# How's the 'Bush Economy' doing now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 30, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834 "2005-07-30T01:27:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/81 "2005-08-03T19:41:54Z")
That is astonishing, I’m absolutely amazed so little money is being saved. I would have _never_ guessed it to be so low. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/82 "2005-08-03T21:44:38Z")
Asked again: **Sam** , are we in peacetime or wartime? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/83 "2005-08-03T22:26:10Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > That is astonishing, I’m absolutely amazed so little money is being saved. I would have _never_ guessed it to be so low. I’m not surprised. Have you checked the interest rate on savings accounts at banks lately? [A regular savings account](http://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/checksave/index.cfm?template=save_regular) (minimum $300) at Bank of America pays **.5%** , and a [money market account](http://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/checksave/index.cfm?template=save_moneymarket) (minimum $2500) pays only **.7%**. Not much incentive beyond “a penny saved is a penny earned”. Another interesting datapoint:[less than half of the households in US own any shares of stock at all.](http://www.sia.com/press/FAQs/html/question11.html) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/84 "2005-08-03T22:29:11Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Asked again: > > **Sam** , are we in peacetime or wartime? > > -Joe You looking for some kind of semantic difference, as in a ‘wartime economy’? Or are you just looking to score a cheap debating point? We are in a war, but it is a very different kind of war. Certainly it’s not an industrial mobilization type war on the order of WWII or even Korea or Vietnam. I fail to see whether or not defining the war on terror as a ‘war’ or not has anything to do at all with a discussion of the economy. This thread has just proven once again that partisans on both sides will scour through the economic reports to always find something bad to pin on the other party. Back when the jobs numbers weren’t looking good, democrats had no problem beating Bush over the head with them. Then when the numbers get better, suddenly they are unimportant. Paul Krugman has spent the last five years writing columns predicting catastrophic deflation, then inflation, then deflation, then whatever the hell else he can try to pin on Bush. When Clinton was averaging almost 4% GDP growth and 5% unemployment, it was a ‘miracle economy’. When Bush does the same, it’s worth little more than a yawn and a claim that it’s only about average. If I post a cite to a right-wing think tank or economist boosting the economy, it gets ignored as ‘right-wing porn’ or some such. But if you post cites to left-wing economists, that’s just fine. This is just a giant waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/85 "2005-08-03T22:46:08Z")
And now you’re going to take your ball and go home. There’s a fucking shock. It’s either wartime or it’s not. Pick one instead of jerking out of your ass whichever answer fits your current idiotic rant. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/86 "2005-08-03T23:56:42Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > This thread has just proven once again that partisans on both sides will scour through the economic reports to always find something bad to pin on the other party. Wouldn’t your OP be a fine example? > [@](#): > > This is just a giant waste of time. Finally a nugget of truth from you. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/87 "2005-08-04T00:26:01Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > And now you’re going to take your ball and go home. > > There’s a fucking shock. > > It’s either wartime or it’s not. Pick one instead of jerking out of your ass whichever answer fits your current idiotic rant. > > -Joe Why don’t you just make whatever point it is you’re trying to make, and leave the personal attacks for the pit? ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/88 "2005-08-04T00:44:39Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Why don’t you just make whatever point it is you’re trying to make, and leave the personal attacks for the pit? If it was a personal attack I’m sure a mod will be along soon to take care of me. Anyways, **Sam** is there a fucking war on or not? Is it war time or is it peace time? Are we on double-secret peace time? Or are you going to just accept that you really stopped being part of the reality-based community some time ago? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/89 "2005-08-04T00:51:30Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > This is just a giant waste of time. :dubious: What did you expect? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/90 "2005-08-04T01:23:38Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Why don’t you just make whatever point it is you’re trying to make, and leave the personal attacks for the pit? An excellent point **Sam**. Not that you’re entirely innocent yourself here, but a thread that lurches _around_ the subject at hand beats the hell out of a thread that degenerates into name calling. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/91 "2005-08-04T01:28:06Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Why don’t you just make whatever point it is you’re trying to make, and leave the personal attacks for the pit? Just guessing, but I think this a response to your adulation of Reagan’s “largest peacetime economic expansion” or however you phrased it. As for hissy fit – fine: take your ball home. You offered no cites or backup for your OP, as someone pointed out earlier. If the economy is so damned good, cite some economist who says so. I really didn’t see that many people “doing flips” or other insulting contortions you characterized, but I did see some people questioning the OPs assertions. It’s called debating, Sam. Instead of a debate, what you’ve done is thrown out is some cheerleading, and then, if everyone doesn’t cheer, you declare all responders partisan bitches and leave. Real class. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/92 "2005-08-04T02:48:30Z")
I didn’t say I was leaving the discussion. I said it had turned into a giant waste of time. You want cites? Fine. [U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Rose 0.9% in June](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aTGFv2tkc6Yc&refer=top_world_news) > [@](#): > > The U.S. index of leading economic indicators rose a greater-than-expected 0.9 percent for June, a sign that growth may be starting to accelerate this month. The report shows the first major revision in how the index was compiled since 1996. > > Higher consumer confidence, stock prices and building permits helped drive up the Conference Board’s index after it was unchanged in May, the New York-based research group said today. The median forecast among 57 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for an increase of 0.5 percent. > > `The consumer is steady and in good shape, **labor income is accelerating** , and that's continuing to offset the drag from gasoline prices,'' Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital in Greenwich, Connecticut, said before the report. `Obviously, housing is doing quite well. And in manufacturing we’re starting to see a little bit of a comeback.’’ > > The number also supports Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s testimony to Congress today and yesterday that the U.S. economy is in a sustained expansion, requiring further increases in interest rates to keep inflation in check. A Bloomberg News survey of economists completed July 11 also shows growth picking up in the third quarter. [Federal Budget Deficit Expected to Shrink](http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/07/08/federal_budget_deficit_expected_to_shrink/) > [@](#): > > Higher-than-expected tax receipts and the steadily growing economy have combined to produce an improved picture for the federal budget deficit, congressional analysts said yesterday. > > The deficit for the current budget year, which runs through Sept. 30, should be ''significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion," according to the Congressional Budget Office. The agency produces nonpartisan estimates for Congress and will put out a complete update Aug. 15. > … > **the current deficit picture – a $350 billion deficit for this year would equal 2.9 percent of gross domestic product – is significantly better than deficits witnessed in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Then, deficits of 4 to 6 percent of GDP were common.** > > The biggest factors for the improving deficit picture are higher tax receipts from corporations and individuals. The economy is performing slightly above earlier administration expectations. [Crude Oil Trades Near a Record as U.S. Manufacturing Expands](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=ajPjKN76u1s4&refer=uk) > [@](#): > > U.S. manufacturing accelerated for a second straight month in July as gains in both orders and production signaled that factories may add more to economic growth this quarter, data from the institute showed. [US Manufacturing Outlook Brightens](http://news.ft.com/cms/s/115876b6-fead-11d9-94b4-00000e2511c8.html) > [@](#): > > sharp rise in durable goods orders pointed on Wednesday to a brighter outlook for the manufacturing sector than had previously been expected. > > Orders of big-ticket items–intended to last more than three years–climbed by 1.4 per cent; analysts had expected a fall of 1 per cent. Excluding the volatile transport sector, the figures were even stronger, with a rise of 2.6 per cent. May orders were revised up by 0.9 percentage points to 6.4 per cent. [U.S. consumer spending rebounds by 0.8 per cent, factory orders up in June](http://channels.netscape.ca/finance/article.adp?id=20050802190909990011) > [@](#): > > U.S. consumers rediscovered their appetite for shopping in June, boosting spending by a strong 0.8 per cent. It was fresh testament to the economy’s momentum as it headed into the third quarter. > > The monthly increase in spending, reported by the U.S. Commerce Department on Tuesday, came after consumers tightened their belts in May, leaving spending flat. > > Consumer spending plays a key role in shaping economic activity and thus is closely watched by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and other economists. > > “July is shaping up to be another firm month for spending, though perhaps not quite as explosive in real terms as June,” said Steven Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital, > > Incomes, the fuel for future spending, grew at a nice clip of 0.5 per cent in June, better than the 0.2 per cent gain registered in the previous month. The pickup in income growth dovetailed with an improvement in the jobs climate in June, when the unemployment rate fell to five per cent, a nearly four-year low. > > Both the increase in incomes and in spending were the largest since April. The spending and income figures are not adjusted for inflation. > > Separately, U.S. factories saw orders rise by a solid one per cent in June, offering more evidence that manufacturing is on solid footing, the department said in a second report. The showing matched economists’ forecasts. > > The advance, which followed a 3.6 per cent jump in May, largely reflected increased demand for “durable” manufactured goods, including machinery, computers, electrical lighting equipment and boats. Demand for “nondurable” goods, including food, paper and plastics products, fell. [U.S. Unemployment Rate Forecast](http://www.forecasts.org/unemploy.htm) (Chart on cite shows forecast unemployment to be down to 4.71 by December) Again, as I said before, I believe the deficit is too high, and that’s the fault of Bush. Spending should be at least 100 billion lower right now. But anyone who wants to take the available numbers and try to show that the economy is currently doing poorly has to do flips and twists to do so. And again - if the major leading indicators were bad, how quickly do you think the Bush bashers on this board would be embracing them as a sign that Bush’s economic plan is a failure? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/93 "2005-08-04T04:30:12Z")
[U.S. manufacturers’ outlook turns negative-report](http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20050802:MTFH36261_2005-08-02_12-30-58_N01561161:1) > [@](#): > > The report, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ quarterly Manufacturing Barometer, breaks what had been a string of positive economic indicators, including Monday’s better-than-expected factory survey by the Institute for Supply Management and healthy second-quarter gross domestic product. [American consumers stepped up their spending in June but cut back further on their already meager savings in order to do so.](http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2eb026fc-0374-11da-b54a-00000e2511c8.html) > [@](#): > > In May Americans had been savings 40 cents for every hundred dollars of disposable income. In June the savings rate fell to 0 cents - the lowest rate on record except for one month in 2001 when the rate turned negative. [U.S. GDP shows solid economy, despite concerns](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002410531_gdp30.html) > [@](#): > > But what is next? The answer from most analysts is more of the same — steady but unspectacular growth amid swirling negative forces like slow global economic growth, rising oil prices and the uncertainty of terrorism. [July layoffs top 102,000](http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/080305dnbusjobs.3973263f.html) > [@](#): > > July job cuts were nearly 50 percent higher than last year when employers announced plans to shed 69,572 positions, marking the third consecutive month and fifth time this year the monthly total was higher than its corresponding month in 2004. We can do this all day. Once again, contrary to what you keep claiming, many of us will happily admit that we think the economy is finally starting to show signs of heading in the right direction. We’re also going to keep reminding you that we’re not there yet, no matter what some cherry picked indicator might say to you. With that said, the deficit is still absolutely horrid and needs to be reigned in quickly, or all the economic indicators in the world won’t save us. Our current debt is over $50,000 per employed person. If my personal debt were that high, I’d stop spending more money than I earned, but then I’m not an economist. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/94 "2005-08-04T04:34:07Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > anyone who wants to take the available numbers and try to show that the economy is currently doing poorly has to do flips and twists to do so. This is the second time you’ve used that characterization in this thread. Who is this aimed at, specifically? I’m fed up with your “all you guys” characterizations of thread respondants. Either debate someone’s points, or admit you’re not debating – you’re witnessing. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/95 "2005-08-04T05:47:41Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Pick one instead of jerking out of your ass whichever answer fits your current idiotic rant. I’m a Mod and, while I have no desire to take care of you, I will definitely point out that this statement is inappropriate in **GQ**. In addition, > [@](#): > > Or are you going to just accept that you really stopped being part of the reality-based community some time ago? while not quite over the line, is doing nothing to promote reasoned discourse. Keep your comments to the topic, please, and leave the insults for the appropriate Forum. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/96 "2005-08-04T06:48:58Z")
It’s also inappropriate in **GD** , even when the Moderator is trying to get to bed. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/97 "2005-08-04T08:36:09Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > When Clinton was averaging almost 4% GDP growth and 5% unemployment, it was a ‘miracle economy’. When Bush does the same, it’s worth little more than a yawn and a claim that it’s only about average. If I post a cite to a right-wing think tank or economist boosting the economy, it gets ignored as ‘right-wing porn’ or some such. But if you post cites to left-wing economists, that’s just fine. In the first place, it took about two pages of this thread to get you to provide **any** cites at all, and nobody has attempted to dismiss the ones you finally did come up with solely on the basis of their source. Don’t holler before you’re hurt. In the second place, as I noted earlier, it is misleading to compare late-90s employment figures with present ones. In the boom years, we saw strong employment indicators **overall** , including growth in reported payrolls, wage gains above inflation, and increasing numbers of people employed (as well as official unemployment levels below 5%). Since we’re **not** seeing trends like that now, it’s only reasonable to be skeptical about claims that employment must be doing fine, based only on the official unemployment rate. And finally, it’s rather unbecoming of you to complain that “partisans on both sides will scour through the economic reports to always find something bad to pin on the other party.” You’re the one who presented this topic in the OP as a gleeful attempt at “Ha! Gotcha!” on critics of Bushonomics. If you had simply asked “Are there significant signs at present of an improving economy?” or something like that, we could have had a thoughtful debate about that, and you would have had a right to tut-tut at anybody who tried to play partisan politics with the facts. But you’re the one who, right from the get-go, tried to spin your claims into a vindication of the Bush economic policies that **you yourself admit** are based on an indefensible amount of massive deficit spending. No fair trying to pull a rhetorical stunt like that and then blaming the other side’s “partisan politics” when your assertions get blown out of the water. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/98 "2005-08-04T17:15:32Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In the first place, it took about two pages of this thread to get you to provide **any** cites at all, and nobody has attempted to dismiss the ones you finally did come up with solely on the basis of their source. Don’t holler before you’re hurt. Faiir enough. I didn’t post them last time because i thought everyone knew them. They’re in the papers every day. Economic summaries are on almost every major news home page. Demanding cites for the leading economic indicators seemed to me to be like asking for cites that the Space Shuttle is currently in space. It’s part of the major news stream. But in the end, it’s my responsibiity to provide them on demand, so I did. > [@](#): > > In the second place, as I noted earlier, it is misleading to compare late-90s employment figures with present ones. In the boom years, we saw strong employment indicators **overall** , including growth in reported payrolls, wage gains above inflation, and increasing numbers of people employed (as well as official unemployment levels below 5%). Since we’re **not** seeing trends like that now, it’s only reasonable to be skeptical about claims that employment must be doing fine, based only on the official unemployment rate. Of course, in the 90’s we were in a serious tech bubble which drove up wages like crazy. Bush was the guy who had to pay the piper on that - a fact that made Clinton look better and Bush look worse, and yet was a completely external factor. But that doesn’t stop Democrats from praising Clinton’s economy and criticising Bush’s. Clinton also had the ‘peace dividend’, a global economy that was doing quite well, low energy prices, tons of public optimism and consumer confidence due to the end of the cold war and the tech bubble, etc. The wind was at his back. Everything the economy has gained under Bush has been in spite of the larger trends. A war on terror, a trillion dollars lost in the WTC attacks, the collapse of tourism, a weak global economy, skyrocketing fuel prices, and the collapse of the tech bubble. > [@](#): > > And finally, it’s rather unbecoming of you to complain that “partisans on both sides will scour through the economic reports to always find something bad to pin on the other party.” You’re the one who presented this topic in the OP as a gleeful attempt at “Ha! Gotcha!” on critics of Bushonomics. Hey, I have consistently used the leading economic indicators in my debates on this issue, as far as I know. The thing is, when you’re willing to selectively grasp at or ignore various standard measures of the economy based on how they fit your desired political point, it becomes impossible to discuss the economy rationally. It’s complex enough that even in the best of times you can find \*something wrong, and in the worst of times you can find something right. > [@](#): > > If you had simply asked “Are there significant signs at present of an improving economy?” or something like that, we could have had a thoughtful debate about that, and you would have had a right to tut-tut at anybody who tried to play partisan politics with the facts. But you’re the one who, right from the get-go, tried to spin your claims into a vindication of the Bush economic policies that **you yourself admit** are based on an indefensible amount of massive deficit spending. No fair trying to pull a rhetorical stunt like that and then blaming the other side’s “partisan politics” when your assertions get blown out of the water. This is a fair complaint. I should have not started the debate on such a tendentious foot, and by framing it that way I pretty much guaranteed that the other side would do some digging to come out in rebuttal. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/99 "2005-08-04T18:06:18Z")
Can we agree that tomorrow’s rlease of the July non-farm payroll numbers will be instructive? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/100 "2005-08-04T18:43:29Z")
Certainly they’ll be another solid data point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834.md?page=6)