1 vote

Fact Check: Bill Clinton's 'jobs score' of parties claim rings true

Hey Everybody,

I'm kind of a forum lurker here on DailyPaul and don't post much, but was wondering if any of you could really provide an adequate explanation for Bill Clinton's accurate claim at the DNC 2012. He said that in the last 52 years, Republican presidents presided over 28 years and Democratic presidents presided over 24 years. However, Republicans produced only 24 million jobs during that period, while Democrats produced 42 million jobs.

I know that you also have to understand who controlled the majority of Congress during those terms and there were the stock/dot-com bubbles during Clinton's years, housing bubble through Bush Jr.'s years, etc. But how can I explain this to my friends? Thanks!


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


I thought that was really interesting! I understand the saying "As the federal government gets deeper and deeper in debt, society becomes less and less free," but I never really translated "becoming less free" as arrest/incarceration rates going up. What is your rationale behind the correlation between debt and incarceration? The graphs represent the math, but the website didn't explain the reason behind it.

It's a comparison between Republicans and Democrats...

which both have grown the government. Despite what Republicans claim, they have traditionally been for big government. Even Ronald Reagan only talked the talk. Government has expanded under ALL of the administrations.

For instance, one of the greatest assaults on small government came from none other than Richard Nixon - the Republican that "temporarily" took us off of the gold standard. (See this link - http://thelogicalperspective.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-does-f... - for a graph that shows how that decision lead to the ballooning federal debt)

The only significant small government measures that have been taken in the last 100 years were the lack of action taken by Harding in 1920 and the large decrease in taxation following WWII. Both had astounding results towards repairing the economy.

So, to put it bluntly, only the rhetoric between the two major parties are different. The policies are the same.



reedr3v's picture

I'd be interested to learn what % of that

growth statistic is government-employed bureaucracy vs jobs in the productive sector. Also what the pay scales are vs inflation.

under socialistic leanings

the government decides "a job for everyone" is the way to go.

that's top down, centralized, social interference.

what if resources, productivity, and freewill determine that "a job for everybody" isn't the way to go?

Let's say I'm a father, and leader of a family of 7.

In one version of society, I work my ass off, get paid more than fairly, of our own free will, my wife and I determine that the best course of action for her is to raise the children, while i'm at work. that will be her full time job. she happens to be better at raising our children then any other person. and the children help out around the house, they are involved in being educated, and both wife and I are actively involved in our children's lives. Not like today, in the world of soccer moms, karate dads and all that bullshit. The kids official entrance into the workforce is delayed heavily. I make enough money to send them to school.

What do you expect the "numbers of employed" to look like? The numbers of employed will look "low" by modern standards.

Now contrast that with: I'm a father I work my ass off. My wife works her ass off. We make low wages. We have to borrow and borrow and borrow. Government takes more of our smaller wages, and takes more from our employer, so that more teachers can be hired, because school will now last from 7AM to 4AM, and it will run through summer. Essentially, our children will be wards of the state for huge periods of time. And when they are outside of the institution, we have to pay for baby sitters, and daycare, and out of school activities like soccer, karate, music lessons, etc etc etc. And the wife works a full time job, and the rest of the time she shuttles the children from one "baby sitter" to another. Also as soon as possible, our children enter the work force. They spend time at the institution known as highschool, they leave that, and go to their jobs, where they make the state mandated minimum wage, they cram a few distractions in between, like the aforementioned swimming lessons, softball, various clubs.

But if you examine closely, the amount of money the family has, does not increase in scenario two. It is in fact the same.

You've take the same amount of money and spread it across more people. If I were to make $100,000 in scenario one, in scenario two, I make $40,000, my wife makes $35,000, the kids together $25,000.

Oh yea, sure you might see a higher nominal number for dollars earned per family, in scenario two, but it's pure baloney. LOOK AT PURCHASING POWER. In order for the state to "create jobs", it has to water down the currency. So in scenario 2, maybe the sum total of nominal figure is $150,000. WOW. That's a 50% increase!!!! Oh but wait. Prices of goods and services are DOUBLE. So in terms of tangibles, the second scenario, the family can only buy 3/4 of what the family can in scenario one. Never look at nominal dollars. Look at purchasing power.

Scenario two is the destruction of the family. Husbands and wives spend only a fraction of the time raising their children. So now the kids are less responsible, less principled, and are taught that the "others" (i.e. the state) are important, and their parents importance is diminished. This in turn leads to lower productivity, more money on jails, more money on enforcement to keep the masses from lying, cheating, stealing, as each generation gets less involved with their children, the parents suck, the kids suck, the local government sucks, the state government sucks, and the federal government acts like it can centrally manage the entire mess by decree. "There will be jobs and education for everyone, and we'll measure it to make sure it's equitable. It is better to knock down the overacheiver, to ensure that 5 underachievers meet the bare minimum according to our standardized tests"

What do you think the employment numbers will look like in scenario 2? Yea, they'll be much higher than scenario 1. But it's a race to the bottom, a race to the lowest common denominator. And to make that feasible, the federal government has to be in control of everyone, and enforce the illusion that their primary tool of control, fiat currency, is real.

...are you depressed yet? you should be.

Do you think government creates jobs,

or the Dems just got lucky and happened to be presiding over periods of growth?

Was wondering if you could elaborate on job growth in these eras

Like what historical significance (Vietnam War, dot-com bubble, housing bubble, for example) during Democratic presidencies allowed Democrats to preside over these lucky times?

Kennedy-Johnson: 12.1 million jobs added; Nixon-Ford: 8.4 million jobs; Carter: 9 million jobs; Reagan-Bush: 16.1 million jobs; Clinton: 20.8 million jobs; Bush: 646,000 jobs lost; Obama: 332,000 jobs added through July of this year.