Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-01-2008, 10:39 PM   #16
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Simply because he inherited a good economy, so of course his overall numbers will be better. He had a higher starting average to begin with than Clinton did. Judging from the overall lack of real progress in most of these areas you've provided statistics for, had he been in Clinton's position and had inherited his father's mess, it is extremely likely he would not have made as big a positive impact as Clinton did.

Its not enough to simply "inherit" a good economy to produce such good numbers over an 8 year period, although it does have a significant impact.

Consider what would have happened though if Bush did not have to fight two major wars, was able to have the same level of defense spending as Clinton did, and experienced gas prices as low as the Clinton years.

It is actually far more impressive when one considers the obstacles to economic growth and prosperity that Bush has been forced to face in his time as President that we have seen average levels of unemployment, poverty rates, and a lower national debt on average that are superior to that of the Clinton years.

Forget, the comparison of the two presidents or in fact give Clinton all the credit for the past 8 years if you want, the fact remains unemployment rate, poverty rate, inflation rate are all at levels that are very low historically. The United States has been involved in two major wars and experienced one recession since Bush came into office, yet the average national debt as a percentage of GDP is lower than it was during the peacetime of the Clinton years even though GDP growth has not been as fast.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 10:44 PM   #17
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
although it does have a significant impact.
I accept your apology.



__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 11:36 PM   #18
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 706
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Wow. Some pretty compelling numbers there. Where Bush declines in nearly every category, Clinton dramatically improves.
__________________
LPU2 is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 11:53 PM   #19
War Child
 
Iskra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 752
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Since Bush took office we've lost 2 buildings, a city, world respect, thousands of troops, bits of freedom and the ability to say we don't torture people.
__________________
Iskra is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 11:53 PM   #20
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
The United States has been involved in two major wars and experienced one recession since Bush came into office
Words say so much more than numbers ever can.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 12:10 AM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Iskra
Since Bush took office we've lost 2 buildings, a city, world respect, thousands of troops, bits of freedom and the ability to say we don't torture people.
But see, Bush's inflation rate was one hundreth of one percent better than Clinton's.

So everything's alright.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 12:13 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Words say so much more than numbers ever can.
Strongbow's quote, the sentence you quoted, might just be my next sig.

Iskra's is a close competitor though.


The two sentences, taken together, provide an apt summation of the Bush years.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 01:53 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:37 PM
All of those statisitcs confirm that Clinton did better with the economy than Bush has done.

This is hilarious.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 01:58 AM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:37 PM
It's beyond hilarious, actually. Re-reading your explanations makes it funnier. If it wasn't 2AM with a house of people sleeping, I'd be laughing out loud.

Your "Average" thing is priceless too. Either you're genuinely bad with statistics or intentionally trying to deceive people.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 03:06 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LPU2
Wow. Some pretty compelling numbers there. Where Bush declines in nearly every category, Clinton dramatically improves.
True.
It's also true that Clinton started with a Democratic House and ended with a Republican House. Bush started with a Republican House and ends with a Democratic House.
Which tells me:
Under Republican control (Gingrich)-- Trend up.
Under Democratic control (Pelosi)-- Trend down.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 03:27 AM   #26
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 07:37 PM
No matter how you stack it, Bush's numbers on unemployment, inflation, GDP growth, and the poverty rate are excellent by US historical standards. National Debt as a percentage of GDP is relatively high only when compared with the 1970s. Clinton's 4th year in office saw the highest National Debt as a percentage of GDP since 1955.

Even if Bush's numbers had continued some of the lower trends that many have sited from the Clinton years, people would still dismiss the figures. Some people are too invested in "Bush is the worst thing to ever happen to the United States" to admit when faced with some basic facts that things are not nearly as bad as they, some pundits and politicians would claim.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 05:23 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:37 PM
How could he be all that they claim? After all, then Bush would have to:

Be both Idiot-in-Chief AND clever enough to steal two elections, hoodwink mentally superior Democratic Senators into voting for his misbegotten war and cover-up 9/11.

Be both a Fascist AND a pawn of Big-Oil, Big-Pharma and Big-Telecom.

Be anti-science BUT develop cutting-edge technology like anti-satellite missiles and African-American-seeking hurricanes.

And somehow be a war criminal in a war that doesn't even exist.

In addition to being the world's biggest liar, the world's biggest terrorist and the world's biggest polluter. Pretty impressive really when you consider that he left the White House every summer to ride ponies on his ranch and play golf. Unfortunately, he will be considered a failed president because he never shredded the constitution to establish a Christian theocracy like he promised.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 06:39 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


True.
It's also true that Clinton started with a Democratic House and ended with a Republican House. Bush started with a Republican House and ends with a Democratic House.
Which tells me:
Under Republican control (Gingrich)-- Trend up.
Under Democratic control (Pelosi)-- Trend down.
Take a second look. The trends didn't change direction when the other party entered the houses.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 06:52 AM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 02:37 PM
desperation smells a bit like gin and sour defeat pressed up against you, like a few of the posts in this thread.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 07:06 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
No matter how you stack it, Bush's numbers on unemployment, inflation, GDP growth, and the poverty rate are excellent by US historical standards. National Debt as a percentage of GDP is relatively high only when compared with the 1970s. Clinton's 4th year in office saw the highest National Debt as a percentage of GDP since 1955.

Even if Bush's numbers had continued some of the lower trends that many have sited from the Clinton years, people would still dismiss the figures. Some people are too invested in "Bush is the worst thing to ever happen to the United States" to admit when faced with some basic facts that things are not nearly as bad as they, some pundits and politicians would claim.
Your presumptions form the world according to how you want it. One could say:
"Some people are too invested in "Bush is the greatest thing to ever happen to the United States" to admit when faced with some basic facts that things are not nearly as great as they, some pundits and politicians would claim.", and quite frankly, equally as wrong.

It's ridiculous to blindly accuse everyone of dismissing a hypothetical downward trend continued by Bush.

I say it again: Just by taking these figures you cannot that easily say that Clinton was the greatest, or Bush was the greatest.
You are in two major wars, yet the economy and everyday life has not been that much impacted by these. The army recruits heavily from the poor and unemployed.
Economic indicators show you trends and give you a hint whether economic policies have been rather good or bad. But to make actual claims you need much more than just those figures. For example, not everything that happens in the economy can directly be awarded to Clinton's or Bush's policies. The US is engaging in a world market which means that there are influences from the outside of the domestic economy.
The poverty rate is certainly an important indicator, but it's not telling you the whole picture: Income inequality is still rising and upward social mobility still not experienced by millions of people, or it is the step from being unemployed to working poor. Only a few make the way out of their situation, and often by joining the military.
And that's something both Clinton and Bush failed to address.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com