Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by beanfield, Feb 26, 2014.
It was 5.4% when he left office, how is that silly?
Actually, it was 6.4, but your claim was that
Now, given that unemployment rose 2.9 points in Reagan's first two years (7.5 to 10.4) and the only year it rose during Clinton's 8 years was going from 4.0 to 4.2 in his final year, it's kind of ridiculous to claim that every year of Reagan's administration saw positive results while Clinton only had four good years, don't you think?
Clinton entire's last 2 years was built on a bubble economy called the dot.com economy. The laddering of stocks couple with the repeal of The Glass Steagal act set up the recession for Bush and once again you resorted to cherry picking Reagan's numbers. As I recalled, Reagan inherited a prett big mess and had residuals in unemployment, much like Obama. The difference is that Clinton did not inherit a mess and Reagan's numbers continued inprovement after his numbers spike. Please provide a link on your claim that Reagan's unemployment numbers was 6.4% when he left office.
Clinton had to change to republican policies because his Leftist carp wasn't working... The media called it "triangulating" and it was Dick Morris (a republican) that showed slick Willy the way.
So, you can add Clinton to that list of "pretenders".
There only one I would pick from the last 50 years is JFK.
Reagan... the rest are all pretenders.
actually, you're right about the unemployment. I looked at 1991 rather than 1989. Duh .... it was 5.4. My apologies.
Reagan was inaugurated with unemployment at 7.5 and left at 5.4
Clinton was inaugurated with unemployment at 7.3 and left at 4.2.
But it's ridiculous to claim that every year under Reagan was good economically given that unemployment rose more than 3 points in his first two years. And then to claim that Clinton had four bad years when he didn't have anything close to that happen.
I mean you pretty much have to ignore all facts to claim that.
Meanwhile, you claimed that GDP was terrible during Clinton's last two years and I asked for some evidence that was true. Do you have any yet?
There isn't any
River, how old are you? Reagan was my commander in chief, I was in the the workforce during the 80s. Here is what I remember from my personal experience. Reagan inherited a mess, high unemployment, horrendous foreign policy and there was this big loss sense of National Pride when Carter left. Mortgage rates were almost 13% and the job market really sucked. That is why I chose the service out of high school. Reagan not only reversed and fixed most problems, he Also pushed the USSR to the brink of bankruptcy which caused their collapse. Now I do remember when Clinton took office because I voted for Perot. Clinton was not even remotely in the same boat as Reagan. A big role in Clinton's economy was that he finally started to show bipartisanship when he lost The House. Couple this with the ridiculous dot.com/laddering schemes which unrealistically bolstered personal portfolios and gave people a sense of false wealth, and we had a recope for disaster, which ensued during the Bush years. Lastly, look at my original comment, I did not say that the GDP numbers were bad during the Clinton's years, I said he had 5 consecutive negative growth numbers at the end of his presidency, which economists will tell you that that's an economy heading into a recession.
Got a source for that (or at least some clarification on "negative growth" of what)? Because I have Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis stats up in front of me right now, and they would strongly suggest that you're wrong assuming you mean GDP growth. I'm not seeing a single quarter even, much less year, at any point in Clinton's presidency where the GDP growth over previous period was a negative number.
Quarterly GDP percent change over prior period:
Annual GDP percent change over prior period:
Clinton, by a mile.
Your GDP numbers are suspect
The recession started somewhere in the middle of the summer of Clinton's last year and carried on for 5 consecutive negative growth quarters.
Even using the numbers on your own link, there's not a single negative number between September 1991 and September 2008...
(And you know where my "suspect" GDP numbers came from? On the link you posted, click the little box that says "Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis." You will now be on the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis website. Open the excel link entitled "Percent change from preceding period." Tada! You're to the spreadsheet my numbers were copied and pasted out of. I used the numbers from the GDP percent change based on current dollars column, feel free to check them yourself. Your link purports to be using 2009 chained dollar growth rates, but even those don't line up with the BEA data that they say they got it from, so I'm not sure how they arrived at those numbers.)
Are you sure you don't have Clinton's term mixed up with Bush's and are looking at 2008-2009 numbers rather than 2000-2001? Because the trend you're describing did happen exactly as you say in the end of Bush's term. The was negative growth beginning somewhere in the middle of the summer of his last year and carried on for 5 consecutive negative growth quarters. The numbers go negative in Q3-2008 and then carry on for 5 more consecutive negative growth quarters. But that is not the case with Clinton.
By comparison, even using your numbers, starting the summer of Clinton's last year and carrying on for the next 5 consecutive quarters, they look like this:
Or do you misunderstand what "negative GDP growth" means? As long as the percent change is positive, the GDP grew that quarter. Those numbers would indicate a negative growth rate of the growth rate (i.e. the growth rate declined over the previous quarter for 5 consecutive quarters), but the GDP growth rate itself wasn't negative at any point. As long as the number itself remains positive, GDP was still growing, and that's not a negative growth quarter.
You forgot the rise came from Vockler wringing the neck of inflation with 21% rates.It was successful and you remember the 49 state landslide in 1984.
Clinton never got 50 % of the popular vote
Elite left wing Camelotting propaganda.
obviously, the actual stats don't show that at all.
March 2001 -November 2001
Yes, the dot.com bust had something to do with it, though it's also true that we saw unprecedented economic growth throughout the 90s.
Ben, GDP was going down, how is that good? The slide started when Clinton was in office. I guess your saying Obama didn't actually inherit a recession, thanks for the verification.