Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The bad arithmetic of Bill Clinton’s Democrat-Republican ‘job score’
AEI ^ | September 6, 2012 | James Pethokoukis

Posted on 09/06/2012 8:29:59 AM PDT by lasereye

Math is hard. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Here’s one of the more memorable lines from his Democratic National Convention address: “What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic.”

But Clinton’s speech last night really didn’t add up. Take this Clinton claim:

Well, since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private- sector jobs. So what’s the job score? Republicans: twenty-four million. Democrats: forty-two.

Why would we analyze the effectiveness of economic approaches by using party labels rather than looking at the actual policies? For instance, about 10 million net new private jobs were created during the Nixon-Ford years vs 21 million under Clinton.

But which administration generally followed conservative policies of shrinking government (spending fell to 18% of GDP under Clinton from 21%), welfare reform, and cutting taxes on capital … and which administration expanded government (spending rose to 21% of GDP under Nixon-Ford from 19%), increased regulation (the pages in the Federal Register by grew by 185% under Nixon and Ford vs. 7% under Clinton) and presided over a confiscatory tax code?

And was JFK or George H. W. Bush the more conservative president? The former cut taxes — even for the richest Americans — while the other raised them.

If you look at job growth under right-of-center economic policies (putting Clinton and JFK in this category) vs. left-of-center economic policies (swapping in Nixon, Ford, and Bush I), the “job score” looks a lot different.

Conservative economic policies win 40 million jobs to 26 million jobs


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: better; carter; clinton; democrats; economy; fail; jobs; republicans
The thing about Bush I is not just that he increased taxes. There were huge new regulations during his administration that were largely Democrat ideas. Characterizing Bush I's economic policies as in any way Republican is absurd.
1 posted on 09/06/2012 8:30:06 AM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lasereye

This is a very very big ship and it takes years to turn it and our expectation that we can change direction in months is unrealistic. Any major shifts in the economy/society is going to be the result of the previous years or even decades of activity. This makes it really difficult to “tag” anyone one person or group with the responsibly for the result. We cannot lay the result solely at the foot of the president as congress plays an equally “responsible” role.


2 posted on 09/06/2012 8:43:53 AM PDT by vet7279
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

The Democrat zombies will not care. I saw their faces in rapt adoration on just about all the speakers there.


3 posted on 09/06/2012 8:50:24 AM PDT by SkyDancer ("OF COURSE I TALK TO MYSELF - Sometimes I need an expert opinion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

If anything, Barry is the anti-Clinton:
Clinton signed DOMA/Barry trying to repeal
Clinton signed welfare reform/Barry repeals work rules
Clinton signed DADT/ Barry repeals Don’tAsk/Don’tTell
Clinton signed capital gains tax cut,Barry raises them...
under Slick Willy what was the spending vs GDP? and what is it under Barry Soetero?

President Carter= President Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEOgOmNmH-E&feature=player_embedded


4 posted on 09/06/2012 8:56:16 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

Exactly. And the zombies there ate it up.


5 posted on 09/06/2012 8:57:32 AM PDT by SkyDancer ("OF COURSE I TALK TO MYSELF - Sometimes I need an expert opinion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

You got to remember who your audience is. The democrat morons in this crowd can’t add. Many can’t read. It’s the perfect crowd to pull the wool over their heads.


6 posted on 09/06/2012 9:04:48 AM PDT by spawn44 (MOO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Yes, I remember how Clinton campaigned on welfare reform, and balancing the budget, and against socialized medicine. He worked so hard to make sure welfare recipiants had to actually find a job after a few years. He worked diligently to persuade the American people to reject government-run healthcare. He worked his butt off to bring down government spending in the face of a hostile Republican congress just aching to expand federal spending on social government programs. sarc/


7 posted on 09/06/2012 9:05:48 AM PDT by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

8 posted on 09/06/2012 9:06:10 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: spawn44

Yeppers, exactly!


9 posted on 09/06/2012 9:06:41 AM PDT by SkyDancer ("OF COURSE I TALK TO MYSELF - Sometimes I need an expert opinion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Clinton learned arithmetic in 1994. He counted the members of congress and there were more republicans than there were democrats. His reponse was “The era of big government is over.” Sad that he was lying again.


10 posted on 09/06/2012 9:07:58 AM PDT by Terry Mross (2016 THE MOVIE....scarier than any zombie movie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost

photoshopped?


11 posted on 09/06/2012 9:11:19 AM PDT by J. Worthington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: J. Worthington

Yes!


12 posted on 09/06/2012 9:16:09 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

A better measure than using just raw actual numbers would be the percentage that the economy expanded (or contracted)under each administration. Clinton may have created more acutal jobs than Reagan but Reagan expanded the economy more than Clinton.


13 posted on 09/06/2012 9:23:55 AM PDT by ReaganÜberAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Clinton's ability to present such information with such a determined look-you-in-the-eye manner, complete with the familiar index finger pointing should be proof enough to the Romney-Ryan ticket that the "numbers" game can be played both ways, and the "issues" of "the economy" and "jobs" should be replaced with a principles-based theme focused on liberty versus tyranny.

In 1776, America's Founders never would have been successful had they gone about arguing about mere issues related to King George's policies.

Instead, they went right to the jugular: King George's assumption of coercive power over their lives robbed them of their Creator-endowed rights and liberties to the "pursuit of happiness."

Their passion was for liberty, not "jobs." Their study of the history of civilization caused them to understand that, in the words of Geroge Washington, government is like "fire," and must be contained and restrained, else it destroys.

If Romney/Ryan can expand on their acknowledgement that life, rights, liberty and law come from the Creator, not government, and that it is that unique idea underlying our freedom, then their message will take on a new meaning.

Keep on focusing on "jobs," and "the economy," and artful politicians like Clinton will use statistics to rebut and confuse the electorate.

Focus on the significance of the Founders' listing of grievances and message to King George contained in their Declaration of Independence from his oppressive regulatory and taxing burdens, and citizens may get a glimpse of what it means to be "an American."

Thomas Jefferson's "First Inaugural" outlined what he described as the "essential principles" and then proceeded to advise future citizens what to do if the nation ever "strayed from" those essential ideas of liberty. A portion of that address is included among the following quotations from others:

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court even can do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

"If I have learned anything from the reading of history, it is that the man who, in violation of great principles, toils for temporary fame, purchases for himself either total oblivion or eternal infamy, while he who temporarily goes down battling for right principles always deserves, and generally secures, the gratitude of succeeding ages, and will carry with him the sustaining solace of a clean conscience, more precious than all the offices and honors in the gift of man." - Sen. Zacharias Montgomery

After Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural, had enumerated the principles which would guide his Administration in his First Inaugural, he added:

"These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

So-called "progressives" of the 20th and 21st Centuries, in their arrogance, have removed (censored) the Founders' ideas of liberty from America's textbooks, but technology has outstripped their efforts. Every American school child and adult now has potential access to almost every word the Founders spoke and wrote, and their ideas are being rediscovered and circulated in a manner unheard of even 10 years ago, as if by the hand of Divine Providence. How else can one account for the events of 2010?

Enduring principles, according to the Founders were just that--enduring and "self-evident."

The sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power - Alexander Hamilton

"Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness, as you confess those invaded by the Stamp Act to be. We claim them from a higher source - from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us, exist with us, and cannot be taken from us by any human power, without taking our lives. In short, they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice." - John Dickinson (Signer of the Constitution of the U. S., as quoted in "Our Ageless Constitution," p. 286)

When Americans in 2012 understand this is their inheritance, and when they "throw off" the bondage of dependency on imperfect, but powerful, people in government, then "the economy" and "jobs" will take care of themselves as the result of a great burst of freedom of individual enterprise.

14 posted on 09/06/2012 9:30:50 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost

A marvelous good job of shopping.


15 posted on 09/06/2012 9:34:33 AM PDT by toolman1401
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: toolman1401

Thank you.


16 posted on 09/06/2012 9:35:34 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: spawn44

17 posted on 09/06/2012 9:35:46 AM PDT by thingumbob (I'm a bitter clinger...I dare you to take my gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: toolman1401
Here's another:


18 posted on 09/06/2012 9:37:46 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: toolman1401

19 posted on 09/06/2012 10:07:11 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

Please stop SPAMMING threads with this stuff.


20 posted on 09/06/2012 11:24:57 AM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

I would rather credit a Congress than a President. The Clinton economy was a dud until Gingrich and Dole/Lott controlled both houses. G.W.Bush’s economy was doing fine until Pelosi and Reid took over.

To prove that numbers never lie, I could make a case that Pelosi/Reid caused the recession. They increased the minimum wage in May 2007 and the recession began in December. Don’t poke holes in my argument; it is as plausible as Clinton’s is.


21 posted on 09/06/2012 11:49:28 AM PDT by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson