The NYT is making up stories about the economy again. It told readers that "for years, he got no credit for a long-running economic recovery, in part because of popular anger over Iraq."
What are they talking about. The economy was losing jobs from shortly after President Bush took office in January of 2001 until August of 2003. It then created jobs for just over four years and then began shedding jobs in January of 2008. How does this compares to an expansion that lasted for more than 8 years under Clinton? This period of job expansion was far weaker than the stretch of almost 8 years in the 80s also. In fact, it was a relatively short period of employment growth compared to other post-war expansions and it was also quite weak with the pace of job growth relatively modest over most of the period.
So Bush had a short and relatively weak period of job growth. What exactly was he supposed to get credit for?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. For over 30 years, The American Prospect has delivered independent reporting that exposes corporate power, investigates political corruption, and analyzes threats to our democracy. Unlike many media outlets, we’re not owned by billionaires or corporations—we’re powered by readers like you.
Today’s independent journalism faces unprecedented challenges. Your support makes our reporting possible and keeps our work free and accessible to all. Whether it’s $5 or $50, every contribution helps sustain our nonprofit newsroom.
Join our community of supporters and make a donation today to help keep independent journalism thriving.
Copyright 2025 | The American Prospect, Inc. | All Rights Reserved
