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



## SwingVoter (Sep 8, 2008)

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

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


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 8, 2008)

GOP added government jobs and low paying service jobs, in exchange for high paying manufacturing.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 8, 2008)

And Clinton didn't just add manufacturing.  He added good paying service jobs too.  When the economy is booming, everyone is paying well because of supply and demand in the job market.  

We all know when the economy sucks, jobs are more scarce and so demand for workers is low, so companies get to pay lower wages.

I can't wait for McCain to admit this because I'm sick of arguing with republicans.  We all know they are wrong, but it takes McCain admitting it, 3 FUCKING MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION, and you sheep are ready to give him a chance?  Out of your minds.


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 8, 2008)

The fed nor the president creates jobs... business and industry creates jobs...

We all know where the vast majority of new jobs came from in the 90's... I know, I am still in that industry... but also because that industry was built on speculation and not actual sales/production, it was a false boom or bubble... venture capitalists were throwing money around like it was grass clippings... shady deals were as plentiful as beer at a NASCAR tailgate party... and it henceforth collapsed as fast as it rose, and many of those jobs disappeared with that collapse... as a matter of fact, the internet/tech/high tech industries are STILL recovering from it, as are all the little companies that were feeding off of those residual monies being thrown around...


----------



## Chris (Sep 8, 2008)

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


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> 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


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 8, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> Job creation? - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog
> 
> still have not heard a GOPer give a good explanation for this



Well maybe Swing because it's  wrong? ever consider that?  Come on this is the NYT we are talking about here that same paper that sends back an op ed piece to John McCain and tells him to rewrite it so it looks more like Obama's. The same paper who has had to print retraction after retraction for making things up. So according to this Op-Ed only 4 million jobs minus those created by small business as if those don't matter?  I guess it's not a job unless your  working in the manufacturing sector and are a member of the UAW?  Here is something to ponder, as of 2003 we had created over 6 million new jobs according to the bls and that was 5 years ago. The down turn in the economy didn't really start till last year. and the unemployment rate has risen from 5.5 to 6.1% So again this article is complete and utter  nonsense and is true to form for the NYT.

Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues &#150; More Than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003


----------



## jillian (Sep 8, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> Well maybe Swing because it's  wrong? ever consider that?  Come on this is the NYT we are talking about here that same paper that sends back an op ed piece to John McCain and tells him to rewrite it so it looks more like Obama's. The same paper who has had to print retraction after retraction for making things up. So according to this Op-Ed only 4 million jobs minus those created by small business as if those don't matter?  I guess it's not a job unless your  working in the manufacturing sector and are a member of the UAW?  Here is something to ponder, as of 2003 we had created over 6 million new jobs according to the bls and that was 5 years ago. The down turn in the economy didn't really start till last year. and the unemployment rate has risen from 5.5 to 6.1% So again this article is complete and utter  nonsense and is true to form for the NYT.
> 
> Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues &#8211; More Than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003



You believe Bush's whitehouse's assessment of it's own job creation?? Bush hasn't been straightforward or transparent about anything on which he could be criticized.  And I don't think anyone disputes that jobs were created. It's the nature of the jobs and the numbers in relation to other SUCCESSFUL administrations that are in question.

Bush had the worst job creation history of any president since Herbert Hoover. And on this issue, I'll take the NYT over the admin's spin any day of the week.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 8, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> The fed nor the president creates jobs... business and industry creates jobs...
> 
> We all know where the vast majority of new jobs came from in the 90's... I know, I am still in that industry... but also because that industry was built on speculation and not actual sales/production, it was a false boom or bubble... venture capitalists were throwing money around like it was grass clippings... shady deals were as plentiful as beer at a NASCAR tailgate party... and it henceforth collapsed as fast as it rose, and many of those jobs disappeared with that collapse... as a matter of fact, the internet/tech/high tech industries are STILL recovering from it, as are all the little companies that were feeding off of those residual monies being thrown around...



but you can't say what you did and NOT ACKNOWLEDGE that the same type of boom has happened in the bush administration with the HOUSING boom, that has now crashed and all kinds of jobs have been lost along with alot of wealth lost....

both were booms?


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 8, 2008)

Care4all said:


> but you can't say what you did and NOT ACKNOWLEDGE that the same type of boom has happened in the bush administration with the HOUSING boom, that has now crashed and all kinds of jobs have been lost along with alot of wealth lost....
> 
> both were booms?



And the housing boom started when and because of WHAT??

People getting the new and super high paying tech jobs in the mid 90's.... doubling their salary every 2 years or so, getting stock options out the ying yang, thinking that the wave would never crest and crash... and hence buying houses, larger and larger houses, at the limits of their inflated salaries... getting HELOCs all over to buy more toys, and taking away from the equity within those houses.... as stated, the reach of the false boom was not just IN industry, but was felt all over, on the way up AND the way down... people in the early 00's tried everything they could to keep those houses, but many made VERY poor decisions.... and when the huge economic hit came after 9/11, which was ALREADY on the downturn starting in late98/early 99, it was just the icing on the cake and the housing crisis was coming, and there was practically nothing that could be done to stop it


----------



## Chris (Sep 8, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


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



This is the topic. 

Bush wasted more money than any president in history. When you do that, your economy goes down.

I wouldn't want anyone to talk about it either, if I were a rightie.


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> This is the topic.
> 
> Bush wasted more money than any president in history. When you do that, your economy goes down.
> 
> I wouldn't want anyone to talk about it either, if I were a rightie.



The topic started was on the disputed # of jobs "created" by the 2 different administrations... and any reasoning behind it

And you came in with the ever-so-typical, baseless, blanket slogan.....

nice try


----------



## jillian (Sep 8, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> The topic started was on the disputed # of jobs "created" by the 2 different administrations... and any reasoning behind it
> 
> And you came in with the ever-so-typical, baseless, blanket slogan.....
> 
> nice try



Because, of course, you'd never do such a thing....


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 8, 2008)

jillian said:


> Because, of course, you'd never do such a thing....



Nope... funny.. I don't.. unless it is calling out a troll (like the ones we know are here) for being a troll...

IF we're talking jobs... I talk jobs... when I am asked a question, I try and answer that question... when we're talking the economy, I talk economics... when we talk welfare, I talk welfare and the things related to it... when we talk music, I talk music.. .when we talk military, I talk military....


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 8, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> The fed nor the president creates jobs... business and industry creates jobs...
> 
> We all know where the vast majority of new jobs came from in the 90's... I know, I am still in that industry... but also because that industry was built on speculation and not actual sales/production, it was a false boom or bubble... venture capitalists were throwing money around like it was grass clippings... shady deals were as plentiful as beer at a NASCAR tailgate party... and it henceforth collapsed as fast as it rose, and many of those jobs disappeared with that collapse... as a matter of fact, the internet/tech/high tech industries are STILL recovering from it, as are all the little companies that were feeding off of those residual monies being thrown around...



I find it fascinating that you completely understand what happened in the 90's but you are freakin clueless about today's economy and what happened.


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 8, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I find it fascinating that you completely understand what happened in the 90's but you are freakin clueless about today's economy and what happened.




I find it completely fascinating that you weigh partisanship, conspiracy theories, BDS, and slogans into what you deem to be reality


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 8, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> And the housing boom started when and because of WHAT??
> 
> People getting the new and super high paying tech jobs in the mid 90's.... doubling their salary every 2 years or so, getting stock options out the ying yang, thinking that the wave would never crest and crash... and hence buying houses, larger and larger houses, at the limits of their inflated salaries... getting HELOCs all over to buy more toys, and taking away from the equity within those houses.... as stated, the reach of the false boom was not just IN industry, but was felt all over, on the way up AND the way down... people in the early 00's tried everything they could to keep those houses, but many made VERY poor decisions.... and when the huge economic hit came after 9/11, which was ALREADY on the downturn starting in late98/early 99, it was just the icing on the cake and the housing crisis was coming, and there was practically nothing that could be done to stop it




Sorry Dave

The Dot Com Bubble was from 19952001

On a national level, housing prices peaked in early 2005, began declining in 2006 and have not yet bottomed. 

Those tech boom was over and the Mortgage lenders and banks were de-regulated and predatory lending was allowed.  People didn't even need to prove they had a job or income and they were getting loans.  The lenders didn't care because they were going to sell off the loans asap anyways.

Oh, and now you see Freddy and Fanny are in the governments hands?  What did I tell you Dave?  I said the GOP wants to privatize profits and socialize the losses.  Now shareholders will do well when things are good and when things get bad, you and I will take the hit.

Free markets my ass.  

Screw it if the Dems don't win.  I will enjoy seeing the country fall apart.  Not because I want it to happen, but because the American people deserve another great recession.


----------



## jillian (Sep 8, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Nope... funny.. I don't.. unless it is calling out a troll (like the ones we know are here) for being a troll...
> 
> IF we're talking jobs... I talk jobs... when I am asked a question, I try and answer that question... when we're talking the economy, I talk economics... when we talk welfare, I talk welfare and the things related to it... when we talk music, I talk music.. .when we talk military, I talk military....



conversations go all over the place... just how it is. and i do believe trolling is in the eye of the beholder. there are very very few people whom EVERYONE would agree is a troll. And I'm pretty sure that the people whom I think are trolls, you wouldn't. And I know for a FACT that Gunny and I disagree even on the basic definition of a troll.

Just my opinion. Don't mean to sound school-marmish. 

Carry on.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 8, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> I find it completely fascinating that you weigh partisanship, conspiracy theories, BDS, and slogans into what you deem to be reality



No, really.  Today McCain is admitting that the GOP as well as the Dems suck.  So you will vote for him.  But, yesterday he was saying the economy was strong and he was defending the GOP.  

Now you will admit the GOP sucks too.  But until McCain said so, you said the GOP were doing a heck of a job.

So the GOP never has to tell you the truth.  Just come up with a new lie when the old one wears out.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 8, 2008)

jillian said:


> You believe Bush's whitehouse's assessment of it's own job creation?? Bush hasn't been straightforward or transparent about anything on which he could be criticized.  And I don't think anyone disputes that jobs were created. It's the nature of the jobs and the numbers in relation to other SUCCESSFUL administrations that are in question.
> 
> Bush had the worst job creation history of any president since Herbert Hoover. And on this issue, I'll take the NYT over the admin's spin any day of the week.



 "Worst job creation record since Hoover Administration" (source*senate democrats.gov) as said over and over  by the democratic party. Those figures are from the BLS the white house was quoting them on their web page. I'm really sorry though jillian about the NYT though, they really are a sad shell of a once great newpaper. As for the jobs, just because jobs are not created in the manufacturing sector and  don't have that UAW seal of approval on them does not mean that the jobs were not created and are not real. Tell that to the person who works at the local computer consulting firm or at home nurse perhaps.  No one is disputing that the Clinton Administration created a lot of jobs, but to  deflate the numbers  like the NYT has done to create more  democratic partisan hysteria is completely unprofessional and shows the caliber of the people that work there now.


----------



## jillian (Sep 8, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> "Worst job creation record since Hoover Administration" (source*senate democrats.gov) as said over and over  by the democratic party. Those figures are from the BLS the white house was quoting them on their web page. I'm really sorry though jillian about the NYT though, they really are a sad shell of a once great newpaper. As for the jobs, just because jobs are not created in the manufacturing sector and  don't have that UAW seal of approval on them does not mean that the jobs were not created and are not real. Tell that to the person who works at the local computer consulting firm or at home nurse perhaps.  No one is disputing that the Clinton Administration created a lot of jobs, but to  deflate the numbers  like the NYT has done to create more  democratic partisan hysteria is completely unprofessional and shows the caliber of the people that work there now.



It SHOULD be repeated over and over... and over... and over.. and over.. .because it's true. The right keeps saying thte NYT is a left wing mouthpiece when Judy Miller's commentary were what got you guys the go into Iraq. So I think saying things over and over can be viewed from both sides of the fence. The difference is that Bush's job creation WAS the worst since Hoover.

Is the Times editorial policy generally to the left? Absolutely. It doesn't mean the actual reports are skewed. And just remember Judy Miller the next time you talk about the big, bad NY Times cause she gave Bush/Cheney's BS the gravitas it needed to be sold to Congress.

oh...and the person whose high tech job got sent to India might have a different view of Bush's job creation successes now that he's working in Wal-Mart or saying "you want fries with that?"


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 8, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> No, really.  Today McCain is admitting that the GOP as well as the Dems suck.  So you will vote for him.  But, yesterday he was saying the economy was strong and he was defending the GOP.
> 
> Now you will admit the GOP sucks too.  But until McCain said so, you said the GOP were doing a heck of a job.
> 
> So the GOP never has to tell you the truth.  Just come up with a new lie when the old one wears out.



I have always admitted there is corruption in Washington, regardless of party

And of course there are mistakes on both sides...

But I agree more with the philosophies of conservatism than the philosophies of socialism and wealth redistribution, which is more closely tied with how Obama wants things

And please.. do not put words into my mouth... I have plenty of them there already that are my own


----------



## Luissa (Sep 8, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> "Worst job creation record since Hoover Administration" (source*senate democrats.gov) as said over and over  by the democratic party. Those figures are from the BLS the white house was quoting them on their web page. I'm really sorry though jillian about the NYT though, they really are a sad shell of a once great newpaper. As for the jobs, just because jobs are not created in the manufacturing sector and  don't have that UAW seal of approval on them does not mean that the jobs were not created and are not real. Tell that to the person who works at the local computer consulting firm or at home nurse perhaps.  No one is disputing that the Clinton Administration created a lot of jobs, but to  deflate the numbers  like the NYT has done to create more  democratic partisan hysteria is completely unprofessional and shows the caliber of the people that work there now.


What about job loss! The unemployment rate is the highes it has ever been especially among women and minorities!


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 8, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Sorry Dave
> 
> The Dot Com Bubble was from 19952001
> 
> ...



1) Do I agree with the Fed taking over Freddy and Fernie? Nope... nice try

2) Nice try of you to only mention the peak.... but try looking at the explosion of housing prices during the tech bubble and the reasons behind it.... the facts that the price inflations were not all the sudden at the bubble, but a result of how things were going during the false business boom

3) I will take no hit... I am more savvy with my investments and house than to overextend and not diversify

4) Take the partisan blinders off


----------



## SwingVoter (Sep 8, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> it was a false boom or bubble... venture capitalists



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


----------



## Chris (Sep 8, 2008)

Bill Clinton, eight years of peace and prosperity.

George Bush, eight years of war and massive debt.

Vote for McCain, since he voted with George Bush 90% of the time.

Yea, right...


----------



## SwingVoter (Sep 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> Bill Clinton, eight years of peace and prosperity.



then why do you think Obama's plan to do the opposite of what Clinton did on capital gains taxes and trade can also produce peace and prosperity?


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 8, 2008)

jillian said:


> It SHOULD be repeated over and over... and over... and over.. and over.. .because it's true. The right keeps saying thte NYT is a left wing mouthpiece when Judy Miller's commentary were what got you guys the go into Iraq. So I think saying things over and over can be viewed from both sides of the fence. The difference is that Bush's job creation WAS the worst since Hoover.
> 
> Is the Times editorial policy generally to the left? Absolutely. It doesn't mean the actual reports are skewed. And just remember Judy Miller the next time you talk about the big, bad NY Times cause she gave Bush/Cheney's BS the gravitas it needed to be sold to Congress.
> 
> oh...and the person whose high tech job got sent to India might have a different view of Bush's job creation successes now that he's working in Wal-Mart or saying "you want fries with that?"



I honestly don't mind the "talking points" from the democratic party being repeated verbatim over and over jillian. I was just using that as an example to show how far down the  ladder the NYT has come as a newspaper. As for the editorial staff I agree they have a left wing slant, that's not in dispute here and I am glad you agree with me.  I was talking about the nurmerous Articles some in the front page that have been proven false for example.

 Jayson Blair (born March 23, 1976, Columbia, Maryland) is a journalist who was forced to resign from the New York Times in May 2003, after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories.

So trust me I don't get upset over anything that rag prints. 

On the gravitas to go to War , wasn't it Hillary Clinton who later claimed  that she didn't even read all 96 pages of the intelligence report? Then said on the Senate Floor she was all for the War along with Joe Biden and others? I don't recall seeing George Bush during that vote.  The fact is this retro active blame game  of  it's all George Bush's fault doesn't fly with me. If people want to say that the war was wrong,  then say it from the beginning and don't act like because you have read the polls and need votes  you can now claim somehow that you were tricked, when they ALL read the very same intelligence reports. Funny how Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd had no trouble comming to a different conclusion back in 2002 than most of the democrats who now claim this high moral ground.


----------



## Silence (Sep 8, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> then why do you think Obama's plan to do the opposite of what Clinton did on capital gains taxes and trade can also produce peace and prosperity?




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 (repub) *see how easy that is...I fucked up something pretty simple and called him a 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"


----------



## jillian (Sep 8, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> I honestly don't mind the "talking points" from the democratic party being repeated verbatim over and over jillian. I was just using that as an example to show how far down the  ladder the NYT has come as a newspaper. As for the editorial staff I agree they have a left wing slant, that's not in dispute here and I am glad you agree with me.  I was talking about the nurmerous Articles some in the front page that have been proven false for example.
> 
> Jayson Blair (born March 23, 1976, Columbia, Maryland) is a journalist who was forced to resign from the New York Times in May 2003, after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories.
> 
> ...



Here's the thing. In case you haven't noticed I don't use anyone's talkng points. 

Actually, Hillary DIDN'T say she was all for going to war. You need to read the actual speech. What she DID say is that they were giving the president the last resort to keep in his arsenal should all else fail so that it was clear we were behind the pres and that he had all appropriate tools at his disposal. Her speech specifically said that the vote was NOT a blank check to go to war. 

And if you read the actual authority Bush was granted, there was a requirement that all diplomatic efforts be exhausted first and that the admin GO BACK TO CONGRESS with reports and status updates, etc. None of that was done.

I don't recall reading Biden's contemporaneous comments, but I'm pretty sure they weren't "rah rah go to war, George!!". I'd expect they were pretty close to Hillary's. But that's just a guess.

And ummmmmm... yeah, the intel was cherry picked. Denying that is kind of specious.


----------



## Chris (Sep 8, 2008)

Silence said:


> 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)
> ...



It's amazing isn't it? The Republicans at the convention cheering fiscal responsiblity when Reagan and Bush are responsible for 90% of the National Debt?

Unbelievable.....


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 8, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> 1) Do I agree with the Fed taking over Freddy and Fernie? Nope... nice try
> 
> 2) Nice try of you to only mention the peak.... but try looking at the explosion of housing prices during the tech bubble and the reasons behind it.... the facts that the price inflations were not all the sudden at the bubble, but a result of how things were going during the false business boom
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 8, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> What about job loss! The unemployment rate is the highes it has ever been especially among women and minorities!



Luissa , not hardly, the unemployment rate is at 6.1% thats not even close to the highest its ever been, during the Carter Administration it reached 12% during the 30's as high as 29% the unemployment rate during the Bush Administration has been as low as 3.9% too.  While 6.1% is higher than expected it is hardly the  21% interest rates and out of control inflation seen during the late 70's or for that matter the early 90's not even close. Yes the economy is in a slow down I will give you that. Just who do you think has had the responsibility for getting spending under control and  getting a decent budget passed when this slow down started? It wouldn't have anthing to do with the fact that a do nothing congress was elected would it?


----------



## SwingVoter (Sep 8, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> a do nothing congress was elected



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


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 8, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> 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



Swing I have news for you, most of the programs you listed will be increased under an Obama administration.  Who do you think funds all those programs? George Bush? The White House?  Those social programs will be a gigantic part of the "hope and change" of the Obama Administration.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 8, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> 1) Do I agree with the Fed taking over Freddy and Fernie? Nope... nice try
> 
> 2) Nice try of you to only mention the peak.... but try looking at the explosion of housing prices during the tech bubble and the reasons behind it.... the facts that the price inflations were not all the sudden at the bubble, but a result of how things were going during the false business boom
> 
> ...



housing was in the tail end of a housing recession during the dot. com boom....it began in 1988 with the savings and loan SCAM that the gvt bailed the banks out of under Bush 1, money/mortgages were hard to get cuz of the crash....i bought my home in massachusetts in 1997, for 10k less than the previous owner bought it for in 1989... at the best interest rate we could find, which was 8.5% on a VA loan, of which we refinanced in 2003 at 5.12%

....in the year 2000, my new next door neighbors bought their house very similar to ours for 15k more than we paid a few years earlier....so the value of our home had not gone up much, maybe 8% in 3 years of ownership....in late 2006, just 6 years later... we sold our home for MORE than double, about 120% more than our original purchase price....which was 40k less than it was valued in 2005....so the housing market was beginning to fall but that was what can be called a BUBBLE!!!!!!!

so, bush 2's economy definately had a HUGE BUBBLE that drove it....the rest of the economy was crap, but the housing bubble masked it....people were borrowing money out of their home faux equity to buy other things by taking 2nd mortgages or home equity loans....  

with all of that, still not many jobs were created under Bush...


----------



## Care4all (Sep 8, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> then why do you think Obama's plan to do the opposite of what Clinton did on capital gains taxes and trade can also produce peace and prosperity?


obama is bringing it BACK to clinton's tax structure on the wealthy and capital gains, bush had cut the clinton level of taxation for the top bracket.


----------



## Chris (Sep 8, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> Swing I have news for you, most of the programs you listed will be increased under an Obama administration.  Who do you think funds all those programs? George Bush? The White House?  Those social programs will be a gigantic part of the "hope and change" of the Obama Administration.



No, those are Bush programs.

Obama wants to fund universal healthcare, and American energy independence. 

Both of those programs will save us money in the long run.


----------



## editec (Sep 8, 2008)

Chris said:


> It's amazing isn't it? The Republicans at the convention cheering fiscal responsiblity when Reagan and Bush are responsible for 90% of the National Debt?
> 
> Unbelievable.....


 
Amazing? Certainly 

Unbelieveable? Not at all. The Republicans have been tooting their horn about being fiscal conservative, even as they put us more and more into debts, every Republican administration for the last thirtyt years.

How do I explain this mass disconnect that most Republican loyals seem to have from reality?

One of two ways:

1. The Republican loyals know they're lieing to themselves and everyone else; or

2. They are incredibly stupid people who believe this nonsense slogan they've been hearing their whole lives.

Those are really the only two choices one has to explain it, they're either liars or preposerously stupid people. 

You know, two choices exactly the same as those us have had to choose from to explain the boneheadedly stupid things Bush himself has done in the last eight years?


----------



## frazzledgear (Sep 8, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> Job creation? - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog
> 
> still have not heard a GOPer give a good explanation for this



Well if you don't understand what the different statistics actually reflect, its pretty easy to claim that jobs were lost even though they were not.  

The population is not a static number, it is constantly growing and likewise the number of new workers entering the workforce -and in our country that is more than the number leaving the work force.  The economy must create an average of about 200,000 new jobs each month in order to keep up with these numbers entering the employable work force for the first time.  A country like Canada only needs to create a much smaller number because their numbers leaving the work force is much closer to the new numbers entering. (Which is why they have such a liberal immigration policy seeking a new influx of workers from anywhere to help pay for the social programs their ever growing number of retired and elderly count on.)

So if only 100,000 jobs are created instead, unemployment figures will tick up a bit even though no jobs were technically "lost" -enough new ones were not created.  All you have to do is check NOT with some editorial but with the Department of Labor statistics to see that we aren't "losing" jobs.  You do not get the number of how many new jobs were created or actually lost by looking at changes in the unemployment rate -which is what some people actually do and what Krugman's editorial has done.  If 8,500 workers entering the work force for the first time were unable to get a job, then some people say "8,500 jobs were lost" when in fact no such thing happened.  It means 192,000 new jobs were created and it wasn't enough to acommodate the additional 8,500 who also entered the work force during that time.

The unemployment rate is simply a figure that reflects whether the new job creation was or was not an adequate number to acommodate the influx of new workers that are constantly entering the employable work force.  You have to have an unemployment rate that is above 8.0% and still rising from there before we are talking about real jobs actually being lost.  

Current Population Survey(CPS)

In addition, the attack on 9/11 caused a major disruption in employment, ended up destroying almost half the entire value of our economy within a matter of months that snowballed for the next two years through one industry after another before even beginning to reverse - affecting and plowing through one industry after another from investment to airlines to hotel and service workers etc.  And all a direct result of 9/11.  The full damage caused by 9/11 was incredibly massive and in the trillions and could have easily resulted in an outright depression -with the wrong government policies.  

So the first 4 years of Bush's Presidency was spent trying to aid an economy in its recovery from an attack that cost nearly half the value of our entire economy.  Something Clinton didn't have to deal with in the first place and already had a stable economy from Reagan policies that he didn't change until the last 2 years he was in office and resulted in leaving with a recession!.  So comparing Bush with Clinton on economy is a truly specious and phony one -no other President since FDR has had to deal with the kind of damage to the economy that Bush did.  It is actually a major accomplishment that unemployment didn't skyrocket as it so easily could have following 9/11 -and as any economist could tell you, it takes much, much longer to recover from high unemployment than it did to hit in the first place.

Lastly, the combined factors of oil speculation, oil demand skyrocketing in foreign countries like China and India, OPEC keeping a lid on available supplies have all sharply driven up oil prices.  Which has inflicted a whole lot more damage than you can apparently appreciate and actually could have been far worse with different government policies.  Our economy is fueled by oil -from production, manufacturing to transportation etc.  Where do you think the higher cost of oil has gone and how have companies and businesses handled this additional outlay?  By creating fewer jobs in the first place.  

Had Obama been handed this identical situation with the policies he is pushing now -our economy would have tanked out entirely and  unemployment skyrocket close to double digits or higher.  It sure did under Carter with the very same policies Obama is holding out right now.  Thank God voters threw him out.  And I say "thanks, but no thanks" to Obama for once again offering up the historically proven failed policies of both Hoover and Carter while trying to con people into believing its bound to get a different result this time around.  No it won't.  It would be disaster.


----------



## Luissa (Sep 8, 2008)

Silence said:


> 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)
> ...


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 (Sep 8, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> 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 (Sep 8, 2008)

frazzledgear said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 8, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> 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 (Sep 8, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> 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 (Sep 8, 2008)

Care4all said:


> 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....
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 8, 2008)

Care4all said:


> 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 (Sep 8, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> 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 (Sep 8, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> 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 (Sep 8, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> 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 (Sep 8, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> 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 (Sep 8, 2008)

Care4all said:


> 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 (Sep 9, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> 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 (Sep 9, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> 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 (Sep 9, 2008)

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 (Sep 9, 2008)

Care4all said:


> ...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 (Sep 9, 2008)

Care4all said:


> 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 (Sep 9, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> 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 (Sep 9, 2008)

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 (Nov 15, 2010)

SwingVoter said:


> 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?


----------



## Claudette (Nov 15, 2010)

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.


----------



## Dante (Nov 15, 2010)

Claudette said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2010)

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 (Nov 15, 2010)

Chris said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2010)

and 8 million lost under BHO.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 15, 2010)

In a nutshell?

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

Bush based his economy on energy/war.


----------



## frazzledgear (Nov 15, 2010)

SwingVoter said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2010)

SwingVoter said:


> 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 (Nov 16, 2010)

Chris said:


> 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
> ...


----------



## Chris (Nov 16, 2010)

DiamondDave said:


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



The truth hurts, doesn't it, Dave?


----------



## elvis (Nov 16, 2010)

Chris said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



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


----------



## Chris (Nov 16, 2010)

oreo said:


> SwingVoter said:
> 
> 
> > Job creation? - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog
> ...



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 (Nov 16, 2010)

Chris said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > SwingVoter said:
> ...



You're the one rewriting history, Monica.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 16, 2010)

Wow! This thread is old.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 16, 2010)

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 (Nov 16, 2010)

Dante said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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 (Nov 16, 2010)

SwingVoter said:


> 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 (Nov 16, 2010)

Chris said:


> 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 (Nov 16, 2010)

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 (Nov 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 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?


----------



## Meister (Nov 16, 2010)

rdean said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



The economy was doing pretty good.


----------



## rdean (Nov 16, 2010)

Meister said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



I'm talking about our economy.  Not the Chinese economy where Republicans helped move millions of jobs from 2001 to 2008.  That tax money was spent.  Just not here.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Nov 16, 2010)

Pets.com


----------



## boedicca (Nov 16, 2010)

rdean said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




To help the economy recover from the double-whammy recession.

It worked.


----------



## ConservativeDad (Nov 17, 2010)

23 million jobs created under Clinton?  I find that hard to believe unless you are including interns.  And even then that's not fair as he was paying them under the table (and under the podium, the desk, and likely right under Shrillary's nose)...


----------



## Chris (Nov 17, 2010)

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 (Nov 17, 2010)

Chris said:


> 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.



You are so wrong.  The GOP found a "use" for those wars.  Their friends made money.  Lots and lots of money.


----------



## auditor0007 (Nov 18, 2010)

SwingVoter said:


> Job creation? - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog
> 
> still have not heard a GOPer give a good explanation for this



First off, this has nothing to do with Clinton and Bush.  Neither one of them created any jobs really.  You see, for the most part government does not create jobs.  

So why were so many jobs created under Clinton versus Bush?  It's very simple really.  And it really began under George H. Bush.  There are two reasons all these jobs were created under Clinton, computers and cell phones.  Nobody had them and everyone wanted them, both personally and for business.  They were two new products that became such a major driving force in the economy, not just in the US, but worldwide.  By the time Clinton left, everyone that needed these items had them.  Yes, people and companies still needed to update every few years, but now they were just replacing something they already had.  The driving force of new products in the economy was gone.  So GW didn't get the benefit of any of that.  

Ask most economists what we need to get the economy going again, and they will tell you that we need some new innovation that will drive the economy the way it was driven by computers and cell phones in the 90's.  Outiside of that, growth will remain stagnant.


----------

