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.

 JB> The debt went up every single year under The Clinton:

 I said the deficit and the debt load decreased under Clinton. I
 find govt accounting interesting, in that Bush's budget figures
 show the deficit wiped out under Clinton, yet the debt
 increasing.

 JB> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histd
 JB> ebt_histo4.h tm

 JB> 09/30/2006  8,506,973,899,215.23
 ...
 JB> 09/30/1991  3,665,303,351,697.03

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

 JB> Don't let this stop your rant.

 My statement was correct, and on target. You shifted the
 discussion. The debt went up under every president as far back
 as I care to look. The debt load went down under every president
 after WW2 except Reagan and Bush II.

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

BK>> So are foreclosures.

 JB> But ownership is still higher.

 Which means very little to the well being of the country when
 people are losing their homes, and have little equity. With the
 housing market bubble burst we may be in more trouble than if
 they were renting. The great hope is the housing price increase
 resumes.

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

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

 Which they would rather is not the question. Which builds more
 wealth is relevant, but not determined when the rest of the
 economy is so shaky.

 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.

 JB> Not by nearly as high of a percentage.  Interest rates are

 I'd have given you a (sic) there but you haven't played that
 game, yet, unlike so many on the right.

 JB> lower longer under Bush than the Clinton and we are at war.

 Interest rates have been lower because the Fed kept them lower,
 because the economy was performing so miserably. Which is not a
 great accomplishment by Bush. His failure more accurately.

 And Bush is the first president ever to focus on tax cuts while
 at war. Which is why the deficit and the debt and the debt load
 are exploding. Bush is taking this country from a military
 quagmire to an economic quagmire, and the right can't see what
 is obvious to anyone who looks beyond the next election.

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.

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

 The numbers I used were by quarters. Bush took office in the
 first quarter of 2001. We now have the figures for the first
 quarter of 2007. I used the equivalent figures for Clinton for
 comparison. The employment figures vary by quarter, and the
 numbers I used were not seasonally adjusted. By using the same
 quarter you effectively adjust them.

 JB> I show a net gain of 14 million for The Clinton and 10.6
 JB> million for Bush.

 If you use the last quarter figures from the 6th years, you get
 15 mill for Clinton.

 Whichever way you figure it, there were more jobs created under
 Clinton than under Bush. Considered in light of the fact that
 population also increased, we needed more jobs created than were
 created under Bush.

 JB> Of course we should consider 9/11 and a
 JB> recession that Bush inherited from The Clinton.

 We should consider the recession Clinton inherited from Bush I.
 A recession would have given Bush a head start on job creation
 as a recovery would have meant more jobs created. 9-11 cost this
 country remarkably little in real world economy. Rebuilding
 after 9-11 would create many jobs. If Bush had jumped to
 actually do something. Instead he focused on cutting taxes,
 while at war. His mistake.

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>>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>>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>>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>>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.

 JB> You ignored both of these.

 I didn't ignore them, I forgot them. I'll extract them to
 another msg.

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.

 JB> Today's headline.

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

 Thanks for the laugh, I needed it. Did you read this article or
 did you think I wouldn't? Had you read it more carefully you
 probably would not have used it for your source.

 They don't contradict one thing I said. What they did say is the
 rate of increase of spending went down, and the rate of increase
 of revenue went up. IOW, if it was 5%/yr this time last year,
 and the rate of increase went up 10%, then it's 5.5% this year.

 It said this year's deficit went down from last year, but also
 that the defict was zero from 1998 until Bush took over. It also
 said both revenue and *SPENDING* were at record highs.

 I went to the link in the article. It was a treasury report with
 the current figures, but not compared to the previous
 administration or inflation adjusted. IOW, it may mean
 something, but the comparison would take a fair bit of work I
 don't want to do to make your point.

 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.

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

 I won't believe it because nothing you have said so far makes
 Bush look good, and it's your point so you support it.

 BTW, which average American? And don't forget to give the total
 tax burden, to allow for the tax burden shifted from federal to
 local and state.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Senators are chosen as committee chairmen on the basis of senility.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a