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

[Luissa]

personally I don't no jack squat about captial gains, interest rates, or any of that other crap that gets thrown around here, what I do know is this:

Reagan = rising defict (repub)
Bush = rising deficit (repub)
Clinton = surplus (dem)
Bush = rising deficit (dem)

doesn't seem like rocket science to me cuz it seems to me that we can decide to do what they did in the 80s despite Reagan's poor economic performance, and elect Bush for what basically amounted to a Reagan third term, except he got us into the Gulf War or we can be smarter this time and not waste 12 years thinking somehow the Republicans are suddenly going to "get it"

And who gets us out of those defict each time democrats!
Hoover-depression then came FDR a democrat
Reagan-Bush the 80's and defict then came CLinton surplus
So I think it is just natural procress for us now to put a democrat in the white house to get us out of this recession!

 

[frazzledgear]

And who gets us out of those defict each time democrats!
Hoover-depression then came FDR a democrat
Reagan-Bush the 80's and defict then came CLinton surplus
So I think it is just natural procress for us now to put a democrat in the white house to get us out of this recession!

This is one of the most repeated Democrat lies around. This is a myth that refuses to die. It was an accounting gimmick and never existed.

Might want to check with the Dept. of Treasury about that "surplus" because you won't find one anywhere.

National Debt

1997 - $5,413,146,011,397.34
1998 - $5,526,193,008,897.62
1999 - $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 - $5,674,178,209,886.86

$261 BILLION in debt was added during Clinton's last 4 years.

Here's how the accounting gimmick works. There are two types of government debt: public debt and intragovernmental holdings. Let's break those numbers down in Clinton's second term.


Public Debt

1997 - $3,789,667,546,849.60
1998 - $3,733,864,472,163.53
1999 - $3,636,104,594,501.81
2000 - $3,405,303,490,221.20

Intragovernmental Holdings

1997 - $1,623,478,464,547.74
1998 - $1,792,328,536,734.09
1999 - $2,020,166,307,131.62
2000 - $2,268,874,719,665.66

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2007
(National debt increased at a faster rate once Democrats took control of Congress while that rate was slower when Republicans had control under Clinton and Bush's first 2 years. Since Congress actually controls spending and not a President -it is Congress that should get the blame for the rate of increase in national debt. Same reason spending shot up under Reagan -his policies increased government revenues big time -and a Democrat Congress responded by going nuts on spending far beyond that huge increase in revenue.)

Public debt comes from tax revenus minus payouts generated from payroll/SS taxes -essentially it is a liability technically owed by the public and not by government. Intragovernmental holdings are from the general budget, which is generated from income/corporate/capital taxes and the direct liability of the government and owed by the government.

The public debt was technically reduced on paper. But there was never any surplus at all. It was reduced on paper because people and businesses paid more in SS and payroll taxes in comparison to the outlay in Social Security payments to recipients. That's all that it means. Technically it is a debt we the "public" owe because it was supposed to be funded directly from our individual SS taxes and matching outlays from our employers -and we still had billions in shortfall every year compared to that paid out to SS recipients even while Clinton was LYING and claiming some kind of surplus existed. As you can see -national debt rose by billions under Clinton because government was always spending far more than it received and therefore no surplus ever existed whatsoever. Just more and higher national debt.

The national debt was constantly going up the entire time while Clinton was President and more than offset the slight reduction in public debt on paper -increased to the tune of an additional $261 billion over 4 years. No surplus EVER. At any time. Never existed. Big time lie.

When Democrats insist there was a surplus under Clinton that was "destroyed" by Bush who increased our national debt -they are not only LYING about the fact no surplus ever existed at any time and LYING about the fact national debt at all times increased under Clinton - they aren't even talking about the same thing and are counting on people not bothering to look it up for themselves. (Or pointing out the truth that any increase in national debt is the fault of Congress, not a President.) But hearing Democrats like Pelosi who recently repeated this lie once again is proof positive Democrats think people are a bunch of dumb cows who will believe whatever they tell them to believe.

 

[Care4all]

This is one of the most repeated Democrat lies around. This is a myth that refuses to die. It was an accounting gimmick and never existed.

Might want to check with the Dept. of Treasury about that "surplus" because you won't find one anywhere.

National Debt

1997 - $5,413,146,011,397.34
1998 - $5,526,193,008,897.62
1999 - $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 - $5,674,178,209,886.86

$261 BILLION in debt was added during Clinton's last 4 years.

Here's how the accounting gimmick works. There are two types of government debt: public debt and intragovernmental holdings. Let's break those numbers down in Clinton's second term.


Public Debt

1997 - $3,789,667,546,849.60
1998 - $3,733,864,472,163.53
1999 - $3,636,104,594,501.81
2000 - $3,405,303,490,221.20

Intragovernmental Holdings

1997 - $1,623,478,464,547.74
1998 - $1,792,328,536,734.09
1999 - $2,020,166,307,131.62
2000 - $2,268,874,719,665.66

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2007
(National debt increased at a faster rate once Democrats took control of Congress while that rate was slower when Republicans had control under Clinton and Bush's first 2 years. Since Congress actually controls spending and not a President -it is Congress that should get the blame for the rate of increase in national debt. Same reason spending shot up under Reagan -his policies increased government revenues big time -and a Democrat Congress responded by going nuts on spending far beyond that huge increase in revenue.)

Public debt comes from tax revenus minus payouts generated from payroll/SS taxes -essentially it is a liability technically owed by the public and not by government. Intragovernmental holdings are from the general budget, which is generated from income/corporate/capital taxes and the direct liability of the government and owed by the government.

The public debt was technically reduced on paper. But there was never any surplus at all. It was reduced on paper because people and businesses paid more in SS and payroll taxes in comparison to the outlay in Social Security payments to recipients. That's all that it means. Technically it is a debt we the "public" owe because it was supposed to be funded directly from our individual SS taxes and matching outlays from our employers -and we still had billions in shortfall every year compared to that paid out to SS recipients even while Clinton was LYING and claiming some kind of surplus existed. As you can see -national debt rose by billions under Clinton because government was always spending far more than it received and therefore no surplus ever existed whatsoever. Just more and higher national debt.

The national debt was constantly going up the entire time while Clinton was President and more than offset the slight reduction in public debt on paper -increased to the tune of an additional $261 billion over 4 years. No surplus EVER. At any time. Never existed. Big time lie.

When Democrats insist there was a surplus under Clinton that was "destroyed" by Bush who increased our national debt -they are not only LYING about the fact no surplus ever existed at any time and LYING about the fact national debt at all times increased under Clinton - they aren't even talking about the same thing and are counting on people not bothering to look it up for themselves. (Or pointing out the truth that any increase in national debt is the fault of Congress, not a President.) But hearing Democrats like Pelosi who recently repeated this lie once again is proof positive Democrats think people are a bunch of dumb cows who will believe whatever they tell them to believe.

I don't think you understand our fiscal federal budget...

clinton most certainly had a surplus 2-3 years of his term as president with the help of a majority republican congress....

the federal budget, LEGALLY, is required to include the social security surplus money collected...this is in every federal budget, including the Bush budgets...

so, when you hear about Congress over spending their budget each and every year, about $400-$500 billion a year deficit since president Bush has taken office, this does NOT INCLUDE what money they are borrowing from Social security taxes collected in the surplus...which is about $150-$200 billion a year...so a $500 billion deficit of the budget, is really $700 billion borrowed.

This is why your charts show the National Debt growing, even when the budget was balanced under clinton those few years.

care

 

[Red Dawn]

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

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

Clinton got lucky.
9/11
Democrats hate america.




On a related note, even if you add up all the years that Bush and his Father were presidents - 12 years total - Clinton/Gore still created three times as much as Bush41/43, in just 8 years.

I've never heard a good explanation for why that is.

 

[Modbert]

tired of Repubs blaming congress when it was W who proposed big spending social programs like Medicare drug, No Child Left Behind, AIDS treatment for Africans, etc

fed spending rose more under Bush than Clinton, don't blame congress for the misguided, silly, and expensive "compassionate conservatism", which turned out to be a major budget buster

Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 putting us into massive debt can be explained in plenty of ways.

Including the unforgettable: Trickle-down economics.

Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Luissa]

I don't think you understand our fiscal federal budget...

clinton most certainly had a surplus 2-3 years of his term as president with the help of a majority republican congress....

the federal budget, LEGALLY, is required to include the social security surplus money collected...this is in every federal budget, including the Bush budgets...

so, when you hear about Congress over spending their budget each and every year, about $400-$500 billion a year deficit since president Bush has taken office, this does NOT INCLUDE what money they are borrowing from Social security taxes collected in the surplus...which is about $150-$230 billion a year...so a $500 billion deficit of the budget, is really $700 billion borrowed.

This is why your charts show the National Debt growing, even when the budget was balanced under clinton those few years.

care

He also had Alan Greenspan whom Bush didn't like. and wasn't the stock market at all time high during clinton years. II also believe the republican congress helped, I am a democrat but I believe checks and balances works with our government and our economy!

 

[SwingVoter]

clinton most certainly had a surplus 2-3 years of his term as president with the help of a majority republican congress....

a cash accounting surplus

if the govt didn't have the privilege of using funny accounting, and had to accrue financial liabilities as expenses, just like every public corporation does, then it would have shown a deficit under Clinton's final 2-3 yrs

 

[Care4all]

a cash accounting surplus

if the govt didn't have the privilege of using funny accounting, and had to accrue financial liabilities as expenses, just like every public corporation does, then it would have shown a deficit under Clinton's final 2-3 yrs

yes, but it has been this way as law since johnson...45 years or so....INCLUDING under president Bush, which if done the proper way as you suggest, makes his deficits sooooooo much larger than what is being shown too!!!!

Congressional Budget Office - Historical Budget Data

 

[DiamondDave]

Aren't you still in college? More savy??? You just got lucky, like me, and didn't buy in the housing bubble. You would have been no different than everyone else when your house took a dump. So either you were lucky with timing or you took a $30k hit on your home. Did you just buy a home recently? Lucky for you. Most people already bought.

And you would not have been savy enough to avoid your 401K taking a dump. No one else avoided it, so what would have made you so different?

Let me guess, you were savy enough to invest in defense and oil when Bush got into office.

If you consider an about to be 40 year old who occasionally takes a college class when his child schedule allows it "still in college"... then yes, I am still in college

I did not "get lucky"... even with my divorce and other things, I played things smart.. my house is 70% of the way payed off, even with all of that... I could sell at a lesser value than it's peak... and I could still probably buy a house cash in an area outside of the Wash DC area that I live in now

I invest SOME in 401K, but I take responsibility in my own savings in everything from gold, to stocks, to bonds, etc... I also invest in a local small business with a niche in the growth of the area.... I'm far from stupid enough to leave my investments in the hands of other people making all the decisions

 

[DiamondDave]

under Clinton, there were more jobs created in his 1st 2.5 years in office, before the Netscape IPO and resulting craziness, there have been under Bush in 8 years

If you think netscape and Priceline and other such companies started the boom... I suggest you do a little research..

 

[SwingVoter]

If you think netscape and Priceline and other such companies started the boom... I suggest you do a little research..

I was in Santa Clara then, investing in Internet startups, so I know just a little more about this then what you gained reading second hand accounts in the Wall Street Journal or the Red Herring.

Netscape was the first Internet IPO with a completely ridiculous 1st day opening, before Yahoo, Priceline, or Amazon. Boston Chicken was also a hype job, and preceded Netscape, but was based on a more traditional model of growth in retail outlets. But before Netscape came out, the NASDAQ was at a modest 1000, and it was long before the tech bubble you allege was behind all of Clinton's job growth. But even then, he had already presided over more new jobs than Bush has since 2001.

 

[SwingVoter]

yes, but it has been this way as law since johnson...45 years or so....INCLUDING under president Bush, which if done the proper way as you suggest, makes his deficits sooooooo much larger than what is being shown too!!!!

yes, pols from both parties have no incentive to do their accounting properly, even though it's impact on the country has been far more significant than Enron, WorldCom, and other easy targets of politicians, many of whom can barely read an income statement

 

[DiamondDave]

I was in Santa Clara then, investing in Internet startups, so I know just a little more about this then what you gained reading second hand accounts in the Wall Street Journal or the Red Herring.

Netscape was the first Internet IPO with a completely ridiculous 1st day opening, before Yahoo, Priceline, or Amazon. Boston Chicken was also a hype job, and preceded Netscape, but was based on a more traditional model of growth in retail outlets. But before Netscape came out, the NASDAQ was at a modest 1000, and it was long before the tech bubble you allege was behind all of Clinton's job growth. But even then, he had already presided over more new jobs than Bush has since 2001.

1) I know of all the hyped companies that were in the NEWS about the beginning of the bubble... but there was much action before that
2) IT WAS NOT CLINTON'S JOB GROWTH... he did not create a single job besides those he hired into his administration... BUSINESS creates jobs.. a President does not... I suggest you actually understand what a job is before you attribute anything with job creation to a President

 

[SwingVoter]

1) BUSINESS creates jobs..

but business creates far fewer jobs when capital markets shut down because of bad fiscal or monetary policy

Bush's desire to break the bank with "compassionate conservatism" led to budget busting Medicare drug and No Child legislation, which contributed to gov't debt crowding out corporate borrowing.

 

[Care4all]

many businesses flourished under the clinton administration because congress showed FISCAL RESTRAINT, with a goal to balance the budget deficits, opening up more money for investors to invest with....

The Bush administration and Congress did JUST THE OPPOSITE, and spent like crazy, while borrowing money, adding nearing $5 trillion to the national debt, showing total irresponsibility.....making the business atmosphere something less than good for investment and growth...lacking confidence.

 

[SwingVoter]

...lacking confidence.

the CEO confidence index dropped the moment he was declared the winner over Gore, and capital spending tanked soon after

in addition to showing a lack of fiscal restraint that would embarrass even the most liberal Democrat, Bush has not been able to give the business community the confidence it had to risk capital under Reagan and Clinton

 

[editec]

I don't think you understand our fiscal federal budget...

Apparently I do not

clinton most certainly had a surplus 2-3 years of his term as president with the help of a majority republican congress....

the federal budget, LEGALLY, is required to include the social security surplus money collected...this is in every federal budget, including the Bush budgets...

Really? Perhaps I am not understanding you.

I thought that Social security was not included on the Federal budget which is counting annual deficits, and that is why social security had to buy T bills, which would go in the deficit side of the US budget's ledger.

so, when you hear about Congress over spending their budget each and every year, about $400-$500 billion a year deficit since president Bush has taken office, this does NOT INCLUDE what money they are borrowing from Social security taxes collected in the surplus...which is about $150-$200 billion a year...so a $500 billion deficit of the budget, is really $700 billion borrowed.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Isn't the Federal government also required to pay interest to SS for the money it is borrowing? And if it is, then how can SS be also on the federal books as part of the national budget at the same time?

This is why your charts show the National Debt growing, even when the budget was balanced under clinton those few years.

care

Now the above does make sense.

Yes, if the national debt was rising because of the money it was ALSO borrowing from Social security, I can see that.

Perhaps the reason I do not understand the Federal accounting picture is because it is completely unlike any other accounting system in the world.

This whole off the budget on budget spending system they have is beyond logic.

 

[DiamondDave]

but business creates far fewer jobs when capital markets shut down because of bad fiscal or monetary policy

Bush's desire to break the bank with "compassionate conservatism" led to budget busting Medicare drug and No Child legislation, which contributed to gov't debt crowding out corporate borrowing.

Business creates fewer jobs when taxed heavily... business creates fewer jobs when they're forced to limit profits.... the list goes on...

But it is not an accomplishment for the Prez, in terms of job creation.... quite simply it is a false claim both parties and many Presidents like to cling to

 

[Red Dawn]

See, I told you that Bush voters would say that clinton simply got lucky.


We're talking about the last twenty years. Twenty years is a long time; longer than a couple business cycles, longer than any reasonable person to say a president "got lucky".

In the past 20 years we've had 12 years of Bush presidencies, and 8 years of Democratic presidencies. And yet, something like 80% of all job growth occurred under the Democratic adminstration, even though the republicans had 12 years compared to clinton's eight years.

 

[Dante]

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

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

how did the argument go? did you get attacked?