There are many lies in the numbers and how you use them, some alluded to above.
What is the definition of "job?" It could be a part-time minimum wage no-benefits job and isn't that just wonderful (for Walmart and McD's). It could be a very good but temporary job, like a 9-month construction job repairing a bridge using money from some pork barrel legislation; by the time the election is over, that job is over, too, and the it's time to start campaigning again: "Elect me and I'll create jobs!" How many of those jobs are solid, sustainable, full-time permanent jobs that will revive and enlarge the middle class? No matter how you slice and dice it, I'd say a small fraction of those multimillion-sized statistics. Now, if President B pushes thru legislation but it takes a while for the economic impact to be felt (more jobs), who gets the credit? The jobs were filled / created under Pres C, not Pres B. And Pres B reaped some benefits (or deficits) from the policies of his predecessor Pres A. Some of this is as shallow as Wall Street being driven by quarterly reports, nothing for the long term. Move the stock price up a bit, take your golden parachute and leave the mess for the next guy. Pass (or block) some piece of legislation so the labor stats will look good on the next report and ignore the fact that the loss of 100,000 good jobs with benefits and the gain of 125,000 part time no-benefits crappy jobs isn't really a plus for the American people (especially not for the 100,000 who lost their jobs). To keep it real and close TER, even our beloved Providers might lie to us, but at least we feel good afterwards. The politicians? Lies, damn lies and statistics. I'm 100% certain of that. That's the truthReagan..........12.1 million
Clinton...........20.4 million
G.W. Bush........5.4 million
Obama.............8.7 million
Republicans - really great job creators, aren't they
what is unemployment rate of blacks? Hispanics? teens?
how many of these jobs are full time (40 hrs) and part-time?
and the labor participation rate is the lowest in history?
....and you really believe the consummate liar-in-chief BHO?
and with the help of BHO, the rich have become richer and the poor become poorer?
Dems running for Prez deplore the income inequality gap.....when they have had BHO for 7 yrs?
Reagan did well on the jobs creation metric largely in part because he inherited an economy with double digit unemployment, Obama supposedly inherited an even worse economy and not only has produced a lot of part time jobs that are being counted as "real" jobs, but his job creation numbers are much lower than those of Reagan.
Clinton was POTUS during the Dot.com boom, plus he did a damn good job at running the economy despite laying the framework for the housing bubble which ultimately burst under Bush, but let's give credit where credit is due. Clinton did a good fucking job. As for Bush, well part of his dismal numbers are due to the bubble bursting under his watch and a lot of it has to do with him just not doing as good a job as either Clinton or Reagan before him.
So on balance I would give both Reagan and Clinton quite high marks for job creation under their respective watches, and I would give both Bush and Obama failing marks.
I didn't know that Reagan became President in 1983! I guess, we can also thank Jimmy Carter for cutting taxes on the rich!
Talking about inheriting shitty economies, Carter inherited an economy facing stagflation, and this was due primarily to paying off the Vietnam war. But all in all, high interest rates dried up the debt bubble, and the economy improved. Carter had better unemployment rates than Reagan. Then, of course, Reagan fucked the country 6 ways from Sunday by giving the rich a 50% tax cut, and we've had a national debt measured in the trillions ever since. The only economic growth we ever saw under Reagan was fueled by a debt bubble, which resulted in the stock market crash of 1987. Alan Greenspan saved Reagan's ass by pumping a ton of liquidity in the market, but ultimately, Reagan's idiotic economic policies fucked over George H.W. Bush, leading the the early 90's recession that ultimately won Clinton the White House. Clinton raised taxes on the rich, which boosted the economy, but mostly Clinton got lucky in the dot com boom. Clinton is partly responsible for the housing bubble (Phil "Americans are economic whiners" Gram gets the title for being most responsible for it since he wrote the damn bill), and Dubya fucked things up by stupidly cutting taxes on the rich again, and not doing anything about the housing bubble before it was too late. If he'd put Glass Steagal back into place in 2002, then the Great Recession never would have happened. Obama's problem is that his hands have been tied for the later 6 years of his Presidency. Obama did fail to do enough to boost the economy when he had the power to do so in his first 2 years in office, but he was too busy trying to placate Republicans to make that happen. Lots of good it's done him, he's signed what? 6 bills into law since becoming President? The only thing that saved the US economy after the Great Recession was the Federal Reserve. The Fed and the Fed alone has produced whatever economic growth we've seen since 2010.
So when it comes to the economy, I'd rank the last few Presidents thusly:
1. Jimmy Carter - the best out of the rest.
2. Bill Clinton - had the sense to raise taxes, but was mostly lucky
3. Obama - missed a golden opportunity by trying to play nice with Republicans.
4. George H.W. Bush - was mostly unlucky.
5. Dubya - a fucking idiot who nearly destroyed the country.
6. Reagan - So bad that he was worse than Dubya!
-- Modified on 11/10/2015 9:22:34 AM
inflation was out of control in 1980 so interest rates were jacked up to kill that which impacted employment...that being said Reagan got a lot of help on the jobs front from the deficits that were run up...hard to find many people that thought Carter was good just because of the inflation that was occurring and his seemingly lack of action on that as well as hostages, agree on Bush I, but would also say Clinton benefited from the dot com bubble..if his term had ended in 2002 vs 2000 I think the conclusion on him would be different
and if you will recall, your idiotic statements mainly regarding the economy were the inspiration for the very first SPOTY.
Virtually everything you said is wrong and I just don't have the energy to correct you on so many points.
There are many lies in the numbers and how you use them, some alluded to above.
What is the definition of "job?" It could be a part-time minimum wage no-benefits job and isn't that just wonderful (for Walmart and McD's). It could be a very good but temporary job, like a 9-month construction job repairing a bridge using money from some pork barrel legislation; by the time the election is over, that job is over, too, and the it's time to start campaigning again: "Elect me and I'll create jobs!"
How many of those jobs are solid, sustainable, full-time permanent jobs that will revive and enlarge the middle class? No matter how you slice and dice it, I'd say a small fraction of those multimillion-sized statistics.
Now, if President B pushes thru legislation but it takes a while for the economic impact to be felt (more jobs), who gets the credit? The jobs were filled / created under Pres C, not Pres B. And Pres B reaped some benefits (or deficits) from the policies of his predecessor Pres A.
Some of this is as shallow as Wall Street being driven by quarterly reports, nothing for the long term. Move the stock price up a bit, take your golden parachute and leave the mess for the next guy. Pass (or block) some piece of legislation so the labor stats will look good on the next report and ignore the fact that the loss of 100,000 good jobs with benefits and the gain of 125,000 part time no-benefits crappy jobs isn't really a plus for the American people (especially not for the 100,000 who lost their jobs).
To keep it real and close TER, even our beloved Providers might lie to us, but at least we feel good afterwards. The politicians? Lies, damn lies and statistics.
I'm 100% certain of that. That's the truth