Gay Patriot Header Image

Bush Recovery Throttles On

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Economists Upgrade US Outlook After Surprisingly Strong Data –

(h/t – Instapundit)

“Economists are hastily upgrading their forecasts for the US economy after a series of surprisingly strong reports suggesting the so-called ‘soft landing’ may be over and growth is accelerating. Over the past week, surprises have come in stronger-than-expected reports on US job creation, the trade balance and retail sales — all key contributors to economic activity. . . . The latest data showed US employers added a healthy 167,000 new jobs in December, with unemployment holding at a low 4.5 percent. Average wages were up 4.2 percent annually.” 

Recall if you will that beginning in Q4 2000, the US economy fell into the Clinton Recession begun by the Dot.Com Bubble Burst.  

Then al-Qaeda launched the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks which were, according to bin Laden, designed to not only kill thousands but to bring the US economy to its knees.

It worked for while.  The Twin Towers attacks alone resulted in $83 BILLION of losses. More than 1 million jobs were lost in the three months after the attacks

But, just as President Bush asked of us after the attacks…. American’s fought back to rebuild our shattered economy.

In the face of this great tragedy, Americans are refusing to give terrorists the power. Our people have responded with courage and compassion, calm and reason, resolve and fierce determination.

We have refused to live in a state of panic or a state of denial. There is a difference between being alert and being intimidated, and this great nation will never be intimidated.

People are going about their daily lives, working and shopping and playing, worshipping at churches and synagogues and mosques, going to movies and to baseball games.

Life in America is going forward, and as the fourth grader who wrote me knew, that is the ultimate repudiation of terrorism.

In fact, the Bush Recovery was underway just one year later.

And now, we are entering Year Five of the Bush Economic Recovery.  So, everyone say it with me together in a loud, maniacal, shrieking voice: “It… Is… Bush’s… Fault!”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. obligatory liberal response coming soon

    Comment by nuyorker — January 15, 2007 @ 12:20 pm - January 15, 2007

  2. waiting… waiting…

    Comment by GayPatriot — January 15, 2007 @ 12:24 pm - January 15, 2007

  3. It’s going to present an interesting dilemna for BDS sufferers when January 2009 rolls around and every economic indicator is at an all-time high.

    Comment by HitNRun — January 15, 2007 @ 1:30 pm - January 15, 2007

  4. [Comment deleted due to conduct of this individual repeatedly violating community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by Reader — January 15, 2007 @ 1:32 pm - January 15, 2007

  5. Because you asked so nicely.

    Paul Krugman discussing the financial state of the Middle Class, 12/06:

    Cavuto: …. You’re saying that it’s somehow dramatically worse now than it was 10 years, 20 years ago?
    Krugman: It is dramatically worse now than it was 10 or 20 years ago.

    The prosperity is an illusion! Caused by Rovian mind-waves.

    Comment by Mike — January 15, 2007 @ 1:34 pm - January 15, 2007

  6. Awesome!!!!!!

    I knew it all along……..

    Comment by Artbyruth — January 15, 2007 @ 1:34 pm - January 15, 2007

  7. Shut up, you bastard! You’re gonna to ruin everything!

    Comment by Cardinals Nation — January 15, 2007 @ 1:35 pm - January 15, 2007

  8. I think that you will wait in vain. You don’t seem to me to be the sort of gay that liberals like. Sorry ’bout that.

    Comment by Paul L. Quandt — January 15, 2007 @ 1:44 pm - January 15, 2007

  9. But the MSM has succeeded. They spooked the Reps so much that the economy was precarious, that a recession/depression was just around the corner that the Reps were afraid to run on the economy. That’s why they lost. It was the economy, stupid.

    Btw, have you noticed all the news about less than expected expenses on the Medicare drug plan, higher than expected economic growth, lower than expected unemployment rates, all came in after the election? It all depends on who is “expecting”, doesn’t it? As the UPI reporter said, if they pointed out the strategic importance of the Iraq war, they were carrying water for Bush. Similarly, if they pointed out the reality pre-election, they were pro-Bush. Thus every silver cloud had a dark lining. Things clear up all of a sudden after the MSM’s pet party gained power.

    Comment by ic — January 15, 2007 @ 2:03 pm - January 15, 2007

  10. Hrmm.. How about:

    * The economy is positive again now that the grownups (democrats) are in charge
    * The economy is going ok, but think how much better it would have been performing if Al Gore or John Kerry were president right now
    * The economy’s not doing that well. The other day I saw a homeless person with only half a sandwich. Is our country so miserly it can’t afford to give a homeless man a whole sandwich?
    * Any day now the housing bubble is going to pop, and your optimism about the future will turn into ash in your mouth.
    * Any day now the tech bubble is going to pop, and your optimism about the future will turn into ash in your mouth
    * This growing economy is an illusion paid for by the sinister Manchurians who keep us addicted to cheap goods and services long enough that they can engineer their takeover of the country
    * This growing economy is an illusion paid for by the sinister Oil companies who prop up the rest of the economy so they can keep their oil prices high.
    * The Global Warming winters have artificially reduced costs, and come summer, when our electricity demands go through the roof, we’ll all be sorry!
    * The massive deficits that Bushco is producing is what is paying for the growth.
    * Yeah, you claim there’s a recovery, but I haven’t been able to find a job in 3 months. So how good could this economy be, really?
    * The growing economy is class-limited – the rich are sucking up all this growth, leaving nothing but filthy scraps for the middle class and the poor.

    Comment by jb — January 15, 2007 @ 2:09 pm - January 15, 2007

  11. […] Bizzy Blog says if you’d just been reading his damn blog, you wouldn’t be so surprised at the good economic outlook. Gay Patriot has an excellent overview of just how remarkable the Bush economy has been, since he entered office. Not that he’s gotten any credit for it. […]

    Pingback by The Anchoress » A houseful and a project — January 15, 2007 @ 2:14 pm - January 15, 2007

  12. Since no lefties will dare to come around till they find a new slogan to relate this to global warning, here’s my take: Economic growth is Bush faaaaaaaaaaaaaault!!!

    Comment by Sir Sefirot — January 15, 2007 @ 2:22 pm - January 15, 2007

  13. This is the DEMOCRAT recovery. There has only been good news now that Congressional Power is wielded by the rightful and righteous guardians of everything good!!!

    Comment by Richard Blaine — January 15, 2007 @ 2:25 pm - January 15, 2007

  14. You don’t have to be Gay to recognize the success of Bush’s policies leading to a dynamically performing economy. I’m Straight and it’s been obvious to me for a long time.

    Keep up the good work!

    Comment by John — January 15, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - January 15, 2007

  15. I think the economy IS somewhat bad for the middle class, because the middle class abandoned their core financial values in order to live more like the upper class.

    I can think of dozens of people I know that have bought homes too expensive to afford, with insurance and property taxes increasing.

    It’s not that there weren’t cheaper homes… just a belief that you could overbuy your means, and then try to cash in on that “equity.”

    Comment by miamiguy — January 15, 2007 @ 3:20 pm - January 15, 2007

  16. As usual, I’d be interested in knowing the breakdown of those 167,000 jobs created: Wage levels, service, management, permanent, temporay, seasonal (it was december after all)

    13: yes, that’s true…after all it’s taken 6 years to clean up the mess Bill Clinton left now, isn’t.

    15: What do you expect? The government puts no restrictions on the banking industry as far as how much credit can be extended…people with little income are paying 30% and higher in interest rates (that used to be called usery in the old days). Interesting that tightening of bankrpucy laws (pushed by the banking industry) took effect, but the banking industry is doing nothing to tighten itself on the credit it extends.

    Comment by Kevin — January 15, 2007 @ 5:30 pm - January 15, 2007

  17. If We the People are the ones who created this recovery by bravely deploying our credit cards and heroically borrowing against our home equity, it hardly makes sense to credit Bush for it.

    Comment by vaara — January 15, 2007 @ 5:41 pm - January 15, 2007

  18. Ah, once again Democrats like Kevin come along to demonstrate the intellect and beliefs of their party.

    people with little income are paying 30% and higher in interest rates (that used to be called usery in the old days).

    Here’s something you may not know, Kevin; you don’t pay interest unless you borrow money.

    The typical Democratic voter like Kevin takes their credit card, spends $5,000, and then proceeds to demand that his party go after those greedy bankers who are making him pay interest so that it doesn’t cost him as much to borrow.

    Interesting that tightening of bankrpucy laws (pushed by the banking industry) took effect, but the banking industry is doing nothing to tighten itself on the credit it extends.

    Tightening bankruptcy laws makes it easier to extend credit, Kevin, because there is less risk of losing all the money you loan to bad risks.

    Before, Democrats like yourself would run up immense credit card bills, then declare bankruptcy, keep your house, and stiff the banks. Now you can’t do that; if you have an income higher than your state average and can afford to repay even a portion of your bills, the law requires you to do so.

    Thus, before, banks had to charge honest borrowers like myself more to recoup the cost of extending credit to people like yourself. Now they can afford to extend more credit to more people because they don’t have to absorb that cost — or apply it to honest borrowers.

    Democrats always whine about how hard it is for the poor, but what they don’t point out is on what choices the poor spend their money — and the fact that the reason most children who live in poverty do so is because there’s only one parent around, as per the Democrat/leftist social model that denigrates two-person childrearing.

    Perhaps, Kevin, if schools were actually required to teach math, science, and English, the poor could a) read their credit card agreements, b) calculate how much their interest rate would be, and c) realize that you can’t pull money from nothingness. But instead, Democrats prefer to mandate standards about teaching lesbian sex and tear down ones about those subjects.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 15, 2007 @ 6:08 pm - January 15, 2007

  19. And… how WILL the MSM hide it when the unified federal budget slides into balance …

    next summer

    Comment by goy — January 15, 2007 @ 6:53 pm - January 15, 2007

  20. Some more good news: The US budget deficit continues to shrink.

    Comment by John in IL — January 15, 2007 @ 7:39 pm - January 15, 2007

  21. I’ve always said that if it’s good news for America, it’s bad news for the liberals.

    Just keep an eye on the screeching going on at DailyKaka and Demonic Underwear. If it reaches drag queen diva proportions, that means things are going great.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 15, 2007 @ 10:37 pm - January 15, 2007

  22. Democrats prefer to mandate standards about teaching lesbian sex

    Just try getting into that class, it’s been full since last November.

    Comment by Seguin — January 15, 2007 @ 11:04 pm - January 15, 2007

  23. There is also the uncertain election results that caused an already shaky economy to fall off the edge at the end of 2000. Note the Fed’s panic 1% cut in the discount rate in January 2001….

    Comment by Kevin Murphy — January 16, 2007 @ 12:44 am - January 16, 2007

  24. #0
    Then al-Qaeda launched the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks which were, according to bin Laden, designed to not only kill thousands but to bring the US economy to its knees.

    It worked for while.

    And helped along by liberals, the DNC and their lap dogs in the drive-by media. Hell, I still remember some douchebag on Neil Cavuto explaining how Bush “squandered” a 3, then four then $6 trillion budget “surplus”. I’ve always wondered why the libs could NEVER agree on the amount of the so-called BJ surplus.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 16, 2007 @ 2:38 am - January 16, 2007

  25. We have had recessions before 2001 (1991,1982,1974,etc.) The one thing they all have in common is that they all ended. It has been the natural historical pattern for the American economy to have a recession and then after a year or two to recover and grow strongly again. Do Gay Patriot and most of the posters here really think that if Bush had not been President, that the economy would have just stayed in a recession forever?

    I imagine most people know that there was a recession before Clinton was elected President (it is the main reason he won), and that after he became President the economy recovered strongly and grew well through almost all of his 2 terms. Shall we fall on our knees and sing hosannas about what a great President he must have been, or shall we realize the the strength of the U.S. economy lies in the judgement, initiative, and strength of all the individual Americans who make it up, and that the main thing we require from the President is to avoid major screw-ups. And if we do really want to give credit for all that is good to the government, we should note that the Federal Reserve Board has so much more power to affect the economy than the President that it is not even funny.

    When we have our next recession, as we inevitably will, I wonder if the posters now writing that the economy going well shows Bush is a great President will write that they were wrong and now Bush is a bad President? Or will they note that the economy usually goes into recessions for reasons that are not controlled by the President, just as it usually comes out of recessions in the same way? If they do, it will be the beginning of wisdom in understanding how the economy of a free country actually works.

    Comment by Counterfactual — January 16, 2007 @ 4:01 am - January 16, 2007

  26. #25 – Translation: With the economy booming and no other way to avoid giving credit to the policies of a Republican President, it’s now conveeeeeenient to downplay the role of government policy – e.g., tax policy – in allowing a free people to pursue their lives (which is what builds the economy). Whereas, if Kerry / Gore / Clinton were President, it would instead be time to talk endlessly about how important policy is and what geniuses they are.

    It has been the natural historical pattern for the American economy to have a recession and then after a year or two to recover and grow strongly again.

    Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. Small point: the Carter “stagflation” recession spanned 3 calendar years, 1980-82, following pretty darn tepid growth in the Carter years proper and earlier stagflation from the policies of Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Larger point: There was a recession where the economy didn’t recover for 12 years. The 2 Presidents – first Hoover, then still more Frankin Roosevelt – followed exactly the wrong policies to make the recession deepen horribly and drag on and on and on. So don’t take it for granted that the American people are some Energizer bunny who will always create growth and progress “somehow”, no matter what insane and destructive economic policies are foisted on them.

    Comment by Calarato — January 16, 2007 @ 10:46 am - January 16, 2007

  27. For shits and giggles:

    As widely reported, the $248 billion fiscal year 2006 unified budget deficit was lower than originally forecast and lower than last year’s deficit of $318 billion. While this improvement in the 1-year fiscal picture is better than a worsening in that picture, it did not fundamentally change our longterm fiscal outlook. In fact, the U.S. government’s total reported liabilities, net social insurance commitments, and other fiscal exposures continue to grow and now total approximately $50 trillion, representing approximately four times the nation’s total output, or gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal year 2006, up from about $20 trillion, or two times GDP in fiscal year 2000.

    The overall picture of the long-term fiscal outlook is not news to this committee. However, the long-term challenge is fast becoming a short-term one as the first of the baby boomers become eligible for early retirement under Social Security on January 1, 2008–less than one year–and for Medicare benefits in 2011–less than 4 years from now. The budget and economic implications of the baby boom generation’s retirement have already become a factor in Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) 10-year baseline projections and will only intensify as the baby boomers age. Simply put, our nation is on an imprudent and unsustainable fiscal path.

    — David Walker, Director, General Accounting Office. From his testimony before the Committee of the Budget, US Senate. January 11th, 2007.

    {Pops popcorn.}

    Okay, boys. Have at it. This will be fun to watch.

    Comment by Jody — January 16, 2007 @ 11:20 am - January 16, 2007

  28. Jody-

    My answer to that is the greedy Baby Boomers are going to steal all my hard-earned money.

    I kind of grew up realizing that was the case however.

    Comment by GayPatriot — January 16, 2007 @ 11:56 am - January 16, 2007

  29. As a businessman in Pennsylvania I gotta tell you we can’t find enough workers. In our county unemployment is at less than 4%. Those unemployed are unemployable. Despite a pathetic education system that doesn’t teach people how to prepare for the workforce. Even simple grooming and health standards aren’t taught. To grow our business we are considering hiring workers from overseas. This is a transsition period when higher paying manu jobs are declining. re: Ford and GM. Lower taxes always result in an American juggernaut of growth. It seems modern day recessions are a result of poor tax rate decisions (raising rates) or simply the business cycle dipping. All businesses eventually take a pause in modernizing, retooling or upgrading equipment. When we do it, pause, in concert, a slight recession occurs.
    The economy is growing so fast it is partially ovecoming the drunken spending spree by congress. In a few days I’ll be driving my 7 Series to the airport for a flight to my second home in Ft Lauderdale. All praise to W.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 16, 2007 @ 7:40 pm - January 16, 2007

  30. […] Gay Patriot: Bush Recovery Throttles On […]

    Pingback by Tuesday Night ‘Tastic Reads at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source. — January 16, 2007 @ 10:51 pm - January 16, 2007

  31. #27
    I don’t know why you think your quote is such a bombshell that you’d need popcorn to watch the explosion.

    Mr. Walker is talking about entitlement spending, something President Bush attempted to correct with Social Security (with no alternative put forward by Democrats) and something he botched with Medicare (with bipartisan support) by proposing Part D.

    From the report:

    While the appropriate level of revenues will be part of the debate about our fiscal future, making no changes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other drivers of the long-term fiscal gap would require ever increasing tax levels—and that seems both inappropriate and implausible. Accordingly, substantive reform of Social Security and our major health programs remains critical to recapturing our future fiscal flexibility.

    Nothing shocking there. I’m still waiting for any serious proposals from a politician of either party that tackles the problem of future entitlement spending.

    I think Mr. Walker’s concluding remarks (much less quoted) are more interesting:

    • we cannot grow our way out this problem;
    • eliminating earmarks will not solve the problem;
    • wiping out fraud, waste and abuse will not solve the problem;
    • ending the war or cutting way back on defense will not solve the problem; and
    • letting the recent tax cuts expire will not solve this problem.

    Comment by John in IL — January 16, 2007 @ 11:06 pm - January 16, 2007

  32. #26 – I know the President, and more importantly, the Federal Reserve Board can screw things up, that is why I wrote “the main thing we require from the President is to avoid major screw-ups”. What I am pointing out is that absent major screw-ups like you correctly point out the government committed in the 1930’s and 1970’s, a strong recovery from recessions is the normal outcome.

    However, that is a very different thing from thinking that the recession of 2001 would not have ended without Bush’s tax cuts. Look at the past 15 years. Clinton come in during a recession in 1992 and raises taxes and the economy goes good through the ’90s. Bush comes in and cuts taxes in 2001 and the economy goes good through the ’00s. Isn’t the obvious conclusion that it is not cutting or raising taxes that makes the economy go good but something else. And might that something else be good economic management of the Federal Reserve Board, which has followed basically the same policies over these last 15 years (in other words, they are the constant).

    You write “With the economy booming and no other way to avoid giving credit to the policies of a Republican President, it’s now conveeeeeenient to downplay the role of government policy”. Would you write the same thing about the 1990s and simply insert Democratic in place of Republican? I am genuinely curious. I would guess that you would not, that you would start talking about how the economy grew in the 1990s for reasons separate from Clinton being President, but maybe I am wrong. Personally, I would say the same thing about the “Clinton recovery” (that it is mostly due to the Federal Reserve Board and the natural strength of the American economy, but he gets a little credit for not screwing up and standing too much in the way of that) that I wrote about the Bush one.

    Comment by Counterfactual — January 17, 2007 @ 2:49 pm - January 17, 2007

  33. Well as of this morning on CNBC the economists are scrambling again to revise their predictions for first qtr and 2007 growth. The lower oil and gasoline prices will continue to help fuel the most amazing American economy. Now it looks like the Fed will not lower interest rates because the economy appears to be nice and warm. Not too hot not too cold. Question, who are these “experts” who always underestimate the amazing American economy?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 18, 2007 @ 11:47 am - January 18, 2007

  34. #33 – Gene, they’re the same “experts” the MSM trots out to explain (a) global warming, (b) consumer confidence, (c) Administration critics and (d) anything else that they can hope to pin on Bush.

    In other words, look behind the curtain, Dorothy. It’s nobody but a figment of their collective imagination.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 19, 2007 @ 3:43 pm - January 19, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.