|
|
|
#1
10-20-2005, 03:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Economy After 4 years: Clinton vs. Bush
The Economy After 4 years: Clinton vs. Bush
Suffice to say, Clinton's first 4 years outshine Bush's by a mile. The figures are called out in the extended entry: Job growth: annual average (payroll survey): Clinton: +2,835,000 Bush: -455,000 Economic growth (change in inflation-adjusted gross domestic product): Clinton: +3.7% per year Bush: +2.5% per year Inflation (change in consumer price index): Clinton: +2.8% per year Bush: +3.4% per year Median household income, change: Clinton: +1.7% per year Bush: -1.6% per year Number of Americans in poverty (average change per year): Clinton: -800,000 Bush: +1.5 million Number of Americans without health insurance (average change per year): Clinton: +145,000 Bush: +1,885,000 Federal surplus/deficit (annual average): Clinton: +$5 billion Bush: -$350 billion Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, White House Office of Management and Budget, National Assn. of Realtors. http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic...7/13574639.gif Jobs: Clinton Economy: Created 22 million jobs bush Economy: 3 million + jobs lost Deficts: Clinton Left a $233 Billion surplus bush is by year end to have a $700 deficit= $933 billon hole dug in 5 years *3 million manufacturing jobs lost under the "bush gang", I say a country that permits its manufacturing and its technical and scientific professions to wither away is a country on a path to the Third World. The mark of a Third World country is a labor force employed in domestic services. And, make no mistake, America is being "Third Worlded" by the Cheap Labor Conservatives who...like elites in those countries... will be the masters of the US while the vast majority of the public will be reduced to peons and corporate sharecroppers.... The global "race to the bottom" is moving very quickly and even China is seeing some jobs being moved to yet cheaper labor markets as its workers get somewhat better wages and benefits. There is always somewhere where wages are lower and where local elites can profit from making goods to ship to wealthy countries... but if that wealth is bled away by outsourcing and labor suppression... eventually there will be a critical shortage of the one thing these globalists can't manufacture--customers who can afford to buy what they are producing. There is already a global glut of production capacity chasing a shrinking pool of consuming capacity. The outsourcing of Americans jobs has started the USA on a decline from the World's Leading Economic and Military Power to also ran. What do you busheviks say? 
|
|
#2
10-20-2005, 04:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
 Have no fear, the bush-ites will be here shortly to remind you that they don't mind the U.S. economy being put in the crapper by Bush because Clinton got a blowjob. Their jobs, wages and medical care (and other peoples) are a sacrifice they are willing to make for some mythical hypocritical religious morality.
__________________
Originally Posted by Red: you know why. © ® ™  and hey take no prisoners, **** them, if you have something to say then say it **** polite.... then all these ****ers get to thinking they are right instead of someone saying what the **** are you talking about.... (d. donnelly)
|
|
#3
10-20-2005, 04:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins
|
|
#4
10-20-2005, 04:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oh, the heartbreak of economic and historic illiteracy.
The Bubble economy dynamics of the Clinton era were based upon lunacy, fraud, ignorance, and greed - hence they were unsustainable. The Bubble Burst in March 2000 - months before Bush assumed office; the real aftermath wasn't felt until 2001. The effects of the economic correction were highly exacerabated by 9/11. Just sayin'.
__________________
 In this lightning moment when you walk the earth, your first duty, by enlarging your ego, is to live through the endless march, both visible and invisible, of your own being. The Return of One's Pet Batfink! 
|
|
#5
10-20-2005, 04:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
You are comparing 8 years of Clinton to 4 years of Bush.
That is an invalid and inaccurate comparison. Secondly, you have nothing sourced. Thirdly, all your numbers disregard the effects of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, not to mention the economic downturn that took place right after Bush took office. If you want to be remotely credible, cite the exact, specific, source for each claim you have made. What you have posted can be classified as nothing more than propaganda designed to fool less intelligent people. It would be like posting this article from free republic that has no sourcing for each point; America under Clinton-Gore: ·The number of uninsured Americans increased by more than 8 million. ·Almost 70 percent of fourth graders in the highest poverty schools cannot read at basic level. ·Teachers were victims of 1.8 million crimes at school, including 657,000 violent crimes. ·Illegal drug use among high school seniors increased 78 percent. ·Federal prosecutions of gun-related offenses decreased by 46 percent. ·More than 12,000 U.S. soldiers are on food stamps. ·Enacted a $115 billion tax increase on Social Security benefits. ·Federal government is the nation's largest polluter, costing taxpayers nearly $400 billion for cleanups. ·45 convictions, 72 indictments/misdemeanor charges, and 8 imprisonments related to the 1996 campaign finance scandal, improper conduct by Clinton-Gore cabinet officials, and Whitewater. Such information is propaganda. It's typical low grade Michael Moore type stuff. Any credible information will come sourced. Finally, I will address poverty as a demonstration of the dishonesty of the initial post. There is less poverty after 4 years of Bush when compared with the first 4 years of Clinton. We are going to compare apples to apples. Poverty Rates: 13.7 under Clinton in 1996 12.7 under Bush in 2004. This is what we call a direct source. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...v/hstpov9.html What do you say Busheviks?
|
|
#6
10-20-2005, 04:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Your are entitle to your OPINION.....the fact say you are wrong.
|
|
#8
10-20-2005, 04:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
10-20-2005, 04:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Last edited by Busheviks; 10-20-2005 at 04:43 PM.
|
|
#10
10-20-2005, 04:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This thread reaks of perma-banned troll.
__________________
In this lightning moment when you walk the earth, your first duty, by enlarging your ego, is to live through the endless march, both visible and invisible, of your own being. The Return of One's Pet Batfink!
|
|
#12
10-20-2005, 05:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth In 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore launched their economic strategy: (1) establishing fiscal discipline, eliminating the budget deficit, keeping interest rates low, and spurring private-sector investment; (2) investing in people through education, training, science, and research; and (3) opening foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad. After eight years, the results of President Clinton’s economic leadership are clear. Record budget deficits have become record surpluses, 22 million new jobs have been created, unemployment and core inflation are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, and America is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in our history. President Clinton’s Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Today, America enjoys what may be the strongest economy ever. * Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history. * Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector. * Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993: Economic gains have been made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income has increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars). * Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years: Overall unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. The unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics has fallen from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000, also the lowest rate on record. * Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: Inflation is at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and it is down from 4.7 percent during the previous administration. * Highest Homeownership Rate on Record: The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent for the third quarter of 2000, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993. * 7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993. Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt President Clinton’s Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in America’s history. * Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever. * Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever: Between 1998-2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion—the largest three-year pay-down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009. * Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000—the lowest level since 1966. * Reduced Interest Payments on the Debt: In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $348 billion in FY 2000. In 2000, interest payments on the debt were $125 billion lower than projected. * Americans Benefit from Reduced Debt: Because of fiscal discipline and deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, like a large tax cut. * Double Digit Growth in Private Investment in Equipment and Software: Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth and fuel private investments. With government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, private investment in equipment and software averaged 13.3 percent annual growth since 1993, compared to 4.7 percent during 1981 to 1992. To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton: * Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development. * Negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced his plan to balance the budget for the first time in 27 years. Later that year, he signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a major bipartisan agreement to eliminate the national budget deficit, create the conditions for economic growth, and invest in the education and health of our people. It provided middle-class tax relief with a $500 per child tax credit and the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits for college. It also created the Children’s Health Insurance Program to serve up to 5 million children and made landmark investments in education initiatives including educational technology, charter schools, Head Start, and Pell Grants. Finally, it added 20 more Empowerment Zones and 20 more rural Enterprise Communities, included the President’s plan to revitalize the District of Columbia, and continued welfare reform though $3 billion in new resources to move welfare recipients to private-sector jobs. * Dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt. In his 1998 and 1999 State of the Union addresses, President Clinton called on the nation to save the surplus until the solvency of Social Security is assured. He also repeatedly vetoed large Republican tax cut bills that would have jeopardized our nation’s fiscal discipline. The President’s actions led to a bipartisan consensus on saving the surplus and paying down the debt. * Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025. When President Clinton took office, Medicare was expected to become insolvent in 1999, then only six years away. The 1993 deficit reduction act dedicated some of the taxes paid by Social Security beneficiaries to the Medicare Trust Fund and extended the life of Medicare by three years to 2002. Thanks to additional provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse and bipartisan cooperation in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, Medicare is now expected to remain solvent until 2025.
|
|
#13
10-20-2005, 05:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
In this lightning moment when you walk the earth, your first duty, by enlarging your ego, is to live through the endless march, both visible and invisible, of your own being. The Return of One's Pet Batfink!
|
|
#14
10-20-2005, 05:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#15
10-20-2005, 05:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Diagnosis: A troll with poor reading comprehension, spelling, and grammar skills.
__________________
In this lightning moment when you walk the earth, your first duty, by enlarging your ego, is to live through the endless march, both visible and invisible, of your own being. The Return of One's Pet Batfink!
|
|
#16
10-20-2005, 05:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Not to fight his fight for him, but....
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#17
10-20-2005, 05:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Haha.... im pretty sure Bu****es would even be happy to argue how we didnt really spend nearly 300,000,000,000 in Iraq so far... Because you see..... um.... you know, **** it. Guys, you just want to answer for me how we didnt just spend an astronomical amount on a complete failure of a situation that really in no way couldv ever benefited us? Im really not twisted enough to try and make up **** to defend it.
__________________
|
|
#18
10-20-2005, 05:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
He has no link or specific source for each claim made. As you've stated on a couple of occaisions, statistics can be shaped and molded to present any picture that you want. When I state a statistic, I provide the direct source, as in my above example with poverty that demonstrated his claim was wrong. He can choose to admit he was wrong or he can continue to remain in a state of denial. Also, I think he needs all the help he can get.
|
|
#19
10-20-2005, 05:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Middle-Class Progress? Families Work Longer to Pay for Middle-Class Items than a Quarter-Century Ago by Christian E. Weller Ph.D., Senior Economist October 20, 2005 Read the full report (PDF) I. Summary Is the typical middle-class family doing better today than they were 25 years ago? The answer is no, according to new measures of economic well-being developed in this report. The combination of stagnant incomes and staggering cost increases for important middle-class items—housing, health care, education and transportation—have left families with less money to save and spend than just a few years ago, and working longer to achieve the same results as in 1980. According to the analysis here: * In 2005, the average two-earner family needs to work 31.5 weeks to pay for taxes and a range of middle-class items (health care, housing, college, and transportation). That is an increase from 30.2 weeks in March 2001, and from 28.7 weeks in March 1979. * In 2005, after paying for the items outlined above, the average two-earner family had about $19,542 left to pay for basics—such as clothing, food, and utilities—to save for retirement, to improve their economic well-being, and to spend on any leisure and recreation. That is $951 less than families had in 2000 and $1,702 less than in 1980. * While families spend less today on taxes than in 2000—the tax cuts were real—those tax cuts do not offset the cost increases of expenditure items, particularly housing, health care, and education. * Middle-class families have addressed the economic squeeze by working longer hours. This has meant less time to spend with children and higher out-of-pocket expenditures for child care and for food outside the home. * Over time, middle-class families have also maintained their consumption levels by borrowing more money. Household debt soared to a record 116 percent of disposable income in March 2005. Average debt service burden levels have remained high throughout the current business cycle. * The economic squeeze tends to be worse for minorities than for whites. Specifically, income declines have been larger for Hispanics than for African-Americans and greater for African-Americans than for whites.
|
|
#20
10-20-2005, 05:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
typical bush / con apologist tactics
1) attack the poster 2) attack the posters source(s) without posting a credible source to their own 'statistics' Oh ... someone mentioned 'bubble economy' ... massive borrowing and inflated home prices are the only thing keeping the W economy from sinking like a lead brick we are IN a bubble economy
__________________
Living our values doesn’t make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger.
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
