Unemployment Numbers: Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43
Hmm, the Bush’s Fubar Economy tag works for both Pa and Boy.
Update: Here’s a chart to that shows in detail Clinton’s unemployment numbers.
Update 2: Bush 43 Unemployment Detail.
Tags: Bush's Fubar Economy
Oh the valleys and the peaks!
I never realized that Clinton started and ended at essentially the same number of unemployed. Fascinating.
Bwah ha ha ha ha. Do you enjoy making jokes.
Total Employment in Jan 1993 was 110,000. In Jan 2001, it was 130,000.
Go back doing what you do best, ignoring the facts.
The chart shows that Clinton started with about 8,500,000 unemployed and Bush started with about 8,200,000 unemployed.
I’ve given you some detail FSP.
Okay. Those were recessions. Are you claiming that Bush was responsible for the recession that started about four days after he took office?
Interesting as well that all three Presidents left their successor with a recession.
Instead of trying to pass his totally ineffective tax cut or having Cheney work on his secret Energy policy in the early days of his Presidency, he could have been working at stopping the recession.
But no, he was too busy vacationing in Texas and ignoring threats from Al-Queda.
So, yes, Bush is responsible.
The definitive establishment of the first Bush recession is by NBER who set that recession cycle as beginning in March 2001 and ending November 2001.
Not 4 days after the inauguration.
ps. You stole my post, nemski!
Right. So he’s responsible, since it was 6 weeks in and not 4 days? You’re joking, right?
Bush is way better than his daddy. Instead of one war and one recession, he has two wars and two recessions!
Boy, those numbers are ugly. I hope we’re in the worst of it but I think it will be a little while longer still, unfortunately.
Bush will end his term with a net loss of jobs in the country. Heckuva job Bushie!
Not joking.
And what is also clear from this data that the Bush recovery was weaker than was generally reported too.
Yes, it was an extremely weak recovery and wages were flat the whole time. The only people who really benefited were the super-rich.
It is 100% wrong to tag Bush with a recession that started in March of 01.
“Yes, it was an extremely weak recovery and wages were flat the whole time. ”
Wages, yes. But total compensation, no. Employers couldn’t raise wages because all that money went into increases in health care coverage.
Well so you say.
Which we know would be a very different story if this same data applied to a Democrat.
No. Much of the money made by corporations went into shareholder and owners pockets. Wages stayed pretty flat but profits were certainly awfully robust.
“Which we know would be a very different story if this same data applied to a Democrat.”
Bullshit.
The chart shows that Clinton started with about 8,500,000 unemployed and Bush started with about 8,200,000 unemployed.
You wouldn’t be using this factoid for more lying with numbers – would you?
Clinton ended with way more employed. The whole economy grew hugely under Clinton, so the same # of unemployed represented far less unemployment.
Anyway, Bush has now replaced Carter as the example of an administration with a sucky economy and weak leadership.
“More Mush From The Wimp” now refers to Bush.
“You wouldn’t be using this factoid for more lying with numbers – would you?”
Those were the numbers from the end of the Bush I recession that Clinton inherited to the end of the Clinton recession that Bush inherited.
Checking for actual numbers from the BLS:
Numbers of unemployed January 1993: 9,325,ooo
Numbers unemployed January 2001 : 6,023,000
And in between was the creation of about 22 million jobs.
Okay, then. I’ll play.
Match up the years where Republicans had total control of Congress — 1995-2000 and 2003-2006 — and it seems like they had the best record of all.
Hey FSP,
How many reps voted for Clinton’s economic plan in 1993? Zero. Instead they predicted it would cause the next depression like Phil “Americans are whiners” Gramm. Now it is the repubs who have destroyed the Clinton economy and are causing what may be the next big depression.
And the 2001 recession by definition officially started under Bush II not Clinton. Don’t be so fact-challenged.
“And the 2001 recession by definition officially started under Bush II not Clinton.”
A1 – Started under, yes. Responsible for, no.
And anyone who hangs the current situation on one political party is either a liar or a fool. I know which one I think you are.
Why do you bother? It’s like trying to use Cesar Millan’s methodology on rabid dogs. Seriously, give it up.
I’m starting to think you’re onto something, Dom.
Hey Duminique,
Why do you bother with the vapid and stupid commentary that you offer on DWA? Your commentary is about as insightful and useful as used toilet paper.
“The only thing that’s really going to change is the name of the president.”
Duminique on the 2008 election
Anyone who supports or supported the repubs the way FSA has is clearly a fool by definition. 66% of repubs still think Bush has been a good president.
And anyone who hangs the current situation on one political party is either a liar or a fool.
And anyone who is looking to forget the culpability of his party in getting us to this state is simply delusional. But I think that this is part and parcel of the new story that Bush wasn’t a real conservative. Dismantling regulations, looking the other way on oversight and policy to feed the housing bubble ( a thing now quite regretted by Greenspan) is how we got here. All of those things done or ignored as a question of policy by this Administration.
Now this is where you add in the silly Fannie and Freddie origin myth, but that is Clown Shoes. Their contribution to this has been detailed elsewhere and the only ones left claiming this are the Tinker Bell crowd of right wing talk radio. And as for CRA — both Fed Governor Kroszner and FDIC Chair Sheila Bair are pretty much definitive.
I didn’t say anything about CRA. But thanks for your full-throated counter to an argument I didn’t make.
As far as Fannie and Freddie go, you can talk and talk all day long, and at the end of the day, they’re still up to their ears in this one.
What a joke you are Dave.
The Y2K bug and the affiliated technology boom added to the employment rolls during the 1990s.
Sorry Dems, this was not attributed to any economic policy. But more so due to the stupid techno-geeks in the 1960s that could not forecast the need to add a four-digit code for year in all of our programs.
This technology boom also went bust shortly at end of Clinton’s term, hence why the economy contracted.
“What a joke you are Dave.”
Translation: I have nothing worthwhile to say.
I pity you, man. I really do.
Mr. O’Neill,
The economic boom was started and perpetuated by Clinton’s economic policies beginning in 1993 which ALL repubs opposed.
The technology boom and Y2K was only a small part of GDP growth during the ’90s.
The economy started to go bust after the repubs took over in 2001 and has been running on credit cards ever since.
You’re assessment is wrong on all points as demonstrated by facts, things that you repubs hate.
I don’t understand what Dave is defending? I can admit Bush wouldn’t be responsible for the recession,
What if he had put in place a Transition team like Obama is doing though? He would have had about 2 more months to get a leg up on what was coming.
As far as Fannie and Freddie go, you can talk and talk all day long, and at the end of the day, they’re still up to their ears in this one.
Like I said, you are in Tinker Bell land. I note that you are the one talking and talking about Fannie and Freddie without producing one iota of data (unlike those explaining that Fannie and Freddie aren’t the problem). Until you can produce some evidence that links them definitely to the major portions of the blowups of CDOs and CDS’, you are blowing smoke.
anonone,
Please get your facts strait. Over $300 B was was spent in the technology sector alone during the late 1990s by governments and corporations to ready their legacy systems prevent Y2K problemx.
This $300B created an artificial economy. It also created the DotCom bubble where investors threw hoards of cash at Internet firms on speculation. Hence, when the bottom fell out from under them, the economy contracted in late 2000/early 2001.
Firms who could not report any profit, went belly up. But I would not attribute the 2000-2001 “recession” to any political doing, but a natural contraction due to the DotCom bubble. vestors knew that, and bet on them anyway.
J.O. –
You are wrong, and anonone is correct in #33. The tech bubble formed in the late 90s only after healthy economic growth in all sectors had already been established as a result of Clinton’s economic plan.
The bubble formed because Greenspan refused to increase margin requirements, and because Clinton unwisely agreed to Gingrich’s insistence on a capital gains tax cut in 1997 which poured gas on the fire.
The idea of a dot-com bubble being the sole explanation for Clinton’s economic success is laughable.