News

Clinton Unemployment vs. Bush Unemployment

Discussion in 'Other Off Topic Forum' started by Nibblesworth, Feb 10, 2004.

  1. Nibblesworth

    Nibblesworth Formula 3
    BANNED

    Nov 29, 2002
    1,756
    Southern California
    Full Name:
    BillyBoy
    After reading the "Dems win" thread, and after sifting through all the Clinton lover's garbage, I thought I would do a tad bit of research.

    In 1992, the Unemployment rate was a whopping 7.5%. Clinton is inaugerated (sp?) in 93. Here are the next 8 years worth of rates:

    93: 6.9
    94: 6.1
    95: 5.6
    96: 5.4
    97: 4.9
    98: 4.5
    99: 4.2
    00: 4.0
    Average: 5.2

    Bush comes into office in 01 - here are his years so far:

    01: 4.7
    02: 5.8
    03: 6.0
    Current month: 5.6
    Average: 5.7


    Now, here's where it gets interesting:

    Clinton's first four years in office averaged a 6.0% unemployment.

    Bush's first three years (plus current January trends) show a 5.7%.


    As many have said, we have been in a "jobless" recovery for about nine months now, and history shows that economic recoveries are usually jobless for 12 - 15 months, while business are becoming more confident in the turn-around. We can probably estimate that 2004 unemployment numbers will either stay at the 5.6% mark, or drop a few tenths, to maybe 5.4% or so.

    Look at the first three years of Clinton's reign! A 6.0% average? Holy Jesus! What did he have to deal with? I'll concede that he inherited a bad economy from Bush Sr., but the EXACT SAME can be said of Bush. The economy tankes 6 months after GW Bush came into office, and no matter how corrupt you think the man is, it is impossible to turn a booming economy around in 6 months. Only an idiot would not admit that the economy was sick when Clinton left, but not showing symptoms.

    So, now we've got Bush, who inherits a diseased economy, about 6 months after the .com bubble pops. 9 months into his terms, 9/11 happens. During his first two years, we saw Enron, Worldcom, Kmart, and Tycho fall. We saw every major aircarrier crippled. We saw a world-wide SARS threat, and Mad Cow. We attacked Arghanistan, and invaded Iraq.

    Yet, with all this crap, Bush still managed to tailor an ecnomic plan that has allowed for a 5.7% unemployment rate during his term so far.

    I just don't understand what you Clinton lovers are saying. I guess you just hate Bush so much, that you'll ignore any good that comes of him.

    Can anyone explain what I'm not seeing here with these numbers? All you dems and libs are so damn smart, explain to me what I'm missing here. Tell me why my analysis of this situation is wrong, and why Clinton did a better job in his first three years in office.

    Thanks.
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. Mitch Alsup

    Mitch Alsup F1 Veteran

    Nov 4, 2003
    7,176
    You have to look at the direction:

    Under Clinton unemployment went down every year
    Under Bush unemployment is going UP every year
     
  4. Nibblesworth

    Nibblesworth Formula 3
    BANNED

    Nov 29, 2002
    1,756
    Southern California
    Full Name:
    BillyBoy
    I guess 9/11, Enron, Tycho, Kmart, Worldcom, SARS, and Mad Cow were Bush's fault.

    I'm rolling my eyes.
     
  5. henryr

    henryr F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 10, 2003
    17,900
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Juan Sánchez Villa-L
    the bubble economy masked all of that. nobody cared as long as their portfolios and houses were going up daily.

    i think if you looked into it also, manufacturing jobs dropped during that time as well.

    when bush I was running for re election, the economy had actually started turning up. clinton comes then comes into office on the upswing. bush II received the exact reverse.
     
  6. JSinNOLA

    JSinNOLA F1 World Champ
    Sponsor Lifetime Rossa

    Mar 18, 2002
    14,877
    Denver, CO
    Full Name:
    John
    Nibblesworth,

    Don't forget that Clinton was DIRECTLY responsible for the unprecedented technology boom that helped those unemployment numbers(insert extreme sarcasm).

    I still can't believe that people actually say he was responsible for the great economy. No, it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the innovations of the time. Nothing at all...Gimme a break!
     
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. bkaird1

    bkaird1 Karting

    Nov 7, 2003
    138
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Full Name:
    Brad
     
  9. ross

    ross Three Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed Owner

    Mar 25, 2002
    32,072
    houston/geneva
    Full Name:
    Ross
    you all are forgetting that clinton had tremendous help from al gore, who invented the internet.
     
  10. JSinNOLA

    JSinNOLA F1 World Champ
    Sponsor Lifetime Rossa

    Mar 18, 2002
    14,877
    Denver, CO
    Full Name:
    John
    Good point Brad, the U.S. still is in need of some better service economic indicators. They are still working on them and hopefully they will give a better indication of thw whole picture...
     
  11. JSinNOLA

    JSinNOLA F1 World Champ
    Sponsor Lifetime Rossa

    Mar 18, 2002
    14,877
    Denver, CO
    Full Name:
    John
    Yet we still have to admit that we are going to need nonfarm payrolls to be substantially better than 112,000.

    Hopefully that picks up to over 200,000/month in the next few. That could definitely help his re-election bid.
     
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. Nibblesworth

    Nibblesworth Formula 3
    BANNED

    Nov 29, 2002
    1,756
    Southern California
    Full Name:
    BillyBoy
     
  14. henryr

    henryr F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 10, 2003
    17,900
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Juan Sánchez Villa-L
     
  15. mfennell70

    mfennell70 Formula Junior

    Nov 3, 2003
    564
    Middletown, NJ
    My God. JUST LET IT GO. If people want to be sheep (Clinton-sheep or Bush-sheep), let them. Just don't be one.
     
  16. dm_n_stuff

    dm_n_stuff Global Moderator
    Global Moderator Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Dec 10, 2003
    35,969
    The Sunshine State
    Full Name:
    Dave

    A+ opinion.

    'nuff Said.
     
  17. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    The reason that Bush's unemployment numbers are dropping is that people are dropping out of the work force. Since he's been elected 2.3 Million jobs have been lost. When people stop collecting unemployment (because their benefits have run out) they are dropped from the list of people seeking work, and the rate of unemployment is effected.

    The job losses are from a poorly managed economy coupled with a tough time. One of things I love about sports is that certain athletes grow with pressure. Too bad Bush didn't, we needed a Roosevelt, not a Hoover. History will tell us what we got.

    Lastly, Clinton proposed various changes which would have prevented Enron, et al. Congress refused to pass the appropriate legislation. Check it out, that's factual.

    Bill:

    Gore never said he invented the internet. What he did say is that he saw the advantage of it, and caused legislation to be enacted which facilited its formation. Another case of conservative press telling lies, and people who don't research these types of slander.

    Art
     
  18. Robin

    Robin F1 Rookie

    Nov 1, 2003
    2,893
    Arlington, VA
    I guess math wasn't your best subject in school :) There are lots of good quotes about statistics being dangerous that I don't feel like looking up right now, but yes, you're missing something so obvious that a 4th grader who just learned how to calculate averages could figure out.

    Billy Bob's numbers are going to be higher than Bush's because the numbers were higher when he started.

    Sounds stupid, but then again, so is your argument ;) To make it more clear, if Clinton walked into office with 50% UE, then proceeded to knock it down to 5%, then 3%, then 1%, his average would be 14.75%... how horrible! He got UE from 50% to 1% in 4 years, but his averge is still 14.75%... Democratic scum!

    What's important here is the trend. Notice UE went DOWN every year while Willie was in office. I'm not saying they went down BECAUSE of him.. after all, everyone knows the economy was great because of the Republican congress, but the bad economy that Bush inherited was Clinton's fault ;) (remember all the repubs on the talk shows trumpeting about what a great job the republican congress did with the 90's economy? where are they now?) Anyway, Clinton years, downward trend in UE, Bush years, upward trend, starting back down. Hooray.

    -R
     
  19. Robin

    Robin F1 Rookie

    Nov 1, 2003
    2,893
    Arlington, VA
    Ah we agree.. Unions served their purpose decades ago, but I think their time is up. After only 5 years working in a few offices dominated by members of the Federal Worker's Union, I think I can safely say they are a bigger contributor to the current workforce situation than the corporations themselves.

    -R
     
  20. cochise

    cochise Karting

    Nov 3, 2003
    139
    Lake Mary, Florida
    Full Name:
    Dempsey Chavis
    Robin, Very well stated ...and so obvious that I overlooked the math as well .
     
  21. Evolved

    Evolved F1 Veteran

    Nov 5, 2003
    8,206
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Re:Jobs creation

    Under Clinton the jobs created paid $100,000 a year.

    Under Bush however the jobs created pay $15,000-20,000 a year.

    Huge difference.

    -Dave
     
  22. maranelloman

    maranelloman Guest


    Sorry, mate, but I call BS on that one. Can you offer any facts to back up this claim?
     
  23. Nibblesworth

    Nibblesworth Formula 3
    BANNED

    Nov 29, 2002
    1,756
    Southern California
    Full Name:
    BillyBoy
    You're missing my point ENTIRELY.

    Both Clinton and GW inherited a bad economy.

    The first two years of Clinton's term saw above 6% UE.

    The first two years of Bush's term saw a figure lower than that, as does the average for Bush's first three years.

    My question is this: If both presidents inherited a bad economy, why has Bush's economy seen lower UE numbers, while enduring 9/11, airline lay-offs, and massive corporate scandal?

    No, I did not miss the basic argument that Clinton slowly decreased the numbers. I'm not as stupid as you think.

    What you have missed, however, is that Bush's UE numbers are less than Clinton's, and Clinton did not have to deal with the crap that Bush has had to deal with.

    And Art - do you think this is the first time in history that UE numbers have fallen because people fell off the UE list? Am I to assume that Clinton's number did not reflect people falling off the list? C'mon, man! Do you truly beleive that this has only happened under Bush?
     
  24. Evolved

    Evolved F1 Veteran

    Nov 5, 2003
    8,206
    Pittsburgh, PA
    http://www.sptimes.com/2004/01/24/Business/Florida_leads_nation_.shtml

    Article Re: Florida jobs creation. Where most jobs are being created

    Go get a copy of the local paper from last weekend. Look under "Help wanted professional"

    Those sections are pretty thin now.


    Get one form 1996

    Those sections were very large indeed.

    At that time I was a freshed face undergrad. Campus recruiting had more jobs then graduates. Now it is a ghost town with only a job coming open very rarely and for graduates with 3 years experience???

    Most of the new businesses opening that are hiring in reasonable number are low level service sector jobs.

    However, things are improving very quickly. The market for people with skills is really looking up. Kids with newly minted college degrees are still hurtin' pretty bad.
     
  25. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    I don't know about Clinton's numbers being reduced because people left the job force. I do know that over his first 4 years, 3 million jobs were created. On the other hand, under Bush for the 1st 3 years, we've lost 2.3 million jobs. I don't have the time right now to look up that issue, but with the above, I'd say that it doesn't appear to be the case that Clinton's numbers were as affected as Bush's by the people leaving the work force.

    Art
     
  26. Nibblesworth

    Nibblesworth Formula 3
    BANNED

    Nov 29, 2002
    1,756
    Southern California
    Full Name:
    BillyBoy
    So what you are proposing is that instead of the advertised 5.6% UE rate, we actually have an 11% rate, or something close to that? If Clinton had an average of 6.0% UE for his first three years, but had 5.3 million more jobs filled than Bush has now, then Bush's UE numbers should be close to double what the DOJ reports.

    If that were the case, our country would be in ruins. Mobs would be marching the streets, looting and rioting.
     
  27. Robin

    Robin F1 Rookie

    Nov 1, 2003
    2,893
    Arlington, VA
    Glad someone brought this up... I saw this pop up on a few roundtable pooh-slinging shows on cable news, and every time a "lefty" brought it up, the "righties" changed the subject, denied it, or blamed Clinton anyway.

    The two bills in question are the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). Clinton vetoed both, but Congress passed them anyway. Both bills made it nearly impossible to effectively litigate against corporate financial fraud, and even more difficult to recuperate losses incurred if you did actually win a suit. The accounting industry and big business lobbies worked hard to get it through, and guess who headed up the effort? Harvey Pitt, who was later appointed SEC chairman by who? George W Bush..... oooo conspiracy :)

    -R
     
  28. JaguarXJ6

    JaguarXJ6 F1 Veteran

    Feb 12, 2003
    5,440
    Black Hawk, CO
    Full Name:
    Sunny
    Art, do you have a link or two?

    Regarding Gore, are you sure you want to defend Gore?

    The exact quote was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet."

    Given the context, he implied it was a personal action to take more credit then he deserved rather than supporting an initiative proposed by someone else.

    People in the government (especially the service) take credit for the actions of subordinates all the time, why should our former Vice President or any other President be any different?

    He made a very stupid comment and he was called on it. Defend him if you wish, but you, I, and everyone in grade school has a better understanding of the Internet. One more comment from public figures for the bloopers archives...

    Sunny
     

Share This Page