23 Million Jobs Created Under Clinton, just 4 Million Under Bush

[Claudette]

Unemployment was at around 6% for Bush's entire time in office. Everyone who wanted a job had one. Some folks, such as myself, had two.

Business didn't need to create a lot of jobs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unemployment was at around 6% for Bush's entire time in office. Everyone who wanted a job had one. Some folks, such as myself, had two.

Business didn't need to create a lot of jobs.

Really? Unemployment was 6% in 2008?

from 5 - 7.4 percentage points in 2008. and dropping through the floor as Bush left office.

Before a single Obama policy can take effect, what is the unemployment rate 8-10%?

 

[Chris]

George Bush was the worst president in American history.

He inherited a budget surplus, a strong economy, and a nation at peace.

He left us with a trillion dollar deficit, a collapsed economy, and two useless wars.

 

[rdean]

George Bush was the worst president in American history.

He inherited a budget surplus, a strong economy, and a nation at peace.

He left us with a trillion dollar deficit, a collapsed economy, and two useless wars.

Under Bush, companies moving to China received subsidies and tax breaks. 2.4 million American jobs from here to China.

So yes, Bush policies did create millions of jobs. They were created in a communist country.

 

[nraforlife]

and 8 million lost under BHO.

 

[Sallow]

In a nutshell?

Clinton based his economy on new technologies/education/trade.

Bush based his economy on energy/war.

 

[frazzledgear]

Job creation? - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

still have not heard a GOPer give a good explanation for this

Oh come on -do you people NEVER tire of this pretense that if you whine long enough, it will change history? The reason you have never heard a GOP-er try to explain it is maybe because most people realize what a stupid attempt to compare the two really is! This is an apples and oranges situation -which means there is NO VALIDITY to the comparison. You are engaged in a make-believe bullshit mind trip.

During 6 of the 8 years Bush was President, unemployment was lower than the average of the three previous decades -an impressive feat if you had the intellectual honesty to even admit that. In fact some economists considered it as close to full employment as was realistically possible or that any nation is likely to get. If a nation is at full employment, it is ONLY possible (and necessary) to fill just enough jobs to absorb workers just entering the work force (high school and college graduates) needed beyond those who are replacing retirees leaving the work force. The average number of jobs to keep this at equilibrium is considered to be about 150,000 a month -although that will change when baby boomers start retire since the incoming generations are growing at a smaller rate than they used to in the past. Since unemployment remained at these same very low levels during these years equilibrium job creation was reached and maintained for almost 72 consecutive months. (A feat Clinton did not achieve if you want to compare the two.) Or we would no longer have been at near full employment levels. THAT is actually the best place for an economy to be -NOT at a place where millions of jobs are needed because millions are unemployed!

Now I don't believe it is necessary to be a rocket scientist to get this next part but you let me know if it goes over your head. Since there was no real unemployment during that time with economists agreeing it was as close to full employment as any nation could hope to get -then WHY THE FUCK would anyone in their right mind expect an economy to create MILLIONS MORE jobs than there are people available to even fill them at any given time? Are you kidding? (Unfilled jobs are NOT part of any job creation statistics by the way -ONLY filled ones are.)

When you try to compare raw numbers like that without also comparing unemployment rates to see if that kind of job creation was even POSSIBLE or NECESSARY -you look like a fool. That kind of job creation wasn't possible under Bush for nearly his entire two terms because it wasn't even necessary! I'm looking for a polite way to say it but there really isn't any. ONLY filled jobs count as part of the job creation statistics -so expecting any economy to fill MILLIONS of new jobs when there are not MILLIONS who are unemployed and available to take them -is pretty fucking stupid. Creating more jobs than the number needed for equilibrium WAS needed during Bush' last two years -but let's stay in the real world, ok? Our economy and unemployment don't turn on a dime. There was not only not enough time for that kind of additional activity in the economy, the economy was on the wrong side of its cycle for it as well.

People like you seem to forget that Bush was handed a recession when he took office -and seem to think the fact he got it turned around IN SPITE OF the economic damage from 9/11 means it was no big deal at all. You people seem to think if a Republican gets things turned around and quickly -it was either no big deal or things must not have been getting as bad as people thought. But when things are going bad and then it gets much worse under a Democrat, we get treated to the really stupid claim that if they hadn't done the very things that made it worse, it would have gotten REALLY bad! Which is not only impossible to prove -but not one grounded in reality! This is actually the difference in the application of sharply different economic policies! With Democrats ten times more likely to insist a historically proven failure of an economic theory is bound to work if they do it just one more time! Even though we all know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Clinton was forced back to the middle after a Republican takeover of Congress and he adopted and even co-opted Republican economic policies as his own. Bush had an education AND experience in economics and business and was one of the few in modern history that wasn't faking it when discussing economic issues. It is LAWYERS who have zero education in economics and usually never held a real job who are faking it. Obama is in over his head and his lack of relevant education and experience is glaringly obvious -this is what it looks like for the rest of us. THIS is what we get when people demand no more substance of their President than good speaking skills and believe the job of President is an entry level job!

You can't compare job creation numbers under two Presidents without also taking into consideration the unemployment rates and the particular needs of the economy at that time. If we are at full employment, then to expect millions of new jobs to be created AND filled beyond the number needed to maintain equilibrium at full employment -is really pretty stupid. Only filled jobs count as part of job creation -so you are talking about first having MILLIONS unemployed and available to fill them! THAT is what didn't exist under most of Bush's Presidency! For most of Bush's administration, things were pretty damn good -unless you want to be extra EXTRA stupid enough to insist that near full employment with historically low interest rates and nonexistent inflation is a bad, bad thing. Oops, I forgot -for people like you, that kind of situation is only considered "good" when it occurs under a Democrat (a nonexistent event which is why most Democrat Presidents in modern history are one term Presidents) but will hypocritically insist to their dying breath that it is a total DISASTER if its with a Republican President.

Every time Obama opens his mouth and insists it was EIGHT YEARS of Bush policies that were actually responsible for getting us into trouble, after I finish puking I would love to insist he tell us all EXACTLY which of those Bush economic policies he thinks it was instead of throwing out that same stupid sophomoric line over and over without any further explanation! The economy didn't start to go south again until Democrats took control of both houses of Congress and Bush STOPPED acting like a fiscal conservative and started acting like a RINO. The President who never vetoed a bill no matter whether it was produced by a big spending Republican Congress or by an even BIGGER spending Democrat Congress is why even Republicans and especially conservatives gave up on him. But that there was significantly more job creation while Clinton was President and Republicans controlled Congress is only a reflection of the reality and fact that it was NEEDED -and that it wasn't for nearly all of Bush's 8 years. If you are unwilling to research any deeper than that it already tells you something of significance -but further research into WHY it wasn't needed for most of Bush's years and why it was for so many of Clinton's years tells you far more. And now we have a Democrat President who wants to insist that were it not for HIM -a man who never held a real job, has zero economic education and zero business experience, no idea what it takes to meet a payroll or run a business of any kind (but knows how to demonize those who do), has ZERO relevant education and experience at all that is needed for the job -and who has surrounded himself with people who all lack these same things as well -has the balls to hold himself out as some kind of economic SAVIOR of this country trying to convince us all that THIS is being "saved" and pretending it would have been much worse if ANY policies but his own historically proven failures of policies had been followed instead? Oh please, now I need to puke again.

 

[oreo]

Job creation? - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

still have not heard a GOPer give a good explanation for this

If you really want to give THANKS for that great economy in the 1990's--write Bill Gates and John Chambers a Thank You letter--because Bill Clinton really wasn't signing 200K new private sector paychecks a month.

But we do know that because of the Clinton administration DE-REGULATING everything--Fannie/Freddie--AIG and including the Glass/Stegall Act of the 1930's protecting Americans from Wall Street--that this is now the cause of the financial collapse in this country today--including all of the bail-outs in banking--housing--and millions of JOBS lost.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

So we can Thank Bill Clinton for this current mess--

We can also Thank Bill Clinton for not insisting that Sadam Husien keep WMD inspectors in Iraq--:we may have avoided having to invade Iraq. We can also thank Bill Clinton for not taking one of several shots at Bin Laden--which may have prevented 9/11--and of course we can Thank Bill Clinton--for handing over to G.W Bush the most inept--incorrect intelligence regarding Iraq and WMD.

Thanks Bill--what a great President you were--LOL

 

[mdn2000]

George Bush was the worst president in American history.

He inherited a budget surplus, a strong economy, and a nation at peace.

He left us with a trillion dollar deficit, a collapsed economy, and two useless wars.

Surplus at the same time they borrowed money, so you mean Clinton did not spend all the money he borrowed above the record amount of tax money he spent.

Debt we owe went up every year, only with government math is there a surplus.

I know everyones response, instead of common sense and logic you link to an article written by some idiot that will consult an expert that explains adjusted for inflation and if you forget the Social Security trust fund money the government spent on Green Energy there is a surplus.

Save your time, unless you think you can convince the others that at the time of Bill Clinton he spent more money than any president before him. (I know your next argument, look what Bush did, yea, Bush, was as liberal as Clinton he just wore a "R" on his pocket).

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
9/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 * 533,189,000,000.00
06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93
06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41
06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30
06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05
06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37
06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62
06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04

 

[Chris]

When you borrow $700 billion dollars from the Chinese to waste on the invasion of Iraq, it tends to trash your economy.

Maybe try staying on topic and doing it without the same tired and baseless slogans we hear like repetitious parrot phrases

The truth hurts, doesn't it, Dave?

 

[elvis]

When you borrow $700 billion dollars from the Chinese to waste on the invasion of Iraq, it tends to trash your economy.

Maybe try staying on topic and doing it without the same tired and baseless slogans we hear like repetitious parrot phrases

The truth hurts, doesn't it, Dave?

the truth? that you love to play the role of Lewinsky? that truth?

 

[Chris]

Job creation? - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

still have not heard a GOPer give a good explanation for this

If you really want to give THANKS for that great economy in the 1990's--write Bill Gates and John Chambers a Thank You letter--because Bill Clinton really wasn't signing 200K new private sector paychecks a month.

But we do know that because of the Clinton administration DE-REGULATING everything--Fannie/Freddie--AIG and including the Glass/Stegall Act of the 1930's protecting Americans from Wall Street--that this is now the cause of the financial collapse in this country today--including all of the bail-outs in banking--housing--and millions of JOBS lost.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times

So we can Thank Bill Clinton for this current mess--

We can also Thank Bill Clinton for not insisting that Sadam Husien keep WMD inspectors in Iraq--:we may have avoided having to invade Iraq. We can also thank Bill Clinton for not taking one of several shots at Bin Laden--which may have prevented 9/11--and of course we can Thank Bill Clinton--for handing over to G.W Bush the most inept--incorrect intelligence regarding Iraq and WMD.

Thanks Bill--what a great President you were--LOL

Phil Gramm snuck the deregulation into a spending bill on the day before Christmas recess in 1999. So it was the Republicans that deregulated Wall Street.

And George Bush's Wall Street regulators looked the other way while they ran a Ponzi scheme.

And George Bush received a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack America" a month or so before 9/11, and he did nothing.

Nice try at rewriting history, however.

 

[elvis]

Job creation? - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

still have not heard a GOPer give a good explanation for this

If you really want to give THANKS for that great economy in the 1990's--write Bill Gates and John Chambers a Thank You letter--because Bill Clinton really wasn't signing 200K new private sector paychecks a month.

But we do know that because of the Clinton administration DE-REGULATING everything--Fannie/Freddie--AIG and including the Glass/Stegall Act of the 1930's protecting Americans from Wall Street--that this is now the cause of the financial collapse in this country today--including all of the bail-outs in banking--housing--and millions of JOBS lost.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times

So we can Thank Bill Clinton for this current mess--

We can also Thank Bill Clinton for not insisting that Sadam Husien keep WMD inspectors in Iraq--:we may have avoided having to invade Iraq. We can also thank Bill Clinton for not taking one of several shots at Bin Laden--which may have prevented 9/11--and of course we can Thank Bill Clinton--for handing over to G.W Bush the most inept--incorrect intelligence regarding Iraq and WMD.

Thanks Bill--what a great President you were--LOL

Phil Gramm snuck the deregulation into a spending bill on the day before Christmas recess in 1999. So it was the Republicans that deregulated Wall Street.

And George Bush's Wall Street regulators looked the other way while they ran a Ponzi scheme.

And George Bush received a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack America" a month or so before 9/11, and he did nothing.

Nice try at rewriting history, however.

You're the one rewriting history, Monica.

 

[Luissa]

Wow! This thread is old.

 

[mdn2000]

Government jobs are paper tigers, they never last, such a great president yet the jobs created are so weak, the next president easily destroys the jobs created by the past president.

Yes give more of those good ole government created jobs to replace the other government created jobs that vanished.

 

[Claudette]

Unemployment was at around 6% for Bush's entire time in office. Everyone who wanted a job had one. Some folks, such as myself, had two.

Business didn't need to create a lot of jobs.

Really? Unemployment was 6% in 2008?

from 5 - 7.4 percentage points in 2008. and dropping through the floor as Bush left office.

Before a single Obama policy can take effect, what is the unemployment rate 8-10%?

Your right about 2008 but for most of his presidencey unemployment countrywide wasn't bad at all. Hell. I had two jobs for most of his Presidency.


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Gunny]

Job creation? - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

still have not heard a GOPer give a good explanation for this

Bullshit. But thanks for playing.

 

[Meister]

George Bush was the worst president in American history.

He inherited a budget surplus, a strong economy, and a nation at peace.

He left us with a trillion dollar deficit, a collapsed economy, and two useless wars.

When are you going to admit that the economy started tanking after the democrats took control of the Senate, and Congress? I just want to see a little honesty from you, Monica.

 

[boedicca]

The job growth during Clinton's terms is due to the peace dividend from ending the Cold War, the 1994 Congressional elections, Y2Ktech investment, telecom expansion from the internet, and the dotcom bubble. Some jobc creatiion was accelerated; some was never justified to begin with.

And then the bubble burst and 911 happened - both knocked the economy down quite a bit.

 

[rdean]

The job growth during Clinton's terms is due to the peace dividend from ending the Cold War, the 1994 Congressional elections, Y2Ktech investment, telecom expansion from the internet, and the dotcom bubble. Some jobc creatiion was accelerated; some was never justified to begin with.

And then the bubble burst and 911 happened - both knocked the economy down quite a bit.

Yea, but if tax breaks work then after a 2.4 TRILLION tax cut, with 52% going to the top 1%, then the economy should have been booming. Otherwise, what was the purpose of the tax cut?