# Bush, worst president in history according the Rolling Stone **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511 "2006-04-27T21:12:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/101 "2006-05-12T02:15:36Z")
> [@Kevlaur](#): > > Not matter what I type here, you will discount it… why bother. > Check the Iraq Index at Brookings… there is improvement. > The economic indicators are everywhere you look, but if > you want to be ‘caught dead’ check out [http://www.rpof.org/fastfacts/economy/1996\_2004.php](http://www.rpof.org/fastfacts/economy/1996_2004.php) > > Kevlaur That’s a funny link. The Republican Party of Florida compares economic indicators between 1996 to 2004. Shouldn’t they be comparing 2004 to …2000, before Bush took office? I haven’t reviewed the figures, but I suspect that such a comparison might not be too flattering. Maybe they should compare 1996 to 1992, to see the effects of the Clinton economic expansion (or 2000 to 1992, to see the Clinton economic miracle). Bush apologists will now chime in about the stock market bubble. They will imply that it’s obvious that a booming stock market must generate a booming economy, without substantiation or investigation. Latest polls show that 2/3 of all Republicans approve of the job W is doing. Their schoolgirl crush continues. ---
**Author:** ![Kevlaur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/919ad9/32.png) [@Kevlaur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevlaur)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/102 "2006-05-12T11:02:11Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > That’s a funny link. The Republican Party of Florida compares economic indicators between 1996 to 2004. > > Shouldn’t they be comparing 2004 to …2000, before Bush took office? I haven’t reviewed the figures, but I suspect that such a comparison might not be too flattering. > > Maybe they should compare 1996 to 1992, to see the effects of the Clinton economic expansion (or 2000 to 1992, to see the Clinton economic miracle). > > Bush apologists will now chime in about the stock market bubble. They will imply that it’s obvious that a booming stock market must generate a booming economy, without substantiation or investigation. > > Latest polls show that 2/3 of all Republicans approve of the job W is doing. Their schoolgirl crush continues. Ok, lets compare: Economy Better Under GWBush Than Bill Clinton: Statistical Comparison Self | The\_Macallan Posted on 03/07/2004 8:52:17 AM PST by The\_Macallan The Economy - GW’s 1st three years versus Clinton’s 1st three years: Unemployment Rate - Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush’s 1st three years) Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton’s 1st three years) Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change - The Unemployement Rate is the same after GWBush’s 1st three years as it was after Bill Clinton’s 1st three years. - The Unemployment rate steadily declined in the third year with GWBush while it remained unchanged in Bill Clinton’s third year. Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) - 2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush’s 1st two years) 1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton’s 1st two years) 1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton’s full eight years) - The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7 out of 8 of Clinton’s years in office. Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) - 2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush’s 1st two years) 1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton’s 1st two years) 1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton’s full eight years) - The % of people living in deep poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than the average across Clinton’s entire TWO terms of office… AND lower than ANY of Clinton’s 1st six years in office. Homeownership Rate - GWBush’s 1st three years: 4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush) 4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush) Difference: +1.1% Bill Clinton’s 1st three years: 4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton) 4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton) Difference: +0.7% - The Homeownership Rate is higher under GWBush’s 1st three years than under Bill Clinton’s 1st three years. - The Homeownership Rate grew MORE in the 1st three years with GWBush than in the 1st three years with Bill Clinton. Inflation Rate - GWBush’s 1st three years: Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush) Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush) Difference: 1.8% Decrease Bill Clinton’s 1st three years: Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton) Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton) Difference: 0.53% Decrease - The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was after Bill Clinton’s first three years. - The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush than under Bill Clinton. A few more tidbits: - “2004 Will Be the U.S.'s Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years” ~ The Conference Board’s revised forecast, December 2003. - Manufacturing is at 20-year record highs. - GDP for the second-half of 2003 grew an incredible 6 percent while inflation was held under 1 percent. - Real private-sector GDP has expanded at a 5.3 percent annual rate since the Bush tax cuts were passed while in the prior six quarters private-sector GDP averaged only 2.5 percent. - Foreign exports have been increasing and have actually doubled since six months ago. - The Federal deficit is estimated to be $477 billion in 2004 but then drop to $362 billion for 2005. The current 2004 deficit is 4.2% of the GDP which makes it smaller, compared to the GDP, than what it was in the late '80s and early '90s. - The stock markets (i.e. your pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s and college saving plans) have rebounded solidly and are approaching three-year highs. /snip - snip/ - Kevlaur All from: [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092602/posts](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092602/posts) And, his sources: [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092602/posts](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092602/posts) Of course these are republican sites… demos are going to hype how good the economy is. Kevlaur ---
**Author:** ![Kevlaur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/919ad9/32.png) [@Kevlaur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevlaur)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/103 "2006-05-12T11:04:13Z")
Oops… finger flub missed the sources for that article: [http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm](http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm) [http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html](http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html) [http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov22.html](http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov22.html) [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/q403tab5.html](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/q403tab5.html) [http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation\_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx](http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx) [http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=213&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=213&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22) [http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031211/nyth120\_1.html](http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031211/nyth120_1.html) [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0104/012604cdpm1.htm](http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0104/012604cdpm1.htm) Kevlaur ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/104 "2006-05-12T11:54:16Z")
Here’s a stat for you - [29%](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/05/11/bushs-approval-ratings/)! Ouch. Also, **Kevlaur** your stats above are crap. Bogus attempts to mislead. Just for one example, the poverty rate under Clinton dropped from 15.1 to 11.8 percent, but has climbed every year under Bush, - [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9130342/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9130342/), standing at 12.7% in 2004. There’s a handy figure at Wikipedia for the numerically impaired. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty\_in\_the\_United\_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States) ---
**Author:** ![Kevlaur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/919ad9/32.png) [@Kevlaur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevlaur)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/105 "2006-05-12T13:38:01Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Here’s a stat for you - [29%](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/05/11/bushs-approval-ratings/)! > > Ouch. > > Also, **Kevlaur** your stats above are crap. Bogus attempts to mislead. Just for one example, the poverty rate under Clinton dropped from 15.1 to 11.8 percent, but has climbed every year under Bush, - [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9130342/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9130342/), standing at 12.7% in 2004. There’s a handy figure at Wikipedia for the numerically impaired. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty\_in\_the\_United\_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States) Oh, is it? Perhaps you should read the full article (as well as what I posted). The facts I presented show that fewer families are considered poor and fewer people below the 50% poverty level. The article you referred to states: “The good news is that poverty is a lot lower than it was in 1993, but we went through a hell of an economic boom,” Danziger said. “Nobody is predicting we’re going to go through another economic boom like that.” Wikipedia is a nice tool. I wouldn’t it in a college or graduate level course, however. The fact is, the economy is roaring along and, IMO, the administration isn’t getting the message out. Kevlaur ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/106 "2006-05-12T13:51:19Z")
> [@Kevlaur](#): > > Oh, is it? Perhaps you should read the full article > (as well as what I posted). The facts I presented show > that fewer families are considered poor and fewer people > below the 50% poverty level. Fewer than when? Not compared to when Bush first took office. Your argument boils down to “Even though the number of people in poverty is actually increasing annually under Bush, it isn’t the worst its ever been, so therefore Bush is a success.” Pure nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/107 "2006-05-12T14:42:56Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > “We surveyed a group of people who were selected from a cohort that tends to vote about 90% Democrat. To our surprise, very few liked the Republican president.” Cite? (That historians in the group surveyed, or historians in general, tend to vote 90% Dem.) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/108 "2006-05-13T02:06:56Z")
Thank you **Kevlaur** for presenting the Republican Party mentality. Such efforts aid the fight against ignorance, albeit indirectly. Now before diving into the analysis, I should say that lots of things affect the economy and that most (not all) of them are outside of the President’s direct control. Still, the point remains. If you want to evaluate a President’s economic record you do a “before” and “after” comparison. For unemployment, seasonally adjusted: ```auto Date Unemployment Jan 1993 Clinton takes office 7.3% Jan 1997 End of Clinton's 1st term 5.3% Jan 2001 End of Clinton's 2nd term/ Beginning of W's 1st term 4.2% Jan 2005 End of W's 1st term 5.2% Latest data: Apr 2006 4.7 ``` Unemployment declined under Clinton and rose during W’s first term. Comparisons between Jan 2005 and Jan 1997 are laughable, as they ignore the progress that occurred from 1997-2001 and the recession that followed. Today’s unemployment rate compares favorably to the middle of Clinton’s term (Jan 1997), but it’s worse _than the economy that W inherited in Jan 2001!_. Note that I’ve shown a profile of _all_ the data and have not cherry-picked. There’s a similar story with poverty rates: they get better under Clinton and worse under Bush. ```auto 1992 11.9% 1996 11.0 2000 8.7 2004 10.2 ``` ## However, the rise in the poverty rate did not completely reverse the progress made from 1996-2000. That’s about the best you can say about W (though, again, many factors affect poverty only some of which are under the President’s direct control). Now I can understand why a Republican sponsored site would use bogus stats. That’s what flacks do. What’s hilarious is the way certain folks are so blinded by their love for GW Bush, that they swallow or present such obvious bamboozlement with an apparently straight face. What sort of cognitive processing leads to this? > [@Kevlaur](#): > > The fact is, the economy is roaring along and, IMO, > the administration isn’t getting the message out. Well we’re not in recession. But a year ago, prices were rising faster than wages. Now, they are exactly tied at 3.4% (source: The Economist). It is not a mystery that people miss the roaring 1990s. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/109 "2006-05-15T19:50:49Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Today’s unemployment rate compares favorably to the middle of Clinton’s term (Jan 1997), but it’s worse _than the economy that W inherited in Jan 2001!_. IIRC, the Bush Administration also changed how the “Not in labor force” numbers are calculated – if you’ve been unemployed for over a year, you’re considered NILF and not counted in the unemployment rates. If you include the NILF folks (numbers available [here](http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet)), I think the unemployment rate looks worse under Bush than what’s currently reported. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/110 "2006-05-18T19:28:17Z")
Don’t know much about [this](http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listingsEntry.asp?ID=432586&PT=McIntyre+in+the+Morning) guy, as I don’t listen to talk-radio pundits. Anyway, another public vote for “(perhaps) the worst”. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/111 "2006-05-22T03:07:15Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Now, this doesn’t exactly say that they consider him the WORST president, merely that his administration is a ‘failure’. And to be honest, I always thought that historians never tried to judge a presidents term while he was in office…prefering to look back after a few decades to see how things work out. They do very much prefer to wait a good, long time to make more-or-less final, authoritative judgements. This in no way prevents them – nor should it prevent them – from making reasoned assessments of a president while still in office, which is just what the group in question has done. > [@xtisme](#): > > So, are these guys politically biased and allowing their own distaste for GW to color their opinions, or are they giving an accurate and unbiased historical evaluation of the current sitting president. All human beings are biased. It is the task of the scholar to genuinely attempt to separate his or her assessments from their own bias. I see no evidence to believe this group of historians have failed in that regard. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/112 "2006-05-22T03:08:30Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If I submitted a paper like that in a journalism class it would have been thrown back in my face with a “F” on it. It’s one long childish rant. These “learned historians” fling adjectives like monkey poo. Whereas _your_ flinging of monkey poo is much more reasoned and scholarly. > [@Magiver](#): > > Reagan received the same treatment when he was in office. He was called a simplistic ideologue. Whereas now that he is out of office we can state with much more certainty that he was, in fact, a simplistic ideologue. See how important the passage of time is? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511/113 "2006-05-22T03:37:45Z")
**Moderator’s Note:** Let’s leave the comparison of other members’ posts to poo-flinging monkeys out of Great Debates, m’kay? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-worst-president-in-history-according-the-rolling-stone/354511.md?page=5)