Dems vs. Repub

[thekicker33]

I think this is telling....

All of this came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject
When Bill Clinton took over in 1993 unemployment was at 7.3 percent. It went down to a low of 3.9 percent in December of 2000. He left office at 4.2 percent.

Obviously, Bush took over at 4.2 (the lowest of his tenure) and jumped to a high of 6.3 in June of '03. In July '08 unemployment was at 5.7.

Without percentages, this means when Clinton left office 5.692,000 people were unemployed during the course of 2000. At the end of 2007 when unemployment was at 5.0, 7,078,000 didn't have a job at one point in 2007.

More historically though, the numbers still favor democrats. Since 1948 there have been five democratic presidents. When Truman (D) left office in 53, unemployment was at 2.9.
By the time another democrat took over again in 61 (Kennedy) unemployment was at 6.6. He died and Lyndon Johnson (D) took over. When his tenure was over in 69, the rate was at 3.4.

When Carter (D) took over in 77, unemployment was at 7.5. He left office in 81 with the same rate. Then Reagan (R) took over and unemployment went to at least a 40-year high to 10.8 percent in Nov. and Dec. of 82. Most of if not all the blame can be put on Carter for that one.

From there, though, the rate did go down and when Reagan left office in '89, unemployment was at 5.4.
Four years later Clinton (D) took over at a rate of 7.3.
In conclusion, since 1948, 80 percent of the time when a democrat has been president the unemployment rate has gone down. Meanwhile, only one republican saw it go down.

Time will tell on Obama

 

[droski]

arguing causality for a massive lagging statistic is pretty silly since most administrations don't have trillion $$$ spending on supposed job creation in their first year in office. a better indicator would be to start two years after the president took office and compare it to two years after he left.

 

[thekicker33]

Not sure you'd like the results of those either....... Facts are facts.... Under a democratic president more people are likely to have jobs... To me that's the most important thing to having a successful economy. More people with jobs = more money to spend = better economy.

 

[droski]

translation: i'm not willing to listen to any rational arguments

 

[droski]

let's put it this way. unemployment is much higher than when obama took office. is that his fault? if it isn't why are we giving people like clinton credit for an economy that was clearly turning when he took office or crapping on bush for inheriting the greatest job bubble in american history?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Not sure you'd like the results of those either....... Facts are facts.... Under a democratic president more people are likely to have jobs... To me that's the most important thing to having a successful economy. More people with jobs = more money to spend = better economy.

that is an absurd linkage.

 

[thekicker33]

Don't give me hearsay.... give facts instead of talking points.
Prove me wrong... show some numbers.
And, IMO, it is starting to fall on Obama if jobs don't turn around soon. He might not have caused the problem, but as of right now he's not doing much to help it either

 

[thekicker33]

that is an absurd linkage.

Yeah, I agree. I thought it went straight to the document. I'll find a better link

 

[BigPapaVol]

Yeah, I agree. I thought it went straight to the document. I'll find a better link

I'm not talking about the link. I'm talking about the linkage between employment and party in power.

One could make the exact same linkage to employment levels in Europe and Asia as well. I'd like to see a regression analysis that tried to tie the two together.

 

[droski]

Don't give me hearsay.... give facts instead of talking points.
Prove me wrong... show some numbers.
And, IMO, it is starting to fall on Obama if jobs don't turn around soon. He might not have caused the problem, but as of right now he's not doing much to help it either

how is what i said hearsay? did the dot com bubble not create hundreds of thousands of jobs that didn't exist beofore and did not exist afterwords? did bush have anything to do with etoys going under? the dow and GDP growth were up significantly from a year earlier when clinton took office. since employment is a LAGGING indicator employment went up almost immediately after he took office. please explain specifically what clinton did in 1992 to create these jobs.

 

[thekicker33]

that is an absurd linkage.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

This should be it

 

[thekicker33]

how is what i said hearsay? did the dot com bubble not create hundreds of thousands of jobs that didn't exist beofore and did not exist afterwords? did bush have anything to do with etoys going under? the dow and GDP growth were up significantly from a year earlier when clinton took office. since employment is a LAGGING indicator employment went up almost immediately after he took office. please explain specifically what clinton did in 1992 to create these jobs.

I have no idea what Clinton did... I'm just going on numbers and he maintained it for 8 years.. He did something right

 

[droski]

you also don't mention who was running congress. the last time democrats were in charge of congress and the presidency we got the jimmy carter era.

 

[thekicker33]

I'm not talking about the link. I'm talking about the linkage between employment and party in power.

One could make the exact same linkage to employment levels in Europe and Asia as well. I'd like to see a regression analysis that tried to tie the two together.

You do it... I proved my point.. Your turn to refute it

 

[droski]

I have no idea what Clinton did... I'm just going on numbers and he maintained it for 8 years.. He did something right

yes because the president clearly has full control over the economy. please give me an example of all the great things clinton did to spur economic growth.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I have no idea what Clinton did... I'm just going on numbers and he maintained it for 8 years.. He did something right

He happened to preside over the economy that reaped the whirlwind of investments that Reagan tax cuts induced. 1986 changes to rental property depreciation inadvertently helped as well by making rental property less attractive relative to other investment vehicles.

 

[BigPapaVol]

You do it... I proved my point.. Your turn to refute it

You didn't prove anything. You made an absurd linkage that ignores all but a very few data points over a 60 year period.

 

[droski]

He happened to preside over the economy that reaped the whirlwind of investments that Reagan tax cuts induced. 1986 changes to rental property depreciation inadvertently helped as well by making rental property less attractive relative to other investment vehicles.

bingo. it's no coincidence that the greatest bull run in the stock market's history (and greatest run of gdp and job growth) started 2 years into reagan's presidency.

 

[thekicker33]

yes because the president clearly has full control over the economy. please give me an example of all the great things clinton did to spur economic growth.

Do you not read... I don't know what he did, but whatever it was worked

 

[thekicker33]

So I guess Bush Sr.'s run through the white house doesnt' count..... you know when unemployment started to go up again... Can't wait to see how this is a dems fault??

 

[BigPapaVol]

Do you not read... I don't know what he did, but whatever it was worked

See, I can make that argument that every UT football game I attend is sold out, hence people turn out to see me. Refute that.

 

[droski]

Do you not read... I don't know what he did, but whatever it was worked

how do you know it worked? greenspan was the head of the fed for those 8 years too. why aren't you giving greenspan credit? jordan was the king of the nba during that period. clearly we can thank him as well.

 

[thekicker33]

Really????? How do I know it worked.... because unemployment went down!!!

 

[droski]

So I guess Bush Sr.'s run through the white house doesnt' count..... you know when unemployment started to go up again... Can't wait to see how this is a dems fault??

yeah bush sr caused the savings and loan crisis and the russian debt crisis. do you realize that economies don't go straight up forever right?

 

[BigPapaVol]

So I guess Bush Sr.'s run through the white house doesnt' count..... you know when unemployment started to go up again... Can't wait to see how this is a dems fault??

who's faulting? Bush happened to be in office during the worst liquidity crisis (prior to this most recent housing crash) this side of the Great Depression. LTCM killed the credit markets and all liquidity was removed from the markets, killing all businesses that live by short term credit. That creamed the economy, regardless who was in office.

Bush 2 had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 and watched the credit default swap kill the conduit markets in real estate. That shock removed all liquidity from the market and here we are. The presidents in office at those times had little or nothing to do with employment levels.

Hell, Obama stole a trillion dollars to impact employment and has sat helplessly by as the number has soared. Wonder why?