Quote :

"um, no not that I know of if you can show me when it was higher under clinton go ahead"

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

clinton took office in 1993 and his average unemployment was 5.20%

bush took office in 2001 and his average unemployment is 5.30%

just another one of those myths about how terrible Bush was on the economy. we have really been prosperous under him and the market is due for a downturn.

presidents often get too much credit on the economy and too much blame.



[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 11:50 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 11:52 AM. Reason : edit to include 2008 current]

10/24/2008 11:48:32 AM

Please refer to the graph at the bottom of the last page.

you can tell that clinton's, if higher, was due to it being so high when he received office, and it then fell very very low. when bush came into office it was at this low rate.

so while what you may have quoted may be the truth, it is also misleading.

10/24/2008 11:50:53 AM

2008 YTD Average 154,161,778 145,649,778 8,512,000 5.5%
2007 153,167,750 146,093,917 7,073,833 4.6%
2006 151,427,583 144,427,000 7,000,583 4.6%
2005 149,297,833 141,707,250 7,590,583 5.1%
2004 147,401,000 139,252,000 8,149,000 5.5%
2003 146,510,000 137,736,000 8,774,000 6.0%
2002 144,863,000 136,485,000 8,378,000 5.8%
2001 143,734,000 136,933,000 6,801,000 4.7%
2000 142,583,000 136,891,000 5,692,000 4.0%
1999 139,368,000 133,488,000 5,880,000 4.2%
1998 137,673,000 131,463,000 6,210,000 4.5%
1997 136,297,000 129,558,000 6,739,000 4.9%
1996 133,943,000 126,708,000 7,236,000 5.4%
1995 132,304,000 124,900,000 7,404,000 5.6%
1994 131,056,000 123,060,000 7,996,000 6.1%
1993 129,200,000 120,259,000 8,940,000 6.9%
1992 128,105,000 118,492,000 9,613,000 7.5%


http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm

IR, can you think of anything that happened in 2001 that caused alot of people to lose their jobs?

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

10/24/2008 11:53:31 AM

Quote :

"you can tell that clinton's, if higher, was due to it being so high when he received office, and it then fell very very low. when bush came into office it was at this low rate. so while what you may have quoted may be the truth, it is also misleading."

true but Bush also has had to deal with 9/11 which really slowed the economy and the current mortgage crisis.

clinton's policies had nothing close to those 2 disasters to deal with.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

10/24/2008 11:53:57 AM

Quote :

"2008 YTD Average 154,161,778 145,649,778 8,512,000 5.5% 2007 153,167,750 146,093,917 7,073,833 4.6% 2006 151,427,583 144,427,000 7,000,583 4.6% 2005 149,297,833 141,707,250 7,590,583 5.1% 2004 147,401,000 139,252,000 8,149,000 5.5% 2003 146,510,000 137,736,000 8,774,000 6.0% 2002 144,863,000 136,485,000 8,378,000 5.8% 2001 143,734,000 136,933,000 6,801,000 4.7% 2000 142,583,000 136,891,000 5,692,000 4.0% 1999 139,368,000 133,488,000 5,880,000 4.2% 1998 137,673,000 131,463,000 6,210,000 4.5% 1997 136,297,000 129,558,000 6,739,000 4.9% 1996 133,943,000 126,708,000 7,236,000 5.4% 1995 132,304,000 124,900,000 7,404,000 5.6% 1994 131,056,000 123,060,000 7,996,000 6.1% 1993 129,200,000 120,259,000 8,940,000 6.9% 1992 128,105,000 118,492,000 9,613,000 7.5% "

alternatively this graph shows that clinton reduced unemployment by an average .44% a year, while, on the other hand. bush increased unemployment by an average of .19% per year.

10/24/2008 11:57:50 AM

all true...doesnt seem like there was much difference at all between the revered one (clinton) and the hated one (bush) which goes to prove my argument against libs who just spout off at the mouths at whatever talking point they can grasp:

Quote :

"Unemployment has been driven up with the CURRENT economic policy - it's time to take it back closer to how it was during the clinton days (remember Clinton, he cleaned up the first Bush's economic mess)"

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : . ]

10/24/2008 3:20:11 PM

I'm not exactly sure how that proves your point. It was your initial indication that unemployment was higher under clinton than it was under bush, which isn't entirely truthful nor forthcoming and doesn't certify you proving a point.

Quote :

"doesnt seem like there was much difference at all between the revered one (clinton) and the hated one (bush) "

how do you figure? Clinton was president when unemployment was driven down consistently at a rate of .44% a year, and Bush was president while unemployment went up approximately .19% a year. That is a yearly net difference of .63%, and over 8 years thats quite a hefty amount.

Maybe you did prove your point, and I have managed to miss it, which is possible. So please point out to me how the data demonstrated shows there is little difference between the revered clinton and the despised bush and how this difference is indicative of liberals talking off any talking point they can grasp.

10/24/2008 4:46:00 PM

I just dont really consider any of those percentages statistically significant enough to be a campaign issue. polices certainly arent changing that...more like market conditions and the normal ebb and flow.

especially when the comment that caused this debate was

Quote :

"Unemployment has been driven up with the CURRENT economic policy - it's time to take it back closer to how it was during the clinton days (remember Clinton, he cleaned up the first Bush's economic mess)"

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 4:51 PM. Reason : . ]

10/24/2008 4:49:55 PM

I'm not seeing a lot wrong with that comment since the sharp change in overall unemployment following bush 1 is evident from the graph on page 2. I'll give Bush 9/11 and let some of the unemployment and other such negative metrics be written off as such, and I'll also give him a free pass on this most recent turn of events, but there still are no signs that he has done a good job in reducing unemployment and definitely not to the levels of clinton.

I don't think any of this "proves" your point as much as it does highlight the unwillingness of some to disregard some failures during bush's term as a matter of consequence. it in no way removes him of economic error.

10/24/2008 4:59:54 PM

Quote :

"true but Bush also has had to deal with 9/11 which really slowed the economy and the current mortgage crisis. clinton's policies had nothing close to those 2 disasters to deal with. "

It posts like this that lets everyone in here know you are a partisan hack. The dot.com bubble had already been bursting long before 9/11 hit. It really got rolling about 10 months after Bush came to office. The thing is, I don't actually pin that on Bush. And trying to pass off the mortgage crisis as a disaster that shouldn't count against Bush's unemployment count is perhaps one of the most laughable things I have ever heard of.

Let me guess, next, you're going to tell me how it was liberal policies that are causing this crisis and if anything it should be attributed all the way back to Clinton in the early 90s?

10/24/2008 5:05:18 PM

Quote :

"It posts like this that lets everyone in here know you are a partisan hack. The dot.com bubble had already been bursting long before 9/11 hit. It really got rolling about 10 months after Bush came to office. The thing is, I don't actually pin that on Bush. And trying to pass off the mortgage crisis as a disaster that shouldn't count against Bush's unemployment count is perhaps one of the most laughable things I have ever heard of. Let me guess, next, you're going to tell me how it was liberal policies that are causing this crisis and if anything it should be attributed all the way back to Clinton in the early 90s? "

what are you, hormonal right now? I am a 'partisan hack' because you implied a bunch of shit I didnt say? POT MEET PMSING KETTLE.

I said none of those things. I never said that either 9/11 or mortgage crisis shouldnt count, I was merely pointing out that they did happen during his term.

10/24/2008 5:43:16 PM

[quotewhat are you, hormonal right now?[/quote]

Ad hominem attack...for the win?

10/24/2008 5:44:16 PM

ftw!!!

10/24/2008 5:47:47 PM

Quote :

"I said none of those things. I never said that either 9/11 or mortgage crisis shouldnt count, I was merely pointing out that they did happen during his term."

No, you weren't merely pointing them out. In the face of information that was detrimental to your position that unemployment under Bush was 'better' (my term) than Clinton, you tried to use it as some sort of an excuse.

I can't believe you just didn't give up your argument when that graphic was shown.

I mean dear lord man, listen to yourself

(information you don't like)

Quote :

" alternatively this graph shows that clinton reduced unemployment by an average .44% a year, while, on the other hand. bush increased unemployment by an average of .19% per year."

and your rebuttal

Quote :

"all true...doesnt seem like there was much difference at all between the revered one (clinton) and the hated one (bush) which goes to prove my argument against libs who just spout off at the mouths at whatever talking point they can grasp"

SCHWAT? You don't see much difference between a lowering of unemployment by .44% per year and an increase of .19% per year? And you have the audacity to talk about libs that spout off at the mouth?

And you're going to cry and call me hormonal?

Can't wait to see what you respond. This is rich man, real rich.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 6:35 PM. Reason : .44%]

10/24/2008 6:34:38 PM

wow. so, a less than .7% change in a variable, despite massive differences in what contributed to that variable, is considered not "different"? I'd say it's pretty much the same damned thing, troll

10/24/2008 6:46:47 PM

On the one side, we have a president lowering unemployment (creating jobs) by .44% per yer. On the other side we have a president raising unemployment by .19% per year. The difference is so stark that both of your sanitys (or maybe the just the kool aid you've been drinking) should be questioned.

Btw, do you actually work, or do you just like to argue with the liberals for the fun of it? You don't actually strike me as someone with very much real world experience at all based on what you post.

10/24/2008 6:58:00 PM

tell me, do you have a brain? because you don't exactly strike me as a person who actually has a brain based on what you post.

and no, I don't see anything drastically different there for Bush. He starts out at 4, gets nailed with 9/11, gets shit back to close to 4, then gets nailed with housing crash. Clinton starts out w/ 7.5, gets the boon of the .com bubble, and manages to push things down to 4. so no, there really isn't a huge noticeable difference. But yes, if you ignore everything else, then one could say there is a difference. But that person would have to be an idiot to do so. Which, btw, is what you are doing.

10/24/2008 7:07:36 PM

Quote :

"wow. so, a less than .7% change in a variable, despite massive differences in what contributed to that variable, is considered not "different"? I'd say it's pretty much the same damned thing, troll"

additionally, i am interested in what the margin of error is in these statistics as well as what alternate variables could contribute to the percentage, i.e...population increases/decreases.

not knowing those things makes the difference basically statistically insignificant IMO.

10/24/2008 9:30:25 PM

Quote :

"tell me, do you have a brain? because you don't exactly strike me as a person who actually has a brain based on what you post. "

You seem to have a lot of pent up rage.

Quote :

"gets nailed with 9/11,"

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_9_11_economy

Quote :

"The notion that a large part of our current economic woes is attributable to the attacks and aftermath of September 11 has become almost an article of faith for many policy makers and commentators. It’s been repeated so often, rarely questioned, that it has begun to feel like established fact. The sky is blue, and the attacks of 9/11 sent our economy into a tailspin that we are still struggling to pull out of. Reasonable people can argue about whether the sky is really blue. But it’s hard to find an economic indicator that supports the notion that today’s economic troubles can be properly explained as the backwash from 9/11. That claim simply does not withstand close scrutiny. While pockets of the U.S. economy remain worse off as a result of 9/11, the net effect on total GDP today is negligible and may well be positive."

Soooo, you lost this point.

Quote :

"then gets nailed with housing crash"

Hmm, lets see, so a GOP appointed Fed chair gave his mea culpa recently and solidified his legacy as one of the worst policy makers of all time. Numerous folks testified years before leading up to this crisis and no one in this administration listened.

Quote :

"not knowing those things makes the difference basically statistically insignificant IMO. "

hahahaha, that's the best you got? Sad. Those numbers come from the BLS and are measured once and again revised. They are most certainly accurate.

Btw, it isn't a .7% change. It's a .7% difference. The unemployment changed 300% to the worse for the first part of Bush. it came back down as the economy shook off the dot.com slump, and it might go to 10% after this recession comes on full effect, a number that hasn't been that high since...Regan, a republican. Oops.

10/24/2008 10:22:01 PM

Quote :

"His tax proposals will put a big hurt on small businesses (which employ 70% of workers and are currently creating 80% of new jobs). So I'm sure when all those people get fired to keep the company solvent, the check from the government, that will pale in comparison to their paycheck, will bring them great comfort."

Almost all small businesses will get tax breaks under Obama.

Quote :

"Yes, creating a disincentive to work hard and succeed will surely help the economy."

There won't be disincentive to work for two huge reasons.

1.would you rather not work and have enough money to eat, go to the doctor, and basically stay alive or work and have tons of money? Only the mentally ill wouldn't answer the latter. In that case, they need it anyway as they would be a burden to worker efficiency.

Quote :

"They feared a pure democracy, and so do I. So you're saying mob rule would be a good thing? What the majority wants the majority gets? I don't think I need to explain why this would lead to horrible outcomes."

The majority won't be ruling but they will be represented the most. Thats what a representatives Democracy is all about. Capitalism would fail without any of this type of regulation anyway.

10/24/2008 10:48:09 PM

Quote :

"Btw, it isn't a .7% change. It's a .7% difference. The unemployment changed 300% "

you have got to be fucking kidding me. .7% change is the same fucking thing as a .7% difference. % is the UNIT OF MEASURE here, dipshit.

10/24/2008 11:04:29 PM

Sooooo, you really are the slow one around here? What part of decreasing unemployment and increasing unemployment don't you get? You do know what positive and negative concepts of numbers are, right?

10/24/2008 11:20:10 PM

going back to the point I've already trashed, I see. that .44 is still close to -.16, especially when taking into account the vastly different experiences that occurred during the terms of the presidents.

10/24/2008 11:31:27 PM

The only thing trashed is your credibility. Only a brain dead moron would think there isn't much difference between taking 240k jobs per year out of the economy versus adding 660k (using todays employment numbers).

Really?

...

Really?


Are you angry because no matter how hard you try to gotcha the liberals it always ends up in one heaping pile of fail cake?

10/25/2008 9:15:45 AM

Quote :

"Let them eat cake"

~ Marie-Antoinette

10/25/2008 9:46:14 AM

Quote :

"Are you angry because no matter how hard you try to gotcha the liberals it always ends up in one heaping pile of fail cake? "

were you the one a few posts up calling others 'partisan hacks'?

no one was trying to play "gotcha" you non-reading-comprehending douche. we were simply pointing out that unemployment has been essentially the same under Bush as it was under Clinton in response to terpball comment that I have quoted at least twice.

10/25/2008 12:11:26 PM

Quote :

"we were simply pointing out that unemployment has been essentially the same under Bush as it was under Clinton"

That's exactly the point of contention. I don't understand how anyone with a quarter an IQ point of rational thought processing ability can look at the graph and claim that it was the same.

Clinton - steadily decreasing unemployment
Bush - steadily increasing unemployment, slight dip, then this year it will be spiking up again

Here's the thing, I'm not even of the camp that the president is really all that responsible for the economy, I wouldn't even be discussing this with you if it weren't so much fun for me to see you look at that graph and somehow try to spin it in any other way that isn't negative for your side.

Quote :

"were you the one a few posts up calling others 'partisan hacks'?"

What does what you quoted have to do with anyone being a partisan hack?

Eh, don't answer that, lets just stick to the graph that you guys are failing to interpret correctly and then trying to attribute things like 9/11 to the numbers when it's been debunked.

10/25/2008 12:47:42 PM

There is a lot of damage to the economy that can be attributed to Bush. My problem is that most democrats are not "the Southern New Democrat from Arkansas" that Bill Clinton was. It has been said that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president in history. I disagree, but there is no doubt that he is definitely the best Republican president in recent history. He kept his wars affordable, his tax increases small, pushed for deregulation, eroded union power, liberalized trade, and reformed welfare. He did these small-government tasks while talking endlessly about "the new economy."

Why don't we get new economy speeches anymore? Why doesn't the president spend every other press conference staking next to the founders of the latest high-tech startup?

Big 'R' Republicans hated Bill Clinton because they knew he was a better little 'r' republican than they were, and they couldn't stand it.

10/26/2008 12:21:08 AM

I keep hearing people say the GOP has moved way too far to the right. I think McCains campaign is evidence of such.

He is known to be a moderate republican but has spent most of his campaign trying to "energize his base", he should have been going after the middle because that is the segment he lost to Obama.

That huge miscalculation will cost him any chance of ever being President of the United States.

10/26/2008 12:44:59 AM

Quote :

"I don't understand how anyone with a quarter an IQ point of rational thought processing ability can look at the graph and claim that it was the same. "

For once arronburro is right about something, at least partially. You are COMPLETELY ignoring the events of each presidency... essentially willful ignorance for the sake of making a flawed point.

Clinton decreased unemployment steadily. He did so with the help of the dot-com boom.

As Bush entered office the dot-com bubble was bursting and there was the beginning of a war with certain entities in the middle east (referring to the WoT, not Iraq). Unemployment spiked and then came back down. Now, with the bursting of the housing bubble, something that BOTH the Clinton and Bush administrations contributed to in some capacity, unemployment has spiked again. Barring another huge collapse, chances are it'll go back down to ~4% in the next 5 years or so, regardless of who is president.

There wasn't a big difference between the two presidencies with regards to employment. They both brought it down during periods in which there was not an economic crisis. Yes, Bush may have been slightly worse than Clinton, but it's not really enough to base an argument on. There are a LOT of ways in which Clinton was better than Bush (see ^^), but employment rates really aren't one of them.


[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 1:05 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2008 1:04:47 AM

I would say gas prices are a driving factor behind this recession too. The housing crash did not drive up the cost of pretty much every consumer purchase.

10/26/2008 1:20:56 AM

Quote :

"For once arronburro is right about something, at least partially. You are COMPLETELY ignoring the events of each presidency... essentially willful ignorance for the sake of making a flawed point."

I might not be giving due service to this entire debate, but I assure you I am not completely ignoring. Did you read what I posted? angryaaronburro tried to add 9/11 to the mix of reasons for a Bush bungling and I posted some commentary that discredits that. Is that ignorning? Give me a break.

Sure, Clinton had the dot com boom to help him out....from a rather pernicious 8% down to 4%, the lowest it had been in nearly 30 years. There is something to be said about that. And unlike the fake wealth creation of this housing bubble, we actually got tons of benefits in regards to tech advancements from that era. What will we get out of this era? Many foreclosures and homes sitting empty and unsold for years?

Quote :

"Now, with the bursting of the housing bubble, something that BOTH the Clinton and Bush administrations contributed to in some capacity, unemployment has spiked again"

You want to talk about ignoring, let's talk about how you're ignoring the fact that many folks warned this administration about this catastrophe over 5 years ago. President Bush gave a speech saying we should encourage those without the ability to pay to get a home. The SEC under this administration relaxed leverage restrictions on the iBanks because they were jealous of the huge profits the GSEs were raking. The GSEs got caught cooking their books, legislation came up to do something about it, which if I am not mistaken, WAS SHOT DOWN. You're ignoring all that.

Quote :

"Barring another huge collapse, chances are it'll go back down to ~4% in the next 5 years or so, regardless of who is president."

Some think it's going to 10%, which will be attributed for only the second time in the past ~60 years.

10/26/2008 11:33:32 AM

Quote :

" let's talk about how you're ignoring the fact that many folks warned this administration about this catastrophe over 5 years ago. President Bush gave a speech saying we should encourage those without the ability to pay to get a home. The SEC under this administration relaxed leverage restrictions on the iBanks because they were jealous of the huge profits the GSEs were raking. The GSEs got caught cooking their books, legislation came up to do something about it, which if I am not mistaken, WAS SHOT DOWN. You're ignoring all that"

The warnings were ignored long before Bush: Sept 30 1999 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Quote :

"The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. ... In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'' ... Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings."

Let's not pretend that this was some scheme concocted in the secret dens of the GOP one night, with Bush masterminding the whole thing. This was a long time coming and many people saw it coming and their warnings were ignored, by both Clinton and the Democrats and Bush and the Republicans.

Quote :

"Some think it's going to 10%, which will be attributed for only the second time in the past ~60 years."

Some who? And why do these "some" think that we're going to see a 5% increase in unemployment in the next 5 years, regardless of who is president?

Look, you're just going to have to face the fact that whatever effect the president can have on unemployment, the differences between Bush and Clinton in that respect were minimal.

10/26/2008 5:51:05 PM

Quote :

"I have no sympathy for the aristocrat who has cancel his yacht club membership "

Don't speak out of your ass. You lack understanding of yacht clubs.

[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 5:55 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 5:54:11 PM

Quote :

"Let's not pretend that this was some scheme concocted in the secret dens of the GOP one night, with Bush masterminding the whole thing."

Uhhh, I don't think anything I typed implied that. However, it is rather telling that under Bush's watch, the SEC relaxed the leverage rules on 5 of the iBanks so they could get some of that yummy MBS pie.

Quote :

"This was a long time coming and many people saw it coming and their warnings were ignored, by both Clinton and the Democrats and Bush and the Republicans."

Here is the thing. The CRA had been around for quite awhile before this mess started. The Democrats had no idea when they were using the program to get votes that the mess could unfold the way it did. For them, this whole thing could be chalked up to unforeseen consequences. The little tidbit you posted from 99 deals only with the GSEs. That is, had this whole greedy ponzi plague not been allowed to spread to everyone on wall street (from the iBanks, the hedge funds, the underwriters, to the ratings agencies) via proper regulation under the Bush regimine, at most we have just the GSEs to bail out, not the entire world economy.

You can blame the Clinton presidency for getting the ball started rolling, but it could have been put in check with a quickness had anyone in Washington (Congress included) listened to anyone other than their rich Wall Street friends when people were sounding the alarms. It's like watching the fox guarding the hen house for 8 years, then deciding you don't have to watch him anymore because nothing has happened in 8 years.

Quote :

"Some who? And why do these "some" think that we're going to see a 5% increase in unemployment in the next 5 years, regardless of who is president?"

Roubini thinks we are going to 9%
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0AZ3ECSkvwc
I guess I've seen 10 on some of the econ blogs I follow.

Quote :

"Look, you're just going to have to face the fact that whatever effect the president can have on unemployment, the differences between Bush and Clinton in that respect were minimal."

I've already stated I don't attribute unemployment that much to a president. I'm mostly in here arguing against the people that want to allow that premise to stand and given that, think that Bush's record is rosy.

10/26/2008 6:22:43 PM

nice backpeddle/subject change.

10/26/2008 9:53:02 PM

Quote :

"Some think it's going to 10%, which will be attributed for only the second time in the past ~60 years."

Those 'Some' are exagerating wildly. The U.S. economy is far more complex nowadays with a far lesser dependence upon physical goods which tended to magnify recessions thanks to warehousing. Well, our just-in-time economy has cut down on inventories and therefore has cut down on unemployment spikes.

But, like all things, people do find themselves in hell, so we must entertain the possibility. If the world overthrows the WTO and starts an old fashioned trade war then unemployment would quickly exceed 10%, possibily 20%.

Other than that, I cann't think of any plausible scenario from our current circumstances to arrive at 10% unemployment.

10/26/2008 10:40:42 PM