I keep hearing from the usual con talking heads about the Dow being the highest its been in 5 years, and yes that’s true. But if you’re Bush, is that anything to crow about? Check out this chart I made. It compares Bush and Clinton and how the Dow performed under them. I also charted the Dow at the midpoint of their respective presidencies (January ‘97 for Clinton, January ‘04 for Bush). Clinton’s more than doubled. Bush was 60 points below where he came in.
The Dow increased under Clinton 326%. Was it all his doing? No. But it’s not like didn’t do anything to help it along either. For Bush to equal Clinton’s Dow, on January 20 of 2009 the Dow would have to be 34,515.54
11%
“Was it all his doing?”
Noooo, none of it was his doing….
But if you want credit for the runup, better take credit for the crash….
Clinton’s economic program? Sorry, but the Internet was what drove the 90’s bubble. If anyone deserves credit, it’s Al Gore!
How about reminding us again how bad unemployment is… That’s all we heard prior to the election. What happened?
Hey, the economy may be doing alright…but look over there!
(Isn’t that the usual response around here for Bush/Clinton comparisons?)
Other than that, you already know my feelings about the DOW and the S&P 500, so I won’t repeat that tired old argument.
Leading up to the election, Bush as the first president since Hoover with a net job loss since he became president. I don’t know what the current number is but I believe he’s still below what he came in with or just slightly above it. No great achievement.
It was Clinton’s econ program that helped spur investment that led to the boom.
Just as general reminder of the level of bullshit surrounding this kind of thing, don’t forget that all during the 1990s, the Republicans claimed that the stock market boom was a delayed reaction to Reagan’s 1986 tax cuts. After it went down, they started calling it the “Clinton bubble”.
The real chart you want to look at is the S&P 500- make sure also you adjust the prices to adjust for the 35% loss of value for the dollar and inflation since 2000 (probably 15-20%)
First off, during the Clinton presidency I was betwen the ages of 15 and 22 (my first vote ever was for Bill Clinton and Al Gore in Novemeber of 1996). I never had pimples as a teen.
The ‘93 Clinton budget, that passed with no GOP votes helped kill the Reagan-Bush recession and spur the Clinton boom. I know this because some of us can read and watch tv even at the tender age of 15.
That there was any recession following Clinton is debatable, and even if there was it was one of the mildest we’ve ever had (esp. compared to the Reagan-Bush one) and was only exacerbated by the Bush II creation of deficits.
That is one thing a Bushite can’t handle, a comparison of the Bush economy with the Clinton economy. That is why they always try to change the subject.
SaveFarris has a point about unemployment being healthy. Because I come to OW’s site to get some juicy information, I’d like to know exactly what type of jobs are being created. Are they WalMart greeters or are they high tech jobs that paid well under the Clinton Admin? Anyone have a legitimate site?
Hey! Look over there!
While the Bushites herald today’s job number (207k jobs), they should remember that Clinton AVERAGED 250k through the 8 years of his Presidency, after inheriting Bush seniors bad economy.
“It was Clinton s econ program that helped spur investment that led to the boom…….Leading up to the election, Bush as the first president since Hoover with a net job loss since he became president. I don t know what the current number is but I believe he s still below what he came in with or just slightly above it. No great achievement.”
You really have no clue, do you junior? You were still a pimply faced teenager through most of Clinton’s tenure. You spew this nonsense every month or so and yet I never read about what the specifics of his Master Plan really were. We ask you to specify which particular policies singlehandedly handed down by the Great and Powerful Oz led to the 90’s utopia for which you swoon and all we hear is crickets. Maybe this time we’ll get lucky and actually hear your well-reasoned and insightful economic prognostications. I know I can’t wait.
The recession began in 2000 before Bush even took office. It wasn’t Clinton’s fault. Admit it wasn’t Bush’s either. Your chart, as well as your knowledge of economics is really quite a joke.
“(my first vote ever was for Bill Clinton and Al Gore in Novemeber of 1996)”
Shocking I say. And how exactly did the ‘93 Clinton budget usher in the the greatest decade of economic prosperity known to man? Specifics please.
So you were reading and watching TV at the tender age of 15? Good for you. That explains how you’ve come to know just about everything there is to know.
Marty,
BLAMMO!
If Oliver were a cartoon character, he would just now be staggering back to his feet with a huge knot popping out of his head and twittering birds flying around.
I’m glad you mentioned real estate. I bought my first home in 1993 for $42,000. We sold it three years ago for $78,000. Pretty nice return on investment, I’d say.
And one more thing: the NASDAQ took its first nosedive in March 2000. That’s the event that really precipitated the collapse of the “Internet Bubble.”
Way to word that very carefully, Oliver, because you know that talking point was wiped out prior the President taking his oath of office for the second time. Fact is, there was a net gain of jobs between his first and second oaths of office, despite the the inherited downturn, a major attack on the U.S. and a two front war.
To answer your second nonsensical point, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are currently at a net gain of 7,642,000 jobs during the Bush Presidency, the vast majority of them since the beginning of his second term. (I’m sure that’s something you didn’t hear at work or read in the Washington Post, eh Oliver.)
We’ve gone from 135,999,000 to 143,641,00 jobs since January 2001. That after a brief recession after a certain even that rocked the economy of most of the world.
Look it up yourself- http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm#overview.
“And that boom had nothing to do with anybody s policies as much as it had to do with the innovation of some very smart people.”
Absolutely! To which I’ll add that the boom came to end largely because it wasn’t based on actual profits from companies such as Yahoo and Amazon, but rather, as Alan Greenspan termed it… “irrational exhuberance.”
Did ever see that on TV or read it in your Weekly Reader Oliver?
Uh, Oliver? It really shows that you were only 15 at the beginning of the Clinton years, because the very brief, very mild recession of early 1991 ended by the 2nd quarter of 1992 and the economy was on an upward swing again. In fact, economic growth was at a higher percentage in 1992 than in 1993 or 1995. In other words, my young friend- there was not recession when Clinton came into office.
The 1993 budget which began in earnest in 1994 actually slowed the rate of growth, although we never were in any danger of going back into recession.
Your “Clinton Economy” really didn’t get going until after the “Government Shutdown” that ended in January 1995 when Clinton was forced to agree to a series of tax cuts (although not as large as some of us wanted at the time), and the Fed began a series of interest rate cuts, and the Internet boom really started to take off. (And that boom had nothing to do with anybody’s policies as much as it had to do with the innovation of some very smart people.)
The rate cuts combined with the tax cuts were a boon to us in the banking and mortgage industries as mortgage rates dropped for the first of several waves of refinancing booms, and the housing sector really began to grow and remained hot up until this last year when it has finally gone back to normal (somewhat.) In fact it was the housing sector along with the wild technology boom in the stock markets that created most of the new jobs and economic growth in the mid to late 90s.
And it was that series of tax cuts, interest rate cuts, and huge gains in the stock market combined with about $450 billion in cuts to medicare, medicaid, and other domestic programs agreed to by Clinton and Congress that contributed to the budget surplusses.
Stick to what you know Oliver. Economics isn’t it. (But I did get a really good laugh at the “Reagan-Bush” recession line. Perhaps you’d like to know what it was like in this country economically during the first few years of your life. Malaise anyone?)
Technically, the “Clinton Boom” began in March ‘91 (almost two years before Clinton took office) and ended in March ‘01 (2 months after Bush took office). But, please, don’t let facts get in the way of your Clinton love fest.
So did they stop including the price of food, real estate, cars, gasoline and health care in the inflation rate?
Let’s see – I never defended Carter’s economic policies, that’s why I classify myself as a “New Democrat” when it comes to most economic policies. I also think it’s funny that one is now required to have been a certain age in order to look at the historical record. Reagan ran up massive deficits that slowed down the economy, Bush Sr. went against conservative orthodoxy to try somewhat to alleviate the problem – and paid the price (”No new taxes” – I actually remember that one, young lad though I may have been). I also remember the forecasts of economic disaster when Clinton raised the tax rates but those voices of doom were soon washed out when the economy began rolling like gangbusters. Yes, Clinton’s economic policies were not as liberal after we lost congress in ‘94, but by ‘96 he easily coasted to re-election with real political capital and continued to put our economic house in order creating a surplus. Sure there was a slowdown after the dotcom bubble popped but we were in good fiscal shape when Bush came into office. Then he one-upped Reaganomics and plunged us into massive debt again.
And ever heard of a housing bubble?
Well, Marty. You’ve got it down pat, if you’re a conservative in heat, but you’re forgetting a few small facts about the Clinton years.
Two words. Robert Rubin.
Two more words. Deficit reduction.
Not one GOP vote for Clinton’s 93′ Economic Plan. Not one. They all predicted doom and gloom, because Bill Clinton DARED raise taxes on the top 5% income earners. What happened? Unprecedented peace, and prosperity. I’m sorry you had to pay an extra 3 cents at the pump, Mar-tee.
The result? Reagan’s monsterous deficits were turned into surplus. I guess Stockman was right about Reagan.
Sound fiscal policy at the right time makes a difference. Robert Rubin knew that the only way to right the ship was to get those nasty deficits under control–the same deficits that crowd out private investment.
Bush has us pushing huge deficits again.
You clowns have NO credibility on the economy. The last 4 Presidents have created in the following order:
Reagan Massive deficits and unemployment. Credit card economy.
Bush I Recession
Clinton Deficits turned into surplus, low inflation and unemployment
Bush II Return of massive debt, sputtering economy
Why do you think that nearly EVERY polll taken in the past 5 years has the American public squarely on the side of the Democratic party, when it comes to managing the economy. It’s because they have seen what 3 Republican Presidents have done, and compared that to 8 years under a moderate Democrat, who happened to have more intelligence, and a gut instinct to do the right thing on the economy, than the 2 GOP leaders who preceded him, and the ABSOLUTE unfit for office moron that came after him.
You can throw your bls crap at us all you want. The proof, is in the years we have all lived under Reagan, Bush I (a good man), Clinton, and Bush II (a shell of his Father).
JK
JWG Says:
April 7th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
inflation since 2000 (probably 15-20%)
11%
Marty SaysWe ve gone from 135,999,000 to 143,641,00 jobs since January 2001.
That’s funny. I could swear the number of people of employable age must have growm by at least that ….
Oh, there are more unemployed under Bush (up to 2005 inclusive), approximately 8,500
Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1940 to date
It is from the same site you reference, Marty!
So, if the number of jobs created is 7,750, but the number of unemployed “not in labor force” has grown, and the number of unemployed over all has grown, then try to pawn off stats as showing increased employment numbers is a con job, is it not?
The number of unemplayed has grown, and the percent of unemployed has grown – after dramatic decreases under Clinton.
Get your facts straight, all of them, not selectively like all the con admin.
Buma, inflation is based on the Consumer Price Index. Please feel free to go to any economic source and dispute my claim of 11% inflation (more acurately it’s closer to 11.3%) from 2000-2005.
Do you have a source for this “fact,” Factcheck?
That would be 24 million jobs. The best I can find is 18 million jobs over his 8 years (which is excellent).
Yeah, the recession which ended 2 years before he took office. Clinton “inherited” a rising economy.
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/00BudgetFramework/appendix2.html
This is through June 2000, by the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms#Methodology
While I don’t think that Presidents should take credit for economic upturnd, or blame for economic downturns, they do.
Meanwhile, someone asked about the “kinds of jobs” being created (obviously they had in mind to minimize Bush’s laudatory job creation / unemployment stats by some reference to the “lowly task” of burger flipping which, of course, is not a lowly task, but, rather, the firat employment for many HS students and recent grads):
http://tinyurl.com/o2ppx
MikMik- Oliver had a question, I gave the correct answer. And you are absolutely right in your point as well.
And if you look at the current data (unrevised as of yet) you’ll see that the unemployed labor force is currently at 4.7 percent. So the rise in the number of the employable labor force has been absorbed by the rise in the number of new jobs despite the recession in the first year of the first term of the this President.
Could any of the economic policies of the current administration be credited for that turnaround? How about the turnaround in economic growth?
Man, you guys really take this shit too seriously.
Oliver has a little fun with Excel and commonly known economic data, and all of a sudden you’re all economics experts. Three pages over, you’re all immagration experts. Four pages past that and you’re all military strategists.
The gist of Oliver’s chart is that the Dow climbed higher and faster during the Clinton presidency and has not climbed so high and so fast under Bush. That’s it. I’m sure there are hundreds of theories as to why, and they can’t all be right.
Get over yourselves.
Bottom line; $200+ surplus vs. $3 trillion deficit.
Thanks, factcheck. I wonder if this accounts for the difference (from the Clinton link):
For my own personal curiosity, I’ll spend a little time when I’m free comparing the stats in your links to the ones provided by Forbes and MSNBC. It’d be nice if the BLS made it a little easier to find overall data.
Bush’s Job Creation Record Worst of Last 40 Years (Still)
The Blogging of the PresidentSunday, April 09, 2006 4:04:30 AM GMT-6
The Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported yesterday:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/006867.html ” rel=”nofollow”>Bush made the
following statement to promote this number:
Bush s record of job creation is still the worst of the last 40 years.
According to the http://www.nber.org/cycles.html ” rel=”nofollow”>National Bureau
of Economic Research the last recession ended in November 2001. That means
we have had 54 months of an economic recovery. First, notice how Bush uses May
2003 as the starting point of his comparison? Why is he doing this? Because May
2003 is the lowest point of establishment job creation in his administration.
Since the actual trough in November 2001 Bush s economy has created
4,083,000 jobs. At the same point (54 months) all other expansions of the
last 40 years had created more jobs.
At 54 months,
The expansion starting in February 1961 created 6,550,000 jobs
The expansion starting in November 1970 created 6,240,000 jobs
The expansion starting in March 1975 created 13,565,000 jobs
The expansion starting in November 1982 created 12,366,000 jobs
The expansion starting in March 1991 created 8,718,000 jobs.
Therefore, Bush s economy would have to create 2,157,000 jobs to be
second to last on this list.
There is no way that Bush can create enough jobs to increase his rank to 4th
on the list. At this point, he will go down as presiding over the weakest
records of job creation of the second half to the 20th century.
Shameless Plug: If you are interested and economically inclined, My Left Wing has a podcast of my
presentation of the 6 Fundamental Problems of the US Economy.