Two pictures worth thousands of words. (click to follow link and see the graphs)
Slightly edited excerpts from two comments to that post:
—————————————————————————
Clinton (January 1993 – December 2000)
Mean: 5.2
Median: 5.2
Mode: 5.6Bush (January 2001 – December 2008)
Mean: 5.3
Median: 5.3
Mode: 5Obama (January 2009 – August 2010)
Mean: 9.4
Median: 9.6
Mode: 9.7
—————————————————————————
This is why I think.. shouldn’t most people be shaking their heads when they hear ‘failed policies of the last 8 years’ .. or ‘we dont want to go back to the Bush years’
Because.. I gotta tell ya.. I made a lot of money during Clinton and Bush years.
During Obama.. I am broke.
I would LOVE to go back to the Bush years…
—————————————————————————
UPDATE: The original post to which I linked above is no longer available. I was, however, able to obtain one of the two pictures contained therein, and can now post it here:
Keep an eye out for possible updates to the graph here:
http://polination.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/unemployment-rates-clinton-bush-obama/
———————————————————————————————-
UPDATE: See updated graphs here: Liars and Spend-aholics
September 10, 2010 at 2:50 pm
I always say the same thing, the Clinton and Bush years were good for my family financially. Very helpful post to prove my point, thanks!
September 11, 2010 at 7:51 am
Let’s not get too hasty to compare unemployment numbers by presidential terms. Though the President is often credited/blamed for economic activity, the real force within the government able to impact the economy to the greatest extent and in the most direct way is the part that makes and promulgates laws and regulations, Congress.
Aside from being the ultimate boss of most industry regulatory entities (i.e. the EPA, OSHA, FAA, etc…) within the US, the President really wields limited power over the economy. He can do some things like authorize government loans for construction of new power stations or make the EPA promulgate new regulations regarding CO2, but only in certain narrow lanes can those have serious economic implications. (i.e. the latter example) For the most part, economic talk by any sitting president is little more than blown gas.
It would be more telling to look at who dominated Congress during those time periods, since Congress is the entity that writes the laws of the land. The most desirable thing for all economic engines, large and small, is a stable and predictable working environment. Without that, you can forget about any real or substantial economic growth.
Potential issues that are really holding back the US economy from growing and recovering right now are the unknowns surrounding the government healthcare take-over, the looming possibility of the Cap & Trade bill becoming law, and the upcoming expiration of the “Bush” tax-cuts.
The health factor has to do with the impacts that have arisen from the Law of Unintended Consequences: the fact that health costs are actually rising FASTER under the new law than they were before the passing of it. Worse, as much of the law’s language is not clear, our common law system will be determining the impact of much of this law for years to come. Every conservative turn to a liberal near you and say, “I told you so!” They deserve to hear it.
The C&T factor is tied directly to the democrats’ plans to force through said legislation AND Obama’s back-up plan to use the EPA’s authority to regulate CO2 emisions if the bill dies in Congress.
The most immediate factor is the Tax factor which is tied directly to the pending termination of the “Bush” tax cuts. That looming expiration will directly affect small business and the majority are bracing for the expiration by stashing money instead of investing it. I don’t think their expiration will cause another down-turn, but I do think it will continue the current trend of no expansion, no hiring, little new activity for a significant amount of time as every small business (and some medium-sized ones as well) will be adjusting to the impact that those tax hikes will have.
September 12, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Aaron,
It’s interesting that you left that comment, because I’m actually thinking the same way… here’s a comment I left for the author of that Hillbuzz post:
September 12, 2010 at 1:54 pm
This doesn’t cover as large a time period, but it’s still quite illuminating…
Unemployment Rates: Republican Majority vs. Democrat Majority
September 12, 2010 at 2:19 pm
More graphs that are different from what I’m asking Chrissy for, but illuminating nonetheless:
Unemployment charts: A perspective
Unexpected unemployment chart of the day
November 5, 2010 at 6:50 pm
The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007. After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.[55] From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people became unemployed.[56] And, in January 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than 15 years [57].-Wikipedia (and I didnt change it before I posted this). Obama was sworn in on January 20th 2009. Its unfortunate that Obama inherited such a poor economy, but what is more unfortunate is the fact that Clinton left Bush such a great economy. Check out the deficit and GDP info on this Wiki page and it will make more sense (there are even graphs with colors!!)
November 5, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Perhaps you’ve heard of the “Dot Com Bust” and “9/11″. Those two factors would have sent unemployment up to current 2010 rates (double digits) if not for the Bush tax cuts.
So, the policies of a Republican President and Republican Congress led to an improving economy and an unemployment rate of 4.4%… until the impact of the new Democratic Congress started sending unemployment rates higher again.
November 7, 2010 at 2:44 am
It seems as though you may have overlooked some of the facts here. For instance the Democratic President and Democratic congress actually left the unemployment rate at 4.2% in January 2001 (isnt that the same month Bush was inaugurated?) as stated above. And, although it reached a nice low of 4.4% in March 2007, the replublican congress and Republican President left it at 7.6% in January 2009. So you are correct in saying the Democratic congress raised it up to the 9% it is now, but it seems to me a 2% increase is much better than the 4% increase experienced by the Bush administration.
Perhaps youve heard of policy lag… Any economist or community college student knows that economic policy lags can cause a bit of a misrepresentation in economic growth or lack thereof. An impact lag (the time it takes for a policy to reach producers and consumers following implementation) is about 1-2 years. Here is a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet, it may paint a better picture of the unemployment rate.
I am not disputing the fact that 9/11 and the “Dot com bust” didnt hurt the economy but there was much more to blame. Historically Republicans have used war to boost the economy. War creates jobs which stimulates the economy. Now I am not saying that the war was completely unnecessary and that is not what we are here to talk about. From the Washington Post-There is no question that the Iraq war added substantially to the federal debt. This was the first time in American history that the government cut taxes as it went to war. The result: a war completely funded by borrowing. U.S. debt soared from $6.4 trillion in March 2003 to $10 trillion in 2008 (before the financial crisis); at least a quarter of that increase is directly attributable to the war. And that doesn’t include future health care and disability payments for veterans, which will add another half-trillion dollars to the debt.
As a result of two costly wars funded by debt, our fiscal house was in dismal shape even before the financial crisis — and those fiscal woes compounded the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html.
November 7, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Wrong.
It seems as though you may have overlooked some of the facts here. While the media had you and many of your peers convinced that the Congress was in Republican hands until January 2009, that is not the truth.
The truth is that the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress in January 2007. It was the Democratic Congress that increased both deficits and unemployment from January 2007 onward. And that Democratic Congress included Barack Hussein Obama, who happily participated in the increased deficits and unemployment that he later acted like he “inherited” from someone else.
Oh, and you’re also wrong about “Democratic congress actually left the unemployment rate at 4.2% in January 2001″. That was a Republican Congress, not a Democratic one.
You really should educate yourself a little better before you comment here again.
Control of the U.S. Senate
Control of the U.S. House of Representatives
The Congress passes the budget, so the Congress really has more control over the budget than the President.
You’re giving Democrats credit that is due to the Republicans, and you’re blaming the Republicans where the blame belongs with the Democrats.
But you’re not alone… you are about as ill-informed as the typical Obama voter…
November 8, 2010 at 9:30 am
Oh, and while you’re blaming Bush…
Realize that Obama voted in favor of TARP, and the only reason Bush requested the second half of the $700 Billion is because Obama asked Bush to do it!
Obama asked Bush to do it, Bush did it because he thought it would help Obama, and then Obama turned around and criticized Bush for that debt! Talk about “irresponsible”!
Obama played a very significant role in creating a significant portion of the debt Obama claims he “inherited”. Bush got all the blame, Obama got $350 Billion to spend as he wished, without oversight, thanks to the TARP bill Obama supported and thanks to Bush being a nice guy who tried to help Obama when Obama asked for help.
I have said for years that Bush’s biggest mistakes were due to his trusting people who should not be trusted. Bush was wrong to trust Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Bush was wrong to trust Barack Obama.
November 8, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Look at the unemployment data from the last 20 years (start here and adjust time period to look at 1991-2010).
You will find that when the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, the average unemployment rate was 5.0, and when the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, the average unemployment rate was 7.0.
November 8, 2010 at 2:23 pm
The average unemployment rate during the time that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives during the Clinton and Bush 43 years was 5.0.
The average unemployment rate during the time that the Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives during the Bush 43 and Obama years has been 7.3.
—-
When Republicans took control of the House in January 1995, the unemployment rate was 5.6 percent. The last month that Republicans had control of the House in December 2006, the unemployment rate had dropped to 4.4 percent.
After nearly 4 years of the Democrats being in control of the House, the current unemployment rate has increased to 9.6+ percent.
In other words…
The Democrats have more than doubled the unemployment rate.
And things will only get worse if Obama and the other Democrats insist on tax increases for anyone now.
November 11, 2010 at 1:52 am
Ha! I can see we are done here. It is obvious you are not one to take a light hearted debate. Did you delete the post from Crissy? I also enjoy the fact that you call me uneducated when you have nothing to say about the policy lags mentioned in my last post which were, again, something I learned in a community college, paid for by both Bush and Obama. You are basing your political agenda on your personal vendetta which will get you the same place it got your beloved president Bush, nowhere. It is funny that you question my resources when my citations were from entities such as The Washington Post and the even more liberal U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (obviously sarcasm). First rule of college level english composition is you dont rely soley on Wikipedia for your resources. Have a great day!!!!
November 11, 2010 at 11:49 am
Ha! I can see what you did there. It is obvious you are not one to take it well when someone else points out that what you wrote is demonstrably false.
I can take a light hearted debate, can you?
Are you willing to admit that you were obviously wrong when you said:
You state as “fact” that a “Democratic congress” left the unemployment rate at 4.2% in January 2001. I pointed out to you the fact that the Congress was controlled by Republicans for the last six years of Clinton’s Presidency.
But rather than admit that you were wrong, you’d rather attack me. You claim that I am “not one to take a light hearted debate”, and you use that as an excuse to run away. We’re only “done here” if you choose to flee in cowardice and fear. Why don’t you have the courage to stay and admit that you were very wrong about who controlled Congress for the majority of Clinton’s Presidency?
And while you’re at it, why don’t you also admit that that you were very wrong about who controlled Congress at the end of George W. Bush’s Presidency? You were obviously wrong when you stated as fact:
The truth is that the Congress was controlled by the Democrats from January 2007 onward. The economy that you claim Obama “inherited” is one he himself helped to create as a member of the Democratic majority in Congress. Pesky little facts.
No. The link still works. I haven’t deleted it, and don’t know why you thought I did.
I did not call you uneducated. What I said is:
That implies that you are undereducated on this issue, not uneducated in general. And I gave you links to help you educate yourself a little better. My saying “educate yourself a little better” implies that you should improve your current education, not that you don’t have any education at all. I did not call you uneducated, although you falsely state as fact that I did: “the fact that you call me uneducated”.
It is a fact that you are undereducated on the topic of which party has controlled Congress at different times in history. And I repeat what I said about that topic before:
I agree that there are policy lags. When a new party takes control and implements changes, it takes some time before those changes are reflected in economic indicators. We agree on that.
What you seem to have failed to realize is that the economy that Bush “inherited” came from a Republican congress that had been implementing its policies for six years. And even with the “Dot Com Bust” and 9/11, the Republicans were able to contain those two crises and still leave unemployment lower for the incoming Democratic Congress in January 2007 than where unemployment had been 12 years earlier when Democrats turned control over to Republicans.
And when Democrats turn control of the House back over to Republicans in January 2011, the unemployment rate will be more than twice what it had been four short years earlier.
Yes, there are policy lags. It will take time for the changes made by the new Republican House of Representatives (if those changes are also passed by the Democratic Senate and signed by Obama) to take effect and have an impact. And if the Democratic Senate or Obama stands in the way of these changes, things will only get worse.
I have absolutely nothing against community college. You seem to think I do. And you falsely accuse both me and President Bush of basing our political agenda on a “personal vendetta”. Rather than smears, why don’t you try using facts? What facts do you present to back up your accusation/slander?
Please show me your citation that backs up your claims that:
1) The Congress was Democratic at the end of Clinton’s Presidency, and
2) The Congress was Republican at the end of George W. Bush’s Presidency
Both of those claims are false, and yes, I question what resources you used to make those claims.
If you’re going to attempt to lecture me on the rules of “college level english composition”, you may want to use correct capitalization (“English”) and spelling (“don’t”, “solely”). I don’t normally correct people on things like that in a blog comment, but your remark deserves it.
And the links I provided for graphs showing which party had Control of the Senate and House of Representatives contain easily verifiable data. Just because it happens to be on Wikipedia doesn’t automatically make it wrong. If you feel that any data on either of those two charts is incorrect, please point out the error.
But rather than accept the message and admit that you were flat wrong about which party controlled Congress, you’d rather shoot the messenger and run away.
In other words, this is you:
November 11, 2010 at 3:58 pm
And during the years of Democratic control of Congress, the video evidence shows that time and time again, Republicans were trying to keep the financial car on the road, and the Democrats drove the financial car into the ditch:
June 8, 2011 at 9:11 am
http://entertainment.webshots.com/video/3001537650056011884puvQDf
June 8, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Keep an eye out for possible updates to the graph here:
http://polination.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/unemployment-rates-clinton-bush-obama/
June 8, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Look at the unemployment data from the last 20 years
(start here and adjust time period to look at 1991-2011).
Give “credit” to the party which controlled 2 or more of the following three:
1) Presidency
2) House
3) Senate
You will find that when:
Republicans controlled 2 or 3, the average unemployment rate was 5.0.
And when:
Democrats controlled 2 or 3, the average unemployment rate was 7.3.
Over the last two decades, when Democrats have been in control, unemployment has been nearly 50% higher than when Republicans have been in control.
June 9, 2011 at 11:44 am
Weekly jobless claims “unexpectedly” rise again?
————————————
Median period of unemployment hits new high
June 13, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Payroll employment up 54,000 in May; unemployment rate edges up to 9.1%
Civilian Unemployment Rate, 1952 – 2011
Consider that budgets and spending have to be passed by both parts of the Legislative branch (House and Senate) as well as by the the Executive branch (President).
Consider which party has controlled the majority of those three parts.
Since January 2007, Democrats have held the majority.
In 2007 & 2008, Democrats controlled 2 of the 3 (House and Senate)
In 2009 & 2010, Democrats controlled all 3 (House, Senate, and Presidency)
In 2011, Democrats control 2 of the 3 (Senate and Presidency)
Obama did not “inherit” this economy. He has been involved in creating it since 2005 when he entered the Senate.
This recession started, and has continued, under DEMOCRATIC control during the last 4 and a half years. They have controlled 2 and 3 of the 3 involved parts (House, Senate, and Presidency) for that entire time.
Credit where credit is due.
June 23, 2011 at 2:18 pm
The Economy since January 2007 has been
a majority-Democrat-controlled economy!.
Obama did not “inherit” this economy…
He helped to create it, and has made it steadily worse.
Every bill and every budget must be passed by:
1) House
2) Senate
3) President (unless Congress overrides veto)
Correlation of Unemployment and controlling political party
Correlation of Discouraged Workers and controlling political party
Graphs from: Liars and Spend-aholics
June 23, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem
Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two
“Obama = Keynesian?”
June 23, 2011 at 8:59 pm
The Road to Serfdom, in Cartoons
by Friedrich A. Hayek
September 26, 2011 at 10:30 am
Ed comments on that same video…