A record of recovery
- Thread starter charrison
- Start date
Again, say it to the face of millions that have lost their jobs, still jobless or now in jobs at a fraction of the pay they used to get and no longer have Health Care Insurance. :|
"And it has. More people are employed today than ever."
But it has not KEPT up with the pace of population growth.
You can't spin that and you will not have the proper answer either for your Fearless Liar.
The statement saying that Clinton inherited prosperity and left with despair or whatnot just isn't accurate when looking at this data. Bush #1 was recovering the economy somewhat and Clinton grew it to even better heights. Remember that each point is compared only to the previous year's same quarter or same month, not compared to each other linearly.
Clinton continued growing the GDP each and every quarter while he was in office. EVERY QUARTER. Same increases were higher or lower than others but it always kept growing.
It is only up to very, VERY recently that Bush #2 started putting the economy even into the slightest of forward progress, after 3 years of downward growth. Bush has a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng way to go to reach the economy that Clinton left him.
Edit: The GDP appears to be growing ok, but job rates are still stagnant.
Clinton continued growing the GDP each and every quarter while he was in office. EVERY QUARTER. Same increases were higher or lower than others but it always kept growing.
It is only up to very, VERY recently that Bush #2 started putting the economy even into the slightest of forward progress, after 3 years of downward growth. Bush has a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng way to go to reach the economy that Clinton left him.
Edit: The GDP appears to be growing ok, but job rates are still stagnant.
Well put, unfortunately the Fearless Liar NeoCons in here that would jump off a cliff for him will spin you down like a drill bit on steroids.
Ok dave, how has it not kept pace with population growth.
More people are employed and the employment rate is below the average for the past 20 years or so...
So after 4 years in office clinton had an unemployment rate of 5.6%, the same as today. Was job growth stagnant then?
Come on, it's very simple :The economy under Bush=sh!t
The economy under Clinton=fvcking fantastic.
Anything else is spin. And you work really hard at it. I'm proud of you.
The economy under Clinton=fvcking fantastic.
Anything else is spin. And you work really hard at it. I'm proud of you.
So you say that 5.6 unemployment under clinton is fscking fantastic
And 5.6 unemployment under bush is shi!t?
I am glad we have that cleared up. But it looks likes you are the one doing the spinning.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I worked my way through school at a major new car distribution hub during GHW Bush's term. When he attacked Iraq in '91, the entire west coast pretty much stopped buying new cars. Really sucked for me. Sales would surge from time to time, but I pretty much spent the next year and a half working part-time. Suddenly, in October of 92, sales exploded and I did nothing but work overtime until the re-tooling season the end of December. Why? People knew that Bush was going to lose.
And what does that mean? More than any policy a President might put into place, it is uncertainty about the future that hurts the economy. People slow their buying and think about rainy days, and companies postpone their reinvestment expenditures. And it is uncertainty that both Bushes brought us, more than anything else.
And what does that mean? More than any policy a President might put into place, it is uncertainty about the future that hurts the economy. People slow their buying and think about rainy days, and companies postpone their reinvestment expenditures. And it is uncertainty that both Bushes brought us, more than anything else.
I think you're over-estimating a president's impact on the economy. as far as I can tell, the mid/late-90's boom had nothing to do with the actions of the president, nor did the following recession.
No, it means that Clinton's workforce and employment was growing fast enough or faster than the population growth. People retire, people enter the workforce, people die, that's a constant variable. One can have job growth while still have the same unemployment rate as long it keeps pace with the number of people in the workforce. Clinton, according to this chart, which is YOUR evidence, shows that the number of jobs open per eligible person increased every single month he was in office. Can't say that for GWB.
To illustrate my point, I'll use very low basic numbers.... easier for me to do and you to read.
Year # Eligible to be Employed # Unemployed % Unemployed
2003 100 6 6%
2004 150 9 6%
Basically there were 47 new jobs created from 2003 to 2004. That would mean there was a 50% job growth from 2003 and 2004, but unemployment rate remained steady.
With that said, it's hard to judge fully, the state of job growth and unemployment solely on the data in your original post. Although I do think it's part of an overall puzzle, it's just one piece and to make final judgment on any economic distinction would be irresponsible. But all things being equal (which I guarantee aren't), my statements in my previous post still stand. But again, that's solely based upon the information and evidence you presented, which is incomplete.
So this debate, I feel, is a non-issue, because there's not enough evidence to support either argument and either final basis of judgement is based purely on speculation, mine included. Thank you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter