HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Wall Street Journal Omits...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:51 AM

Wall Street Journal Omits George W. Bush From Graphic On 2-Term 'Presidencies And Growth' (IMAGE)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/wall-street-journal-george-w-bush_n_2220817.html?utm_hp_ref=business

?12


Wall Street Journal Omits George W. Bush From Graphic On 2-Term 'Presidencies And Growth' (IMAGE)
Posted: 11/30/2012 6:08 pm EST Updated: 11/30/2012 6:08 pm EST

As the "fiscal cliff" draws nearer and politicians polish their ability to duck blame, a Friday editorial in the Wall Street Journal has bravely taken the lead in analyzing past presidents' economic performance -- and wags a stern finger in Obama's direction.

Included alongside the analysis, which focuses on economic growth experienced under two-term presidents, is a chart fittingly titled, "Presidencies and Growth."

President Obama's first four years in office are listed, as are Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan's eight years. But what about George W. Bush?

Either by accident or intention, New York Magazine notes, it seems the Wall Street Journal has omitted the 43rd U.S. President from its chart. (Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, is also missing, but with more justification. The elder Bush came up one term shy of fitting into a debate on two-term presidents and growth.)

10 replies, 1885 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wall Street Journal Omits George W. Bush From Graphic On 2-Term 'Presidencies And Growth' (IMAGE) (Original post)
unhappycamper Dec 2012 OP
babylonsister Dec 2012 #1
corkhead Dec 2012 #2
salin Dec 2012 #8
ProSense Dec 2012 #3
spanone Dec 2012 #4
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #5
Cha Dec 2012 #6
JaneyVee Dec 2012 #7
Mr. Sparkle Dec 2012 #9
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #10

Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:31 AM

1. Rather a large omission, isn't it. Funny in a sad sort of way; and the

WSJ wants to be taken seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:31 AM

2. Just another Rupert Murdoch property; what do you expect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to corkhead (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:34 PM

8. my reaction as well. Though the oped pages were biased for years...

once Rupert bought it the paper has slowly morphed into a GOP propaganda outfit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:37 AM

3. WSJ editorial page tries to make point by comparing Presidents, skips (hides) Bush.

The president who must not be named

By Steve Benen

The Wall Street Journal editorial page believes President Obama has an "economic growth deficit," and publishes an image comparing GDP by year under Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.

Now, in a comparison like this, context is everything. Reagan and Clinton didn't inherit global economic catastrophes, didn't need mandatory Senate supermajorities to pass legislation, didn't have debt-ceiling fiascos to put up with, didn't have the luxury of getting economic boosts from the Fed lowering interest rates, etc. All of these relevant details went unmentioned.

But Jon Chait notices something else omitted from the WSJ visual.

No George W. Bush! Possibly there wasn't enough room. Or possibly the lesson of the most recent former president, whose tax cuts are set to expire and who presided over poor economic growth, might not offer the lesson the Journal editorial page is seeking to convey.

The WSJ also left out George H.W. Bush, probably for the same reason.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/30/15576365-the-president-who-must-not-be-named

Economic growth improves significantly
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/29/15540655-economic-growth-improves-significantly


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:50 AM

4. it's the faux news of print.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:33 PM

5. "Who? George W. Bush? Hmmm. Nope, Doesn't ring a bell. President you say?"

"Never heard of the guy."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:17 PM

6. He's the two term Bush who along with his handler, the Dick Cheney,

Depleted Clinton's Surplus on two wars and the Medicare Drug Program without paying for them. Drove the Country in the proverbial Ditch and then tried to blame it on the Black guy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:22 PM

7. Of course they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:42 PM

9. Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Clinton did it while paying down the debt, while regan ran up record debt and raided social security.

It is hard to believe now, but when Clinton handed over the presidency to Bush, the country was on a path of clearing the debt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:04 PM

10. This is Stalinesque.

They are trying very hard to get people to forget about W.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread