One has to wonder, the way Sen. Obama tries to lump Pres. Clinton's administration in with the Reagan/Bush and Bush years. Or does Obama think we simply can't see through his transparency? If he puts his hand over his eyes, do we disappear? One has to wonder.Larry Johnson is basically asking the same question -- only he's wondering if Obama was kidnapped during Bill Clinton's term as president. I encourage you to read the laundry list of reasons why Johnson is asking this basic question. Here is a little of what's listed there, to get you started:
EXPANDING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL(more)
- Unemployment Down to 4.1%: The unemployment rate in Pennsylvania has declined from 7.3% to 4.1% since 1993.
- 503,600 New Jobs: 503,600 new jobs have been created in Pennsylvania since 1993 — an average of 71,096 jobs per year. In contrast, an average of 500 jobs were lost each year under the previous administration.
- 486,300 New Private Sector Jobs: Since 1993, 486,300 new private sector jobs have been created—an average of 68,654 jobs per year, compared to an average loss of 2,325 private sector jobs per year in the previous administration.
- 43,600 New Construction Jobs: 43,600 construction jobs have been created in Pennsylvania since 1993 — an average of 6,155 jobs per year. In contrast, an average of 8,775 construction jobs were lost each year during the previous administration.
- Poverty Has Fallen: Nationally, the poverty rate has fallen from 15.1% in 1993 to 12.7% in 1998. In Pennsylvania, the poverty rate has fallen from 13.2% in 1993 to 11.2% in 1998 –down 2.0% under President Clinton. [Census Bureau]
9 comments:
Those numbers were from 1998, the numbers as of 2000 are:
Unemployment - 5.8 nationwide, 5.7 in Pennsylvania (right now, we are at 5.0)
Manufacturing jobs lost between 1993 and 2000 - 766,030 (3 million more have been lost due, in part, to NAFTA since - a policy pushed even to this day by Bill)
Also, comparing job creation/loss between an administration that was fighting through a recession the first couple years against one benefiting from the recovery started at the end of that administration is unfair. The same as saying that Reagan's economic policies were good due to the same causes.
What we need to look at is what we got economically from these administrations. Reagan gave us "trickle down economics." Bush I, did he give us anything economically? Clinton - NAFTA and Greenspan fueled bubbles. Bush II - near total removal of regulation that added the other half of the cause to this current recession.
Oh, and here is a statistic that shows just following these statistics isn't enough:
Median income - $44,853 in 2000, $48,000 in 2006
So what you are saying is that Chicago DIDN'T have television in the 90's!
John, you simply can't lump Bill Clinton in with Ronald Reagan and Bush 1 and 2. Ronald Reagan began the evisceration of the middle class, the media, and democracy as we know it ... and Bush 2 has nearly completed the job started by Reagan.
Obama is simply trying to score cheap political points, and the working class doesn't seem to be buying it.
BAC
BAC,
Hillary Clinton said at some of her rallies when speaking of the garbage spewing out of the Obama's mouth about how bad things were during Bill's administration. She said something like, "What part of peace and prosperity didn't they like?"
For a guy who complained that he didn't know who he was running against, Hillary or Bill, he sure likes to try to tear down Bill Clinton while running against Hillary.
John J: Honestly, put.the.kool.aide.down. You're overdosing, kiddo!
John J: Please read carefully the sources you read rather than just quoting numbers you don't understand the methodologies for.
For the unemployment figures (in 2000) you are quoting a source (Census 2000) that uses an entirely different methodology than the one you quote for the current unemployment (CPS).
CPS is the standard gauge for employment used by the Government and Economists because it has a clear and consistent methodology which can be compared across different periods.
By the words of the Census 2000 report you link to:
"Census 2000 was designed to collect general information about the labor force for very small geographic areas on a one-time basis. It was primarily a mail-out/mail-back data collection that asked fewer and less precise questions than the CPS on employment and unemployment.
The CPS is specifically designed to produce the official estimates of employment and unemployment for the United States each month. Data collection consists
of personal interviews of respondents by field representatives who ask numerous detailed questions on labor force participation. For example, the CPS asks a more detailed and extensive series of questions about whether a person is "actively looking for work" than can be asked in the census. Specifically, at the national level, Census 2000 estimates of employment were considerably below, and estimates of unemployment above, the corresponding CPS estimates. Subnational estimates from the two sources may exhibit even wider relative differences.
A known problem in Census 2000 increased the number of unemployed people for some places with relatively large numbers of people living in civilian noninstitutional group quarters, such as college dormitories, worker dormitories, and group homes, and may have affected comparisons of labor force data
for higher levels of geography."
It produces a higher and less reliable numbers which do not substantiate the sort of argument you are trying to make. And the numbers are even less accurate at lower levels (like state.)
Even comparing the CPS (the usual metric for such things) adjustments are made when comparing different times, because even its methodologies have changed between the 1980s, 1990s and currently.
For the second item the site you link to for your lost manufacturing jobs says:
"Potential jobs, or job opportunities, are positions that would have been created if the trade deficit with Mexico and Canada had remained constant, in real terms (and holding everything else in the economy constant). The total number of jobs and job opportunities is a measure of what employment in trade-related industries would have been if the U.S. NAFTA trade balance remained constant between 1993 and 2000, holding everything else constant."
It's not a measure of actual jobs but a nebulous "potential" jobs that might have existed had those years played out different. Which frankly is a suspect argument and proof at best.
mwb .... snap!
Thanks for more information on the CPS. I am admittedly not an economist. However, it is my understanding that the unemployment numbers we get monthly (the CPS?) is actually an underestimation because it doesn't include the chronically unemployed, something the census will be more accurate on.
As for the other number, it may be estimated, even if it is only 60% accurate (no margin of error was given, but 40% is extreme) we still have over 450,000 people who don't have manufacturing jobs, many of them were actively lost. There is no arguing that steel mills, clothing manufacturing, and any number of other manufacturing industries moved their jobs out of places like Pennsylvania to Mexico and Canada.
You still haven't addressed my point about what we got from these presidencies when it comes to the economy.
As for your "What part of peace and prosperity didn't they like?" The prosperity thing I just addressed and would add tech bust to it. To address peace, Clinton didn't create the peace (and in fact, we did get involved militarily in other nations, we just didn't start anything) it was inherited from previous administrations.
Then there is the biggest thing that Clinton's administration gave us that isn't addressed in the "peace and prosperity" question. The ascendancy of the Right. Gingrich's "Contract with America" was a direct reaction to the Clintons. Rush Limbaugh and friends would still be two bit hacks if it weren't for the Clintons. And the worst thing we got from the Clinton administration? George Bush. He would not be president right now if Bill Clinton hadn't appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.
"What part of peace and prosperity didn't they like?" The price we had to pay.
John-
So, do you honestly believe that Newt Gingrich would not have put his "Contract ON America" if there was another President at the time, either Republican or Dem? C'mon, you are dreaming kiddo.
You can't blame everything on the Clinton's. They had a hit job done on them by the right wingers who hated the fact that Bill Clinton came around and actually gave us a good economy but didn't hand over a bunch of tax loopholes to the top 5% of the wealthy in the U.S. They didn't like him because he saved Social Security, something they've been wanting to abolish for years. They didn't like him because he actually managed to bring more people out of poverty. There were a myriad of reasons why Gingrich and the rest of the right wingers hated Clinton. There were also enough stupid Democrats who thought that if they didn't vote to impeach Clinton, they would lose their own seats, they were looking after their own collective asses to stay in power and if it meant throwing Bill under the bus, they would...and they did.
So, please save me the horrors of the Clinton adminstration. Oh, and Bill did bring peace and keep peace. How many U.S. soldiers died in Bosnia? Zero. Did he not keep Hussein in check with the no fly zone? Yes, he did...no war. So, please, get your head out of your ass and look at the truth for once instead of whining about how tough things were during the Clinton years. Low unemployment, surplus instead of deficit, social security safe, peace, prosperity, fewer abortions, less homeless....the list goes on.
I do not know and cannot predict whether Gingrich would have been as successful as he was were someone else president. But he was successful because of what the Clintons did. He was successful because of the corrupt aura the Clintons allowed to build around themselves. This wasn't exclusive to the Lewinski scandal, it started with the Lincoln bedroom in 1993.
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but Bill Clinton didn't do anything for Social Security. In fact, the figures he gave in his 1999 State of the Union speech are only barely different from today's numbers: "Today, Social Security is strong. But by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. And by 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted, and Social Security will be unable to pay out the full benefits older Americans have been promised." He also gave the same numbers in 1998. His idea to direct the surplus from the balanced budget toward Social Security was a good one, but it was never enacted.
You might want to check your facts on Bosnia - "Soldier's death prompts renewed criticism." There were American deaths in Bosnia, there were just very few because we mostly fought by dropping bombs. We let other members of NATO take the front lines. It was minor, and it was classified as just a "police action" but it was still military action and not "peace".
The No Fly Zone was part of the peace treaty Bush I negotiated, not something that came out of the Clinton years, they only enforced it.
Also, according to All POW-MIA, we engaged in five military actions in the eight years of Bill's presidency. Again, this in no way compares to what Bush II, or even I, has done, but I wouldn't give it the blanket title of "peace."
The surplus, as much as it is attributed to Bill, was actually part of the "Contract with America" Sen. Clinton, as First Lady, actually fought against this in her fight for SCHIP because her proposal would have caused a deficit. Now, the Republicans did lose the surplus almost immediately after W took over, but it was a proposal by the Republicans, not a Clinton initiative.
John - get your head out of your ass and realize that Obama is playing you for the fool that you seem to be!!!
There is simply no way in hell that ANYONE can suggest Bill Clinton deserves to be in the same league with Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and DEFINITELY not Bush 2.
Reagan and Bush 2 are the two WORST presidents in the HISTORY of the office.
Bill Clinton was by no means a Boy Scout, but if you can't recognize the VRWC being leveled at him, you are a complete idiot!!
How many Democratic presidents have there been in YOUR lifetime?
Now, how many times, during YOUR lifetime have we enjoyed: 1) a budget surplus, 2) a peace time economy that was strong, and 3) been at peace for the most part!
Reagan decimated the media and the middle class. Bush 2 has decimated the Constitution. Bill Clinton got a blow job. YOU decide which is worse.
BAC
Post a Comment