The legacy of President George W. Bush

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Strongbow said:
Not much evidence in the article which claims 8 year period is the weakest economically in decades!?!?!

Well, lets look at the raw averages of some economic numbers for Clintons 8 years VS. Bush's 8 years:


The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 61.9%





Average GDP growth rate:

Clinton Years 5.4%

Bush Years 4.8%





Average Annual Poverty Rate:

Clinton Years 13.3%

Bush Years 12.3%








Average Annual Inflation Rate:

Clinton Years 2.60%

Bush Years 2.69%






Average Annual Unemployment Rate:

Clinton Years 5.21%

Bush Years 5.20%






It should be noted that the average poverty rate under President Bush is the 3rd lowest in US history!
Click to expand...

You're posting these statistics to a statistician here. I'm not fooled.

I'm aware of the difference between averages and trends. Let's say, for example, that at the beginning of his term, the unemployment rate was 4%. By the end of his term, it's 6%. What's the average, if the rate of increase was steady? 5%. But he actually oversaw a rather large shift.

I don't know the real numbers, but I do know that what you've posted here is complete spin. Averages don't matter. The change from 2001 to 2009 is what matters.
 
phillyfan26 said:
You're posting these statistics to a statistician here. I'm not fooled.

I'm aware of the difference between averages and trends. Let's say, for example, that at the beginning of his term, the unemployment rate was 4%. By the end of his term, it's 6%. What's the average, if the rate of increase was steady? 5%. But he actually oversaw a rather large shift.

I don't know the real numbers, but I do know that what you've posted here is complete spin. Averages don't matter. The change from 2001 to 2009 is what matters.
Click to expand...

These are just the real numbers not meant to fool anyone.

The real numbers often do not correspond to some neat rise or fall in say the uneployment percentage. In any four year, and especially an 8 year period, there are multiple fluctuations, sometimes in just one year. Thats why taking the average is the best way to understand what the unemployment rate was like over a long period of time like a Presidential term. If you only use the first month of Bush's time in office and the last month of Bush's time in office, you miss out on the fact that unemployment rose early on and then dropped and remained steadly low for 4 to 5 years, only seriously rising in the last 6 months of this year. Its more accurate to look at all 96 months that Bush was in office in gauging his performance on any issue, than to simply take the first month and the last month of an 8 year period.
 
Strongbow said:
These are just the real numbers not meant to fool anyone.

The real numbers often do not correspond to some neat rise or fall in say the uneployment percentage. In any four year, and especially an 8 year period, there are multiple fluctuations, sometimes in just one year. Thats why taking the average is the best way to understand what the unemployment rate was like over a long period of time like a Presidential term. If you only use the first month of Bush's time in office and the last month of Bush's time in office, you miss out on the fact that unemployment rose early on and then dropped and remained steadly low for 4 to 5 years, only seriously rising in the last 6 months of this year. Its more accurate to look at all 96 months that Bush was in office in gauging his performance on any issue, than to simply take the first month and the last month of an 8 year period.
Click to expand...

Of course they're facts. But they're misleading, and that's my point.

You've missed my point. My point is that the trend is the most important thing. Neither what you said about the first and last month nor what you said about the average was correct. My statement was disproving the relevancy of average, not pointing out an alternative.

The best way IS to look at all the months. And when you do that, it doesn't look nearly as pretty as your statistics do.
 
phillyfan26 said:
You've missed my point. My point is that the trend is the most important thing.
Click to expand...

I tried to explain to you that over such a long period of time, you often have multiple fluctuations in the numbers which prevents there from being any single identifiable trend.

When you look at all the months individually, Bush numbers are sometimes better than his average and sometimes not.

But the averages are still looked at and used by Historians when examining a Presidential term.
 
Irvine511 said:
it's funny when people from the fringe -- and those who have a positive view of GWB are indeed part of the fringe -- criticize the FYM mainstream.

especially when some of us so-called "san francisco" liberals are called racists in other threads.
Click to expand...


Well, I think I called you a Washingtonian as opposed to a San Francisco liberal, but the point was in the context of the discussion, whereby I had posted a link to an interview with Chomsky, where he critiqued aspects of what he saw as misguided responses to the issue being discussed in the other thread among US liberal mainstream opinion, and I just saw, to be blunt, evidence of those attitudes he had painted in your responses to the issue. But anyway.
 
financeguy said:
Well, I think I called you a Washingtonian as opposed to a San Francisco liberal, but the point was in the context of the discussion, whereby I had posted a link to an interview with Chomsky, where he critiqued aspects of what he saw as misguided responses to the issue being discussed in the other thread among US liberal mainstream opinion, and I just saw, to be blunt, evidence of those attitudes he had painted in your responses to the issue. But anyway.
Click to expand...



i was responding specifically to STING's use of "san francisco" (read: gay, just like "new york" = jew) liberals whenever he gets frustrated.

but, yes, anyway.
 
I can't wait until he's out of the White House. I never voted for him, and I was getting bad vibes when I saw him in a debate in my high school class (before he was elected.) He's an incredibly stupid and evil man.
 
I heard something about almost a half a million on dishes for the WH, don't know if that amount is accurate. Laura Bush pointed out that they were ordered BEFORE the recession.
 
Irvine511 said:
i was responding specifically to STING's use of "san francisco" (read: gay, just like "new york" = jew) liberals whenever he gets frustrated.

but, yes, anyway.
Click to expand...


I used the term "little San Francisco" to describe the political demographics here in FYM because San Francisco County voted roughly the same way for John Kerry and Barack Obama as FYM did based on the percentage of the vote each candidate received. It has NOTHING to do with Gay people or being Gay.
 
oh and people seem to forget that george bush is actually a human being...

..and is in fact a very great guy. Not to mention he is one of the few politicians with morals..

Look I don't support Obama, but I know he too is a great guy. In fact he's a wonderful guy. I simply don't want him as our president.

ok thats all my point is:up:
 
ShipOfFools said:
I can't wait until he's out of the White House. I never voted for him, and I was getting bad vibes when I saw him in a debate in my high school class (before he was elected.) He's an incredibly stupid and evil man.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, the instinctive responses are the best.
 
I dont even remember what we were talking about. :wink:

oh yeah for some reason I got accused for being gay because I said I thought george was a good person? :lol:
 
The Bush presidency will grow up in the forthcoming 30 years, i am quite sure of that. Please consider, that no US president had faced such a large-scale terrorist attack as Mr. Bush did. It is very easy when it comes to judge him harshly, but no one knows how one would behave in the similar situation. The second thing is that there is no Saddam Husain anymore. Is that a bad thing?

US act sometimes as worldwide police, because Europe is too lazy and stuck in the socialistic mud some time ago. I am European and i sometimes think that there's a huge difference in the quality of politicians between Europe and US, in favour of the American ones of course. In general, American politicians make mistakes sometimes, but they do act, do make decisions. In Europe there's nothing but decadency and bureaucracy. Sorry for my bad English.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
873
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
10 11 12
Replies
333
Views
10K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
A
The little stranger chapter 13
Replies
0
Views
566
annj
A
A
The little stranger Chapter 6
Replies
0
Views
550
annj
A
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom