THE BOOMING ECONOMY OF 2007

The Bush Administration is correctly saying that the current economy we're in is stronger than it was during the Clinton Administration. This has brought the Clinton cronies out of the woodwork who say that just isn't so. Don't expect the media to side with Bush on this one. And of course, any time anything that took place during the Clinton Administration is remotely criticized, the Clinton thugs step out of the shadows to run interference. Just ask Sandy Berger, who got arrested for stuffing documents critical of his old boss down his pants and trying to smuggle them out of the National Archives.

Let's look at unemployment. Right now the unemployment rate is 4.4%....a full point below where we were during the Clinton Administration. And yet the media called the Clinton years a boom, while times now are supposed to be a bust. Both were good economic times...just these days are better. It is one of the most underreported successes of the Bush Administration. And for some reason, the Republicans have been unable to capitalize on it.

Aside from ineffective communication, the media doesn't want the successes of the Bush Administration to be reported. They'd rather focus on Iraq and gas prices instead of the booming stock market and low unemployment. Media bias at work.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/

By: Boortz

Most statistical evidence shows the Clinton economy being much stronger than the Bush economy

Let's review some of the publicly available government statistics. During Bush's Clinton's last 6 years in office, 12.9 million new jobs were created. In Bush's 1st 6 years, 8.3 million jobs were created. That's a difference of 4.6 million, or over 50% more under Clinton. This can be seen from the graph below from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?&series_id=LNS12000000). The key numbers are underlined in red.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/unlawflcombatnt/4-9-07grphEmplymtBLS-X.gif


Not only were far fewer jobs created under Bush, real hourly wages increased only 1/2 as much. During Bush's 1st 6 years, real wages (measured in 1982 dollars) increased $0.27/hour. During Clinton's last 6 years, real wages increased $0.55/hour, or twice as much. This can be seen from the chart from below from the BLS (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?&series_id=CES0500000049).

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/unlawflcombatnt/1-18-07grphRealWageTbl66-07-X.gif


It's also worth showing the decline in the hours in the average workweek. This, along with minuscule real wage increases, further refutes claims of a strong job market, or a strong economy. Below is chart of change in the average hourly workweek from Briefing.com (http://www.briefing.com/Common/Images/Content/PageContent/EcData/workweek.gif)

http://www.briefing.com/Common/Images/Content/PageContent/EcData/workweek.gif

It's just amazing to see the people claim the Bush economy is "better" than the Clinton economy. There aren't any facts or statistics to support that point of view. Which seems to be the hallmark of the Bush economy. The media propagandists provide nothing but fact-free reporting, supported by nothing but hot air.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum (http://www.unlawflcombatnt.proboards84.com/)

EconomicPopulistCommentary (http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/)

_________________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

we all agree clinton was a living god as prez while bush couldnt make a beer fart in a whirl wind.

by the way, what lesiglastion did clinton sign that made the economy better? presidents dont make the economy good or bad, its a lie.

Looking back over my company's records, for the period of Jan 1985 - Dec 2005, I don't see any difference in performance, that can be attributed to which political party was in control, or who was President. Nor has my life style changed due to who controls what in Washington.

nor has your lifestlye changed based on the federal surplus or deficit we or our children are or will be paying. As far as I can tell the deficit or surplus is just a number used by politicans to hit each other over the head with. In the life of everyday americans it has no effect.

Its not just politicians who like to use those numbers as clubs. The fact is this country has almost always been in debt. There was a short period under Andrew Jackson where we, as a nation, owed no one. AH, but those days are long past.

what about the massive surplus under clinton?

what about the massive surplus under clinton?

You mistake having a "budget suplus" to being debt free. There is a major difference.

Clinton may not have done a huge amount to bring the economy up, since presidents generally don't have a huge amount of ability in boosting the economy. However, they do have the ability to hurt our economy, and I can name quite a few things Bush has done which are either hurting or will hurt our economy in the near future - examples are our massive debt and the great decrease in value of the dollar vs. other countries.

The actions of the Ferderal Reserve Chairman has more of an impact on the economy than any actions taken by a President. Unless the President appoints a moron to the position.

I agree with WindWip here. A president is far more able to hurt the economy than help it.

Clinton may not have done a huge amount to bring the economy up, since presidents generally don't have a huge amount of ability in boosting the economy. However, they do have the ability to hurt our economy, and I can name quite a few things Bush has done which are either hurting or will hurt our economy in the near future - examples are our massive debt and the great decrease in value of the dollar vs. other countries.
Indeed, it's far easier to destroy than to create. Corollary: Second law of thermodynamics.

I agree with WindWip here. A president is far more able to hurt the economy than help it.

tell that to the media and the liberals in the 90's...

You have to admit that Clinton's effect on the economy was over exaggerated, even IF he did put some things in motion on his own.. It's "a safe bet" (as sedan would say) to state that Clinton did not create the "boom" that happened during his presidency.

However, I don't feel the need to try to say that the economy now is better than the economy then. Since the president has little to do with it, and many are in agreement on that statement, it's a red herring. Plus, there are ENTIRELY different circumstances in each presidency.

HW Bush had the Gulf war, W bush has the Iraq war, Clinton had no war. So while people marvel at how Clinton was able to lower the national debt, you have to think that if Clinton had a full-scale war during his term, he'd use that money for that purpose and not on the national debt. And the thing is, had Clinton done something about some of the threats, we might not be in the position we are in now. That's not fact, but that's a point of view. That also in no way excuses the current administration, but I no way buy Clinton's bullied, stubborn, pissed off view displayed on that Fox News Interview that he did all that he could and he TRIED SO HARD!!!... cut the crap bill.