Are we better off yet?

[dsc]

A little comparison of Clinton and Bush:

January 1993 UNemployment rate 7.3%
September 1992 Debt $4,064,620,655,521.66
1993 Poverty rate 15.1%
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incpov93/povtab2.html
1993 median income 39700




January 2001 Unemployment rate 4.2%
September 2000 Debt $5,674,178,209,886.86
2001 poverty rate 11.7%
2001 median income 52500 the 39700 in 1993 would have bought 48130.60 in 2001 making a 4369.40 actual gain in median income
the 57500 figure from 2004 would have bought 54450.87 in 2001 yielding a 3049.13 gain in median income





July 2005 Unemployment rate 5.0%
September 2004 Debt $7,379,052,696,330.32
2003 Poverty rate 12.5%
2004 median income 57500

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income03.html (go to first link)
http://www.hud.gov/local/shared/working/localpo/xestmedinc.cfm?state=ak#us

In all cases sources are for all three years unless otherwise noted.

So where does this leave us?

In Clinton's years unemployment dropped from 7.3% to 4.2% or 3.1%. Using the usual %change = (new - old) / old all times 100 gives us 3.1/7.3 or 42.47%. Poverty dropped from 15.1% to 11.7% or 3.4% which is a 3.4/15.1 or 22.52% drop. The debt increased by 1,609,557,554,365.2 or 39.60%. Median income increased by 4369.40 in 2001 dollars. The averages over the 8 years. Unemployment dropped by 5.31% a year, poverty by 2.82% a year, the debt went up by 4.95% a year. Income increased by 546.18 a year.

Conversely during Bush's years, unemployment increased from 4.2% to 5% in four years. % increase 19.01. Poverty increased from 11.7% to 12.5% % increase 6.84. The debt increased by 1,704,874,486,443.46 or 30.01%. Median income increased by 3049.13 in 2001 dollars. Unemployment increased by 4.75% a year, poverty by 2.28% a year, the debt by 7.75% a year. Median income increased by 1016.38 a year.

Only in inflation adjusted median income does Bush beat Clinton, and I think that stat is suspect due to inflation being officially lower than it really is. I also don't know how good HUD estimates of median income actually are. In every other measure Clinton womps all over Bush. Unemployment and poverty decreased markedly under Clinton and increased markedly under Bush. The debt increased much more slowly under Clinton than it has under Bush (and was actually going down at the end of Clinton's term.). In short, in just under three years Bush has succeeded in partially undoing what Clinton did.

Clinton made our lives better while Bush made them worse. That is what our message should be in 2008.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Yeah but you forget that 2% of the population is doing unusually

well.... so that makes up for those other annoying FACTS that you have presented..... not.

[dsc]

2. In all fairness that shouldn't affect the median income by that much

so that part of the stats actually does favor Bush, though I have pointed out why I think that is inaccurate.

[wli]

3. nope, Bushler's wrecked the economy

His domestic agenda strongly resembles IMF austerity measures, actually. It smells pretty bad.

[dsc]

4. kick

[dsc]

5. kick

[dsc]

6. kick

[dsc]

7. kick