Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Strongbow

Refugee
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
1,943
Here are some key economic statistics and averages for the Clinton years and Bush years on "National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP", "Annual GDP Growth Rate", "Poverty Rate", "Inflation Rate", and the "Unemployment Rate". Most of these area's only include data for Bush's first 6 years as not all the data is in for 2007 yet.


National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years:

1993 66.2%
1994 66.7%
1995 67.2%
1996 67.3%
1997 65.6%
1998 63.5%
1999 61.4%
2000 58%

Bush Years:

2001 57.4%
2002 59.7%
2003 62.4%
2004 63.7%
2005 63.8%
2006 64.5%


The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 61.9%





Annual GDP growth rate:

Clinton Years:

1993 5%
1994 5.9%
1995 4.4%
1996 5.4%
1997 5.9%
1998 5.1%
1999 5.6%
2000 5.6%


Bush Years:

2001 3.1%
2002 3.3%
2003 4.5%
2004 6.2%
2005 6%
2006 5.8%


Average GDP growth rate:

Clinton Years 5.4%

Bush Years 4.8%





Annual Poverty Rate:

Clinton Years:

1993 15.1%
1994 14.5%
1995 13.8%
1996 13.7%
1997 13.3%
1998 12.7%
1999 11.9%
2000 11.3%

Bush Years:

2001 11.7%
2002 12.1%
2003 12.5%
2004 12.7%
2005 12.6%
2006 12.3%


Average Annual Poverty Rate:

Clinton Years 13.3%

Bush Years 12.3%




Annual Inflation Rate:

Clinton Years:

1993 2.96
1994 2.61
1995 2.81
1996 2.93
1997 2.34
1998 1.55
1999 2.19
2000 3.38

Bush Years:

2001 2.83
2002 1.59
2003 2.27
2004 2.68
2005 3.39
2006 3.24
2007 2.85


Average Annual Inflation Rate:

Clinton Years 2.60%

Bush Years 2.69%





Annual Unemployment Rate:

Clinton Years:

1993 6.91
1994 6.10
1995 5.59
1996 5.41
1997 4.94
1998 4.50
1999 4.22
2000 3.97

Bush Years:

2001 4.76
2002 5.78
2003 5.99
2004 5.53
2005 5.08
2006 4.63
2007 4.61


Average Annual Unemployment Rate:

Clinton Years 5.21%

Bush Years 5.20%




When it comes to the area's of National Debt as a percentage of GDP, Unemployment, and the Poverty Rate, the Bush years have been better than the Clinton years up through 2006 for National Debt and Poverty Rate, and through 2007 on the unemployment rate. The Clinton years were better in terms of inflation and annual GDP growth. Although not all the data is in yet for the Bush years with 11 months to go in the last year, its unlikely that the current leads for the Bush years will be reversed.

While Democrats may paint the Clinton years as a paradise and the Bush years as the Great Depression, a close look at the key economic statistics for both era's reveals that this is far from being the case. The rate of poverty during the Bush years has been less than the Clinton years. National Debt as a percentage of GDP has also been smaller, despite a slower growth rate and the nation being involved in two major wars for nearly all of the Bush years.
 
Last edited:
Strongbow said:

While Democrats may paint the Clinton years as a paradise and the Bush years as the Great Depression,


no, you're the only person out there who thinks the rest of the world views things as simplistically as you do.
 
National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years:

1993 66.2%
1994 66.7%
1995 67.2%
1996 67.3%
1997 65.6%
1998 63.5%
1999 61.4%
2000 58%


Trend: Down

Bush Years:

2001 57.4%
2002 59.7%
2003 62.4%
2004 63.7%
2005 63.8%
2006 64.5%

Trend: Up

Annual Poverty Rate:

Clinton Years:

1993 15.1%
1994 14.5%
1995 13.8%
1996 13.7%
1997 13.3%
1998 12.7%
1999 11.9%
2000 11.3%

Trend: Down

Bush Years:

2001 11.7%
2002 12.1%
2003 12.5%
2004 12.7%
2005 12.6%
2006 12.3%

Trend: Up
 
You're missing something very key here, Sting. Note the pattern:

National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:
Clinton: Debt decreases as the years pass
Bush: Debt increases as the years pass

Annual Poverty Rate
Clinton: Poverty decreases as the years pass
Bush: Poverty increases as the years pass

Average Unemployment Rate
Clinton: Unemployment decreases steadily each year
Bush: Unemployment increases over first 4 years

Statistics are fun. :)



edit: nice catch, Vincent. :)
 
Vincent Vega said:
National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years:

1993 66.2%
1994 66.7%
1995 67.2%
1996 67.3%
1997 65.6%
1998 63.5%
1999 61.4%
2000 58%


Trend: Down

Bush Years:

2001 57.4%
2002 59.7%
2003 62.4%
2004 63.7%
2005 63.8%
2006 64.5%

Trend: Up

Annual Poverty Rate:

Clinton Years:

1993 15.1%
1994 14.5%
1995 13.8%
1996 13.7%
1997 13.3%
1998 12.7%
1999 11.9%
2000 11.3%

Trend: Down

Bush Years:

2001 11.7%
2002 12.1%
2003 12.5%
2004 12.7%
2005 12.6%
2006 12.3%

Trend: Up

The story this tells to me is that the Clinton administrationwas successful in reducing the debt and poverty ratios inherited from the Poppy Bush administration. Unfortunately, the good work done by the Clinton administration in this regard was subsequently unravelled, to some extent, by the Baby Bush administration.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

Irvine511 said:



no, you're the only person out there who thinks the rest of the world views things as simplistically as you do.

Don't make the world too difficult. That can't be expressed by figures.

Basically, one has to consider that Clinton's presidency was during a strong boom phase, while Bush had to face a recession. This also, but not only, does explain the trends.
I've never seen an economic analysis where the figures weren't put into context and an evaluation was undertaken to try to examine what has been influenced or caused politically, and what is due to other causes.

Here as well, some more extensive research needs to be done before one can really say Bush was better on that, or Clinton was better on that.

You could take the subprime mortgage crisis, for example. Next year, when Bush leaves the office it might look awful, depending on what is to come regarding the crisis.
Just looking at that you would ask "What the fuck has Bush done?". Well, in fact Bush hasn't done too much. Not in causing the mess, but so far neither in doing something serious about it. The crisis can be in part blamed on Reagan and Clinton as well, and on the greedy bankers and the naive lenders, and those dickheads that bought the CDOs.
 
Re: Re: Re: Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

Vincent Vega said:

You could take the subprime mortgage crisis, for example. Next year, when Bush leaves the office it might look awful, depending on what is to come regarding the crisis.


It already looks awful.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8226


Vincent Vega said:

The crisis can be in part blamed on Reagan and Clinton as well, and on the greedy bankers and the naive lenders, and those dickheads that bought the CDOs.

agreed.
 
Re: Re: Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

Irvine511 said:
no, you're the only person out there who thinks the rest of the world views things as simplistically as you do.

As I'd put it, the numbers might look favorable, but, put into context, the average person, overall, feels that they were better off during the Clinton years. Frankly, what do any of them care, if all the "good numbers" benefit solely the elite?

There's two words to describe the "Bush prosperity":

Jobless Recovery
 
financeguy said:
The story this tells to me is that the Clinton administrationwas successful in reducing the debt and poverty ratios inherited from the Poppy Bush administration. Unfortunately, the good work done by the Clinton administration in this regard was subsequently unravelled, to some extent, by the Baby Bush administration.

It's not just Dubya either. His father drove up our national debt quite substantially, just in four short years, but that was only on top of the trillions of debt that started with Reagan.

That's probably why I end up wondering where the "noble lie" about the Republican Party being about "fiscal responsibility" ever came from, because it certainly has no substance behind it.
 
Diemen said:
You're missing something very key here, Sting. Note the pattern:

National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:
Clinton: Debt decreases as the years pass
Bush: Debt increases as the years pass

Annual Poverty Rate
Clinton: Poverty decreases as the years pass
Bush: Poverty increases as the years pass

Average Unemployment Rate
Clinton: Unemployment decreases steadily each year
Bush: Unemployment increases over first 4 years

Statistics are fun. :)






edit: nice catch, Vincent. :)



The National Debt as a percentage of GDP actually rose during Clintons first 4 years in office and then it declined. Notice that the highest debt as a percentage of GDP during the Bush years is only equal to the average in the Clinton years with the rest of the Bush years still below the Clinton Average.

GDP growth initially went down with the 2001 recession and 9/11, but it was followed by substantial growth the next few years including 2004 and 2005 which had growth rates higher than anything seen during the Clinton years.

The poverty rate did decrease every year during the Clinton years, but it was still significantly higher than the poverty rate under Bush for most of the years. Also, while the poverty rate initially rose under Bush, it has decreasing according to the latest data available. The fact is, the percentage of people who lived in poverty under Clinton, was higher, than the percentage of people who have lived in poverty under Bush. A little fact you won't see Democrats mentioning on the campaign trail.

On the unemployment rate, you fail to point out that unemployment has been falling since 2003.

When you look at the averages for the Clinton years VS the Bush Years the trends are lower unemployment under Bush, lower national debt as a percentage of GDP and a lower poverty rate. The Clinton years had the benefit of having no long major wars, historically low defense spending as a percentage of GDP, and historically low gas prices. Defense spending in 2000 was at its lowest point since before World War II as a percentage of GDP.

I think Clinton has a great economic record, but you clearly can't go around praising Clinton and trashing Bush when it comes to the above key economic statistics. The Bush years have not been as bad for the economy as Hillary and Barrack would have you believe even though Bush has had to face more things that tend to make the above statistics worse than Clinton did.
 
Strongbow said:
The Bush years have not been as bad for the economy

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.
 
Diemen said:


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 said:
although it does have a significant impact.

I accept your apology.

colbert.jpg


:wink:
 
Wow. Some pretty compelling numbers there. Where Bush declines in nearly every category, Clinton dramatically improves.
 
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 said:
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.
 
martha said:
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.
 
All of those statisitcs confirm that Clinton did better with the economy than Bush has done.

This is hilarious.
 
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.
 
LPU2 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
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. :wink:
 
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. :wink:
 
INDY500 said:


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.
 
desperation smells a bit like gin and sour defeat pressed up against you, like a few of the posts in this thread.
 
Strongbow said:
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. :wink:

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom