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

[jillian]

"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]

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]

"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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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"

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.