The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best? (Part III of III, The Clinton/ Bush Administrations)

Bill Clinton 1993-2001

 

Bill Clinton came to office after 12 straight years of record deficit spending and a dramatic increase in the National Debt during the Reagan-Bush years.  A fiscal night mare no other President faced.  But Clinton had a real fiscal plan to reverse the out of control spending and an economic plan that was broad based to create the greatest economy in modern time.  The Democratic controlled congress passed Clinton's fiscal and economic plans without one vote from the Republicans in congress.  They predicted doom and gloom on the floor of congress; record unemployment, record deficits, a devastating economy and etc., and they were proven wrong. 

 

The economic and fiscal package contained tax increases and tax reductions for the people and businesses, along with other tax benefits for families.  It was broad based and mandated that the budget be in balance over a number of years and contained spending restraints.  Over 22.7 million new jobs were created on Clinton's watch in 8 years.  That was 4 million more jobs created than the Reagan-Bush administration created in the 12 years they served at the helm.  91% of the job creation under Clinton was in the private sector, the highest in 50 years.  The neocon Presidents always talk about promoting the private sector but it was Clinton and his economic policy that actually accomplished the deed.

 

The Republican's talk about fiscal responsibility but it was Clinton who accomplished that also.  The deficit fell every year during Clinton's first term and the budget was in surplus his last four years in office.  His administration left the incoming President George W. Bush a projected surplus of 5.6 trilling dollars and a budget in the black.  but that all changed in one short year under Bush.

 

George W. Bush  2001-2009

 

 

During his campaign for President Bush acknowledged the $5.6 trillion surplus the federal government was running and said it was the peoples money and he would return it to the people in the form of tax cuts. (Which everyone knows benefited the most wealthy the most.)  Once again trickle down economics and voodoo economics was reintroduced to the american people. 

 

Bush then set a course to reverse the fiscal and economic policies of the Clinton administration which has led to the largest deficit spending spree in the history of our country and the largest ever increase in the National Debt and the country still has to live through two more of Bush's Budgets, one ending fiscal 9/30/08 and 9/30/09.  The CBO has already projected the 08 deficit at over $260 Billion and the 09 at over $400 billion.  That's over $600billion more to add to the National Debt.

 

Bush has continued the reckless spending of the Reagan-Bush years in office and is designed to bankrupt the federal government so social security, medicare and other federal programs that have helped the people have to shut down.  They want to see social security made into private accounts so the wealthy financial institutions can get a hold of that money so they can pull another Enron.  The tax cuts of those three presidents was done to take the people's mind off what they were really up to.  The public has paid for those tax cuts over and over with debt and trillions of dollars in interest paid on the debt they created.  Money that could be used for other needed purposes.

 

And now we are in the midst of another recession, the second one on this president's watch.  The lack of a fiscal and economic policy has been so reckless, the nation and its people have lost all the gains it made under Clinton's administration.  The economy lost 13,000 jobs during Bush's first term in office and last month it was announced the economy lost 17,000 jobs.  Bush has asked for and received from congress a stimulus package, not the first financial aid to help the economy.  The problem is Bush seven years into his presidency still has no economic plan for a sustained economy. 

 

This is the President who had a business background we are told, but he used his experience to harm the country and its people instead of setting a higher course for the benefit of all.  The $5.6 trillion projected surpluses vanished under deficit spending on Bush's watch.  Never was any President in modern times able to take office with such a sound fiscal government and economy than Bush and he blew it big time.  The following numbers tell the whole sad story. 

  Budget Deficits or Surpluses

 

Bill Clinton's Administration

 

1994      $203.2 Billion Deficit

1995       164.0 Billion  Deficit

1996       107.4 Billion  Deficit

1997        21.9 Billion   Deficit

1998        69.3 Billion   Surplus

1999       125.6 Billion  Surplus

2000       236.0 Billion  Surplus

2001       128.0 Billion  Surplus

Total for 8 years: $62.8 Billion Surplus

 

 

George Bush Administration

 

2002      $157.8 Billion Deficit

2003        377.6 Billion Deficit

2004        412.7 Billion Deficit

2005        318.3 Billion Deficit

2006        248.2 Billion Deficit

2007        162.8 Billion Deficit

Total Deficit Spending: $1,677 Trillion

 

2008      $260.0 Billion Deficit Projected

2009        $400.0 Billion Deficit Projected

Total Deficit Spending including Projected:   $2,337 Trillion

 

 

National Debt

 

9/30/01  When Clinton Left Office:      $5,807,463 Trillion

9/30/93  When Clinton Took Office:    $4,411,488 Trillion

Total increase in National Debt:       $1,395,981 Trillion (increase: 31.6%)

 

As of 2/22/08:                                            $9,298,686 Trillion

9/30/01 When Bush Took Office          $5,807,463 Trillion

Total increase in National Debt           

with 2 more years of deficit spending 

to add:                                    $3,491,223 Trillion (increase of 60%) 

 

Spending vs. Previous Administration

 

Clinton First Term          $6,139.7 Trillion

Bush I First Term            $5,368.5 Trillion

Increase of 14%                $771.2 Billion

 

Bush II First Term          $ 8,936,5 Trillion

Clinton First Term          $6,139.7 Trillion

Increase of 46%               $2,796.8  Trillion

 

Clinton 2nd Term          $7,007.1 Trillion

Clinton 1st Term            $6,139.7 Trillion

Increase of 14%              $867.4 Billion

 

 

Public Debt

 

When Clinton Left Office               $3,319.6 Trillion

When Clinton Took Office             $3,248.4 Trillion

A increase  in Public Debt of          $71.2 Billion (increase of 2%)

 

Bush thru 2007                            $5,035.3 Trillion

When Bush Took Office             $3,319.6 Trillion

A Increase in Public Debt of      $1,715.7 Trillion (increase of 52%)

 

 

Public Debt as Percentage of GDP

 

When Clinton Left Office         33%

Bush as of 2007                          36% (two more budget years to go)

 

 

Job Creation

 

Clinton first term                     11,507,000 Million

Clinton second term               11,239,000 Million

Total Jobs Created                  22,746,000 Million

 

Bush first term                             13,000 Thousands jobs lost

Bush second term thru 2007     5,807,000 Million

 

 

Unemployment

 

The unemployment rate when Clinton took office was 7.3%.  It was 4.2% when he left office for a total decline of 3.1% during his two terms in office.  The unemployment rate declined every year on his watch and for 5 months during the year 2000 it stood at 3.9%, the lowest in over 30 years. 

 

 

The unemployment rate when Bush took office was 4.2%.  It went up to 6.3% in 2003 and stood at 4.9% in January of 2008, a total increase in unemployment of .6% as of that date.  The lowest was 4.4% in 2006.  Mr. Bush inherited the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years when he took office.

 

 

It should be noted that Bush's very first budget that ended fiscal 9/30/02 was in deficit to the tune of $157.8 Billion 6 months prior to the start of the Iraq war.  Mr. Bush had no plans to balance any budget.  The people need to think hard about this massive reversal of fiscal responsibility.  It is no wonder the conservatives hate Clinton.  He accomplished just what he said he would do with out their vote and despite their opposition. 

 

I will have a follow up to Part III in a recap and conclusions.  Stay tuned.

 

All years information are fiscal years with the exception of unemployment.

 

Notes:  The National Debt is made up of Private and Public Debt.

 

President Clinton paid down the public debt $453 Billion in his last 4 years in office.  Reagan and the  two Bush's paid down nothing in their 20 years at the helm.

 

The Reagan administration did not face any major wars, Bush I administration had the Gulf War but the coalition paid for the major part of the war.  Bush II had budget surplus coming into office and a projected $5.6 Trillion surplus. He started a war and occupation in Iraq with no plans to pay for it and  as shown his very first budget was in deficit even before the War began.  None of those three Presidents can use war as an excuse for their reckless deficit spending and debt that they have amassed on the American taxpayers. 

The Daily Dose---2/23

Nader '08?

Tomorrow morning on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader, who ran for President in 2000 and 2004, is expected to announce a bid for the Presidency this year as well.  Quite frankly, this man sickens me.  He runs year after year for nothing more than an ego trip.  When will he realize that all he does is take votes away from the Democrats, whom he is much more in line with than the Republicans?  Seriously, who would have done more to advance the causes that Nader supposedly cares about----Al Gore or George W. Bush.  We know that answer.  That brings me to the conclusion that if Nader really cared about the issues that he says he does, he would not only support the Democratic nominee, but campaign for him/her. All he does by running, is make it easier for a Republican, in this case, John McCain, to win the White House.  

Here's a great video that an "anonymous" person posted on the internet concerning a possible 2008 Nader candidacy:

Democratic Veeps

There has been a lot of buzz on the net concerning who Barack Obama might choose as his Vice-President.  Frankly, I don't want to rule out Sen. Clinton, but it does appear that Obama will be the nominee.  So, who will he choose?  Many are suggesting Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.  I like Gov. Sebelius, but she's not right to balance out the ticket. Obama needs someone with foreign policy experience first and foremost, and Sebelius does not have that right now. Many though, are adamant that Obama should choose a female running mate, to pacify the women who would be disgruntled if Sen. Clinton does not win.  I'm not saying she's the right person, but Sen. Barbara Boxer is probably the only female, besides Sen. Clinton of course, who is young enough, yet has enough foreign policy credentials to be on the Presidential ticket (Sen. Feinstein would be other, but she is too old).  The problem with Boxer is that California is going to go for Obama regardless of whether or not she is on the ticket.  My suggestion for Obama would be someone like Bill Richardson. Richardson has executive experience, unparalleled foreign policy experience, and would do a great deal to bring Latinos on to the Obama campaign.  And although I don't think Richardson is that exciting or was that great of a candidate in his own right, he might be the best choice out there for Obama.  Any other thoughts? 

The Wheels Just Keep Coming Off

John McCain, the Republican nominee vying for the Presidency, just lost another wheel on his "Straight Talk Express".  In other words another one of his many flip flops.

 

Last September, McCain refused to sign a no new tax pledge offered by the Conservative Americans for Tax Reform.  Now, McCain is saying that there would be "no new taxes" under any circumstances if he is elected President.  McCain also told ABC that he could see an argument if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, as well as giving people the ability to write off depreciation and eliminating the alternative minimum tax.

 

McCain and his party have presided over the largest deficit spending administration in our history, one recession, another recession possible, tax reductions that favored the most wealthy, and an economy that is losing jobs and yet McCain is ready to do the same again if the economy continues to deteriorate.  It is the same dose of medicine that Bush has pushed through Congress and has failed to produce a sustained economy.

 

Republicans lack a true economic policy to deal with our fiscal and economic well being.  They are still in a state of denial called "trickle down economics" and are locked in a time warp by the name of Reaganomics.  McCain's latest comments show how little he is informed on economic and fiscal issues.  This is the same McCain who said it would be okay for our troops to be in Iraq for another 100 years.  McCain used to be a maverick, in opposition to the Bush tax cuts and the failed economic policy, but now he is losing another wheel and falling in line with the failed conservative  ideology that has been proven to fail America and its people.  

Another Great Moment

I'm just starting to watch the 1st hour of the debate as I had a previous commitment which kept me from seeing the first half and this is another great, emotional moment.

A Touching Closing

When I hear people ask me why I support Sen. Hillary Clinton, I can (and usually do) give them a million and one answers.  But Sen. Clinton's closing statement at tonight's debate just about sums it all up---she cares:

MSNBC---Becoming the Next Fox News?

I have commented in the past how certain people in the main-stream media try to pass their individual opinions off as fact and distort what people say in order to push their own ideology in an attempt to influence the American people.  The nation is already well aware of the neocons at Fox News, who revel in their own schemes.

 

Now we find out, during this Presidential primary season, that MSNBC's Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman have been emulating the Fox News crew in trying to shape people's opinion concerning the candidates who are seeking their party's nomination.  It is growing more and more obvious concerning the Democratic candidates.  They have already chosen sides and stack the news with inaccurate and one-sided stories about the candidate they have decided is not worthy of their party's nomination. 

 

Many of their journalist friends, who appear on their shows as guests, just go with the flow of the host and offer nothing in the form of true journalism or an opinion of their own.  Facts and truth have escaped Mathews and Olberman.  Their time is spent wallowing in their own vomit and their chosen candidate.

 

David Shuster has been suspended because of a crude remark he made concerning a candidate's daughter, instead of living up to his responsibility as a news journalist.  Olberman had to apologize on air not to long ago for an inaccurate quote, and Mathews has had to do the same thing.  If MSNBC had any respect for the people's right to know the facts, they would order Olberman to put himself, Mathews, and Shuster on the screen next time he shows the segment dealing with the world's worse, worser, and worst.  These 3 supposed journalists have no shame.  MSNBC needs to step up to the plate and provide the American public with fair and balanced coverage of this election so that the American people can make an educated vote concerning whom our next President will be.  

Are You Kidding Me?

Whose words are America really falling in love with? Maybe Patrick

should run for President; he, at least, is original.

Isn't This A Problem?

Plagiarism? You Decide

The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best? (Part II of III: The Reagan and Bush Administrations)

  Ronald Reagan, 1981-1989

 

Ronald Reagan ran for President calling for a balance budget, fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and reduced federal spending.  He failed to initiate any of those policies and accomplished none of those goals, even though the Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate his first six years in office.

 

When Reagan left office after 8 years, he was not only the biggest spender of all Presidents before him, but he was also the record holder of deficit spending, by far.  Reagan’s pronouncements about being a fiscal conservative turned out to be nothing more than an extension of his acting profession.

 

The facts show just how reckless Reagan was with the American people's money.  He never had the courage nor character to submit one balanced budget to Congress in the 8 years he served.  No President can balance the budget and cut unnecessary spending if he does not show leadership on the subject in dealing with Congress.  The range of the deficits and increase in the national debt on Reagan’s watch was unprecedented at the time and reversed the history of all previous Presidents.

 

On Reagan’s watch the U.S. moved from being the world's largest international creditor, to the worlds largest debtor nation.  Deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry caused their collapse, resulting in a federal bail out that cost the taxpayers $100 billion Dollars.  Increase in the national debt during Reagan’s two terms was also greater than all the Presidents before him. 

 

 

 George H.W. Bush, 1989-1993

 

President George Bush was Reagan’s Vice President for 8 years.  He ran against Reagan in the primaries of 1980 and called Reagan’s economic pronouncements "voodoo economics".  Reagan’s deed in office proved Bush was right.  However, like Reagan, Bush never developed a true economic policy.  His famous pledge of “read my lips, no new taxes” was to satisfy his base.  Many believe breaking that pledge cost him reelection.  However unemployment went up during his term and he failed to address the massive deficits of Reagan, continued to add to the national debt with deficit spending and failed to balance the budget during his term in office.  His four years of deficit spending was in fact greater than any 4 year term of Reagan.

 

Job creation during Bush’s term was the weakest since Eisenhower’s last term in office 1957-1961.  Neither Reagan nor Bush had a real economic policy.  They had a tax policy for the most wealthy that depended on the theory of “trickle down economics".  Voodoo economics took center stage in both administrations.  Bush, to his credit, weakly tried to change that late in his administration, but the devastating scope of fiscal irresponsibility for 12 straight years could not save his Presidency.

 

The below numbers will show just how reckless  Reagan-Bush were with tax payers money.  Any notion of either one being fiscal conservatives is pure myth.  And if anyone thinks that the massive deficits and national debt they created were necessary to get our economy in good shape, they are living a fairytale.  President Clinton’s economic policies and results proved that.

 

                                                   

Budget Deficit or Surplus            

 

         Reagan                                                                                                    

 

1982 -----$128 Billion Deficit                                                               

1983 -----207.8 Billion Deficit                                                          

1984 -----185.4 Billion Deficit                                                          

1985 ------212.3 Billion Deficit                                                             

1986 ------221.2 Billion Deficit

1987-------149.7 Billion Deficit                                                        

1988-------155.2 Billion Deficit  

1989 -------152.5 Billion Deficit

______________________                

Totals---$ 1.412 Trillion Deficit                                                                     

 

Bush

1990---- $221 Billion Deficit

1991---- 269.2 Billion Deficit

1992---- 290.3 Billion Deficit

1993----- 255.1 Billion Deficit

______________________

Totals----$1.035 Trillion Deficit

National Debt

 

When Reagan Left Office -------$2,857,430 Trillion                  

When Reagan Took Office ----------997,855 Billion                    

_____________________________________            

Total increase of debt: $1,859,575 Trillion or 186%      

                                                                                                 

 

When Bush left Office--------- $4,411,488 Trillion

When Bush took Office ---------2,857,430 Trillion

____________________________________

Total Increase of debt: $1,554,058 Trillion or 54%

Spending vs. Previous Administration

 

Reagan  1st. Term -------$3,352.4 Trillion                                     

Carter     1st. Term--------2,232.8 Trillion                                   

______________________________                                

Increase of  $1,119.6 Trillion or 50%                          

 

Reagan 2nd. Term------$4,202.8 Trillion

Reagan 1st. Term-------3,352.4 Trillion

______________________________                       

Increase of  $849.4 Billion or 25%                                                                                                                               

 

Bush 1st. Term------$5,368.5 Trillion 

Reagan Last term ----4,202.8 Trillion  

___________________________

Increase of  $1,162.7 Trillion or 27.6%

Public Debt

 

When Reagan Left Office          1989    $2,190.7 Trillion         

When Reagan Took Office        1981            789.4 Billion           

Increase of 177% -----------------------$1,401.3 Trillion                                       

 

When Bush Left Office             1993    $3,248.4 Trillion

When Bush Took Office           1989      2,190.7 Trillion

Increase of 48%------------------------$1057.7 Billion

 

Update: original data was inaccurate, newly posted information show correct totals

Public Debt as Percentage of GDP

 

When Reagan Left  Office                   40.6%

When Bush Left Office                         49.4%

 

 

 Job Creation

 

Reagan 1st Term                               5,322,000 Million

Reagan 2nd Term                           10,780,000 Million

Total Jobs Created                        16,102,000 Million

Bush Term                                           2,592,000 Million

 

Note:  Last 3 digits shown as zero’s.

 

 

 

Unemployment

 

The unemployment rate when Reagan took office in January 1981 was 7.5%  at months end.  When Reagan left office in 1989, it stood at 5.4%, a decrease of 2.1% while he was in office.  The unemployment rate went up to 10.8% on his watch.

 

The unemployment rate when Bush took office in January 1993 was 5.4%.  When he left office 4 years later, it was 7.3%, an increase of 1.9%.  The unemployment rate went up to 7.8% during Bush’s term in office.

 

After looking at the numbers, one can tell both Reagan and Bush had no real economic policy to deal with the economy.  During their 12 straight years at the helm, the yearly deficits fluctuated back and forth with no real steady movement downward.  The same goes with the national debt.  When Part III is examined, you will find all of those negative items moved in a positive downward position consistently on President Clinton’s watch.  Stay tuned.  

Information shown taken from Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Whitehouse.gov and Treasury Department.