Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years - 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, 07:07 PM   #1
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:27 AM
Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

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.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:31 PM   #2
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,502
Local Time: 10:27 PM
Re: Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow

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.
__________________

Irvine511 is online now  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:35 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 04:27 AM
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
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:37 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 03:27 AM

Nevermind, Vincent Vega already mentioned the trends.
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:37 PM   #5
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,583
Local Time: 09:27 PM
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.
Diemen is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:39 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
Nevermind, Vincent Vega already mentioned the trends.
Indeed, and it might be interesting to plot some of these stats as graphs.
financeguy is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:41 PM   #7
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:27 PM
You guys are clearly missing the point. Pot smoking freaking hippies.
__________________
<a href=https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:42 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
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.
financeguy is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:46 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Re: Re: Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



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.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:51 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Re: Re: Re: Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega

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.p...xt=va&aid=8226


Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega

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.
financeguy is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:54 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy



It already looks awful.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=8226


Yes, it does, but I'm afraid it will look even more awful at the end of the year.
After all, I'm German, so it is on my blood to be pessimistic about it.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 08:43 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 09:27 PM
Re: Re: Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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
melon is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 08:46 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
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.
melon is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 08:49 PM   #14
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
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 is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 09:06 PM   #15
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,583
Local Time: 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
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 is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 09:39 PM   #16
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:27 AM
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, 09:44 PM   #17
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,583
Local Time: 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Strongbow
although it does have a significant impact.
I accept your apology.



Diemen is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 10:36 PM   #18
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 706
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Wow. Some pretty compelling numbers there. Where Bush declines in nearly every category, Clinton dramatically improves.
LPU2 is offline  
Old 03-01-2008, 10:53 PM   #19
War Child
 
Iskra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 753
Local Time: 03:27 AM
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, 10:53 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:27 PM
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  
 

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 09:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×