Quantcast

Bush vs Clinton's Economy

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
Apples And Apples
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Wednesday, July 28, 2004 | Editor

Politics: Bill Clinton was in rare form at the Democratic Convention Tuesday, comparing his economic record to George W. Bush's. Not fair. The president's is better.

"Our way works better," the former president boasted in his Monday night address, touting a '90s economy that "produced 22 million good jobs, rising incomes and 100 times as many people moving out of poverty into the middle class." He also lauded his record on the budget, touting "three surpluses in a row."

How could Bush hope to match such accomplishments? Well, remember: Bush is still in his first term. He inherited a recession and slumping job market from Clinton.

Clinton, on the other hand, took over when both the economy and jobs were growing and picking up pace. Inflation was still in a decadelong decline.

So let's measure first term against first term — apples to apples. If we do, Bush comes out on top — even after 9-11.

Don't believe it? Look at the key gauges of our well-being — growth, inflation, unemployment, disposable income (what's left after taxes), productivity, household assets and consumer confidence.

On most of these, Bush wins. Yes, GDP growth on a year-over-year basis is a bit slower. But, as we noted, Bush took office with a recession under way. It wasn't Bush's recession; it was Clinton's.

As for the other data, here's how Bush's first-term stacks up: Inflation? Lower. Disposable income? Higher. Household assets? Richer. Consumer confidence? Slightly lower, but comparable. Unemployment? A bit higher, but again about the same. Productivity? Way better under Bush.

Clinton deserves credit for a strong second term. But even that record needs an asterisk. After stumbling badly in 1993 and early 1994, and with his popularity and the economy weakening, he got lucky: The GOP won control of Congress.

Republicans pushed Clinton to sign on to welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts and spending curbs that produced a booming economy and balanced budget. They kept him from raising taxes, as he did in 1993, when his record tax hike nearly sank the economy. They also kept him from signing the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.

Bush's record, we suspect, will look even better four years hence. All the key elements for a sweet decade of economic growth are in place. But you won't hear that in Boston.

Source: http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=7/28
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
'Tis a pity they had to skew the unemployment stats in Bush's favour with the "*last month of term" rider. Subtle though.

If Bush does get a second term I have a feeling it might not look so good on a second term comparison, unless a further step is taken down the selective stats path. There's that old surplus/deficit issue just waiting to bite.

Deficit Thingy
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
fluff said:
'Tis a pity they had to skew the unemployment stats in Bush's favour with the "*last month of term" rider. Subtle though.

If Bush does get a second term I have a feeling it might not look so good on a second term comparison, unless a further step is taken down the selective stats path. There's that old surplus/deficit issue just waiting to bite.

Deficit Thingy

The figure is nearly $100 billion less than the $500 billion indicated in your link.

:nope:
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
N8 said:
The figure is nearly $100 billion less than the $500 billion indicated in your link.

:nope:
Should give you a warm feeling then, your kind of statistic...

How'd you think the BBC got it so wrong?
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
Westy said:
I have to stick with N8 here. I mean a post from a guy on the internet with a smilie wagging his finger is much more reliable than the BBC or even the spot I heard about the deficit on NPR this morning.
You are right. On reflection N8 bettered me there with a well-structured and erudite argument.

Expect resignations from the BBC also.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
Bush Seen Projecting Record Deficit
ReutersTue Jul 27 | Anna Willard and Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House is expected to project soon a record federal budget deficit of about $420 billion for 2004, which could give ammunition to both sides of the election-year debate over tax and spending policies.

Congressional sources said on Tuesday the White House review of the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, was likely to project a deficit about $50 billion greater than 2003. But the new figure would be nearly $100 billion less than forecast five months ago.

A congressional aide who spoke on condition of anonymity said the $420 billion figure is "what people are talking about" on Capitol Hill. Others gave a similar figure, which would be a record in dollar terms.

Yadda...yadda..yadda...


:nuts:
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
So to recap:

The Congressional Budget Office (non partisan) project $477 Billion.

The White House (Bush's somewhat more partisan administration) project $420 Billion.

When's that election again?

Especially for you N8 - :mumble:
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
agreed. they haven't been able to stop the financial sinkhole that is Iraq. i wonder how that started???
i wunder two...


"...their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

"And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."

-President Bill Clinton, Address to the Nation*, December 16, 1998

*After he ordered military action against Iraq at the height of the Monica Affair.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
Looks like Clinton did the right thing. He ordered a strong inspection system, and it prevented any WMD. Remember, we never found any.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
Hmmm... looks like Fluff was right.
Ooh, that hurts. Subtle though.

And just to add to N8's warm feelings, with regard to Iraq the problem is not so much that we got rid of Saddam (a good thing) it is that we appear to have had no idea of how to proceed once that was done. Which was not so smart given the fact that deposing him was never going be the hard bit, given the overwhelming military superiority possessed by the US.

Still, I imagine that was Carter's fault.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
Ooh, that hurts. Subtle though.

And just to add to N8's warm feelings, with regard to Iraq the problem is not so much that we got rid of Saddam (a good thing) it is that we appear to have had no idea of how to proceed once that was done. Which was not so smart given the fact that deposing him was never going be the hard bit, given the overwhelming military superiority possessed by the US.

Still, I imagine that was Carter's fault.
I blame Washington. He set in place the chain of events that led to America the superpower. We never would have gotten into this war if we weren't a superpower.
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,844
11
So Cal
I blame Washington. He set in place the chain of events that led to America the superpower. We never would have gotten into this war if we weren't a superpower.
But none of that would have happened if King George wasn't being an asshat to the colonists. If anything this whole debacle is Englands fault.
 

skinny mike

Turbo Monkey
Jan 24, 2005
6,416
0
But none of that would have happened if King George wasn't being an asshat to the colonists. If anything this whole debacle is Englands fault.
there wouldn't have been any colonists had those damn pilgrims stayed on their side of the pond.
 

Ciaran

Fear my banana
Apr 5, 2004
9,844
11
So Cal
Agreed, it seems like both parties suck these days and are just serving their own/special interests
"These days"? Please! This has been going on for as long as we've had leaders.

Maybe I am a cynic but I believe that ALL politicians are corrupt. The only REAL difference between the repubs and dems (and any other party for that matter) are the lies they tell.