BK>BK>> The facts speak for themselves. The economy was much better
BK>BK>> under Clinton. The deficit, and the debt load decreased under
BK>BK>> Clinton. Both skyrocketed under Bush. The economy created more

BK> JB> The debt went up under the Clinton, regardless of how the
BK> JB> books were manipulated to show the deficit being positive.

BK> The debt went up during his early years, until it was turned
BK> around. That is normal for reversing an economic trend.

BK> The Bush 2007 Budget History files shows the deficit was
BK> eliminated in Clinton's second term. If you don't believe it,
BK> blame Bush. Go to Whitehouse.gov, click on the OMB link, go to
BK> the 2007 budget, and go down to the budget history files.

The debt went up every single year under The Clinton:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.h
tm

09/30/2006  8,506,973,899,215.23 
09/30/2005  7,932,709,661,723.50 
09/30/2004  7,379,052,696,330.32 
09/30/2003  6,783,231,062,743.62 
09/30/2002  6,228,235,965,597.16 
09/30/2001  5,807,463,412,200.06 
09/30/2000  5,674,178,209,886.86 
09/30/1999  5,656,270,901,615.43 
09/30/1998  5,526,193,008,897.62 
09/30/1997  5,413,146,011,397.34 
09/30/1996  5,224,810,939,135.73 
09/29/1995  4,973,982,900,709.39 
09/30/1994  4,692,749,910,013.32 
09/30/1993  4,411,488,883,139.38 
09/30/1992  4,064,620,655,521.66 
09/30/1991  3,665,303,351,697.03 

Under The Clinton the debt went up each year and by a total of 

Don't let this stop your rant.


BK> JB> Home ownership is at an all time high under Bush.  Bush has

BK> So are foreclosures.

But ownership is still higher.  


BK> You do realize, I trust, that good economy or bad people need a
BK> place to live. Owning a home is not that much more expensive
BK> than renting. The historically low interest rates of the recent

So ask people whether they would rather rent than own.  Which builds 
more wealth ?


BK> past were a great incentive to home ownership. That and
BK> alternative financing methods, that made home ownership more
BK> doable, yet also contributed to the high rate of foreclosures.

Not by nearly as high of a percentage.  Interest rates are lower longer 
under Bush than the Clinton and we are at war.  


BK> JB> created more jobs than the CLinton but keep repeating your

BK> Uh... say what?

BK> Oh, if you count from Bush's low to Bush's high, maybe. You have
BK> to subtract the ones he lost before counting the ones created
BK> to get meaningful numbers.

BK> Every number I am going to give you below came from the Bush
BK> administration.

BK> JB> lie.  More people are working now than any time in history.

BK> There are more people in this country now than any time in
BK> history. So there needs to be more jobs just to keep the
BK> population working.

BK> The working age population grew from 214 mill to 230 mill, or a
BK> growth of 16 mill. The number employed grew from 137 mill to 145
BK> mill, or a growth of 7 mill. Less than half the number of jobs
BK> needed.  

BK> Under Clinton, for his first 7 years, the population grew from
BK> 194 mill to 207 mill. A growth of 13 mill. The number employed
BK> grew from 118 mill to 132 mill. Or a growth of 14 mill. A true
BK> decrease in unemployment, not just booting them off the list.

Your math is wrong.  Let's compare the first 6 years of Bush in job 
growth to The Clnton's first 6 years (since we don't have year 7 yet for 
Bush.

I show a net gain of 14 million for The Clinton and 10.6 million for 
Bush.  Of course we should consider 9/11 and a recession that Bush 
inherited from The Clinton.


BK> http://www.dol.gov/dol/findit.htm>

BK> Data extracted on: June 11, 2007 (11:07:18 PM)

BK> Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey


BK>Series Id:           LNU00000000Q

BK>Not Seasonally Adjusted
BK>Series title:        (Unadj) Population Level
BK>Labor force status:  Civilian noninstitutional population
BK>Type of data:        Number in thousands
BK>Age:                 16 years and over

BK>Year       Qtr1        Qtr2        Qtr3       Qtr4
BK>1993      194106      195068      195068      195621
BK>1994      196085      196522      197050      197600
BK>1995      197882      198296      198807      199352
BK>1996      199776      200280      200850      201457
BK>1997      202396      202835      203367      203936
BK>1998      204395      204905      205483      206098
BK>1999      206876      207432      208044      208660
BK>2000  (1) 211586      212242      212918      213560
BK>2001      214101      214735      215422      216112
BK>2002      216664      217204      217867      218543
BK>2003  (1) 220110      220774      221513      222276
BK>2004      222356      222973      223680      224418
BK>2005      225038      225674      226422      227196
BK>2006      227764      228433      229167      229896
BK>2007      230839

BK>1 : Data affected by changes in population controls in January 2000,
BK>January  2003, January 2004, January 2005, January 2006, and January
BK>2007.



BK>Series Id:           LNU02000000Q

BK>Not Seasonally Adjusted
BK>Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level
BK>Labor force status:  Employed
BK>Type of data:        Number in thousands
BK>Age:                 16 years and over


BK>Year        Qtr1        Qtr2        Qtr3        Qtr4
BK>1993      117675      121681      121681      121512
BK>1994      120416      122805      124257      124783
BK>1995      123294      124851      125882      125571
BK>1996      124085      126495      128084      128166
BK>1997      127132      129552      130729      130818
BK>1998      129505      131492      132279      132578
BK>1999      131759      133453      134207      134534
BK>2000  (1) 135485      137175      137289      137613
BK>2001      136638      137293      137295      136508
BK>2002      135059      136548      137389      136945
BK>2003  (1) 136374      137820      138124      138625
BK>2004      137333      139051      140189      140435
BK>2005      139180      141662      143001      143075
BK>2006      142083      144221      145332      146073
BK>2007      144692

BK>1 : Data affected by changes in population controls in January 2000,
BK>January  2003, January 2004, January 2005, January 2006, and January
BK>2007.


BK> JB>  Inflation and unemployment are lower under Bush.

You ignored both of these.


BK> JB>  Tax
BK> JB>  receipts are the highest ever (not something I am proud of

BK> According to the Bush administration's 2007 Budget History
BK> Files, tax receipts for $2025.5 bill. For 2005, last year with
BK> actual totals, $1898.3 Bill. Projected for 2007, $2018.1 Bill.
BK> Projected estimate for 2008, 2,115.5 bill. If this isn't the
BK> worst tax revenue performance of any president since WW2 it must
BK> be close.

Today's headline.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070612/federal_budget.html?.v=11


BK> JB>  but it plays to you liberals) and the tax burden on the
BK> JB>  average American is lower.

BK> Since nothing else works out for Bush, I won't believe this
BK> either.

You just won't believe it because it paints Bush in a good light.  It's 
a religion with you and your ilk.




Jeff


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10