Not to mention the official recession dates were March 2001-November 2001. That is two months after GW went into office so don't even try to say that the economy was in good shape when Bush took office. So if the recession started in March 2001, how does that translate into Clinton running the economy into the ground in 1999 (7 years into office)? <img src="http://www.longwaves.net/may00/gif00029.gif"> Yup, looks like the economy was just falling apart during 1999.
I SAID Clinton's last year in office ... You do realize that is 2000 right ... Bush was elected in November of 2000, and he took office in January of 2001.
Make a contribution to the tip jar, No Worries, and you will have edit back. Surely someone who loves this forum as much as you can give Clutch $5 to $10 bucks.
If you want to argue why we went into recession that is acceptable, and reasonable people can differ there. I do have a problem with someone trying to compare Clinton's job creation numbers to Bush's job creation numbers. Not only did they have totally different economies(as you even said, Bush did inherit an economy that was not in good shape), but Bush also had to deal with 9/11 and Enron which both played huge factors in the economy. All I was trying to say is that directly comparing job creation numbers as someone did is truly invalid.
GWB will be the first President since Hoover to have a loss in net jobs for his term in office. This is quite a feat which can not be overstated. BTW had Gore been President instead, I strongly suspect that he would be having a tough go at it with the economy. A certain difference would be that Gore would have pushed for temporary economic stimulus packages versus GWB permanent tax cuts. One result would be that Gore Presidency would be running smaller deficits. Another result would be that the economy would be in better shape, albeit a shape that would be tough to get reelect with. (This is not even mentioning that Gore had a better chance of sniffing out 9/11 and thus might have missed that economic fallout.)
That is all total and unfounded speculation. Especially the part about 9/11 ... Did you actually type that with a straight face?
Why yes I did. The Clinton Admin told the Bush Admin that the most important important issue facing the country was a terrorist attack from the likes of OBL. The Bush Admin dropped the ball. A Gore Admin would have been less likely to. To say they would not for certain would be speculation.
GWB is also the first President ever to deal with a plane flying into a 2 skyscrapers and the pentagon. This is quite a feat which can not be overstated.
I SAID Clinton's last year in office ... You do realize that is 2000 right ... Bush was elected in November of 2000, and he took office in January of 2001. Really? Because this is what I read: <I>Wow THATS surprising .... Let's see, Clinton was given a booming economy from day 1, and by year 7 he had run it into a recession, which GWB has had the fortune of inheriting for his term.</I> Unless you think Clinton was in office for 7 years, I don't see how you said "Clinton's last year in office". I do have a problem with someone trying to compare Clinton's job creation numbers to Bush's job creation numbers. Fine. Compare Bush's job creation numbers two that of other post-recession economies: http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/08/news/economy/jobs_walkup/?cnn=yes <I>In fact, since the declared end of the latest recession in November 2001, nearly 800,000 payroll jobs have been lost, according to the Labor Department. That would make this recovery period the most "jobless" since World War II. </I> No other recession in post WW2 history had negative job growth after the end of the official recession. Or, compare Bush to other Presidents in total job creation. Barring a huge turnaround (2 million new jobs in 2004), Bush is likely to be the first President in over 50 years to end his term with fewer jobs than when he arrived. And this was one of the mildest recessions in recent history. By what standard has Bush done well on job creation?
No other recession in post WW2 history had negative job growth after the end of the official recession. I should have said "2 years into the recovery period after the end of the official recession".
You must be new around here, this is par for the course. Sadly, very true. It's amazing how often people will defend the administration, only to be shown facts to the contrary and then proceed to blame 9/11 as a catch-all for anything that can't be defended in any other way. "We need to go into Iraq NOW - they definitely have WMD! No time to work with other countries!" "doesn't look like it" "Come on, we didn't go in for WMD. We wanted to free the people!" "then why are we trying to pull out before putting together adequate protections?" "oh come on - 9/11 changed everything!" ---- "Look at the great economy!" "i don't see any new jobs" "But look - things are good! I promise!" "where are the jobs?" "we need more tax cuts - look, these will definitely create jobs!" "where are the jobs that were supposed to be created!" "don't forget about 9/11"
Congratulations, Republicans.. It appears that your economic policy of spend spend spend is so repugnant and the deficits so bad that even conservative groups are now furious... Conservative groups break with Republican leadership By Ralph Z. Hallow THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published January 16, 2004---------- National leaders of six conservative organizations yesterday broke with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, accusing them of spending like "drunken sailors," and had some strong words for President Bush as well. "The Republican Congress is spending at twice the rate as under Bill Clinton, and President Bush has yet to issue a single veto," Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Coalitions for America, said at a news briefing with the other five leaders. "I complained about profligate spending during the Clinton years but never thought I'd have to do so with a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress." Warning of adverse consequences in the November elections, the leaders said the Senate must reject the latest House-passed omnibus spending bill or Mr. Bush should veto the measure. "The whole purpose of having a Republican president is to lead the Republican Congress," said Paul Beckner, president of Citizens for a Sound Economy, whose co-chairman is former House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas. "The Constitution gives the president the power to veto legislation, and if Congress won't act in a fiscally responsible way, the president has to step in -- but he hasn't done that." "If the president doesn't take a stand on this, there's a real chance the Republicans' voter base will not be enthusiastic about turning out in November, no matter who the Democrats nominate," Mr. Beckner said. Mr. Weyrich warned that if the Senate passes the omnibus bill and the president fails to veto it, "in all probability the party's conservative-activist core voters aren't going to work to help win the election for Bush and the Republicans, and they may well not even vote." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040115-112447-9758r.htm
How in the world did you derive that from what I said ? I said meaning that there werent any economic targets (especially pearl harbor) that were as devistating economically as the events on 9/11.
Both 9/11 and Pearl Habor (triggering event for the USA's involvement in WW2), for different reasons, had an economic impact on the USA economy. For you to say that 9/11 was a singular event that no other President had to dealt with and that excuses/expalins the negative job growth of GWB's Presidency is untenable. FDR had the frigging Depression and WW2 to dealt with and he still managed to see positive job growth. Come on. Time to fess up. GWB has not risen to the challenge.
Congratulations, Republicans.. It appears that your economic policy of spend spend spend is so repugnant and the deficits so bad that even conservative groups are now furious... Just like the Democratic Party is dealing with the splinter of pro-business and pro-labor democrats, the upcoming challenge for the Republican Party - especially if Bush is in office through 2008 - will be the split between fiscal and social conservatives. It's an awesome opportunity for the Democratic Party if they change their tune and advocate a solid package of slowing government growth, while restructuring spending to focus on the most important programs. If they would just do that, they could completely undermine the Republican Party in its current form.
