Its solid across the Board. The revovery from the Clinton Recession has been quite strong and it has beneefitted more Americans. The Clintune economy was the dot.gone bust. It only benefited those in the computer services industry/dot.com coupled with widespread corporate fraud.

Does that take into account the 2.6 million jobs that were lost in Bush's first few years?

http://factcheck.org/article376.html

It's stil job growth, but cut the number you have in half and that's about more accurate.

Alf, the jobs lost during FY2001 can be more appropriately attributed to Clinton's economic record, not Bush's, as FY2001 was Clinton's last budget. However, 9/11 aggravated the problem even more. so, by the time FY2002 began, our economy was still dealing with the effects of a recession that had nothing to do with Bush.

However, the jobs gained since then can be credited to Bush.

Alf

9/11...you might have heard about it...cost millions of jobs.

Check the history books.

Clintune even took credit for the jobs created in 1992, even though he was not yet in office.

In you go by the household survey, there are over 7 million net new jobs created since January 2001 (per bls.gov)

It's so hillarious listening to you guys blame Clinton for the recession. You talk about history but yet you don't even remember it yourselves. Clinton was able to pull out of the Bush 1 recession just in time to lose Congress to the Republicans. Clinton could not pass his budget and had to rely on the Republicans to pass him something acceptible. When Newt Gingrich and his 90s croneys couldn't get their way, they acted like little babies and shut down the government. That was GREAT for the economy! Don't worry guys, we are now on the verge of another major recession which you will see before Dinglebush gets out of office. I smell another Black Monday myself...that'll happen after 6-7 years of trickle down.

I'm not talking about why the number of new jobs are what it is, I'm just saying what it really is. Which is more like under 3 million instead of 5.2 million due to the job loss during Bush's administration which should be accounted for if you guys want the right and accurate number.

Warrior,
"9/11...you might have heard about it...cost millions of jobs."

What are you, some kind of spokesman for Ossama or something?

The value of supply-side economics is a proven fact. It worked under Reagan, it works under Bush. Trying to pretend that our economy is not strong when it obviously is does not negate that fact.

It's sad that years down the road, people will stop and say "We had it good then. People blamed the President for so long, but really we had a great economy."

When the Wall Street Journal says that our economy is an absolute powerhouse, they mean it. That is the only MSM source that I get my economic information from, because those guys know what they're actually talking about, it's not some pinhead over at the NYT distorting facts to make the President look bad.

LIBERALS, FACE IT, WE HAVE A GREAT ECONOMY. GET OVER THE BUSH BASHING, IT DIDN'T WORK IN 2004 AND IT ISN'T WORKING NOW.

If the recession began in March of 2001 and a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth, then the downturn in the economy began in October of 2000.

In 2001, most of the jobs lost occured during the last four months of 2001, specifically after 9-11. Again, go to bls.gov.

Harry Reid even said that not one job would be created due to the 2003 tax cuts. Well, its over 5.2 million jobs.

shoelimp,

You say the value of supply-side economics is a proven fact. Please supply the evidence to support that claim.

"Well, its over 5.2 million jobs."

And counting.

Where's Tom Shipley and Barney G with their usual arguments? I guess there out helping their comrades protest.

Literally, Bush will probably go down as one of the worst, and most incompetent presidents to ever take office, and i voted for him, man the things you regret.

Even if you go back to the beginning of Bush's presidency we have created 2.5 million jobs. Quite a feat for a president who inherited a recession then had to deal with 9-11 and the Clinton corporate scandels.

RA,
"When the Wall Street Journal says that our economy is an absolute powerhouse, they mean it. That is the only MSM source that I get my economic information from, because those guys know what they're actually talking about, it's not some pinhead over at the NYT distorting facts to make the President look bad."

I read what the WSJ has to say too. But I am not inclined to consider them my single source. The economy is a very complicated thing. And more than any other viewpoint, the WSJ is the voice of big business. I don't begrudge them that, but it is but one perspective, and not always the best one for everyone concerned. I am also inclined to pay attention to what the Cato Institute says as well. On economic issues they are also pretty straight shooters, IMO.

Matt, I have some analysts on television say that this may be the strongest economy this country has ever had. That is why it is so important for the tax cuts to be made permanent to continue the growth. This economy is not like the 1990's bubble, that was built on speculation and corporations playing with their books. Thanks to President Bush's corporate reform, investors can have more confidence in the earnings figures each quarter. According to the dems, the job growth was merely the result of McDonalds hiring 5 million more employees since 2003. Well if this were the case, I should have invested in McDonalds, if they were having that much wild growth.

"Again, go to bls.gov"

I did, and Im glad unemployment is down.
However, unemployment is still higher than it was when Clinton was prez (3.9%), as you can see on that very website:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

Which means that Bush still hasn't added enough jobs to make up for population growth and the jobs that he's lost. And if 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch, you'd all still blame him for the lost jobs. Then Kenneth Star would file 3,000 counts of criminally negligent homicide against him.

I think you all owe the liberals a gloat.

"Bush's Tax Cuts Fuel The Great American Jobs Machine"

Funny you should use "fuel" in your headline. I looked out my window and noticed the corner gas station was selling unleaded regular at $274.9

Wonderful economy IMO.

It's sad that years down the road, people will stop and say "We had it good then. People blamed the President for so long, but really we had a great economy."

Yes, RepAff, I am one who misses Mr. Clinton. What a wonderful time.

Ash,
Are you now prepared to give me one thing that your boyfriend Clinton did to improve the economy? Just one thing, you know like Bush's tax cuts, something like that.
Waiting ...

Let me make this easy for you; Clinton did not submit a single balanced budget in his entire term.

The Congress (House of Representatives) balanced the budget and sent it back to Clinton. Remember the 2005 “shutdown” caused by the Clinton deficits that the House refused to accept?

Face it people, Republicans can't stand it when poor people are happy. They are the only people who think life is miserable when everyone has money, unemployment is at record lows, and crime is down.

Bane, go read a history book...you are a moron and shouldn't be posting on economic issues, period. Clinton ran budget surpluses at least 3 years because his economic policy worked better than expected. He took people off of welfare and put them to work. The Republicans refused to allow his budgets to pass because he wanted to provide health care to all Americans, just like every other developed country in the world. Why you ask? Well, off the cuff, one Republican you may have heard of, Bob Dole, told Clinton he could not let that pass because it would destroy his party, even though Dole himself thought it was a good idea.

Aside from that, Clinton refused the Republican budgets because...hmmm, they wanted to cut education, funding for TERRORISM prevention, and prevent adding money to social security. The Republicans love to start wars but cut veterans pay. They love to push the elderly aside and make their overall costs for meds go up, while pushing rhetoric that sounds good but does nothing but screw people. They make it harder for people to file for bancruptcy and get a fresh start. The Republicans want the elderly to die sooner so they don't have to fork out more money for them and make other people so poor with few education options, they have little choice but to join the military. Really nice people!

Oh, and nothing makes the Republicans and the rest of the NRA beneficiaries happier than when people have the right to carry machine guns around...what animals do you need a machine gun to hunt??? People, that's what.

I dunno Boon. China?

"your boyfriend Clinton"

Don't think I'll consider discourse with ya, Boon, till you can be a little less ignorant.

I know I was doing better during the golden years.

Hey thanks Captain Ron. I am not an expert on economic policy, admit it, and stay away from making statements that I can't back up.

I can back up the fact that I and my family was better off during the Clinton years. My friends were better off. My family was better off.

And as they say the proof is in the pudding. When clinton was in office everyone was better off, now it's just the rich that are better off.

Well, Captain Ron,
You have proven that liberals will say anything and some fools like Ash will believe it.

Clinton did not submit a balanced budget; he submitted budgets with deficits throughout his and into subsequent presidencies. Here’s the proof,

First, you fiscal neophytes need to understand that a budget is static, while the debt and the deficit are dynamic. Do I need to explain the difference between the debt and the deficit? Another time, perhaps.

When Clinton sent 1998 the budget up, he used a 15 year projection of economic data because that showed the rosiest picture, why? Because it avoided the Social Security explosion which should begin to kill the economy around 2012. The simple fact is the economy didn’t perform to expectations so the debt grew faster than the Clintonistas anticipated. Servicing the debt cost much more than he budgeted and he actually ran a deficitof five billion for the fiscal year that ended in October of 1999.
The “surplus” you are all bragging about was the Social Security trust fund, and although Gore made noises about putting it in a “lock-box” which, as a Government Accountant I find hilarious, the “surplus” was used to fund the outlandish promises in the budget and eventually was used to service the debt.

We heard Clinton, in his SOTU Address, “(We) can’t touch the Social Security Trust fund, it’s not the Government’s money!” almost the very next thing out of his mouth was, “We have a three trillion dollar surplus!” Nice trick; count the same money twice.

“Clinton refused the Republican budgets ….” This is the part where you’ve really gone ‘round the bend. Clinton signed the budgets, remember Welfare reform”?

Now, I’ll ask again, since you liberal secular humanists have trouble with facts, what, exactly did Clinton do to improve the economy?

Ash,
China? Are you sure you want to bring that up. The Clinton Administration authorized the sale of classified missle technology to the Chinese government in violation of US law.
Is that what you’re talking about?

uh, no. I be talking about the *how many* billions we are in their debt no?

And we are talking about this administrations kerfluffery.

Boon,

And again I say, the proof is in the pudding. And we did much better during the Clinton "Golden Age"

And who you calling a secular humanist, el religisio nutcake?

Ash,
Trade deficits are not debt. How much do you owe to China? Try reading instead of parroting.

Your "pudding" may still be at minimum wage but the rest of the economy is booming along, maybe the best it's ever been. Here's a thought, if you're still trying to make money off of an N*Sync clothing line, you might want to update your skill sets. Something useful for the 21st Century.

The Clinton Administration got so many things wrong it is just almost a tragedy. Bill Clinton never balanced the budget. The strong Republican congress did it for him. We are now learning that Clinton gave the Iranians a blue print for a nuclear bomb. This is just an outrage. Who said Clinton was smart?