PDA

View Full Version : The Economy and the real story:


MarcBulger
10-20-2004, 01:11 PM
Then and now
"When Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, unemployment was 5.2 percent, inflation 3 percent, and economic growth 2.2 percent. Economic conditions are similar today: unemployment is 5.4 percent, inflation 2.7 percent, and economists' consensus forecast for economic growth this quarter is 3.7 percent," the Media Research Center reports.
"Yet a new study by the MRC's Free Market Project found that while the national media mainly cheered the Clinton economy (85 percent positive), reporters have mostly jeered the Bush economy (77 percent negative)."


Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm!

BigMeatballDave
10-20-2004, 01:23 PM
Don't confuse liberals with facts...

tiptap
10-20-2004, 02:10 PM
Don't confuse liberals with facts...


It isn't the fixed number that is telling. Clinton had a 7.5 % unemployment number with his first term. You quote where it was with the second term. It would fall to 3.9 at the end of his 2nd term. Couple that with rising earnings during Clinton's administration contrasted with the last four years. And the number of jobs and the number of full time employment was better over time under Clinton.

Now you can roll out the fact that we were attacked and the economy took a hit. But you use a false analysis based on one number instead of looking at trends.

Ugly Duck
10-20-2004, 02:26 PM
And the number of jobs and the number of full time employment was better over time under Clinton.You stinkin libbies make me sick... you wouldn't know a fact if it rose up and bit you on the ass. Sure, the Clinton economy built up enormous zillion-dollar surpluses... but the Right can counter that by simply labeling it "The Clinton Recession" instead. The Republicans then took the record surplus and turned it into a record deficit by being "fiscally conservative." If you can't tell that this Bush economy is superior to the Clinton Recession, you should start watching Faux News for some unbiased explanation!

KCTitus
10-20-2004, 02:34 PM
It isn't the fixed number that is telling...the number of jobs and the number of full time employment was better over time under Clinton.

Now you can roll out the fact that we were attacked and the economy took a hit. But you use a false analysis based on one number instead of looking at trends.

First off, this is true...but I will roll out the fact that employment numbers back in the mid 90's to 2000 were skewed due to the dot com boom and the y2k build up. This has to be accounted for in some way.

HolyHandgernade
10-20-2004, 03:04 PM
Not to mention the deficit was being paid down, not added to.

-HH

Chief Henry
10-20-2004, 03:40 PM
The deficit was being paid down in the late 90's by alot of Captial Gains Taxs being paid by the Dot Com
BOOM, then BUST. CG Tax's were much more prominent during the last 3 years of 90's and to some extent 2000. We haven't had any decent Stock market capital Gains for years....My guess the much talked about SURPLUS that we hear about
that President Bush supposidly inherited included to lofty of Capital Gains Tax's from the sell of stock at
gains. Those GO-GO 90's had tons of smoke and mirrows that were unsastainable.

KCTitus
10-20-2004, 03:44 PM
The deficit was being paid down in the late 90's by alot of Captial Gains Taxs being paid by the Dot Com
BOOM, then BUST. CG Tax's were much more prominent during the last 3 years of 90's and to some extent 2000. We haven't had any decent Stock market capital Gains for years....My guess the much talked about SURPLUS that we hear about
that President Bush supposidly inherited included to lofty of Capital Gains Tax's from the sell of stock at
gains. Those GO-GO 90's had tons of smoke and mirrows that were unsastainable.

Yep and we also had larger supluses in the FICA collections that contributed to the surplus due to the y2k and dotcoms high employment and high $$ salaries.

Now the boomers are beginning to retire and those surpluses are shrinking.

All this said, Bush has spent way too much IMO. It's been the single most disappointing thing about this presidency.

Calcountry
10-20-2004, 03:45 PM
Then and now
"When Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, unemployment was 5.2 percent, inflation 3 percent, and economic growth 2.2 percent. Economic conditions are similar today: unemployment is 5.4 percent, inflation 2.7 percent, and economists' consensus forecast for economic growth this quarter is 3.7 percent," the Media Research Center reports.
"Yet a new study by the MRC's Free Market Project found that while the national media mainly cheered the Clinton economy (85 percent positive), reporters have mostly jeered the Bush economy (77 percent negative)."


Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm!
Don't forget, that the minute that Bush was swore in, it made him responsible for everything that happened that was already in the pipeline. Things that he fixed, Kerry can take credit for.

Just like the hypersexual Clinton did.

Calcountry
10-20-2004, 03:48 PM
The deficit was being paid down in the late 90's by alot of Captial Gains Taxs being paid by the Dot Com
BOOM, then BUST. CG Tax's were much more prominent during the last 3 years of 90's and to some extent 2000. We haven't had any decent Stock market capital Gains for years....My guess the much talked about SURPLUS that we hear about
that President Bush supposidly inherited included to lofty of Capital Gains Tax's from the sell of stock at
gains. Those GO-GO 90's had tons of smoke and mirrows that were unsastainable.
Teh dot com bust was Bush's fault. Enron was Bush's fault. The collapse of the Airline and travel industries in the wake of a terrorist attack, were Bush's fault. When Bush tried to do something, well, that was his fault too. His Tax cuts caused the economy to go to fuggin hell. Can't you see all the SUV's on the highway fugging guzzling all that 2.50 a gallon gas with one person driving it? Traffic congestions everywhere, what a shitty economy.

It is all Bush's fault.

picasso
10-20-2004, 04:30 PM
IMHO The largest growth under Clinton in the job market was service positions. Since that is what we have become in the U.S.. Service positions are geared more towards the american economy being that american consumers purchase so many imports from other countries. Primarily in electronics, TVs, radios, computers and computer parts and accessories. That in turn affects marketing, consulting, customer relations, sales, ecommerce ect..

When Bush was elected those positions became practically obsolete. Many companies outsourced and are still doing so. My wifes company yesterday in the marketing department she works in was cut from 27 employees to 9. She is one of the 9. They are outsourcing from japan. I am a marketing graphic designer. I worked for Wizards of the Coast when Bush was elected. They employed over 600 marketing and and creative people. After he was elected prior to 9/11 they layed off 75% of that work force.
As we see many of those positions becoming less and less the job force in manual labor and construction on inner city infrustructure is rising. Less pay to workers, lower interest rate for property owners and buyers. It's no wonder. A lot of people are out of work but you have to survive some how. I know a lot of friends that have manual labor jobs at $9 - $13 an hour when they used to design and write for companies making 45 to 55k a year.

KingPriest2
10-20-2004, 07:22 PM
It isn't the fixed number that is telling. Clinton had a 7.5 % unemployment number with his first term. You quote where it was with the second term. It would fall to 3.9 at the end of his 2nd term. Couple that with rising earnings during Clinton's administration contrasted with the last four years. And the number of jobs and the number of full time employment was better over time under Clinton.

Now you can roll out the fact that we were attacked and the economy took a hit. But you use a false analysis based on one number instead of looking at trends.


Dumbass he is comparing the times. Bush's second term has not started yet so you cannot quote the second term. Trends? Hmm You are in denial that Bush is turning this economy around.

Lbedrock1
10-20-2004, 11:11 PM
Then and now
"When Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, unemployment was 5.2 percent, inflation 3 percent, and economic growth 2.2 percent. Economic conditions are similar today: unemployment is 5.4 percent, inflation 2.7 percent, and economists' consensus forecast for economic growth this quarter is 3.7 percent," the Media Research Center reports.
"Yet a new study by the MRC's Free Market Project found that while the national media mainly cheered the Clinton economy (85 percent positive), reporters have mostly jeered the Bush economy (77 percent negative)."


Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm!

There is no doubt the economy is growing but what is different is during the Cllinton era the workers were benefiting from the growth, but under Bush the big business is benefiting without sharing that growth with workers. They are pocketing the money. Thats why you have a growing economy and people are still losing their jobs.

2bikemike
10-20-2004, 11:17 PM
There is no doubt the economy is growing but what is different is during the Cllinton era the workers were benefiting from the growth, but under Bush the big business is benefiting without sharing that growth with workers. They are pocketing the money. Thats why you have a growing economy and people are still losing their jobs.

Somebody has got to be making enough money to spend on these big businesses.

2bikemike
10-20-2004, 11:26 PM
IMHO The largest growth under Clinton in the job market was service positions. Since that is what we have become in the U.S.. Service positions are geared more towards the american economy being that american consumers purchase so many imports from other countries. Primarily in electronics, TVs, radios, computers and computer parts and accessories. That in turn affects marketing, consulting, customer relations, sales, ecommerce ect..

When Bush was elected those positions became practically obsolete. Many companies outsourced and are still doing so. My wifes company yesterday in the marketing department she works in was cut from 27 employees to 9. She is one of the 9. They are outsourcing from japan. I am a marketing graphic designer. I worked for Wizards of the Coast when Bush was elected. They employed over 600 marketing and and creative people. After he was elected prior to 9/11 they layed off 75% of that work force.
As we see many of those positions becoming less and less the job force in manual labor and construction on inner city infrustructure is rising. Less pay to workers, lower interest rate for property owners and buyers. It's no wonder. A lot of people are out of work but you have to survive some how. I know a lot of friends that have manual labor jobs at $9 - $13 an hour when they used to design and write for companies making 45 to 55k a year.

The trends toward the service sector has been going on for quite a while. There are several reasons for this. The cost of doing manufacturing is quite high in the US due to all the compliance regulations and high cost of wages and benefits. NAFTA was also a catylyst in this shift.

This trend had nothing to do with Bush. The trend began long before that. Clinton was very fortunate to be in office during the Dot com boom. A lot of people got rich during this time. As someone else stated Capital Gains were through the roof. This had nothing to do with Clinton. It had everything to do with the natural order of the economy and the way the computer generation exploded across the world. The internet really got rolling. All of this overrevved the economy to an unsustainable level.

|Zach|
10-20-2004, 11:34 PM
Something that makes me go hmmm...is the idea that the President has as much power over something like the economy as people thinks he does.

Cochise
10-20-2004, 11:38 PM
Something that makes me go hmmm...is the idea that the President has as much power over something like the economy as people thinks he does.

I agree. I don't understand why people want to give them all the credit or all the blame. I mean, the economy is so dependent on so many things, and even when you make adminstrative changes it takes time for them to trickle down through the economy.

I mean, do people wonder why the titanic couldn't just whip right around that iceberg? It's a big ship you're trying to steer here.

Joe Seahawk
10-20-2004, 11:42 PM
Here's A very interesting read from December 2000 exposing the ridicilous hypocricy of some on the left. Apparently you can ruin the economy by simply mentioning it may be slowing..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1082459.stm

tiptap
10-20-2004, 11:43 PM
Dumbass he is comparing the times. Bush's second term has not started yet so you cannot quote the second term. Trends? Hmm You are in denial that Bush is turning this economy around.

You can get the trend of the 1st term of Clinton only from the initial entry(not just mine). The unemployment went from 7.5 to 5.2. The Bush 1st term saw a rise in unemployment until recently. Now I admitted Bush had to react to the 9/11 effect of the economy. But the facts of the trends are not as good as Clinton whatever the reasons you wish to interject within the 1st terms. Unemployment numbers are based upon getting umemployment payments. The Republicans decided not to extend unemployment benefits so naturally there would be a trend down in unemployment numbers as people are dumped off the benefits. The fall has to be accompanied by a strong rise in job creation to mean employment is strong.

It is important to remember that the jobs Bush has added to the economy are in Government Jobs. This is in part do to the fact that when the reservist are called up they are counted as employed by the Government. A lot of companies had to hire additional help as least part time or temporarily until those people return. That adds to the employment numbers. It is the Bush's equivalent of the WPA with the bonus of getting to see the Tigris and Euphrates, birthplace of civilization.

But it is OK because the 20's crowd will get the bill in the dificit. I and Bush will be dead.