Why are so many more jobs created by Democratic presidents?

[oreo]

This is going to be fun, I was waiting for some idiot to bring this up.

In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,

42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?

The problem with this is it statement is ti is based on a deeply flawed assumptions. The truth is a bit more complex because most of the benefits of economic and policy decisions take a few years to manifest.

Several studies of the post-war American political economy find that Democratic presidents have been more successful than Republicans. Most recently, Bartels (2008) found that economic growth had been greater and that unemployment and income inequality had been lower under Democratic presidents since 1948. If true, these findings combined with the frequent success of Republicans in presidential elections pose a challenge to theories of retrospective voting and responsible party government. This reexamination of these findings indicates that they are an artifact of specification error. Previous estimates did not properly take into account the lagged effects of the economy. Once lagged economic effects are taken into account, party differences in economic performance are shown to be the effects of economic conditions inherited from the previous president and not the consequence of real policy differences. Specifically, the economy was in recession when Republican presidents became responsible for the economy in each of the four post-1948 transitions from Democratic to Republican presidents. This was not the case for the transitions from Republicans to Democrats. When economic conditions leading into a year are taken into account, there are no presidential party differences with respect to growth, unemployment, or income inequality.

http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002ffor.2011.9.1_20120105083457$002ffor.2011.9.1$002ffor.2011.9.1.1429$002ffor.2011.9.1.1429.xml;jsessionid=99734BF2FAB7808A291760A110C911C9

So you would say that it's "lagged economic effects"?

In other words, it's the last president who's responsible, if he left a mess for his successor?

EVERY President in our history goes into the OVAL office knowing that they are going to inherit the problems associated with their predecessor.

Most do it with DIGNITY--with the EXCEPTION of our community organizer WHINER President. The problems he has made for HIMSELF--is that he promised way too much in 2008--even making the claim that if he didn't turn this economy around in 3 years he would be a 1 term President.

And then because of Obama's inexperience--he took a chapter out of FDR's book. Road and bridge work.

The 1930's a time when we actually needed roads and bridges today we have super highways that criss/cross this nation. If we needed a bridge we built it. What permits were issued overnight in the 1930's now takes years of engineering and design and what took thousands of men with shovels in the 30's--today can be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. What was a work-force of primarily men in the 30's is now 1/2 women who don't do road and bridge work.

This is our community organizer at work. MITT ROMNEY was right when he stated: Obama keeps running down to the corner to plug quarters into a pay phone--thinking that it would revive the economy--but he forgot that we live in a smart phone century.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Pure luck. Presidents tend to get too much credit when the economy is doing good and too much of the blame during bad economic times. The biggest private sector growth came under Clintona nd he had two massive bubbles building, plus the one that has yet to pop. It was pure luck on Clintons part and has little or nothing to do with his policies.

Pure luck over 52 years? Look at the shit storm that Obama and Clinton were dealt. Obama still has been able to create more private sector jobs in less than 4 years, that Bush W.

If you understood economics..maybe. What mess did Clinton inherit upon taking office?

 

[ilia25]

Are these private sector or government? Governemtn jobs dont count, they are a net loss for the country

And why exactly the guy that fixes your car counts, but the guy that puts out a fire in your home does not?

 

[Pasco08]

Becuase Democrats use a scientific approach to economics while Republicans use more of a religious approach.

Because Democrats inherit good economies from Republicans.

Sort of like the good economy Obama inherited from Bush...

Can't tell is serious or sarcasm.

 

[Oldstyle]

In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,

Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the night’s biggest applause lines.

42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?

Becuase Democrats use a scientific approach to economics while Republicans use more of a religious approach.

Now, THAT is one of the dumber posts I've read in awhile, Richard! Are you trying to take TruthMatters "board idiot" title away?

 

[Sundial]

To sum up the answers in this thread, jobs created under democratic happened despite their policies, while all jobs created under pubs were due to the brilliance and planning of the GOP.

My personal opinion is, 1st is that stat accurate? And if it is, I think it's half coincidence, and half good policy. Both the dems and pubs have had some crappy presidents over the years and they've both had some good ones too.

Yeah, it's correct. You can look here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...linton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/

I mean, I'm prepared to believe its dumb luck. But when you get to the point you're claiming it's because Republicans are always handing the economy off to Democrats in such great shape, you know drunk off the koolaid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is going to be fun, I was waiting for some idiot to bring this up.

In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,

42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?

The problem with this is it statement is ti is based on a deeply flawed assumptions. The truth is a bit more complex because most of the benefits of economic and policy decisions take a few years to manifest.

Several studies of the post-war American political economy find that Democratic presidents have been more successful than Republicans. Most recently, Bartels (2008) found that economic growth had been greater and that unemployment and income inequality had been lower under Democratic presidents since 1948. If true, these findings combined with the frequent success of Republicans in presidential elections pose a challenge to theories of retrospective voting and responsible party government. This reexamination of these findings indicates that they are an artifact of specification error. Previous estimates did not properly take into account the lagged effects of the economy. Once lagged economic effects are taken into account, party differences in economic performance are shown to be the effects of economic conditions inherited from the previous president and not the consequence of real policy differences. Specifically, the economy was in recession when Republican presidents became responsible for the economy in each of the four post-1948 transitions from Democratic to Republican presidents. This was not the case for the transitions from Republicans to Democrats. When economic conditions leading into a year are taken into account, there are no presidential party differences with respect to growth, unemployment, or income inequality.

http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002ffor.2011.9.1_20120105083457$002ffor.2011.9.1$002ffor.2011.9.1.1429$002ffor.2011.9.1.1429.xml;jsessionid=99734BF2FAB7808A291760A110C911C9

So you would say that it's "lagged economic effects"?

In other words, it's the last president who's responsible, if he left a mess for his successor?

That is not what I said. What I said is that, when you correct for the lag, the numbers show a different story.

 

[GoneBezerk]

The reasons why the economy got worse under Obamination and didn't bounce back after the housing and bank messes is because Obamination:

Wasted taxpayer money on green energy scams, which drove down our credit rating.
Attacked fossil fuel companies through his EPA and DoJ, which cost jobs.
Supported unions over companies through the DoJ and NRLB, which cost jobs.
Constantly threatening to raise taxes on companies and rich investors, which cost jobs.
Obamacare driving up healthcare costs on everyone, which cost jobs.
Supported foreign fossil fuel companies in Brazil, etc over US companies, which cost jobs.

Pretty did everything he could to make things worse for the plan to implode the US economy and Federal Govt.....see 2016.

 

[Oddball]

Are these private sector or government? Governemtn jobs dont count, they are a net loss for the country

And why exactly the guy that fixes your car counts, but the guy that puts out a fire in your home does not?

Because the fatass nose picker taking applications for EBT cards or rifling through your luggage at the airport takes away funds from the provider of jobs for guys to fix cars, with which he could pay them.

 

[Sundial]

I would attribute Clinton's job success more to the random tech boom that occured in the 90s.

I dont think it was any Democrat policy. Just mere coincidence. Had the tech boom occured with less government involvement, i think we could have seen much more success.

Could be. I'm sure the tech boom helped. You don't think Clinton's policy of balancing the budget by raising taxes helped?

The CBO says no. Unless you hate math I guess that means you agree that Clinton had nothing to do with it.

Um, what?

Clinton had nothing to do with balancing the budget, or else I hate math?

And the CBO says that?

Where?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Becuase Democrats use a scientific approach to economics while Republicans use more of a religious approach.

Because Democrats inherit good economies from Republicans.

Sort of like the good economy Obama inherited from Bush...

Isn't it strange that the bad economy under Obama has nothing to do with him yet you argue that the good economies under Democrats were solely of their own making. Strangely enough, that makes you the one that is trying to have it both ways, not me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pure luck. Presidents tend to get too much credit when the economy is doing good and too much of the blame during bad economic times. The biggest private sector growth came under Clintona nd he had two massive bubbles building, plus the one that has yet to pop. It was pure luck on Clintons part and has little or nothing to do with his policies.

Pure luck over 52 years? Look at the shit storm that Obama and Clinton were dealt. Obama still has been able to create more private sector jobs in less than 4 years, that Bush W.

Shit storm that Clinton was dealt? WTF planet do you live on?

 

[blackhawk]

And yet under Democrat leadership unemployment has been over 8% for over 40 straight months.

 

[oreo]

Pure luck. Presidents tend to get too much credit when the economy is doing good and too much of the blame during bad economic times. The biggest private sector growth came under Clintona nd he had two massive bubbles building, plus the one that has yet to pop. It was pure luck on Clintons part and has little or nothing to do with his policies.

Pure luck over 52 years? Look at the shit storm that Obama and Clinton were dealt. Obama still has been able to create more private sector jobs in less than 4 years, that Bush W.

If you understood economics..maybe. What mess did Clinton inherit upon taking office?

Clinton didn't inherit a MESS--I lived through it--it was an extremely MINOR cyclical recession mostly non-felt by Americans.

Obama has made the MESS worse--with his trying to micro-manage this very diverse economy back to health through road and bridge work--and green energy--(that was outsourced to China anyway)--and he left 1/2 of the workforce out of the loop (women)--who don't do road and bridge work or green energy construction.

A war is emerging between Congress and the White House over high-profile stimulus programs that lawmakers claim aren't serving the American people.

Senate Democrats lashed out at the Obama administration on Wednesday, saying its stimulus wind energy program creates jobs overseas instead of in the U.S., and they're calling for the administration to put a stop to it.

"Today, we are demanding the Obama administration suspend this program immediately," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

The program has already spent $2 billion, funding enough projects to power 2.4 million homes.

An investigation by ABC News and the Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 79 percent of the program's money has gone to foreign companies, money that Schumer said was "federal tax dollars, the stimulus, which was sold as jobs in America."

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/obama-stimulus-money-spent-overseas/story?id=10002592#.UEjywbKPX4Q

FISKER

With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.
Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the job of assembling the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car has been outsourced to Finland.Fisker Automotive, is funded by a venture capital firm whose partners include former Vice President Al Gore.

Obama Administration Gave Half-Billion-Dollar Loan to Al Gore-Connected Electric Car Company Fisker to Build in Finland | TheBlaze.com

And of course Solyndra:

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Could be. I'm sure the tech boom helped. You don't think Clinton's policy of balancing the budget by raising taxes helped?

The CBO says no. Unless you hate math I guess that means you agree that Clinton had nothing to do with it.

Um, what?

Clinton had nothing to do with balancing the budget, or else I hate math?

And the CBO says that?

Where?

Damn, not only do you hate math, you can't read.

I said that, according to the CBO, Clinton's policies had nothing to do with the projected surplus. The dot com bubble increased revenue higher than it has ever been before, that had nothing to do with anything that Clinton did. Here is the report, you can skip to page 7 to find the part I am talking about. Or you can keep believing that the world works by magic, your choice.

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update

 

[Sundial]

Um, Jimmy Carter and Obamination have the worst job creation numbers of all-time.

Bill Clinton had the benefit of a GOP Congress.

JFK, a moderate, followed many GOP economic tenants like lower taxes.

So in the end Bill Clinton's comments are nothing but bullshit, especially given the job creation under Reagan cleaning up Jimmy Carter's mess.

Nope. There were 9 million jobs created under Carter, and 332,000 (so far) for Obama.

The worst job creation numbers were for our last president - Bush. 646,000 jobs were lost during the Bush 2 years.

Edit: that's LOST, not gained.

Yet you forget the #'s of people added to the possible work force, which is MORE than that number.. hence why we have more out of work

There is a net loss of jobs under Obamalama...

No, not a net loss, a net gain. A net gain of 332,000 private sector jobs, so far.

Here's the complete list:


Republicans

Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs

Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents

Democrats

John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs

 

[Oldstyle]

All this is just misdirection by progressives, hell bent on deflecting any honest appraisal of Barack Obama's job creation record. The fact is...despite coming into office at the height of a recession where you would expect the usual "rebound" effect would make his numbers look fantastic...Barack Obama's job creation numbers aren't really any better than George Bush's, who had to deal with the Dot Com. bubble bursting and the subsequent recession that followed right after taking office and then the Real Estate bubble bursting at the tail end of his second term. If this is what he can do coming OUT of a recession, God help us if we go back INTO one!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama is dragging down the team average, time to cut him loose

 

[driveby]

In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,

Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the night’s biggest applause lines.

42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?

Becuase Democrats use a scientific approach to economics while Republicans use more of a religious approach.

Horseshit, most Dems are lawyers, most Repubs are business people......

 

[thanatos144]

Was this job growth before or after the new republican congress made him their personal bitch and dragged him kicking and screaming to prosperity?