Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
While Shultz's RA should have used the "bar chart" option in Excel, the general point remains the same. Although Clinton maintained a steady growth rate for most of his terms, both Bush 1 and 2 have increased the growth rate from where it started. Whether any of this has meaning or importance is another question.
|
Bush 1's first year isn't even represented, so I'm not sure how you can conclude that about 41. GDP was growing at 2% when Bush 2 took over, and he's gotten above that only in recent months -- on average, we've been below where we were when he started. And to the extent that Clinton's success was in avoiding the dips that Bush 1 and Bush 2 led us through, the graph doesn't give the context of other cycles to show us as much.
Chart
