NationStates Jolt Archive

MODEDIT: This thread has been split from the US election (polls) thread. It is a discussion of the effects of various US presidents' terms on the national economy. As our story begins, CanuckHeaven is about to offer a series of statistics on the subject. Now read on ...
context (http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1037#comment-16544):
Trying to blame Bill Clinton? That is sad.

http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp?StartYear=1948&EndYear=2007

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/unemployment.gif

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/jobcreation.gif

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/djia.gif

Obama is not thinking clearly?

Trying to blame Bill Clinton? That is sad.

http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp?StartYear=1948&EndYear=2007

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/unemployment.gif

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/jobcreation.gif

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/djia.gif

Obama is not thinking clearly?

Wow, it's almost like a brand new industry opened up just as Clinton entered office and tanked right at the end of the Clinton Presidency. If only one could think of an industry like that.

It's not like the Internet opened to commercial traffic in 1991 or anything.

But, hey, you know what's more likely? That the President by mere virtue of becoming President affects unemployment, since your graphs show the shift beginning before he's even had time to get any legislation through, both for Clinton and Bush.

Wow, it's almost like a brand new industry opened up just as Clinton entered office and tanked right at the end of the Clinton Presidency. If only one could think of an industry like that.

It's not like the Internet opened to commercial traffic in 1991 or anything.

But, hey, you know what's more likely? That the President by mere virtue of becoming President affects unemployment, since your graphs show the shift beginning before he's even had time to get any legislation through, both for Clinton and Bush.
I was thinking of saying just that. The president has little to do with the economy except who he appoints and what he says. Therefore, Obama being an inspirational speaker would be perfect in the time of an economic crisis, spurring us to pull together and move forward.

I was thinking of saying just that. The president has little to do with the economy except who he appoints and what he says. Therefore, Obama being an inspirational speaker would be perfect in the time of an economic crisis, spurring us to pull together and move forward.

The amusing bit is that according to CH everyone should be ecstatic, but the 75% of the economic growth that disappeared when the bubble burst is back. You'll notice the unemployment is nearly the same as it was when Bush became President. Bush is the greatest President EVER according to CH's figures. Must be true.

The amusing bit is that according to CH everyone should be ecstatic, but the 75% of the economic growth that disappeared when the bubble burst is back. You'll notice the unemployment is nearly the same as it was when Bush became President. Bush is the greatest President EVER according to CH's figures. Must be true.
And the net gain of US jobs under Clinton was 26 Million and the net gain of jobs under Bush has been like almost ZERO? Praise Bush? I don't think so.

And the net gain of US jobs under Clinton was 26 Million and the net gain of jobs under Bush has been like almost ZERO? Praise Bush? I don't think so.

Actually...its a net gain of 5 Million. Nice try though.

Source?

I'll provide mine when you provide yours of zero.

I'll provide mine when you provide yours of zero.
In other words, you cannot back up your counter claim?

And the net gain of US jobs under Clinton was 26 Million and the net gain of jobs under Bush has been like almost ZERO? Praise Bush? I don't think so.

Only if you don't count that origin of those jobs happened under elder Bush and the bubble bursting which cost 75% of the growth was the result of the Clinton era economic behavior. But, hey, why insert facts?

Clinton entered on an economy that was skyrocketing in our favor and left on a economy that had slowed to crawl. Bush hasn't exactly flipped that around, but considering it's improved is saying something.

I don't think either deserves credit for the economy, but unless you don't understand what happened, it's obvious Clinton came in on a high and left on low.

Source?

Hilarious. Where's yours? It cracks me up when you go at it with Corny, because neither one of you provide sources and both of you cry about how the other won't.

Hilarious. Where's yours? It cracks me up when you go at it with Corny, because neither one of you provide sources and both of you cry about how the other won't.
I provide sources all the time. Check my history compared to Corny's. He is the one that is reluctant to provide sources because invariably they get shredded.

Hilarious. Where's yours? It cracks me up when you go at it with Corny, because neither one of you provide sources and both of you cry about how the other won't.

You know, you should really start using some lotion. All of those cracks can't be good for your skin.

I provide sources all the time. Check my history compared to Corny's. He is the one that is reluctant to provide sources because invariably they get shredded.

Which is funny because you have yet to supply a source stating that Bush has a net gain of 0

Only if you don't count that origin of those jobs happened under elder Bush and the bubble bursting which cost 75% of the growth was the result of the Clinton era economic behavior. But, hey, why insert facts?

Clinton entered on an economy that was skyrocketing in our favor and left on a economy that had slowed to crawl. Bush hasn't exactly flipped that around, but considering it's improved is saying something.

I don't think either deserves credit for the economy, but unless you don't understand what happened, it's obvious Clinton came in on a high and left on low.
You are sounding more like a Republican with these replies.

The job creation genius of GHW Bush was so great that it lasted through 8 years of the Clinton Presidency. :rolleyes: What kind of swill are you asking us to swallow?

Bush's 1992 State of the Union address offered a plan for economic growth that called for a moratorium on new government regulations on business, a cut in the capital gains tax, and the elimination of numerous domestic programs he deemed undeserving of federal funding. He also endorsed a health-insurance tax credit for poor families and a tax credit for first-time home buyers. Congress adopted some of his proposals, but Bush vetoed the final bill because it raised taxes on the wealthy. By late 1992 he had cast 35 vetoes, none of which was overridden. The streak ended in October 1992, when Congress, urged on by consumers, overrode his veto of a bill that reversed portions of a law barring local governments from regulating cable-television fees.

In 1992 interest rates and the inflation rate were the lowest in years, but by midyear the unemployment rate reached 7.8%, the highest since 1984. In September the Census Bureau reported that 14.2% of all Americans lived in poverty, the highest proportion since 1983.
Yea, the economy was just skyrocketing!! :rolleyes:

Which is funny because you have yet to supply a source stating that Bush has a net gain of 0

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0500000001&output_view=net_1mth

Now show me yours. :D

You are sounding more like a Republican with these replies.

The job creation genius of GHW Bush was so great that it lasted through 8 years of the Clinton Presidency. :rolleyes: What kind of swill are you asking us to swallow?


Yea, the economy was just skyrocketing!! :rolleyes:

Again, the internet was opened to commercial traffic in 1991. It was what began the dot com boom and it was funded by rich people with a ton of disposable capital that allowed young internet entrepreneurs to take that money and make themselves rich. Frankly, you have to be entirely clueless to claim that commercial traffic on the internet wasn't the cause of the 90's.

Are you genuinely claiming the 90's weren't born of the internet? Seriously?

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0500000001&output_view=net_1mth

Now show me yours. :D

Again, this stuff is just so ridiculous that one wonders if you read it. You've just shown the economy tanking AS Bush entered the White House. How could he possibly be responsible for that? The economy tanked simply by virtue of his existence as President?

Again, the internet was opened to commercial traffic in 1991. It was what began the dot com boom and it was funded by rich people with a ton of disposable capital that allowed young internet entrepreneurs to take that money and make themselves rich. Frankly, you have to be entirely clueless to claim that commercial traffic on the internet wasn't the cause of the 90's.

Are you genuinely claiming the 90's weren't born of the internet? Seriously?
I believe that I am making reasoned arguments, complete with supporting links/proof and you feel the need to suggest that people are "clueless" if they don't buy your argument, even when your argument is quite tainted.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0500000001&output_view=net_1mth

Now show me yours. :D

Link #1 is Data not available.

Link #2 is interesting but hurts your argument.

http://usbudget.blogspot.com/2008/03/job-growth-under-bush-and-prior.html

As you can see...there is no data yet for Feburary 2008 and in 2005, still had a net job growth. And looking at the graph attached to said link, he's still above zero.

I will continue to wait on final numbers.

EDIT: Real Bi-weekly Average Earnings rose by .3 between Jan. and Feb.

Edit 2: And where's the explaination for the chart for the second link. There's always an explaination. However all I have at the bottom is this:

p : preliminary

You are sounding more like a Republican with these replies.

The job creation genius of GHW Bush was so great that it lasted through 8 years of the Clinton Presidency. :rolleyes: What kind of swill are you asking us to swallow?


Yea, the economy was just skyrocketing!! :rolleyes:

I will agree with you on this issue CH. I do not give all the credit for the economic upturn to GHWB. I actually would credit most of it to Alan Greenspan. The Fed Chief has far more power over the economy and monetary policy than any president. Presidents may help with some policies. Those policies are usually worked on with the Fed anyway. Another contribution to that time period would be lower gas prices. The price of gas affects every aspect of the US economy, and is a huge factor in product pricing/real costs.

Edit: Holy Crap! I am agreeing with CH. CH, I'd like to commend you in the thread TAI made. It's nice when we can unite in a common cause of dispelling complete and udder BS.

I will agree with you on this issue CH. I do not give all the credit for the economic upturn to GHWB. I actually would credit most of it to Alan Greenspan. The Fed Chief has far more power over the economy and monetary policy than any president. Presidents may help with some policies. Those policies are usually worked on with the Fed anyway. Another contribution to that time period would be lower gas prices. The price of gas affects every aspect of the US economy, and is a huge factor in product pricing/real costs.

Edit: Holy Crap! I am agreeing with CH. CH, I'd like to commend you in the thread TAI made. It's nice when we can unite in a common cause of dispelling complete and udder BS.

Actually, you're not. He's crediting Clinton with it. I don't credit the presidents at all. These moves happened as we were changing Presidents in both cases. GWB couldn't have caused the downturn because he'd only just taken office a couple of months earlier. Similar with Clinton. It wasn't GHWB who opened up the internet to commercial traffic. It was Congress. Clinton wasn't in Congress and had nothing to do with it. Nor did either Bush.

Trying to blame Bill Clinton? That is sad.

http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp?StartYear=1948&EndYear=2007

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/unemployment.gif

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/jobcreation.gif

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/djia.gif

Obama is not thinking clearly?


See. He's crediting Clinton when he should be looking at Greenspan and congress.

The point Obama made is that for decades these factories have been closing. That in the 90's we had HUGE growth in a brand new sector and some related sectors doesn't change that these factories were continuing to close. In fact, Clinton did much to harm that problem as NAFTA allowed for the export of factories in a way that was more expensive prior to its existence. The fact is that manufacturing in our country has been in trouble for decades and Obama was correct to point it out.

See. He's crediting Clinton when he should be looking at Greenspan and congress.

But we all know how much CH loves the Clintons and hates the Bushs so it comes as no surprise that he'll credit Clinton with something that he didn't actually do.

See. He's crediting Clinton when he should be looking at Greenspan and congress.

The point Obama made is that for decades these factories have been closing. That in the 90's we had HUGE growth in a brand new sector and some related sectors doesn't change that these factories were continuing to close. In fact, Clinton did much to harm that problem as NAFTA allowed for the export of factories in a way that was more expensive prior to its existence. The fact is that manufacturing in our country has been in trouble for decades and Obama was correct to point it out.

So, tell me, do you think we need more manufacturing in this country again? That we ought to rebuild our manufacturing base?

So, tell me, do you think we need more manufacturing in this country again? That we ought to rebuild our manufacturing base?

No, honestly, I don't. I think we should have been helping those towns to make lateral moves. There have been times since what essentially was the destruction of towns across the US where we've had so many jobs that we're shipping people in to do them. That's true now. The problem is that we're not training people for those jobs. Good jobs. Both Clinton and Obama have talked about the need to get them into the jobs that are there rather than lying to them about how jobs are coming back.

My issue with the Clinton Era is that we were telling people how great everything was while whole towns were festering. If that's not a sure way to ensure people will vote for someone like Bush, I don't know what is.

EDIT: Let me qualify that. I think that we shouldn't be making it so that good jobs are going to other places because they are less regulated and have less workers' rights. I do, however, think that some jobs are going to places where the cost of living is lower. Those jobs that are unskilled are going to go other places in many cases, because some countries simply don't have as expensive of workforces, but we shouldn't reward countries for having no labor laws.

No, honestly, I don't. I think we should have been helping those towns to make lateral moves. There have been times since what essentially was the destruction of towns across the US where we've had so many jobs that we're shipping people in to do them. That's true now. The problem is that we're not training people for those jobs. Good jobs. Both Clinton and Obama have talked about the need to get them into the jobs that are there rather than lying to them about how jobs are coming back.

My issue with the Clinton Era is that we were telling people how great everything was while whole towns were festering. If that's not a sure way to ensure people will vote for someone like Bush, I don't know what is.

EDIT: Let me qualify that. I think that we shouldn't be making it so that good jobs are going to other places because they are less regulated and have less workers' rights. I do, however, think that some jobs are going to places where the cost of living is lower. Those jobs that are unskilled are going to go other places in many cases, because some countries simply don't have as expensive of workforces, but we shouldn't reward countries for having no labor laws.
In other words, we ought to be creating new jobs and training people for those new jobs. Sounds good to me.

What specific industries are springing up?

In other words, we ought to be creating new jobs and training people for those new jobs. Sounds good to me.

What specific industries are springing up?

I don't know which ones are springing up, but I do know that having traveled the country throughout the Bush presidency, I've been on job after job where technical jobs are filled by people from other countries that companies are paying extra money to ship in. There are a huge number of consulting and technical jobs that we simply don't have the manpower and skills to fill.

Again, this stuff is just so ridiculous that one wonders if you read it. You've just shown the economy tanking AS Bush entered the White House. How could he possibly be responsible for that? The economy tanked simply by virtue of his existence as President?

Preemptive recession *nod*

But we all know how much CH loves the Clintons and hates the Bushs so it comes as no surprise that he'll credit Clinton with something that he didn't actually do.
And you love George W. Bush and have defended him vehemently on these boards, even though Bush took a sledge hammer approach to just about everything he touched. America is not better off as a result.

Were Clinton's policies responsible for the 1990s' economic growth (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_clintons_policies_responsible_for_the_1990s.html)?

He deserves part of the credit, but many factors were at work.

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 - January 2001).

Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can't claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.

Clinton's major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.

Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton's handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we've had in a while."

But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world's rapidly growing trade.

Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton's presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
Also Clinton bringing in the right people?

Gene Sperling, Chief Economic Adviser to President Clinton (http://www.brookings.edu/media/NewsReleases/2001/20010110sperling.aspx)

Bill Clinton on Budget & Economy (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Budget_+_Economy.htm)

More praise:

Presidents and prosperity
Economy did best when Clinton was in office (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580)

He's crediting Clinton with it. I don't credit the presidents at all.
While I certainly don't give Clinton all the credit, I certainly give him more than you would. While stating that you don't "credit the presidents at all", in the below quote, you seem to suggest that both Bushs deserve some praise for the ecomomy and that Clinton deserves the blame:

Only if you don't count that origin of those jobs happened under elder Bush and the bubble bursting which cost 75% of the growth was the result of the Clinton era economic behavior. But, hey, why insert facts?

Clinton entered on an economy that was skyrocketing in our favor and left on a economy that had slowed to crawl. Bush hasn't exactly flipped that around, but considering it's improved is saying something.

I don't think either deserves credit for the economy, but unless you don't understand what happened, it's obvious Clinton came in on a high and left on low.
Bush praise = blue bold
Clinton blame = red bold

And of course, you also want to give immense credit to the "internet" as the major contributor to America's best post war economic expansion. I say you have an anti-Clinton agenda going here.

And you love George W. Bush and have defended him vehemently on these boards, even though Bush took a sledge hammer approach to just about everything he touched. America is not better off as a result.

Were Clinton's policies responsible for the 1990s' economic growth (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_clintons_policies_responsible_for_the_1990s.html)?

Noticed your articles directly contradict your claims from before. It states specifically exactly what I said, that the downturn began within weeks of Clinton's exit from office and that the upturn actually started before Clinton entered office even if we didn't see many of the effects until he was already President. I swear you don't remember what you write.


Also Clinton bringing in the right people?

Gene Sperling, Chief Economic Adviser to President Clinton (http://www.brookings.edu/media/NewsReleases/2001/20010110sperling.aspx)

Bill Clinton on Budget & Economy (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Budget_+_Economy.htm)

More praise:

Presidents and prosperity
Economy did best when Clinton was in office (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580)


While I certainly don't give Clinton all the credit, I certainly give him more than you would. While stating that you don't "credit the presidents at all", in the below quote, you seem to suggest that both Bushs deserve some praise for the ecomomy and that Clinton deserves the blame:


Bush praise = blue bold
Clinton blame = red bold

And of course, you also want to give immense credit to the "internet" as the major contributor to America's best post war economic expansion. I say you have an anti-Clinton agenda going here.

There's your problem with that context thing, huh? I mentioned what happened under each. That's not the same as giving them credit. In fact I specifically stated, "I don't think either deserves credit for the economy".

The speak English in Canada, no? Apparently, when I said neither deserves credit for the economy I must have meant the opposite. I notice that's not in the parts you bolded. Intellectually dishonest much? Honest people don't pretend that pointing out that some things went wrong during the "Clinton Era" isn't the same as blaming Clinton. You conveniently leave out that I was correcting your failure to accurately represent the modern history of our nation.

Noticed your articles directly contradict your claims from before. It states specifically exactly what I said, that the downturn began within weeks of Clinton's exit from office and that the upturn actually started before Clinton entered office even if we didn't see many of the effects until he was already President. I swear you don't remember what you write.




There's your problem with that context thing, huh? I mentioned what happened under each. That's not the same as giving them credit. In fact I specifically stated, "I don't think either deserves credit for the economy".

The speak English in Canada, no? Apparently, when I said neither deserves credit for the economy I must have meant the opposite. I notice that's not in the parts you bolded. Intellectually dishonest much?

Does he have any sort of point about the bill, or did it just happen to occur at the same time the Dot-Com boom started kicking into high gear?

And you love George W. Bush and have defended him vehemently on these boards, even though Bush took a sledge hammer approach to just about everything he touched. America is not better off as a result.

Lets play a game CH. That game is called stop using Corny liking Bush to make it seem like his opinions arent valid now and actually adress Corny's real points.


In regards to the whole Clinton economy thing, he was lucky to be presiding over the internet bubble, but it is worth noting that many people give Greenspan the credit, however in his most recent book Greenspan credits Clinton with a lot of the policies.

Im just throwing that out there.

Does he have any sort of point about the bill, or did it just happen to occur at the same time the Dot-Com boom started kicking into high gear?

Sure. Clinton did lots of good things while in office, but it's undeniable that the most major factor in the 90's economy was the internet boom, which he didn't create. The single greatest factor in the slowdown in the economy in the 00's was the bursting of the bubble, which he, again, did nothing about. (Admittedly, it would have been political suicide to have attempting to slow growth to more realistic levels.) That's the issue here. I'm not giving him no credit. I'm simply and accurately pointing out that Clinton didn't create the 90's. He only presided over them. Now, he did an excellent job of capitalizing on them to the benefit of our deficit among other things, but even under clinto we saw the wage gap increase. The people who ended up better off weren't the poor.

You might not be entirely surprised by this, but CH tends to selectively look at evidence and claim anyone who doesn't is "shouting him down". So he has to pretend I'm not giving any credit to Clinton when I look at the things Clinton did wrong at the same time as giving him credit for doing things right. In the case of manufacturing, NAFTA did horrible damage. The fact that the internet sector managed to make the growth positive doesn't change that the manufacturing sector was taking it in the soft bits during the 90's (and the 80's and 00's).

Sure. Clinton did lots of good things while in office, but it's undeniable that the most major factor in the 90's economy was the internet boom, which he didn't create.
The most major factor was the " internet boom". Your proof?

The single greatest factor in the slowdown in the economy in the 00's was the bursting of the bubble, which he, again, did nothing about. (Admittedly, it would have been political suicide to have attempting to slow growth to more realistic levels.)
You don't credit Presidents for the economy but you will blame Clinton for the bubble bursting. Proof??

the issue here. I'm not giving him no credit.
No kidding!!

The people who ended up better off weren't the poor.
How come all poverty levels fell during the Clinton years?

Historical Poverty Tables (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html)

ALL RACES
2006...... 296,450 36,460 12.3 245,199 25,915 10.6
2005...... 293,135 36,950 12.6 242,389 26,068 10.8
2004 14/.. 290,617 37,040 12.7 240,754 26,544 11.0
2003...... 287,699 35,861 12.5 238,903 25,684 10.8
2002...... 285,317 34,570 12.1 236,921 24,534 10.4
2001...... 281,475 32,907 11.7 233,911 23,215 9.9
2000 12/.. 278,944 31,581 11.3 231,909 22,347 9.6
1999 11/.. 276,208 32,791 11.9 230,789 23,830 10.3
1998...... 271,059 34,476 12.7 227,229 25,370 11.2
1997...... 268,480 35,574 13.3 225,369 26,217 11.6
1996...... 266,218 36,529 13.7 223,955 27,376 12.2
1995...... 263,733 36,425 13.8 222,792 27,501 12.3
1994...... 261,616 38,059 14.5 221,430 28,985 13.1
1993 10/.. 259,278 39,265 15.1 219,489 29,927 13.6
1992 9/... 256,549 38,014 14.8 217,936 28,961 13.3
1991 8/... 251,192 35,708 14.2 212,723 27,143 12.8
1990...... 248,644 33,585 13.5 210,967 25,232 12.0
1989...... 245,992 31,528 12.8 209,515 24,066 11.5

WHITE
2006...... 237,619 24,416 10.3 196,061 16,644 8.5
2005...... 235,430 24,872 10.6 194,277 16,782 8.6
2004 14/.. 233,741 25,327 10.8 193,024 17,445 9.0
2003...... 231,866 24,272 10.5 192,074 16,740 8.7
2002...... 230,376 23,466 10.2 190,823 16,043 8.4
2001...... 229,675 22,739 9.9 190,413 15,369 8.1
2000 12/ 227,846 21,645 9.5 188,966 14,692 7.8
1999 11/.. 225,361 22,169 9.8 187,833 15,353 8.2
1998...... 222,837 23,454 10.5 186,184 16,549 8.9
1997...... 221,200 24,396 11.0 185,147 17,258 9.3
1996...... 219,656 24,650 11.2 184,119 17,621 9.6
1995...... 218,028 24,423 11.2 183,450 17,593 9.6
1994...... 216,460 25,379 11.7 182,546 18,474 10.1
1993 10/.. 214,899 26,226 12.2 181,330 18,968 10.5
1992 9/... 213,060 25,259 11.9 180,409 18,294 10.1
1991 8/... 210,133 23,747 11.3 177,619 17,268 9.7
1990...... 208,611 22,326 10.7 176,504 15,916 9.0
1989...... 206,853 20,785 10.0 175,857 15,179 8.6

BLACK ALONE
2006...... 37,306 9,048 24.3 30,621 7,072 23.1
2005...... 36,802 9,168 24.9 30,154 7,164 23.8
2004 14/.. 36,426 9,014 24.7 30,065 7,153 23.8
2003...... 35,989 8,781 24.4 29,727 6,870 23.1
2002...... 35,678 8,602 24.1 29,671 6,761 22.8
2001...... 35,871 8,136 22.7 29,869 6,389 21.4
2000 12/.35,425 7,982 22.5 29,378 6,221 21.2
1999 11/.. 35,756 8,441 23.6 29,819 6,758 22.7
1998...... 34,877 9,091 26.1 29,333 7,259 24.7
1997...... 34,458 9,116 26.5 28,962 7,386 25.5
1996...... 34,110 9,694 28.4 28,933 7,993 27.6
1995...... 33,740 9,872 29.3 28,777 8,189 28.5
1994...... 33,353 10,196 30.6 28,499 8,447 29.6
1993 10/.. 32,910 10,877 33.1 28,106 9,242 32.9
1992 9/... 32,411 10,827 33.4 27,790 9,134 32.9
1991 8/... 31,313 10,242 32.7 26,565 8,504 32.0
1990...... 30,806 9,837 31.9 26,296 8,160 31.0
1989...... 30,332 9,302 30.7 25,931 7,704 29.7

HISPANIC (of any race)
2006...... 44,784 9,243 20.6 39,177 7,650 19.5
2005...... 43,020 9,368 21.8 37,759 7,767 20.6
2004 14/.. 41,690 9,122 21.9 36,438 7,705 21.1
2003...... 40,300 9,051 22.5 35,469 7,637 21.5
2002...... 39,216 8,555 21.8 34,598 7,184 20.8
2001...... 37,312 7,997 21.4 33,110 6,674 20.2
2000 12/.. 35,955 7,747 21.5 31,700 6,430 20.3
1999 11/.. 34,632 7,876 22.7 30,872 6,702 21.7
1998...... 31,515 8,070 25.6 28,055 6,814 24.3
1997...... 30,637 8,308 27.1 27,467 7,198 26.2
1996...... 29,614 8,697 29.4 26,340 7,515 28.5
1995...... 28,344 8,574 30.3 25,165 7,341 29.2
1994...... 27,442 8,416 30.7 24,390 7,357 30.2
1993 10/.. 26,559 8,126 30.6 23,439 6,876 29.3
1992 9/... 25,646 7,592 29.6 22,695 6,455 28.4
1991 8/... 22,070 6,339 28.7 19,658 5,541 28.2
1990...... 21,405 6,006 28.1 18,912 5,091 26.9
1989...... 20,746 5,430 26.2 18,488 4,659 25.2

ASIAN ALONE
2006...... 13,177 1,353 10.3 11,428 912 8.0
2005...... 12,580 1,402 11.1 10,911 970 8.9
2004 14/.. 12,231 1,201 9.8 10,734 812 7.6
2003...... 11,856 1,401 11.8 10,333 1,017 9.8
2002...... 11,541 1,161 10.1 9,899 763 7.7
2001...... 12,465 1,275 10.2 10,745 873 8.1
2000 12/.. 12,672 1,258 9.9 11,044 895 8.1
1999 11/.. 11,955 1,285 10.7 10,507 1,010 9.6
1998...... 10,873 1,360 12.5 9,576 1,087 11.4
1997...... 10,482 1,468 14.0 9,312 1,116 12.0
1996...... 10,054 1,454 14.5 8,900 1,172 13.2
1995...... 9,644 1,411 14.6 8,582 1,112 13.0
1994...... 6,654 974 14.6 5,915 776 13.1
1993 10/.. 7,434 1,134 15.3 6,609 898 13.6
1992 9/... 7,779 985 12.7 6,922 787 11.4
1991 8/... 7,192 996 13.8 6,367 773 12.1
1990...... 7,014 858 12.2 6,300 712 11.3
1989...... 6,673 939 14.1 5,917 779 13.2

Poverty Chart (http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/data/Inequality/HistoricPovertyGroups.jpg)

The most major factor was the " internet boom". Your proof?

You want me to teach you economics. Seriously, your own source gave it as the major source of the boom. It also listed the military spending of elder Bush. It also calls it a decade-long boom over which Clinton only sat during the latter 8 years. So much for crediting him for creating it. Your source matches up with exactly what I said.


You don't credit Presidents for the economy but you will blame Clinton for the bubble bursting. Proof??

I'm sorry that you don't understand English. I said he didn't prevent it. I didn't blame him for it. You want me to provide evidence for the nothing he did? You don't know how evidence works, do you? I made a negative claim. If you disagree with it, then the burden falls on you, as yours is the positive claim.

I said plainly he didn't cause the growth and he didn't stop it. How difficult is this for you?


No kidding!!

Again, it's English. It's a major language in Canada. I don't give him no credit is the same as saying I'm not claiming he deserves no credit. I'm not a yokel. I know what a double-negative does, even if you don't. In other words, I disputed your claim, and since your own quotes proved I'm consistently claimed that, your intellectual dishonesty is pretty obvious.


How come all poverty levels fell during the Clinton years?

Historical Poverty Tables (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html)

ALL RACES
2006...... 296,450 36,460 12.3 245,199 25,915 10.6
2005...... 293,135 36,950 12.6 242,389 26,068 10.8
2004 14/.. 290,617 37,040 12.7 240,754 26,544 11.0
2003...... 287,699 35,861 12.5 238,903 25,684 10.8
2002...... 285,317 34,570 12.1 236,921 24,534 10.4
2001...... 281,475 32,907 11.7 233,911 23,215 9.9
2000 12/.. 278,944 31,581 11.3 231,909 22,347 9.6
1999 11/.. 276,208 32,791 11.9 230,789 23,830 10.3
1998...... 271,059 34,476 12.7 227,229 25,370 11.2
1997...... 268,480 35,574 13.3 225,369 26,217 11.6
1996...... 266,218 36,529 13.7 223,955 27,376 12.2
1995...... 263,733 36,425 13.8 222,792 27,501 12.3
1994...... 261,616 38,059 14.5 221,430 28,985 13.1
1993 10/.. 259,278 39,265 15.1 219,489 29,927 13.6
1992 9/... 256,549 38,014 14.8 217,936 28,961 13.3
1991 8/... 251,192 35,708 14.2 212,723 27,143 12.8
1990...... 248,644 33,585 13.5 210,967 25,232 12.0
1989...... 245,992 31,528 12.8 209,515 24,066 11.5

WHITE
2006...... 237,619 24,416 10.3 196,061 16,644 8.5
2005...... 235,430 24,872 10.6 194,277 16,782 8.6
2004 14/.. 233,741 25,327 10.8 193,024 17,445 9.0
2003...... 231,866 24,272 10.5 192,074 16,740 8.7
2002...... 230,376 23,466 10.2 190,823 16,043 8.4
2001...... 229,675 22,739 9.9 190,413 15,369 8.1
2000 12/ 227,846 21,645 9.5 188,966 14,692 7.8
1999 11/.. 225,361 22,169 9.8 187,833 15,353 8.2
1998...... 222,837 23,454 10.5 186,184 16,549 8.9
1997...... 221,200 24,396 11.0 185,147 17,258 9.3
1996...... 219,656 24,650 11.2 184,119 17,621 9.6
1995...... 218,028 24,423 11.2 183,450 17,593 9.6
1994...... 216,460 25,379 11.7 182,546 18,474 10.1
1993 10/.. 214,899 26,226 12.2 181,330 18,968 10.5
1992 9/... 213,060 25,259 11.9 180,409 18,294 10.1
1991 8/... 210,133 23,747 11.3 177,619 17,268 9.7
1990...... 208,611 22,326 10.7 176,504 15,916 9.0
1989...... 206,853 20,785 10.0 175,857 15,179 8.6

BLACK ALONE
2006...... 37,306 9,048 24.3 30,621 7,072 23.1
2005...... 36,802 9,168 24.9 30,154 7,164 23.8
2004 14/.. 36,426 9,014 24.7 30,065 7,153 23.8
2003...... 35,989 8,781 24.4 29,727 6,870 23.1
2002...... 35,678 8,602 24.1 29,671 6,761 22.8
2001...... 35,871 8,136 22.7 29,869 6,389 21.4
2000 12/.35,425 7,982 22.5 29,378 6,221 21.2
1999 11/.. 35,756 8,441 23.6 29,819 6,758 22.7
1998...... 34,877 9,091 26.1 29,333 7,259 24.7
1997...... 34,458 9,116 26.5 28,962 7,386 25.5
1996...... 34,110 9,694 28.4 28,933 7,993 27.6
1995...... 33,740 9,872 29.3 28,777 8,189 28.5
1994...... 33,353 10,196 30.6 28,499 8,447 29.6
1993 10/.. 32,910 10,877 33.1 28,106 9,242 32.9
1992 9/... 32,411 10,827 33.4 27,790 9,134 32.9
1991 8/... 31,313 10,242 32.7 26,565 8,504 32.0
1990...... 30,806 9,837 31.9 26,296 8,160 31.0
1989...... 30,332 9,302 30.7 25,931 7,704 29.7

HISPANIC (of any race)
2006...... 44,784 9,243 20.6 39,177 7,650 19.5
2005...... 43,020 9,368 21.8 37,759 7,767 20.6
2004 14/.. 41,690 9,122 21.9 36,438 7,705 21.1
2003...... 40,300 9,051 22.5 35,469 7,637 21.5
2002...... 39,216 8,555 21.8 34,598 7,184 20.8
2001...... 37,312 7,997 21.4 33,110 6,674 20.2
2000 12/.. 35,955 7,747 21.5 31,700 6,430 20.3
1999 11/.. 34,632 7,876 22.7 30,872 6,702 21.7
1998...... 31,515 8,070 25.6 28,055 6,814 24.3
1997...... 30,637 8,308 27.1 27,467 7,198 26.2
1996...... 29,614 8,697 29.4 26,340 7,515 28.5
1995...... 28,344 8,574 30.3 25,165 7,341 29.2
1994...... 27,442 8,416 30.7 24,390 7,357 30.2
1993 10/.. 26,559 8,126 30.6 23,439 6,876 29.3
1992 9/... 25,646 7,592 29.6 22,695 6,455 28.4
1991 8/... 22,070 6,339 28.7 19,658 5,541 28.2
1990...... 21,405 6,006 28.1 18,912 5,091 26.9
1989...... 20,746 5,430 26.2 18,488 4,659 25.2

ASIAN ALONE
2006...... 13,177 1,353 10.3 11,428 912 8.0
2005...... 12,580 1,402 11.1 10,911 970 8.9
2004 14/.. 12,231 1,201 9.8 10,734 812 7.6
2003...... 11,856 1,401 11.8 10,333 1,017 9.8
2002...... 11,541 1,161 10.1 9,899 763 7.7
2001...... 12,465 1,275 10.2 10,745 873 8.1
2000 12/.. 12,672 1,258 9.9 11,044 895 8.1
1999 11/.. 11,955 1,285 10.7 10,507 1,010 9.6
1998...... 10,873 1,360 12.5 9,576 1,087 11.4
1997...... 10,482 1,468 14.0 9,312 1,116 12.0
1996...... 10,054 1,454 14.5 8,900 1,172 13.2
1995...... 9,644 1,411 14.6 8,582 1,112 13.0
1994...... 6,654 974 14.6 5,915 776 13.1
1993 10/.. 7,434 1,134 15.3 6,609 898 13.6
1992 9/... 7,779 985 12.7 6,922 787 11.4
1991 8/... 7,192 996 13.8 6,367 773 12.1
1990...... 7,014 858 12.2 6,300 712 11.3
1989...... 6,673 939 14.1 5,917 779 13.2

Poverty Chart (http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/data/Inequality/HistoricPovertyGroups.jpg)

Ah, yes, more dishonesty. I love how you selectively look at data. What did I claim? That the gap increased while the impovershed saw almost no increase. Let's see your figures in a graph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg

It's based on the numbers you quoted and shows exactly what I said to be true is true. The gap wildly increased during the Clinton years. Intrestingly, the gap hasn't changed under Bush. Hmmm...

For 40 years the bottom half of wage earners have seen little increase, including during the Clinton years. In that time, the upper 20% has skyrocketed. Hell, there was an increase of about 20% for the top 5% in the Clinton Era.

But hey, why look at all the data? Doing so would destroy your argument.

You've completely stopped debating and your current tactics are the occasional driveby.
Splitting the thread was a horrible idea and yeah, it is hard to keep up the interest. As far as your claim that I have "completely stopped debating", that is not true. I do believe that we were embroiled in a Clinton/Bush debate where you were slagging Clinton and praising the Bushies.....and as I recall, you were to post proof that the "internet" was what drove the 90's.....still waiting.

For example, you didn't mention that the same data you quoted to claim all the good Clinton did for the poorer classes showed that in fact the only grouped that really faired well during the nineties were people that were already pretty well of.
That is not true. The data clearly showed that poverty levels under Clinton were significantly reduced.

I borrowed this from an article (http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/worldistribution/NYT%20Article.htm)and I believe it applies to what happened during the Clinton years:

The rich did get richer faster than the poor did. But for the most part the poor did not get poorer. They got richer, too. In exchange for significantly rising living standards, a little more internal inequality is not such a bad thing.

Same data, some of which you, as usual, conveniently ignored. But, hey, don't debate. Just take those cheap shots, tuck tail and slip away until next time.
I certainly don't "tuck tail and slip away".......I come back for your verbal abuse as often as I can. :rolleyes:

Splitting the thread was a horrible idea and yeah, it is hard to keep up the interest. As far as your claim that I have "completely stopped debating", that is not true. I do believe that we were embroiled in a Clinton/Bush debate where you were slagging Clinton and praising the Bushies.....and as I recall, you were to post proof that the "internet" was what drove the 90's.....still waiting.

You mean the debate where you selectively posted statistics and when I posted the entirety of those statistics you never replied? That debate? The one where you posted a driveby. I wasn't praising Bush. I was pointing out how they all suck on this issue. See there is something other than partisanship. It's called intellectual honesty.

As you posted earlier, I have to be partisan or it turns you don't get it. Intellectual honesty is confusing to you.

I didn't have to. Instead I quoted your source which said it was a primary source. Once again, you want to pick and choose from your sources.

That is not true. The data clearly showed that poverty levels under Clinton were significantly reduced.

No, it showed the number of people in poverty were reduced, which is flawed because it was based on income. It's also amusing because you intentially left of 93 but didn't include 2001. No wonder why. Doing eight years for a president who was in office 8 years is just rational.

As you can see by looking at the graph, there was virtually no shift in any but the top earners.

I mean, golly, the first tenth went from about 10K to about 11.5K a year. Impressive. Really. And of course, that's before the burst. That's household income. 10% of the households in the US. At the same time the top 5% increased their income by 25%. I mean, golly, why wouldn't the poor cherish such a time.


I borrowed this from an article (http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/worldistribution/NYT%20Article.htm)and I believe it applies to what happened during the Clinton years:

Um, according to the calculations, they didn't surpass inflation, particularly after 75% of the growth disappeared when the bubble burst.

I certainly don't "tuck tail and slip away".......I come back for your verbal abuse as often as I can. :rolleyes:

Uh-huh. And you never replied to the full data that you only posted a little of because?

Based on your recent posts, it appears you resurface for YOUR verbal abuse.

From the SurveyUSA poll:


Hey Corny.....isn't that where you are helping out team Obama? Keep up the good work!! :D
You sure seem to be spending a lot of effort defending both Bushs in these threads. Add in dislike/blame of anything Clinton, especially Bill, and you appear to be misplaced in the Obama love fest here. :confused:

No debate. Nothing relevant. Just personal attacks.

look here is the deal with unemployment.
Interest rate cuts under Clinton and continued under bush Jr have lead to the current situation. cutting interest rates Temporarily creates more jobs, however in the long term it destabilizes the dollar (40% drop in value since 2000) which makes investors flee to other currencies (euro) and commodities (oil)
You can confirm this by looking at how the euro has gone up in value and so has oil.

It is the same situation that Carter had (though his was worse 80% drop in the dollar value and double digit unemployment) given to him by the preceding presidents since Kennedy.
The problem was carter did not know how to handle the situation. neither does Bush Jr. I don't feel Obama can handle it either see as how his anti nafta rhetoric seems to make him a protectionist(which is what caused the great depression). Clinton I am also iffy about.

McCain I am less Iffy about he takes me as wanting to take a Reagan approach(which is what fixed the mess left over from Carter). namely raise interest rates and lower taxes (in this case keep them low)

In the past 38 or so years, the majority of people have been getting richer, not just the rich.

In the past 38 or so years, the majority of people have been getting richer, not just the rich.

In the past 38 years, the rich have become disproportionally rich, under the idiocy of Reaganomics and voodoo economics. The Minimum Wage remains far too low, and more Americans have had to take extra jobs just to make ends meet.

In the past 38 or so years, the majority of people have been getting richer, not just the rich.
False. The median has been stagnant or falling. That is to say, more than 50% of the population have been getting poorer.

False. The median has been stagnant or falling. That is to say, more than 50% of the population have been getting poorer.

Thats the old view... of course the Dems would like people to see it that way, whether its true or false.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/09/20/business/20leonhardt-graphic.gif

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/business/20leonhardt.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin)

Thats the old view... of course the Dems would like people to see it that way, whether its true or false.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/09/20/business/20leonhardt-graphic.gif

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/business/20leonhardt.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin)

Ha. That's good stuff. So as long as you ignore inflation and treat all people like they are all making the same amount (no one disputes that the rich have increased their incomes by incredible amouns) then you get the right kind of graph.

I'll tell you what. Let's say, for gits and shiggles, that we compare a gallon of gas from say, oh, let's go with 1990 through today and look at the median income from 1990 to today? Anyone want to make bets which has outincreased the other?

Keep in mind that gas affects the cost of EVERYTHING.

I don't think you even understand - inflation isn't being "ignored" and the great increase in the incomes of the rich doesn't really effect the median income.

Lets say, for shits and giggles, we see the price of a gallon of gas in 1950 through today and median income from 1950 through today. Any guess which one grew by more?

Oh, if we're going to make the time frame longer (I'll notice that you're not denying that what Say is true for the last twenty year) let's complicate things. Let's include the price of bread, the price of meat, the price of corn, the price of electricy, the price of home, and the price of gas. You're contending that the accepted norm is incorrect. Let's see it. I'll wait.

Let's see your argument. (keep in mind, that i'm going to compare growth during democrat democrat dominated govermentents.) How you think you're gonna fair? This should be wonderful to watch. Come on, stoogy.