Talk:Presidency of George H. W. Bush/Archive 1

1989, 1990 budgets
Budget Deficit for 1989 Is Put at $152.1 Billion : Spending: Congress and the White House remain locked in a stalemate over a capital gains tax cut., Los Angeles Times, Tom Redburn, Oct. 28, 1989.

' .  .  even as the Treasury Department announced that the deficit for fiscal 1989 [which ended Sept. 30, 1989] remained essentially unchanged for the third year in a row at $152.1 billion. . '


 * I want to take time to look at this article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

THE STRUGGLE IN CONGRESS; U.S. Deficit for 1990 Surged to Near-Record $220.4 Billion, but How Bad Is That?, New York Times (archives), Louis Uchitelle, Oct. 27, 1990 [U.S. fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 1990]

' .  .  The savings and loan bailout is also becoming a major long-term Federal expense, costing the Government in 1990 $58.1 billion,. . '


 * I have no idea why you posted these articles here. Orser67 (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to lose the first reference, plus I think it's good to sometimes use Talk as a staging ground. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This talk page isn't your personal repository for things you found on google. Orser67 (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Article has loosely talked about Bush's first year in office and fiscal year 1990
Our article used to say:

" .  .  .  to the budget for Bush's first year in office, fiscal year 1990,  .  .  " Article now says:

" .  .   to the budget for fiscal year 1990, which began in October 1989.  .  .  "

Plus, the Greene source is opaque in that we can't get it on line. This can be a general problem with Wikipedia, in that several editors can all make good faith edits and rewrites, and yet we can drift away from the original source. One remedy is that for something as important as budget deals, we shouldn't be relying on one source anyway.

I just have a hard time thinking that a new incoming president doesn't want to put his or her stamp on the budget for well over the first year and a half. Maybe it largely did happen that way, for example, that Bush largely continued the Reagan/Congress budgets, but it's definitely good to ask and get sources. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Greene, he reached a deal with Rostenkowski, who was the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee and the key congressional Democrat on the budget. If you want to make major edits to this article, I strongly recommend you read a book or two about Bush to get a good grasp of the era and Bush's motivations. Additionally, I strongly recommend not using contemporary sources from the era, which (by their nature) don't always give a good view of the whole situation. Finally, please see Offline sources for the policy on offline sources, which most certainly are not discouraged. Orser67 (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that offline sources are acceptable and support having a variety of good sources. Offline sources do make it more difficult, six months later when you and I are both likely working on other articles, for future editors to check, improve upon, or expand our work.  They do make a collaborative project more difficult.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"I just have a hard time thinking that a new incoming president doesn't want to put his or her stamp on the budget for well over the first year and a half"
 * Your intuition of the situation is irrelevant to what actually happened. Orser67 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

--

Our article previously said:

" .  .   fiscal year 1990 (Oct. 1, 1989 to Sept. 30, 1990), leaving the country with a deficit of approximately $90 billion.  .  "

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_H._W._Bush&diff=842647498&oldid=842645414

This is just incorrect. The deficit for that fiscal year was approx. 150 billion. So, mistakes can definitely sneak in with frequent rewrites. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I added the budget figure originally, and it accurately reflects what Green wrote. A president proposes a budget with projected figures, but those figures don't always line up exactly with reality because spending levels and (especially) revenue don't always line up perfectly with reality. Orser67 (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Greene wrote unclearly in that case. Because when our readers see "$90 Billion," they're going to think that was the actual deficit unless we qualify it as "projected." And if this is a key part of the story, of the tension between the President and Congress, perhaps we should say: "a projected deficit of $90 which became an actual deficit of $150," or something similar. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I removed your edits because they added uncited material. Everything you add should be cited to a specific source. Orser67 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This part I really don't get because I cited my material with the above Los Angeles Times and New York Times articles. I am, however, coming around to the approach of describing deficits in general terms, perhaps as compared to the previous year's deficit, and leaving the particular numbers to the chart which you created.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds good to me. Just make it clear what source supports the one uncited sentence, and I will not revert your edits. Orser67 (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy to put it back. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Going with New York Times rather than book regarding 1991 recession.

 * Accepting the Harsh Truth Of a Blue-Collar Recession, New York Times (Archives), Steve Lohr, Dec. 25, 1991.


 * ' .  .  .  Five times as many blue-collar jobs have evaporated [Emphasis added],  .  .  '


 * ' .  .  .  And the number of blue-collar jobs has fallen by more than a million, as desk jobs over all have declined by about 200,000.  .  .  '


 * ' .  .  .  white-collar professionals like bankers and lawyers, who once considered themselves immune to recessions, have also lost jobs. Those layoffs have been well publicized, and many occurred early in the economic downturn,  .  .  '

--


 * A Brief History of Economics: Artful Approaches to the Dismal Science, 2nd Edition, E. Ray Canterbery; New Jersey, London, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2011.


 * ' .  .  .  whereas three blue-collar workers were laid off for each white-collar worker in the 1980 to 1981 near-depression, in the 1990 to 1991 recession the ratio was down to two to one [Emphasis added].  .  .  '

-

Sources disagree all the time. And it's good to remind ourselves of that from time to time. For example, both the above sources get the dates wrong for the early '80s downturns. Numerous other sources are quite clear that it's a 1980 and 1982 double-dip recession. For example:


 * Real Gross Domestic Product, FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data), St. Louis. This source includes a graph which shows GDP growth over time, with each quarter showing percent change from same quarter of the previous year.  Vertical gray boxes show recessions.

The New York Times article is more specific. Plus, it's a major newspaper of record. Yes, in many cases that means it takes a pro-establishment view, and there are plenty of stories it doesn't cover or only partially covers for a variety of interesting reasons (and when challenged, even more interesting after-the-fact justifications!), but all the same, on the aspects of stories it does cover, it usually gets its facts right.

And of course I ask for your help as we, as always, continue to look for additional sources. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

PS I'm still going to include The Brief History of Economics as an additional source. People can look it up and come to their own conclusions. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)