Bush v. Clinton (aka, "how to make SFreak's head explode")

[FUCK THE POLICE]

-8 Years of Clinton/Gore = approx. 22 Million Net New Jobs

-9 Years of Bush41/Bush43 = approx. 8 Million Net New Jobs

It's worth noting that that big jump there started before Clinton was in office. Clinton may have extended it, but I surely doubt that just the news of him getting elected made the world produce enough to end a recession. Also, the 2000 recession was too little into Bush's term to even be considered his fault - he hadn't done basically anything, and anyway, it takes years and years for adjustments to the economy to even start showing the effects.

By this token it's also interesting to note that "Bush 43's" depression was probably caused by Reagan's time in office. And that the Clinton climb can be, at least in the early years, attributed to Bush 43's policies (which included raising taxes, I know, I know.)

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Shit, Republicans do have bad luck, don't they? I mean, they get elected and even before they've done anything the economy goes into a downturn. Look at 1994 up there .

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Ah, but there's NAFTA up there in Clinton's term, helping Mexicans steal all our jobs! You can see it up in the graph, can't you Cypress?

 

[uscitizen]

And who started and pretty much commited our contry to NAFTA ?

 

[Cypress]

Ah, but there's NAFTA up there in Clinton's term, helping Mexicans steal all our jobs! You can see it up in the graph, can't you Cypress?

One problem with that theory.

We still have NAFTA in this era of the mediocre Bush economy.

Until 2007, we still had the same republican congress we had in the 1990s.


The only component that is missing is Clinton, the clinton economic team, and the clinton economic policies.


Hmmmm.....commence with the "But, Clinton just got lucky!" excuses.

 

[uscitizen]

My theory on why the clinton years were so good to the average american is that the republican led congress was more interested in getting Clinton than us.