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, 11:10 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:31 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 03-01-2008, 11:13 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:31 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, 12:53 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:31 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, 12:58 AM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:31 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, 02:06 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:31 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, 02:27 AM   #26
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:31 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, 04:23 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:31 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, 05:39 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,725
Local Time: 11:31 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, 05:52 AM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:31 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, 06:06 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,725
Local Time: 11:31 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  
Old 03-02-2008, 07:30 AM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
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.
What the hell are you even talking about? How does this have to do with anything? How does this portray liberal arguments? Have you ever seen or read about politics before, really? I'm pretty sure you made all of that up.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 01:57 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


What the hell are you even talking about? How does this have to do with anything? How does this portray liberal arguments? Have you ever seen or read about politics before, really? I'm pretty sure you made all of that up.
It is of coarse composed entirely of what has sadly passed for liberal argument these past 7 years. Pejoratives, unhinged paranoia and contradictory talking points. Now, I can't blame you for trying to distance yourself from the buffoonish statements of your brethren, but they all have been said or implied.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 02:04 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,725
Local Time: 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


It is of coarse composed entirely of what has sadly passed for liberal argument these past 7 years. Pejoratives, unhinged paranoia and contradictory talking points. Now, I can't blame you for trying to distance yourself from the buffoonish statements of your brethren, but they all have been said or implied.
Please... some of the liberal arguments are just as childish, uninformed and simplistic as some of the conservative arguments.
The way in which US politics is divided is frightening. It is as if there was some very deep moat between the two stances.
You are arguing here as poorly as some of the liberals you are trying to blame.
Shit has sadly passed for liberal argument, and other shit has sadly passed for conservative argument.
How about engaging in some educated stuff?
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 02:08 PM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
It is of coarse composed entirely of what has sadly passed for liberal argument these past 7 years. Pejoratives, unhinged paranoia and contradictory talking points. Now, I can't blame you for trying to distance yourself from the buffoonish statements of your brethren, but they all have been said or implied.
As Vincent said, only the argument of a vocal minority.

Should the views of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh box in every conservative?
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 02:39 PM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Pejoratives, unhinged paranoia and contradictory talking points.
For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Fox News.
martha is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 02:41 PM   #36
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega


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.

I was talking about peoples view points here in FYM which is overwhelmingly anti-Bush to the point that the majority would never admit to Bush doing something right or admit that things are not as bad as their beloved pundits and politicians might claim.

Thats precisely why I presented the above economic indicators, not really to show that Bush is great on the economy, but to show that things are not as bad as so many in here claim it to be.


Quote:
I say it again: Just by taking these figures you cannot that easily say that Clinton was the greatest, or Bush was the greatest.
That was never really the point. The point was to emphasize that the economy for Americans over the past 7 years has actually been very good from a historical standpoint, even when compared with the economy of the 1990s.




Quote:
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.
I've already pointed out that the above economic indicators were meant more to compare the two time periods rather than specific administration policies. Both administrations play a significant role, but there are obviously many other factors, some out of control of either administration, that play a role as well. Regardless, the economic indicators show that life during the Bush years has actually been pretty good when compared to the Clinton years especially when you look at the percentage of people who lived in poverty during each respective time period. The Bush years have some of the lowest poverty rates in US history.


Quote:
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.
No one here is claiming that things in the United States are perfect. But their certainly very good by US historical standards, and place the United States high up on the Human Development Index, higher I might add than your own country.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:24 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

No one here is claiming that things in the United States are perfect. But their certainly very good by US historical standards, and place the United States high up on the Human Development Index, higher I might add than your own country.
Hey, STING, what's it like down there on that list? Somewhere in the double digits or sumpin?
anitram is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:37 PM   #38
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 04:31 PM
Diemen is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:44 PM   #39
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Hey, STING, what's it like down there on that list? Somewhere in the double digits or sumpin?
The United States is at #12 ahead of countries like Spain, Denmark, Austria, United Kingdom, Belgium, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Italy, and yes Germany which is currently at #22 on the list do to lower scores in education and wealth than the United States.

Most of the countries that are ahead of the United States are countries that are small and spend little to nothing on the defense compared to the United States.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 05:00 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


As Vincent said, only the argument of a vocal minority.

Should the views of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh box in every conservative?
Yes, but do you defend Bush against the "childish, uninformed and simplistic" insinuations of the "vocal minority" with the same vigor as you defend those who are the targets of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter? We can disagree about issues and policies but meritless claims and personal attacks should be rejected out of hand by both sides. Don't ya think?
__________________

INDY500 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 04:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×