Bush economists rewriting history

No one should be surprised when economic or budget forecasts coming out of Washington are influenced by politics, especially during an election year. But when economic history is rewritten -- with political consequences -- that's going too far. President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, chaired by Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, is trying to get away with exactly such revisionist history. The CEA's Economic Report of the President, released Feb. 9, unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush's reelection bid. Instead of using the accepted start date of March, 2001, the CEA announced that the recession really started in the fourth quarter of 2000 -- a shift that would make it much more credible for the Bush Administration to term it the "Clinton Recession." In a subsequent press conference, Mankiw said that the CEA had looked at the available data and "made the call."

Will it ever end with this guy?? I guess this is part of his campaign plan

www.businessweek.com...

The sad thing is....most of America seems blind to this crap.

[edit on 13-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Since when is rewriting histry news???
The religions and governements throughout history have been giving their version of the truth to the masses.
Why should today be any different? It is up to us to sift through the crap!!

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Since when is rewriting histry news???
The religions and governements throughout history have been giving their version of the truth to the masses.
Why should today be any different? It is up to us to sift through the crap!!

Rewriting history IS NEWS...although it is not new

I am sifting through the crap by posting this so everybody could see what exactly bush is doing to help our economy..which is NOTHING!

Hes changing the date of our recent reccesion so that it looks like it was clintons fault not his own administrations fault.Or at least the recession started while he was in office regardless of his involvment.

But as you can see...not to m any people are interested with this topic.

Unbelieveible

INSTEAD OF ADMITTING ECONOMIC TRUTH, BUSH RESORTS TO STATISTICAL MANIPULATION

President Bush, attempting to obscure his record as the worst economic steward since Herbert Hoover, has become so desperate that he is exploring ways to manipulate statistics. Just days after Bush reneged on his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs and said with a straight face that "5.6% unemployment is a good national number," the New York Times uncovered a White House report showing that the president is considering re-classifying low-paid fast food jobs as "manufacturing jobs" as a way to hide the massive manufacturing job losses that have occurred during his term.

As CBS News reports, "Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs." But if the president enacts the statistical change he is considering, this number would be purposely obscured because lower-paying fast-food jobs would be added to make the real manufacturing losses look smaller. Of course, fast-food jobs typically pay much less and have fewer benefits than real manufacturing jobs, meaning the statistical change would also obscure the fact that, under Bush, "in 48 of the 50 states, jobs in higher-paying industries have given way to jobs in lower-paying industries." All told, jobs in growing industries like lower-paid service sector/fast food jobs are paying 21% less than contracting industries like real manufacturing.

The president's efforts to manipulate statistics and mislead Americans is also getting a boost from his allies on Capitol Hill. Earlier this month, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-OK) was pointing to an optimistic "household" jobs survey as proof that "we're at an all-time high in employment" and that "the employment situation has improved rather substantially.'' The problem is that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said definitively that "payroll data" - not the household survey - "is the series which you have to follow" in order to be accurate. The payroll data shows "a loss of more than two million jobs since 2001."

www.misleader.org...

that the economy was already on the decline. I read stories about the Bush team not wanting to talk it down so that they would not appear negative. The "decline" in the economy happened during Clinton. Saying that much definitely is not rewriting history.

Originally posted by piboy
that the economy was already on the decline. I read stories about the Bush team not wanting to talk it down so that they would not appear negative. The "decline" in the economy happened during Clinton. Saying that much definitely is not rewriting history.

They changed the nationaly accepted date 4 years after he was elected and right before his next election......and your saying hes not guilty of rewritting history for his own political gains???

READ the article!!!!!

The "decline" in the economy happened during Clinton.

Do you possibly have any evidence to this claim you make????

I believe the bubble burst in tech stocks in March 2000. Before the election. That is when the stock market definitely headed south. Ask anyone with a portfolio or a 401K.

Ask anyone with a portfolio or a 401K.


I have one and had it during the election of G. Bush and it was stable if not doing fairly good..otherwise I would have dumped it...but today..Thanks to the bush administration..I may have to cash it in because I dont see much happing to it but Im not sure if dumping it is a wise idea.

[Edited on 24-2-2004 by McGotti]

....last quarter. But, in only technical terms - we were coming off of historic economic growth, and peaks are followed by normalcy. We didn't go from Historic Wealth to Recession under Clinton - we went from Historic Wealth to less than Historic Wealth.
Remember Bush's Trifecta speech? His team talked down the economy as a way of softing up America to their ill conceived tax cuts.

Originally posted by McGotti
Ask anyone with a portfolio or a 401K.


I have one and had it during the election of G. Bush and it was stable if not doing fairly good..otherwise I would have dumped it...but today..Thanks to the bush administration..I may have to cash it in because I dont see much happing to it but Im not sure if dumping it is a wise idea.

[Edited on 24-2-2004 by McGotti]

Maybe you need to do some work on your portfolio. I have seen steady growth for the last year, I'd say.

And, maybe because I don't believe the President runs the country, I don't feel great dislike for old George. He may be the "Leader of the free world," but someone else pulls his strings!!!

Originally posted by McGotti

They changed the nationaly accepted date 4 years after he was elected and right before his next election......and your saying hes not guilty of rewritting history for his own political gains???

READ the article!!!!!

That's interesting that anyone would care about the "nationally accepted date".

The facts speak for themselves. The NASDAQ was in decline since the first quarter of 2000, way before we even knew Bush would become President. What would have been said if Al Gore had won? Granted, it's hard to determine market trends until the go on for a little bit. So in March 2000, it might be difficult to tell that the market was continuing down as a trend, rather than just some temporary dip. But by Nov 2000 it was obvious. See the yahoo chart for the 5 year NASDAQ chart. We can talk later about wheter the NASDAQ is a good indication of the economy, but since it was used to indicate the economy going up, we should be able to use it when it goes down, too.

If you want to get the raw economic data for more things that you would ever want, go to
the Bureau of Economic Analysis. There's no commentary that I know of, just data. It does take some time to learn what all the data represents, why it's important, and what indicates what. A little economic theory is probably necessary. But of course the 15 second sound bites just spit out some opinion, and I wonder how many people don't look for themselves. I got a degree in Economics and it really openend my eyes to how the world works, and how to read the data (and ignore the commentary). One thing I also learned is that the President does not have as much influence over the economy as we might think (or hope), good or bad. But I don't want to deviate from the current thread.

Here's a discussion I found that has some reveleant info. Someone accused me of not reading the article. I did. I would say, read this discussion, then go look at the economic data. You can't just rely on others' analysis (even mine). Find out for yourself. Isn't that like a premise of this site?

I have a thought. Regardless of whether the economy was in a decline or not upon the election of Bush the question should be:

What has he done to improve the economy? Has he helped the economy or made it worse?

I think we will see he has a very bad record of driving economic recovery/growth and that is in fact all we can judge him on. I was never a huge Clinton fan but he seemed to be able to better manage the economy. I feel we should treat this as any other job, you are evaluated based upon your performance. As it looks his performance has been well below acceptable on this issue. Also let's consider the people he has put in charge of those divisions of the government. Bad hiring is less a reflection on the person in the job and more on the person that hired them. That is what good leaders do, they put people around/under them that will be succesful. If you fail in doing that, you fail at being a leader. I believe he has in fact failed

Originally posted by piboy


the Bureau of Economic Analysis. There's no commentary that I know of, just data.

One thing I also learned is that the President does not have as much influence over the economy as we might think (or hope), good or bad. But I don't want to deviate from the current thread.

Thanks for that site!!!!!

I would agree the President has little IF ANYTHING to do with how the economy runs. It is more the Federal Reserve Board and those behind it that are responsbile.
Once again, follow the money!

"Rewriting" history? What, were you not around just a few years ago? The rewriting is ocurring now, with this "news article", I remember the fact being that we were warned of the recession coming, and I also am fully cognizant that shortly after your official start date of March 2001, it was explained that the actual start date was before that. The numbers were played with by the former administration to give its party's candidate the best possible chance. Politics and lies are nothing new, but as far as this piece of work, I remember the facts.

The economy is doing much better now, regardless of the blow it took just a few months after we entered a recession. You can be grateful for a president that understood that cutting taxes helped fuel an economy. Now if we could just get him to understand that huge government spending was not good. Anyway, the notion of not blaming Clinton for the last recession and not giving Bush any credit for the fact that we've had an awesome recovery is, well, right from the arse of the DNC!

ThomasCrowne~~
if you were responding to my post, I said March 2000!, Clinton's watch. I remember this date well, as it is the date I SHOULD have done something with my $$$!!
I was not in anywayshapeorform blaming Bush. Not my style.

Not that either president reall has much to do with the economy