, are more clearly political, but are the fault of a wide array of actors and not just the Presidency. In fact, the Administration did work on the insurance problem.

The things that I like about this chart are political but I don't see them as directly related to Bush. The most important statistic, I think, is the median household income. It dropped. In 8 years, it dropped.

Thats why our economy is contracting. Because in 8 years businesses have become more productive and they have increased their value but the people who live in this country haven't benefited. The only reason they've had more money to spend is because of phony inflation of the price of their homes built upon irresponsible credit mechanisms.

I suspect a lot of the real value is moving overseas. The question is whether American growth is just going to stop until the rest of the world catches up and our workers become competitive again? Thats going to take a long time. And I don't think its a problem that the Democrats are in a position to solve, although I suspect replacing the H1-B program with a permanent residency system would have a substantial impact.

You're right, and that should be obvious when considering the source. But the big easy question that you should ask is "are you better now than you were before?" For a large percentage of the population, the answer is 'no'. It's always interesting to compare lists of achievements. When Clinton's book came out, he actually had ... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Acidus wrote:

...in many respects this chart is pure partisan bullshit. The most starkly annoying aspect is the inclusion of US dependence on foreign oil as a percentage of total oil consumption by the party that faught domestic oil exploration in Alaska. You're blaiming your partisan enemy for the inevitable consequences of the policies you advocated. That's as low as it gets.

Let's get one thing straight. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is not going to save our oil-driven asses. The reasons behind not drilling are plain and obvious to anyone who's got two brain cells to rub together. At peak production in 2025, we can expect 876,000 barrels of crude per day. The US currently imports 10,118,000 barrels of crude per day. So, even if our consumption plateaus and no new imports are needed (an entirely impossible scenario, but bear with me), ANWR only offsets daily consumption by 8.6%. Not exactly a show-stopping amount considering the number of species of animals displaced and/or killed by the increased construction in the area, the huge expenditure required to build the pipeline to the Lower 48, and, let's not forget, the inevitability of running out of oil no matter how hard we look. The Dems know that oil is an unsustainable fuel source and see no reason to destroy any more pristine environmental habitats than we already have.

Where Bush has failed, failed, failed on oil consumption is to pass the last energy bill, which raised CAFE, right before he leaves office. He should have been working on oil consumption and fuel prices right away, especially after prices started to climb after 9/11. He could have helped Detroit these last 7 years to change their minds on big trucks that sank their bottom line, but now they're more adrift than ever. With last year's bill, there's hardly provision for enacting the changes, much less after he leaves office. It's too little, too late.

The things that I like about this chart are political but I don't see them as directly related to Bush.

If we're worse of, in any of a myriad of metrics, than when he came to office, it's his fault. What did he accomplish? He lied, lied, lied to us, killing thousands of soldiers in the process, he focused on gay marriage instead of a host of other problems, and he's set the education system back 20 years with No Child Left Behind. He'd certainly take credit if any of those metrics had shown up in his favor, so why shouldn't he take the blame?

-janelane, thoroughly dissatisfied with the last 7 years

janelane wrote:

Decius wrote:

...in many respects this chart is pure partisan bullshit. The most starkly annoying aspect is the inclusion of US dependence on foreign oil as a percentage of total oil consumption by the party that faught domestic oil exploration in Alaska. You're blaiming your partisan enemy for the inevitable consequences of the policies you advocated. That's as low as it gets.

Let's get one thing straight. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is not going to save our oil-driven asses.

I agree with all of that. I'm not saying I think we should have drilled ANWR. Whether or not drilling in ANWR is a good or a bad idea has absolutely nothing to do with why this partisan snip is unfair.

Increased foreign oil dependence is a consequence of not drilling in ANWR. That is a fact.

The cost of drilling in ANWR may not be worth the benefits. It might be a terrible idea. There might be other things that you could have done to reduce foreign oil dependence that you like better. None of that matters. When you choose to make a major public stand to oppose drilling in ANWR, you are deciding that there are other priorities that are more important to you than foreign oil dependence.

It is unfair to later blame foreign oil dependence on your political opponent, when you share some of the responsibility for that, having had other priorities that you also consider more important, and having made a decision to pursue those priorities at the expense of foreign oil dependence.

Where Bush has failed, failed, failed on oil consumption is to pass the last energy bill, which raised CAFE, right before he leaves office.

If Democrats real priority is not reducing foreign oil dependence, but reducing total oil consumption, than why not compare the rate of growth in domestic oil consumption during the Clinton years versus during the Bush years, preferably normalized for changes in GDP? That comparison would be far more fair than either of the measures presented here.

If we're worse of, in any of a myriad of metrics, than when he came to office, it's his fault.

The President of the United States is neither God nor an emperor. Some things are the responsibility of an Administration and it's policies. Some things are not. It is ridiculous to hold up any statistic of ones liking and blame the President without being able to demonstrate any connection between that statistic and the policies of that Administration.

What did he accomplish?

At no point have I made any sort of statement about his accomplishments. I'm not trying to defend his legacy at all. However, I'm REALLY tired of the constant partisanship with which so many people in this country approach politics and I'm not any more impressed with completely unfair oversimplifications when they are lobbed from the left than when they are lobbed from the right.

He'd certainly take credit if any of those metrics had shown up in his favor, so why shouldn't he take the blame?

Because blind partisanship on the one side does not justify blind partisanship on the other. What this country needs now is not a French Revolution style pendellum swing but a return to reason!

Acidus wrote:

Via the Democratic Caucus...

I'm rerecommending this chart because of the data it contains and not because of the conclusions it seeks to have you draw from that data.

The Bush Administration is certainly directly responsible for some of the changes on this list, such as international opinion of the US, and the increases in our budget and trade deficits.

However, in many respects this chart is pure partisan bullshit. The most starkly annoying aspect is the inclusion of US dependence on foreign oil as a percentage of total oil consumption by the party that faught domestic oil exploration in Alaska. You're blaiming your partisan enemy for the inevitable consequences of the policies you advocated. That's as low as it gets.

Many of the items on this list, such as the increase in oil prices and the amount of job creation, are related to aspects of the business cycle or developments in the global economy that aren't the direct responsibility of the Bush administration. Some, such as changes in the cost of insurance and the number of people insured, are more clearly political, but are the fault of a wide array of actors and not just the Presidency. In fact, the Administration did work on the insurance problem.

The things that I like about this chart are political but I don't see them as directly related to Bush. The most important statistic, I think, is the median household income. It dropped. In 8 years, it dropped.

On some levels sure it's partisan, this was done by the Democratic Caucus after all and they want to illustrate things that are negatives for W and the GOP.

A combination that I specifically want to call your attention to is this. GDP growth is 2.65% over those years, that's an annual number, total growth over that period is about 20%, but median income shrank. Where did that money go? If nothing else this should put a final nail in the coffin of "supply-side" economics. The idea that if the rich have more money, they invest creating better jobs is garbage. They don't. They may invest, but they don't do so in new companies, they don't do so in banks where the money gets loaned back out (more on that one in a second) they like to stick it in their portfolio where the money goes to rot, chasing other people's money around in little circles, but not actually out in the economy (what the Fed used to call M3, but which they stopped publishing in 2006 because ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Well it may not have much of a role in monetary policy, but as we're seeing, it has enormous economic impacts, and appears to be where all that growth went, since it obviously didn't go into the pocket of anyone in the bottom half of US households.

Are we sure? It would be interesting to know. I speculated in my version of this post that the growth may have gone overseas.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Well it may not have much of a role in monetary policy, but as we're seeing, it has enormous economic impacts, and appears to be where all that growth went, since it obviously didn't go into the pocket of anyone in the bottom half of US households.

Are we sure? It would be interesting to know. I speculated in my version of this post that the growth may have gone overseas.

Yes. The D in GDP stands for Domestic. Now, there's a second context there too, which is maybe the money took off via corporate set up in the Caymans or something, again, at the point it's not domestic. I strongly suspect, if things like the dummy fronts in Bermuda or Haliburton bailing out and moving their headquarters to Dubai were slapped down the way they should be, the numbers would be even higher, but the money is still not trickling down.

If the economy tanks like Mort Zuckerman is thinking it will, the Republican party will be right back where they were in 1932. Calvin Coolidge said, "The business of America is business." Well, he got that wrong, and his party paid for it until Johnson shoved civil rights through and expelled the dixiecrats (read bigots) from the Democrats. The rich get richer, and the poor... Well there's an old saying, "Eat the rich."