PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Fact on Bush's First Term


sq764
02-04-2005, 09:52 PM
The final numbers are in on Bush and his first term resulted in a gain in net jobs.

Just thought that was interesting..

Secretariat
02-04-2005, 10:11 PM
The final numbers are in on Bush and his first term resulted in a gain in net jobs.

Just thought that was interesting..

lol...so he barely held off Herbert Hoover. GW...you're number 2.

sq764
02-04-2005, 10:16 PM
lol...so he barely held off Herbert Hoover. GW...you're number 2.
Job gains, economy on the rise, stock market on the rise... Man things are bad here :D

Tom
02-04-2005, 10:56 PM
To me, number of jobs is a misleading statistic. What is the gross annual value (income) of the jobs?
A better stat would be $/job. McJobs are not equal to good, manufacturing jobs. Value-added jobs count for many,many service jobs. We need to come up with truly descriptive statistics to judge the economy.

sq764
02-04-2005, 11:10 PM
To me, number of jobs is a misleading statistic. What is the gross annual value (income) of the jobs?
A better stat would be $/job. McJobs are not equal to good, manufacturing jobs. Value-added jobs count for many,many service jobs. We need to come up with truly descriptive statistics to judge the economy.
Well, since December 2003, disposable personal income has increased 6.4%.

Total National income has increased 24% since first quarter 2000.

National employee income in Clinton's first term was 15.1%
National employee income in Bushs' first term was 14.4%

Secretariat
02-05-2005, 09:36 AM
Well, since December 2003, disposable personal income has increased 6.4%.

Total National income has increased 24% since first quarter 2000.

National employee income in Clinton's first term was 15.1%
National employee income in Bushs' first term was 14.4%

Poverty has increased according to the US Census in lieu of massive tax breaks for the wealthy.

The Census Bureau's annual survey shows that inflation-adjusted income for the median household -- the midpoint -- fell by $1,535 in Bush's first 3 years, a decline of 3.4 percent.

Federal income taxes paid between 2001 and 2003 by 275 of America's largest, most profitable companies was 18.4 percent, nearly half the statutory 35 percent rate. Nearly a third of the companies paid zero taxes or received a rebate in at least one year between 2001 and 2003.

And I won't even mention the rate of increase for the average CEO compared to the regular worker or the spiralling out of control costs of Medical care or energy costs.

Or the continuing ballooning deficit.

In other words, those who make the most profit the most in the Bush world. Those on the poorer cusp have slipped further into poverty.

So much for compassionate conservativism.

Please check the US Census bureau to be enlightened.

And though he just edged out Hoover to get in the slight plus column on jobs, it is the lowest rate since the Great Depression. This is your idea of a good economy performance. You must be in the Bush big tax break group.

sq764
02-05-2005, 09:44 AM
Secretariat, you seem to 'conveniently' leave out that median family income dropped in each of the first four years of Clinton's first term..

Secretariat
02-06-2005, 11:00 AM
Secretariat, you seem to 'conveniently' leave out that median family income dropped in each of the first four years of Clinton's first term..

Clinton again. This is the tired excuse for the failed Bush adminstration policies over and over.

Perhaps you'd like to look at the US Census site statistics below on Clinton's first four years (or eight years for that matter), AND notice that in REAL dollars adjusted for inflation (in fact in actual dollars as well) that the real income for people rose every year he was in office. Don't take my word for it, or Rush's. Check the US Census data for yourself.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p01.html

fmazur
02-06-2005, 01:24 PM
Clinton was not burdened by a 9/11/2001 attack. You can't compare apples and oranges. Also Clinton was handed an economy that was growing and Bush was handed one that was in decline.

sq764
02-06-2005, 01:46 PM
Clinton was not burdened by a 9/11/2001 attack. You can't compare apples and oranges. Also Clinton was handed an economy that was growing and Bush was handed one that was in decline.
Not to mention not taking into account how many times the interest rate was raised and how it affected the economy..

But equal and fair reporting is not a Dem's style ;)

Kreed
02-06-2005, 03:19 PM
to be fair, the interest rates didn't raise mortage rates or auto loans etc etc.
Banks did not pass the increases to consumers.

46zilzal
02-06-2005, 04:12 PM
EVERYTHING in life is multi-factoral and to put the blame for almost anything on ONE factor is a bit shortsighted....Things just are and we try to deal with them..

Of course my favorite is the Reagan people telling everyone that HE defeated Communism when it just went bankrupt ALL BY ITSELF on his watch. Akin to saying that Hoover caused the depression.

Kreed
02-06-2005, 04:43 PM
It all looks so EZ ... the DEMS vs the NeoCons .... yeah, like Newt G has
degrees in physics? IMO, the Republicans are the WORST business leaders,
w/ out question, all they do is spend relecklessly, almost 2 the man. Why
that is, I got only vague explanations, but it seems that you're more likely
to prosper under a DEM leadership.

Secretariat
02-06-2005, 04:46 PM
Clinton was not burdened by a 9/11/2001 attack. You can't compare apples and oranges. Also Clinton was handed an economy that was growing and Bush was handed one that was in decline.

I did not bring Clinton up in the first place. SQ did. I was simply posting census data that refuted his assertions that incomes went down during Clinton's first time. Simply posting it as fact doesn't make it so, thus I included the census data.

I'll say it again though, using another President's failings to justify your own is logic from a very weak position. The truth is Clinton presided over a booming economy as evidenced by a 300% increase in the markets while he ws in office. Bush has not. However, Clinton failed to get good liberal policies in such as national health care. Instead he opted for NAFTA which is a long term disaster for our country and one of he reasons I voted against him along with his inability to promote a strong liberal policy. His best efforts were in the economy, his handling of Serbia issue, the economy and his budget management, diplomacy, civil rights. His worst were NAFTA, security failures in 98 due to his hesitation during the Lewisnski scandal, his poor judgment on the Lewsinski affair, and his failure to level with Americans when it happened.

I did not vote for Clinton in 96 as I was disapointed in his first four years, and for my own personal reasons, but he had some successes particularly in terms of budgeting.

Bush has been a disaster as a fiscal manager whatever excuse one wants to use. It is not 911 that is the culprit for these huge deficits. It is fiscal management, and nation building in Iraq. Bush faces a real dillemma. If he cuts the huge costs involved in Iraq, he risks losing the mission. If he keeps those expenses and even saber rattles at other nations he risks balloonming the budget even more. And if his privatization plan for SS goes through he will push the deifcit into the trillions by the most conservative of estimates. His strength is he comes off as a religious person, a good old boy, forthright, and though not a fluid speaker someone who speaks from the heart. I look at his actions though and see one disaster after another. Particularly, economically, diplomatically, and environmentally.

fmazur
02-06-2005, 05:13 PM
Sec wrrote:

I did not vote for Clinton in 96 as I was disapointed in his first four years, and for my own personal reasons, but he had some successes particularly in terms of budgeting.


Myself I was disapointed in his being born. As for his success in budgeting; think Republican Congress.

sq764
02-06-2005, 05:39 PM
It all looks so EZ ... the DEMS vs the NeoCons .... yeah, like Newt G has
degrees in physics? IMO, the Republicans are the WORST business leaders,
w/ out question, all they do is spend relecklessly, almost 2 the man. Why
that is, I got only vague explanations, but it seems that you're more likely
to prosper under a DEM leadership.
Too bad the Dems are the worst at running presidential campaigns :D

Tom
02-06-2005, 05:43 PM
And putting Screamin' Dean in charge will only ensure that the neocons will be shouting, " 20 more years! 20 more years!) :D

Secretariat
02-06-2005, 10:41 PM
Sec wrrote:

I did not vote for Clinton in 96 as I was disapointed in his first four years, and for my own personal reasons, but he had some successes particularly in terms of budgeting.


Myself I was disapointed in his being born. As for his success in budgeting; think Republican Congress.

Fiscally, I think surplus versus deficits.