Census Bureau report: Average Americans better off under Clinton, worse off under W

[KRCummings]

Who cares? It's meaningless trivia. Clinton hasn't been in office for 8 years and Bush isn't about to come back. If it's some way to tie it into current times then that's dumb because we didn't get in a time machine and go back.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Like the linked article says:

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

But few would argue that national economic policy is irrelevant to economic outcomes. And rightly or wrongly, voters still judge presidents and their parties largely by the economy's performance during their watch. In that assessment, few measures do more than the Census data to answer the threshold question of whether a president left the day to day economic conditions of average Americans better than he found it.

So what the hell is your point? The first paragraph of this segment blatantly states that a president's economic record is HEAVILY influenced by factors out of his control. And as far as economic outcomes being linked to economic policies, the Atlantic article makes not ONE SINGLE MENTION of ANY Clinton or Bush economic policy that would account for the Census Bureau data, unless you are prepared to argue that an oblique reference to the Bush tax cut is responsible for every single negative statistic contained in said article.

As for voters judging presidents "rightly or wrongly," the qualifying statements immediately preceding would seem to characterize that judgment as clearly being WRONG!

But rather than writing an article that would support that very significant point, we'll pursue the classic form of junk journalism by telling you that no accurate cause and effect conclusions can be drawn from the information we are presenting, but we'll present it any way knowing full well that that is exactly the type of conclusions you are going to form.

And people wonder what's wrong with the media today.

 

[busybody..]

So what the hell is your point? The first paragraph of this segment blatantly states that a president's economic record is HEAVILY influenced by factors out of his control. And as far as economic outcomes being linked to economic policies, the Atlantic article makes not ONE SINGLE MENTION of ANY Clinton or Bush economic policy that would account for the Census Bureau data, unless you are prepared to argue that an oblique reference to the Bush tax cut is responsible for every single negative statistic contained in said article.

As for voters judging presidents "rightly or wrongly," the qualifying statements immediately preceding would seem to characterize that judgment as clearly being WRONG!

But rather than writing an article that would support that very significant point, we'll pursue the classic form of junk journalism by telling you that no accurate cause and effect conclusions can be drawn from the information we are presenting, but we'll present it any way knowing full well that that is exactly the type of conclusions you are going to form.

And people wonder what's wrong with the media today.

DUMMY!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

DUMMY!

IDIOT!

 

[busybody..]

Im not an IDIOT!

Im special

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Im not an IDIOT!

Im special

As if BOTH statements can't be true?

 

[Wrong Element]

But at the least, the wretched two-term record compiled by the younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?

An answer to that might be that while the stated goal of the tax cuts was "broadly shared prosperity," the real goal, one that wouldn't go over well in a political campaign, was dramatically increased prosperity for only a select few. In this sense, the Bush tax cuts worked wonderfully.

This was back before our "populists" carried teabags, and their anger was directed not at Washington, but at gay people and drywall installers named Rodriguez.

 

[The_Trouvere]

This is one of your more silly arguments. The nominal tax rates were higher, but there were more deductions and exclusions.

Name one person who paid 94% of their income in taxes.

No matter how you figure it, a top tax rate of 94% will squeeze more money from the rich than a top tax rate of 35%. Also, when the rich seek tax loop holes, they succumb to the power of the government.

 

[busybody..]

As if BOTH statements can't be true?

http://becauseican.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/idiot2.jpg

 

[Colonel Hogan]

But at the least, the wretched two-term record compiled by the younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?

An answer to that might be that while the stated goal of the tax cuts was "broadly shared prosperity," the real goal, one that wouldn't go over well in a political campaign, was dramatically increased prosperity for only a select few. In this sense, the Bush tax cuts worked wonderfully.

This was back before our "populists" carried teabags, and their anger was directed not at Washington, but at gay people and drywall installers named Rodriguez.

This, of course, only begs the question that if tax cuts are such a singularly BAD idea, then why did Obama include one in the $787 billion stimulus bill?

Was it just so I could pay my future government mandated health insurance premium?

 

[The_Trouvere]

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

The Atlantic Monthly article reinforces a Wall Street Journal article that I have posted on many occasions.

--------

January 9, 2009, By WSJ Staff

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

--------

The article documents that Democrat presidents nearly always have a better record on job creation than Republicans. Is that a coincidence? I think not.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Name one person who paid 94% of their income in taxes.

I just thought of someone: Elvis Presley.

When he died and they probated his estate, accountants were aghast that Presley took the STANDARD DEDUCTION and paid the maximum amont of taxes every year he was alive, because his manager Colonel Tom Parker was deathly afraid of letting anyone with financial acumen near his prize property!

It was in that tell-all book by Albert Grossman.

 

[Slowlane]

From The Atlantic Monthly:

And, it's even worse under Obama. And, with the rising population and the dwindling resources, and the left's unwillingness to let us use what we have, - it's only going to get even worse as time goes on. It will, of course, fluctuate up and down a bit but the end result will be the same.

 

[garbage can]

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration.

I guess if I were guessing, I'd be guessing that Bill Gates, Michael Dell, the dot coms and many others had more to do with job creation than Bill Clinton.

Of course, that bubble broke in 1999.

 

[The_Trouvere]

I guess if I were guessing, I'd be guessing that Bill Gates, Michael Dell, the dot coms and many others had more to do with job creation than Bill Clinton.

Of course, that bubble broke in 1999.

What matters is that Bill Clinton had a better record on job creation.

 

[JohnnySavage]

No matter how you figure it, a top tax rate of 94% will squeeze more money from the rich than a top tax rate of 35%. Also, when the rich seek tax loop holes, they succumb to the power of the government.

You're naive.

 

[The_Trouvere]

You're naive.

I am embarrassed to acknowledge such a vacuous repose.

You did not refute my argument, because use you could not.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I am embarrassed to acknowledge such a vacuous repose.

You did refute my argument, because use you could not.

I refute your argument four times a year.

 

[The_Trouvere]

You did not refute my argument, because use you could not.

I refute your argument four times a year.

Sorry.

I left out "not." You have never refuted my arguments because they are based on facts and logic. You have nothing behind your prejudices but hot air.

 

[fgarvb1]

Um.

Once again... OBAMA is our President now.

it's all his fault.

 

[Comshaw]

Who cares? It's meaningless trivia. Clinton hasn't been in office for 8 years and Bush isn't about to come back. If it's some way to tie it into current times then that's dumb because we didn't get in a time machine and go back.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

George Santayana


Comshaw

 

[RightField]

It is another political ploy like healthcare. It will turn into one more over bloated mismanaged government program that rewards those who run it.

Excellent point.

 

[RightField]

Too bad about 9/11 destroying the economy. It's a good thing that Bush put in tax cuts to stimulate the recovery and get jobs started again.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Darn that 9/11 attack, and the effect it had on the economy.

So 9/11 is responsible for the median household income decline, poverty increasing, childhood poverty increasing even more, the rise in crime AND the number of Americans without health insurance?

Really?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Too bad about 9/11 destroying the economy. It's a good thing that Bush put in tax cuts to stimulate the recovery and get jobs started again.

9/11 did not destroy the economy.