And it explains 9-11, too. Bush was still learning the job 234 days later.

i'm fascinated (although not enough to actually watch!): what is the argument for this being the "bush recovery?" seriously: they must have some idea they are clutching at....

The proof that the recovery of the stock market is due to Dumbya, is the disaster that Obama's stimulus package has been because after all unemployment is still going up. If there had been no stimulus package, I am sure that our unemployment rate would be down to around 6% and heading down. Of course then the market would be approaching 15,000. Some idiot talking head will make that argument within the week.

bush deserves some modicum of credit for the recovery. his administration didn't get in the way as the democratically controlled congress put in place the first critical recovery measures. but it's sort of like one guy shooting another, taking his victim to the hospital and claiming credit for saving his life. we wouldn't be in the mess we are if it wasn't for george and his merry band of bozos.

They are both pandering to, and inciting, the wingers who above all else want to be vitriolic.

It makes them happy to be seething with contempt. Go figure.

Don't we all remember that the booming economy during Clinton's White House was the result of Reagan's tax cuts?

I would really suggest that Democrats don't fight too hard to argue that they are responsible for a recovery that will never effect 99.9% of the American people.

The economy, when it comes to the electorate, means the Unemployment rate, Inflation, and Wages. None of them look great right now, and two of the three are absolutely catastrophic. Despite all the talk of "lagging indicators", these don't seem to be merely lagging. They appear to have been left totally behind.

And note, that I actually DO count the cost of gas, healthcare, and food in inflation. It is simply insane not to, and refusing to do so was a WIP trick that Nixon and Ford used to try and con people into believing there was no inflation problem. It doesn't change the reality that for 90% of the public, food and gas prices have a higher impact that any other outlay.

I think we all know that Reagan Magnum Force should get the credit for this.

It really is remarkable that on most of these right-wing Democrat sites, you get a more unhinged view of the actual economy than you do on right-wing sites.

To Read here, Kevin Drum, Matt Y, or Ezra K talk; the economy is booming again and it's just a matter of time before employment is robust. That they have been saying this for nearly a year now while these indicators keep getting worse indicates just how out of touch the elite really are with how their policies effect real people.

Of course Bush deserves credit for the recovery. Without him, there would not have been a disastrous recession to recover from in the first place.

Husker Blue: your memory is correct, but you have to add the fact that after the dot-com crash, the exact same economic facts about the 1990s became, retroactively, "the Clinton bubble".

When the markets went down on Bush's watch before the 2008 elections, this was Bill Clinton's fault.

No, that was Obama's fault too. I remember the wingnuts saying that the business community was so convinced that Obama would win--and of course would nationalize everything--that investors sold off all their stock and CEOs starting packing up their offices in preparation for going Galt.

That's why the markets tanked just before the 08 election.

While I understand that Steve is saying, the Left has called this the Bush economy since day one. While I wholeheartedly agree with that given what Obama inherited, how can the Left say this 'recovery' belongs to Obama after blaming all the other economic issues on Bush? Its just as disingenuous for the Right to blame all of the bad stuff on Obama but then fail to give him 'credit' when theres a nice turnaround. Everyone needs to remember all the fingerpointing and act accordingly.

It follows JK Rowling's sage advice as she wrote; "never trust anything that thinks if you can't see where it keeps it's head"

Whose recovery, indeed. Of course the markets are recovering. They've been given everything they've wanted on a silver platter and paid nothing for it.

Meanwhile, employers are increasing productivity (i.e., make fewer people do more work) but not hiring in meaningful numbers because they know most people are unable to spend beyond the daily necessities.

Rising retail sales figures are due to stimulus funds spent by people desparately needing the money to live month-to-month. These same people are up to their ears in debt and paying usurious interest rates on personal debt.

There will be no meaningful recovery until the smorgasborg that the financial institutions are gorging themselves in (at our cost) is eliminated.

When laws are enacted that provide some level of comfort to the consumer, then there will be a recovery on a basic level.

To Read here, Kevin Drum, Matt Y, or Ezra K talk; the economy is booming again and it's just a matter of time before employment is robust. That they have been saying this for nearly a year now while these indicators keep getting worse indicates just how out of touch the elite really are with how their policies effect real people.

Where did Benen actually say anything like that in this post? The only thing he's noting is the ridiculous way that Repubs have been taking credit or pointing blame depending on swings in the DJIA.
Provide a link from this site where Steve says the economy is booming again and it's just a matter of time before employment is robust. Something from the past year. Otherwise take your arguments to strawman.com

To Read here, Kevin Drum, Matt Y, or Ezra K talk; the economy is booming again and it's just a matter of time before employment is robust. That they have been saying this for nearly a year now while these indicators keep getting worse indicates just how out of touch the elite really are with how their policies effect real people.

Except the indicators aren't getting worse. I don't understand the inability to understand that an economy which took 8 years to nearly destroy can be repaired in less than a year.

Husker Blue: your memory is correct, but you have to add the fact that after the dot-com crash, the exact same economic facts about the 1990s became, retroactively, "the Clinton bubble".

Economic "analysis" is easy when you work from a very simple set of a priori principles which state that Democrats always worsen the economy and Republicans always improve it. When the economy goes up or down you simply assign credit or blame to the nearest appropriate R or D and follow that with a healthy dose of, "you libs don't know what you're talking about."

The same mechanism is in place for foreign attacks on American soil and failed occupations.

The same mechanism is in place for foreign attacks on American soil and failed occupations.

Exactly right, trex.

While I wholeheartedly agree with that given what Obama inherited, how can the Left say this 'recovery' belongs to Obama after blaming all the other economic issues on Bush?

Well, apparently your selective memory has blocked out the giant economic stimulus plan which was enacted after Obama took office, with the support of a whopping 3 Repubs in the Senate.
Maybe that has something to do with it? Remember how "the Right" said it wouldn't work, would only make things worse, etc.? Or has "the Right" blocked that out as well?

So apparently, electing a Democrat unleashes the predecessor's economic success. Yet, electing a Republican uncovers the predecessor's economic failures.

Seems like we should avoid electing Republicans.

We're in the 23rd month of the Chimpy Bush recession.

The "Bush Recovery" sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Credit where it's due, I say.

On a related note, I think it's high time that Republicans admit that when in office Bill Clinton was wrongly blamed for the "Reagan Blow Job."

Of course Bush deserves credit for the recovery. Without him, there would not have been a disastrous recession to recover from in the first place.

Doubtful's got it right. Similarly, Bush also deserves credit for Obama's Nobel prize.

how can the Left say this 'recovery' belongs to Obama after blaming all the other economic issues on Bush

@Litterbox

That's easy. The recession we are still in began 23 months ago under George W. Bush and was brought to bear by his disastrous economic policies, ergo, it is HIS recession.

The stabilization of leading economic indicators in the last six months are a direct result of economic policies brought to bear by the Obama administration, ergo, it is HIS recovery.

If that is too difficult for you to understand I'll put it another way...

If you throw a giant party and leave behind a huge mess, YOU get the blame for creating the mess. If I come in and straighten up your mess, then I get the credit for the clean up.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

I'd hate to see soullite's score on a reading comprehension test.

i think we need a little greater clarity here.

the economy behaves cyclically: always has, and odds are it always will.

democrats believe (correctly, in my estimation) that government can ameliorate the worst of the negative side of the cycle and can assist the upside through public investment.

republicans believe (incorrectly, in my estimation), that government is inherently inefficient and in the way, and that government action must worsen whatever situation there is.

so to call something a bush recession is wrong in my estimation, just as to call something an obama recovery would be wrong.

but what would be right would be to say that the republican philosophy had a perfect run in the bush 43 years: we cut taxes maniacally, we took a hacksaw to regulatory oversight, and in every way possible we operated as though government were the problem.

and the empirical upshot is that we had a very weak growth period, poor household income performance, increased economic insecurity, and to top it all off, a system-threatening crisis at the end.

on the other hand, the entire amelioration - the fact that the system didn't collapse, the fact that the rate of decline has slowed (and in some areas, reversed), the fact that unemployment isn't way worse - these are all endorsements of the democratic philosophy (as, of course, were the clinton years).

frankly, this is important politically anyhow: the recession wasn't bush's fault, recessions happen. the poor economic characteristics of the bush period were an outgrowth of republican philosophy, and that's the point to hammer home: the gop philosophy has been tried and failed. period. case closed. time to move on.

frankly, this is important politically anyhow: the recession wasn't bush's fault, recessions happen. the poor economic characteristics of the bush period were an outgrowth of republican philosophy, and that's the point to hammer home: the gop philosophy has been tried and failed. period. case closed. time to move on.
Posted by: howard

it's true that recessions and recoveries happen without government intervention as a natural part of the business cycle. this recession is/was fundamentally different and deeper than any other since the depression because of the bush administration and its hands off approach to regulation and wrongheaded fiscal approach. on the other hand, without the stimulus package and other moves by the obama administration, it's unlikely that the economy would have stabilized as quickly as it has and the market recover to the degree that it has.

it's quite fair to call it the bush recession and obama recovery.

To expect the economy to bounce back quickly from the Bush administration's depredations = to expect John McCain to exit the NV prison camp doing parkour.

mudwall, perhaps i wasn't clear enough: even if i felt that it was fair to call it a bush recession and an obama recovery, i think that's the wrong strategy: it was a republican recession and it is a democratic recovery.

otherwise, it's too easy to ascribe to individuals what is really an overall party stance.

"When the markets went down on Bush's watch before the 2008 elections, this was Bill Clinton's fault."

And don't forget that when the housing bubble burst last year, it was Carter's fault.

People just misinterpreted the term "Bush Recovery." It's meant to mean 'Recovering From Bush'

Finally, the Bush recovery from the Clinton-Obama recession. You heard it here first folks (/snark)
Seriously, what would it take to get these folks to face up to reality?

Well, so it turns out we can have all the benefits Republicans can offer us without actually having a Republican in office. This could be useful information for some future Democratic candidate.