The Numbers Don't lie. Economy under Bush vs Economy under Clinton

[ALiberalModerate]

Income is in 2004 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars.

Median Household Income Decline under Bush:

Median Household Income in 2004: $44,389
Median Household Income in 2003: $44,482
Median Household Income in 2002: $45,062
Median Household Income in 2001: $46,058


Median Household Income Increase under Clinton:

Median Household Income in 2000: $46,129
Median Household Income in 1999: $45,003
Median Household Income in 1998: $43,430
Median Household Income in 1997: $42,545
Median Household Income in 1996: $41,943
Median Household Income in 1995: $40,677
Median Household Income in 1994: $40,217
Median Household Income in 1993: $40,422

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf

Employment Rate under Bush:

2001: 4.7%
2002: 5.8%
2003: 6.0%
2004: 5.5%

Employment Rate under Clinton:

1993: 6.9%
1994: 6.1%
1995: 5.6%
1996: 5.4%
1997: 4.9%
1998: 4.5%
1999: 4.2%
2000: 4.0%

Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Poverty Rate under Bush:
2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%

Poverty Rate under Clinton:

1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%

Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

Ok, so let’s look at these numbers.

First off, I used median income growth instead of average income growth. The reason for this is median income growth reflects income growth in the middle class. Average income growth just reflects income growth in general. CEOs earning 400 times the amount the average worker earns tends to skew the average income growth numbers.
From the first list of numbers we can determine that real Middle Class income grew every year under Clinton Administration and has declined every year under Bush.

In the second table I listed the employment rate. Unfortunately, the newest year over year employment rates that we have currently only extend through 2004. You will notice that unemployment rate declined every year under the Clinton Administration. It rose under the Bush Administration then declined in 2003 and 2004. I would suspect that once last years numbers come in, they will be around 4.4% or so. While that is a great employment rate, it still does not match the Clinton record. Moreover, when median incomes are taken into account, better jobs were available to more people in the nineties than what are available today.

Finally I provided the poverty rates under Clinton and Bush. You will notice that the poverty rate declined every single year under the Clinton Administration and has risen every single year under than Bush Administration.

Don’t get me wrong, the economy today is pretty good. However, it has nothing on the nineties.

 

[Mr. D]

SouthernDemocrat

I'm neither Southern or a Democrat, so if you think you can change my mind by showing me the facts it won't work! Our president is just a common, Christian man that tells the truth in between cutting firewood and clearing the brush in his old pickup truck! I can't be fooled with facts or logic! Clinton tried that with health care and we listened to the drug and insurance companies and kept him from ruining our system!

Sorry, I've got to go to bed now because I have to get at 5:00 AM to line up in front of the free clinic! It's closer than the county hospital emergency room! :2wave:

 

[cnredd]

Bubble burst 10 months before GWB inauguration...911...war in Iraq...

All while dropping taxes...

And what did Clinton have to contend with?...his own lawyer fees?...

Tha fact that the economy didn't collapse is a marvel...That's what people never seem to address...

Bush shouldn't be given praise because the economy is flying...He should be praised because he prevented it from crashing...

If someone objective saw everything that happened in the last 5 years and saw these stats, they'd say, "That's it?!?...I'm surprised it's not ten times worse!"...

That's the marvel...we stayed afloat when we should've drowned...

 

[aps]

Thanks for these numbers, SouthernD. I am not remotely surprised by them.

Shall we also talk about the deficit during the Clinton years and then compare it to that during the Bush years? That would show an enormous amount of growth! LOL

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Bubble burst 10 months before GWB inauguration...911...war in Iraq...

All while dropping taxes...

And what did Clinton have to contend with?...his own lawyer fees?...

Tha fact that the economy didn't collapse is a marvel...That's what people never seem to address...

Bush shouldn't be given praise because the economy is flying...He should be praised because he prevented it from crashing...

If someone objective saw everything that happened in the last 5 years and saw these stats, they'd say, "That's it?!?...I'm surprised it's not ten times worse!"...

That's the marvel...we stayed afloat when we should've drowned...

If one takes into account the total amount of money in tax cuts so far since Bush has taken office, and compared that to GDP, its such a miniscule amount of money that no one could reasonably argue that it had any real affect on economic growth. However, the record low interest rates due to Federal Reserve Reductions had a huge effect on priming the pump and bringing us out of the recession. However, the recession in 2001 was simply a result of irrational exuberance on the part of investors in 1999 and 2000. There was simply to much supply as it relates to demand.

Just the same, no one could reasonably blame the Clinton Administration for investors putting money into such ridiculous ventures as internet grocery stores and despite the fact that we had a mild recession, we still have nearly 20 million net jobs added to the economy from the Clinton years.

The problem with ideological Republicans and ideological Democrats is that both extremes have this view of how they want the economy to work, not how it actually works. Ideological Republicans have this notion of supply side economics where all you have to do is give a tax cut and the economy will grow to such an extent the growth will cover the lost revenue. Ideological Democrats have this notion of protectionist trade policies protecting jobs and don’t seem to realize that there are areas where the private sector is a great deal more efficient than the public sector.

The Clinton Administration really did take a third route in this regard (Bush Sr. as well). Clinton raised taxes the first year he took office, yet never proposed a single budget with over 3% discretionary growth over the previous year (Bush so far has averaged 8% growth in his proposed budgets, Reagan averaged 11%). Clinton was a strong proponent of free trade, yet foreign investment was extremely strong in the United States during the 90s because of the balanced budgets. Moreover, the Clinton Administration had a pragmatic / non-ideological economic team, and made large investments in U.S. technology infrastructure. Finally, the Clinton Administration continued the deregulation efforts started in the Carter and Reagan Administrations, yet maintained strong environmental regulation and oversight. This combined with programs to encourage more contraceptive use among teens and young adults which resulted in fewer teen pregnancies and lower abortion rates (the abortion rate has risen since Bush took office) and other urban investment programs along with welfare reform helped reduce the poverty rate.

This all lead to the literal economic miracle of the Clinton Administration.

Bush could have continued down the same road if he just would have not cut revenue away from government to the extent that he has, held the line on spending, and been more pragmatic on technology and science investments and environmental oversight. He did not off course. So while we have good economic growth, median wages are flat, the poverty rate is increasing, and most of the wealth and income growth has been at the top.