White House: Bush economy stronger than Clinton economy...

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

White House says economic surge robust

Apr 8, 2007

by Bill Sammon, The Examiner

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The White House says the economic surge that began five and a half years ago on President Bush's watch is more robust than the much-touted expansion during the Clinton administration.

"This is a much stronger expansion in a lot of ways," White House spokesman Tony Fratto told The Examiner. "It's much deeper and more measured."

Fratto cited last Friday's stronger-than-expected jobs report as evidence of the strength of the economy under Bush. The Labor Department reported that 180,000 new jobs were created in March and the unemployment rate fell to 4.4 percent, matching a five-year low.

"If you go back to this point in the Clinton expansion," Fratto said, "they would have loved to have seen the numbers that we have right now."

"On the unemployment rate, we're a full percentage point below where they were at the same point in the expansion - 60 or 61 months in," he said. "They would have loved to have been at 4.4 percent. They were still up in the mid-5s, which is huge, when you think about it."

Fratto's assertion was disputed by Gene Sperling, economic adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, who spoke to The Examiner in his capacity as former National Economic Adviser to President Bill Clinton.

Sperling conceded that "the headline on the employment rate is certainly sound."

"But if you look beneath that, at the number of people who have dropped out of the labor force, the length of unemployment period, even that is not as strong as it appears," he said.

Economist Larry Kudlow said the Clinton and Bush expansions "each have their minuses and pluses."

"Every expansion has a little different coloration," he said. "The Clinton years were colored by the technology boom and the dot-com boom, which ultimately produced a bubble that burst. The Bush years were colored by the tremendous housing boom from the Greenspan interest rates, and we're undergoing some kind of a bubble bursting right now."

Kudlow said neither Bush nor Clinton have fundamentally transformed the U.S. economy in the way that former President Reagan did a quarter century ago. He credited Reagan's economic reforms for growth in the Gross Domestic Product in 93 of the last 98 quarters.

"Since the early Reagan years, we have had 25 years of virtually uninterrupted prosperity," Kudlow said. "Because of the Reagan reforms - the deregulation, the lower taxes, the disinflation - we have transformed the economy from a top-down, government-run operation into a free market, capitalist economy with durability and resilience."

bsammon@dcexaminer.com

Click to read more...

 

[Soler 10+ year member]

yea no shit we are making money of these wars

 

[Spac3d 10+ year member]

"But if you look beneath that, at the number of people who have dropped out of the labor force, the length of unemployment period, even that is not as strong as it appears," he said.

 

[Spac3d 10+ year member]

This is a fairly one sided article. Significant amount of jobs were lost early in Bush's term, which the growth now is a chance of it trying to recover where it was.

A record number of foreclosures.

New house sales are at a record low.

The country's morale is low - really low.

Flame away ....

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/bsflag.gif.21f42eccd34b7d1eb1608fb1b59b69c3.gif

 

[SyKo13 5,000+ posts]

Can you ban the U.S?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

They also said that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and had WMD. Who believes the administration anymore?

I do believe the economy is strong for the elite, but what about the lower-middle class and the working class?

 

[billabongcr 5,000+ posts]

i didnt read any of the first post.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif Bush is the reason gas costs so much //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[Omarvelous 10+ year member]

lmfao....

Ofcourse your doing better....... War = increase in economy

Oh and what ever happened to "The war on terror?" It went from, Avenge the families of 9/11 by getting Bin Laden, who by the way claimed the 9/11 attacks, to We need to rid Iraq of their evil dictator, Sadam.... ok... to Set-up Democrazy in Iraq....

Ok.... so what happened to ol Bin?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I think that Fi supports terrorism. The BL is named after him //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

 

[Eugenics 5,000+ posts]

I do believe the economy is strong for the elite, but what about the lower-middle class and the working class?

what about them?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

what about them?

they cant afford to buy new subs //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

 

[Raven 10+ year member]

Anyone who says the economy is stronger under Bush than Clinton needs to take a drive through Michigan.

 

[Dozy_production 10+ year member]

lmfao....
Ofcourse your doing better....... War = increase in economy

Oh and what ever happened to "The war on terror?" It went from, Avenge the families of 9/11 by getting Bin Laden, who by the way claimed the 9/11 attacks, to We need to rid Iraq of their evil dictator, Sadam.... ok... to Set-up Democrazy in Iraq....

Ok.... so what happened to ol Bin?

the original reason for going to Iraq was to rid them of their "WMD". Doesn't any one remember that?!