Sunday, December 25, 2005
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
The University of Chicago flunks George W. Bush
The Chicago Tribune asked three economists linked to the University of Chicago -- Ed Snyder, Michael Mussa, and Austin Goolsbee -- to grade various aspects of the Bush administration's economic performance for the past calendar year. The results aren't pretty:
While conservative economists like Mussa and Snyder say the president's tax cuts and stimulus package helped lay the foundation for the current economic expansion, they tend to join [former Kerry advisor] Goolsbee in lamenting that the administration's lack of spending discipline is mortgaging the nation's future....Read the whole thing -- here's the report card in brief:
SUBJECT: GRADES:posted by Dan on 12.25.05 at 08:31 AM
The evaluation of an economic policy which is experienced over multiple years is questionable in logic. The inferring of cause and effect on an annual basis is problematic at best. The Clinton boom was likely laid by the Carter and Reagan years. Clinton’s contribution to the economy was to hold the line on spending which he did superbly well.
I have to say, Clinton did many things right policy wise; however, he had the press on his side. Also, there wasn't a true war going on. What I have to check myself with is this, Bush truly believes in spending more at the federal level for education. This not triangulation. If 9/11 hadn't occured, Bush would have been our Education President. This is what he believed in going into his first term. He in no way thought he would be a war president. So it is not surprising that his domestic agenda would be more than bargained for. However, as has been shown in several places, the big spending meme is largely that, a meme. But even though spending versus GDP isn't nearly what the common thinking is, DAMIT, STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY.posted by: rezzrovv on 12.25.05 at 08:31 AM [permalink]
I find it hilarious that a previous post would actual state that Clinton benefitted from the Carter years.posted by: rezzrovv on 12.25.05 at 08:31 AM [permalink]
"I have to say, Clinton did many things right policy wise; however, he had the press on his side"
Er, right. A post by Matt Drudge sent the press corps into a rabid fever over Clinton's affair which lasted for months, with no end of speculation about impeachment.
Now, Bush can come out and admit questionably legal (and if illegal, impeachable) conduct, and the press is too delicate to address the impeachment question. Why, it's almost like the press is on Bush's side.
Bush has received far more breaks from the media than Clinton was ever granted.posted by: Jon H on 12.25.05 at 08:31 AM [permalink]
" If 9/11 hadn't occured, Bush would have been our Education President"
Perhaps, but not because of his desire to spend adequate amounts of money on his reforms. Democrats, such as Ted Kennedy, pushed for funding for "No Child Left Behind" commensurate with its mandates. They did not succeed, as many local school districts now rue.
How is it that all people think Clinton did wrong was get a BJ and lie? Let's review some free passes that seem to have been forgotten:
While Bill was playing in Bosnia, a war that doesn't meet the global test standards laid down by the left, 1 million people died by genocide in Rwanda. But/for Hotel Rwanda, most people in America wouldn't know about one of history's greatest crimes of omission by the US' first black president. The irony re: Katrina is sickening.
Sommalia, dead Americans dragged thru streets, 3 day coverage on CNN. We still see more panties on Iraqi detaine heads than this.
WTC attack, 1997 Empire State Building Attack, Waco, USS Cole, OK City links to terrorism, hide the airline crash/terror connections, etc., etc. Most Americans didn't even know Bin Laden, a guy who hit us 10+ times, who declared war 3+ times, and who was let go by Sudan ala Clintard. Americans were oblivious to the war being fought against us pre-9/11, so was Bill, as per his own people and record.
Barrett Report anyone? NSA wiretaps to prevent terror vs. illegal use of IRS and other agencies for politics? Hmmm, tough choice on which should receive more coverage.
Remember all the nonsense over the 2000 election and 2004? Do you recall any such booha re: Clinton's elections, which had less than 50% of the populat vote, the new standard apparently? Nader, Nader, Nader, what about Dole, who had an actual, real effect?
Anyone see the article on slate about Clinton's gitmo and how it lead to the current state of affairs? Probably not since the underlying story wasn't reported either.
Enron, MCI, stock market crash, housing crash, dramatic rise in gas prices, all a faint memory, few ever associate with Bill.
Anyone see the list of Clinton corruption via the web? Makes the current GOP and Bush admin look like prudes.
These are just some of the ones that come to mind in 30 seconds or less.
The simple fact that all people remember as Bill's mistakes all revolve around sexuality, something in men we praise, demonstrates that the pubic was not informed about the real bill clinton.
Anyone thinking the press has been kinder to Bush vs. Clinton is seeing the world through the eyes of a mental midget.posted by: Tiredofthisnonsense365 on 12.25.05 at 08:31 AM [permalink]
"The University of Chicago flunks George W. Bush"
And yet our economy is going gangbusters.posted by: Les Nessman on 12.25.05 at 08:31 AM [permalink]
No, Les, it's not. From the viewpoint of wages, of course.posted by: Barry on 12.25.05 at 08:31 AM [permalink]
Post a Comment: