Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats

Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats

Clinton pointed out that under Democratic presidents since 1961, the economy has added 42 million private-sector jobs, while under Republicans it has added just 24 million. He used the same concept to argue that President Obama has outscored both congressional Republicans and his GOP presidential opponent, Mitt Romney, in terms of creating jobs. Clinton has some intriguing facts on his side. Aside from a rounding error, his historical numbers are accurate (figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the tally under Democrats since 1961 rounds to 41 million, not 42 million). I crunched the numbers a few different ways to see if Clinton was cherry-picking the best numbers. His figures measure job gains from the month a president took office until the month he left. Since it takes a year or so for any president's policies to go into effect, I also measured job gains from one year after each president took office till one year after he left. Here's the score by that measure: Democrats: 38 million new jobs, Republicans, 27 million.

No wonder the GOP hates fact checking. It shows how much they fail at their jobs small wonder why they always scream Reagan created 16 million jobs.

You'd figure everyone by now would realize that nothing trickles down. Just look at New Jersey.

Christ Christie gave millions of corporate tax breaks to create jobs,..and it FAILED. The corporations cut jobs, hoarded the wealth, and outsourced.

Under the program, the Christie administration has granted more than $900 million in state tax credits over 10 years to 15 companies, including Panasonic, Goya, Prudential and Campbell’s Soup.

Another agreement has also stirred criticism. In February 2011, the state approved a $42 million tax break for Campbell’s Soup to renovate its longtime headquarters in Camden and add new jobs.

Campbell’s then announced in June that it would eliminate 130 jobs in Camden

www.nytimes.com...

Yeah the economy is awesome guys!

Way to save all those union jobs Obama.

You forgot about the rest of us though. Making up fake jobs and green jobs with huge incentives doesn't count though. Neither does bailing out United Auto Workers Union with tax payer money.

Its not the tax payers fault you can't keep a promise.

The gas peddle is stuck to the floor apparently..

Hey mickie: They're hoping the debt clock malfunctions.. Thats the only puzzle piece that almost fits

reply to post by buster2010


Well yea, one of the biggest contributors to Republicans gaining office so frequently is the fact that they -always- give a freakin' tax cut. It takes about 30 minutes of research to realize that taking money from the gov when we're got crumbling infastructure and massive paralyzing debt so everyone can buy an iPod (while major conglomerates usually receive enough compensation for a million iPods, practically rendering our free money worthless because of the economic backlash created) or some other frivilous crap is probably not a great idea because.. You know, having 300 dollars in your pocket doesn't do anything to solve an economic crisis.

But as long as there are non-thinkers who love fictitious money, despite the fact that it devalues all of the rest of the money they already have, there will always be a tax cut.

reply to post by buster2010


I agree with you. Yet I disagree at the same time. The economy is a complicated BEAST... Something that happened in the 80s can seem to have no effect at the time yet years later have an enormous impact. The problem with economists and economics is that it is not a science. There are no written rules. There is no way to predict the future and future events. Good businessmen can predict that a product will be desirable. The balance between politics and business is a strange and complicated equation. I do not believe we have come to even having a basic understanding of this yet. Businesses are about making money. The government should be about protecting people. It is a difficult tightrope to balance upon. Yet I still have no idea what I am saying here... LMAO

Can you OP (or anyone) please explain to me how your economy with over 16 Trillion in debt can be made financially viable under either party platform?

I don’t want to hear about jobs, I want to hear about America fixing its atrocious debt problem before it sinks and drags the rest of the world into oblivion...... & just how long do you think it will take, 1 year, 100 years?

Thanks

Mickierocksman

reply to post by HairlessApe


hehe.. Loved your post. Wish I could say more..

ok I'll say more..

The democrats and republicans have another problem too. The government is too big for our natural resources and other resources such as human intelligence.. We just don't have that much VALUE. not money value. Paper is paper, but if you want mcdonalds someone kills a cow... How many cows, corn, farmers, (eaters), services for all........


Here's a little hint. The only NEW money(value) that can exist must come from the earth. The earth mixed with human time to reconfigure the materials into more valuable things. Basically unless we are producing extra food for all(and water, medicine, shelter, clothes) then we are poor..

All other jobs (besides mining, farming and the like) are supported by and can only exist at lower levels of value than mining farming etc.. EX: there are less wolves than deer, and less deer than plants... Basically in this analogy we need more plants, which translated means we need more true value.

Reality check: We are spending too much time creating things we do not need. The main one of these is big government, and another is war. Something else is movies.. movies do not create anything of true value besides thoughts in the mind. Maybe there are too many of us, I don't know.. I can see the math though.. This isn't working.

Bias disclosure: I'm mostly a democrat and a Ron Paul supporter.

Love all the political trolling going on here.

So you people all think that when an administration's policies take effect, the results are immediate? Think again. It usually takes a fair amount of time for actions to bear results in the economy. Look at Obamacare. It doesn't really kick in until the next presidential term, which could have either a democrat or republican at the helm. If Romney gets elected and the republicans do not get a majority in Congress, then the dems will allow Obamacare to proceed, and it will destroy the economy. Who will get blamed? Obama? Nope. The guy in the white house.

Same with republican administrations where policies were enacted, then the democrat gets elected - he takes all the credit for the results of the Republican efforts.

Taking this into consideration, it is likely that the opposite is true - democrats have done more to destroy jobs and republicans have done more to create jobs.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Same with republican administrations where policies were enacted, then the democrat gets elected - he takes all the credit for the results of the Republican efforts.

Such as?

Taking this into consideration, it is likely that the opposite is true - democrats have done more to destroy jobs and republicans have done more to create jobs.

Taking your factless example of an idea you have based on so far what seems to be nothing into consideration? Why would you.

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Same with republican administrations where policies were enacted, then the democrat gets elected - he takes all the credit for the results of the Republican efforts.

Such as?

Taking this into consideration, it is likely that the opposite is true - democrats have done more to destroy jobs and republicans have done more to create jobs.

Taking your factless example of an idea you have based on so far what seems to be nothing into consideration? Why would you.

Your response is typical lefty propaganda - forcing someone to "prove" something that doesn't need proving. If you have a brain in your skull you will know what I am talking about. The people with brains DO know what I am talking about, so I will disregard your response.

I have so much confusion over this. Please let me ask some questions.

Why are we looking so far into the past? This is Romney vs. Obama, not Republican history vs. Democrat history.

Why look at just jobs created? If your population grows by 6 million and you create 2 million jobs, are you ahead?

Why not look at the number of working age people who are employed full-time? That's fallen to new lows.

If you start looking from the day he was sworn in, Obama has created a net of about 75,000 jobs a year. Isn't that the Obama administration?

Does it matter that the money that people get from working has fallen? Or that the work week has shrunk?

I don't know if it's possible to look at absolutely everything, but a lot has been left out of Clinton's speech. Things that seem to me to be important.

Bottom line, which anyone not embroiled in party political thinking will have realised long ago, is that it doesn't matter which of the two main parties is in power, they still answer to the same big money interests. The huge debts being seen currently have been building under successive administrations, so trying to blame one party or the other is plain silly. In fact, it's what they count on to get re-elected each time, by constructing the petty finger pointing and dividing the masses!

What's even funnier... or perhaps tragic, from another perspective..... is that the sheep fall for it every time and elect the same people / parties who created the problem, and expect them to fix it. All the soundbites and rhetoric don't mean squat and are there purely for the consumption of the dumbed down masses. Think about it, when did an incoming administration ever repeal or roll back the unpopular measures introduced by the previous one?

Originally posted by RealSpoke
You'd figure everyone by now would realize that nothing trickles down. Just look at New Jersey.

Christ Christie gave millions of corporate tax breaks to create jobs,..and it FAILED. The corporations cut jobs, hoarded the wealth, and outsourced.

Under the program, the Christie administration has granted more than $900 million in state tax credits over 10 years to 15 companies, including Panasonic, Goya, Prudential and Campbell’s Soup.

Another agreement has also stirred criticism. In February 2011, the state approved a $42 million tax break for Campbell’s Soup to renovate its longtime headquarters in Camden and add new jobs.

Campbell’s then announced in June that it would eliminate 130 jobs in Camden

www.nytimes.com...

This empire is on it's last leg, and it barely took more than a few baby steps since it's conception.

It's sad to say, but we're not going to learn until it's too late. Too many Americans instantly dismiss anything and everything they hear as false or at the very least not worthwhile the moment after hearing it. That is, unless it involves a public trial on FOX or any other major news outlet which they KNOW is slanted but still choose to subscribe to... because, you know, everyone needs to know your opinion of whether or not that lady drowned her kids in lieu of the fact that you have absolutely no insight to the situation.

Everyone's got an opinion, but like children, they can't handle being told their opinion is wrong. (Yes, opinions can be wrong.) America doesn't like to think, and if you challenge any solidified institution's flawed logic, you're an enemy. It's all just a big show, and no one really knows who's the manipulator behind the marionette.. But it doesn't matter because at this point enough of the general public is concerned so much with non-issues like terrorism (that kills less people per year than falling televisions OR bee stings), that they don't even care about their freedoms being whittled away. And to be honest, I'm scared for my own safety because of the day-to-day shocks this country offers, but simultaneously I'm becoming desensitized to it. I'm finding it harder and harder to feel sympathy for the majority of people. Perhaps the prior sentence is sadly ironic because the reason I feel such a way in the lack of empathy around me. Americans as a whole would rather laugh at the misfortunes of a stranger that were brought on by the government than help them. They can't put themselves in someone elses shoes. Drug addicts and homeless people are targets of hate rather than recipients of aid, because high-and-mighty John and Jane's inheritance was too fat for them to ever have to worry about their weekend binges leaving them waking up in the gutter permanently. Oh, and if by chance they do end up there, few if any souls will offer a helping hand. Because that was the system they helped to create. Although sad, perhaps it is a fitting.

We're reliving the civil rights movement right now with gays, and if you can't see the undeniable parallels, you must be either blind or ignorant, because it's no different just because one was based upon color and another on sexuality. If you want to get technical, both are matters of physiology anyways.

I'm going to end this rant before it becomes unbearable.

Peace.

reply to post by buster2010

Originally posted by thesungod
Wow. So I was in middle school when "Slick Willie" was in office, but even I know the following...

Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase.[4] The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982, then declined to 5.4% in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10% in 1980 to 4% in 1988.[2] Many economists have stated that Reagan's policies were an important part of bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, and followed by an even longer 1990s expansion that began under George H.W. Bush in 1991.[24][25] This economic expansion continued through the Clinton administration with unemployment rates steadily decreasing throughout his presidency (7.3% at the start of his presidency and 4.2% at the culmination, with the lowest rate reaching 3.9% in 2000).[26] During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[27] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 10.8% in 1983.[26][28] A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan's administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage.[29] The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal Reserve (peaked at 20% in June 1981).[30] The latter contributed to a relatively brief recession in 1982: unemployment rose to 9.7% and GDP fell by 1.9%.

Source

Now if we learn our history and do a little math we can all see that "Starving the Beast" a.k.a. Reaganomics contributed heavily to both George H.W. Bush's (POTUS 41) and William Jefferson Blythe the Third's (POTUS 42) fiscal and job success as Presidents of the USA.

Don't believe it check out this paper from 1992, Link to Paper.

Note: Yes, that's "Slick Willie's" real name, William Jefferson Blythe III, interesting topic too if you check into "Clinton" family's background, but a different topic for a different day.

Post from another thread about a similar topic. I mean if you really want to talk about the issue of jobs and fiscal downfall, let's talk about the Dot-com Burst and Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act.

That said, Democratic presidents may not be able to take all the credit for the private-sector jobs created during their tenure. After all, the economy saw a big boost under Clinton in part because of the technology boom and stock market bubble that resulted -- Clinton arguably was just in the right place at the right time.

Presidents' economic policies clearly play some role in the job growth that results while they're in power, however. And on that measure, both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama have performed very poorly. An average of 63,500 jobs were created per month during Bush's tenure, according to Labor Department data. Under Obama, an average 62,500 jobs have been created per month when taking into account job losses at the beginning of his tenure.

Presidents of both parties have implemented policies that may have stifled job growth for future presidents. For example, it was Clinton who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated investment banking from consumer banking. Some say the repeal of Glass-Steagall played a major role in the financial crisis, since it helped allow banks to become too big to fail.

Source

So who exactly is to blame for what and why? Just because it happened on their watch? Please.

Going by twisted logic like this 9/11 was Clinton's fault for the defense cuts he made 97.

cut defense discretionary spending by $77 billion and cut nondefense discretionary spending by $61 billion

Source

Personally I applaud Clinton's cuts, but not his repeal of Glass-Steagall Act.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Just because it didn't work NJ doesn't mean it didn't work elsewhere. Maybe this more about the people and less about the policy? Or maybe vice versa?

Here's a recent thread about Wisconsin and a plan similar to Chris Christie's working- Wisconsin Economy Surging Without Tax Increases

Everything (but close-mindedness) does better under left wing governments.

If the world weren't so full of ignoramuses, there would be no 'right wing'.

reply to post by Sablicious


YES, socialize GOP's money for American...Then socialize America's money for the world. It is so great to be LIBERAL.

If you watched or listened to the speech, Clinton did tell us what the Republicans do to the debt. They make it bigger. They give tax breaks and no cuts and somehow expect that will make a balanced budget. Hogwash. They cut taxes for the rich, and stick it to the rest of us. Those on here who seem to be defending the Republican budgets must be rich, because no working person with any knowledge would vote for a party that wants to tax the middle class and give the money to the rich.

Obama can't clear the debt all at once, after all, Bush took 8 years to double it, but Obama at least has a plan to start reducing the debt. Unfortunately for rich Republicans, his plan no only includes cuts but also raising taxes on the rich back to the same rate as in the Clinton years. Romney just wants to give tax cuts to the rich and somehow that will do it. No details, just tax cuts to the rich.

Obamacare won't bankrupt the country. The Tea Party guy who said, "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare," said it best. The most efficient and well liked medical insurance we have is Medicare, a government program. Obamacare is just a step getting us to Medicare for all. Without universal coverage we are at an economic disadvantage with the rest of the developed world as they already have universal coverage.

reply to post by buster2010


Government does not creat jobs. Government is not there to pay your bills. Government is not able to hand out condoms.

Free people do not want hand outs. Slaves want hand outs. Homeless people beg to be employed.

This is not what our country is about. Learn about how hard it was for the people that came here before we were even a nation. Ask our founders if they asked the tyrant King George to create jobs. The solution is less Government not more.