Tuesday, March 18, 2008

U.S. GDP Growth

Well, looks like Bushie has led us into a recession. That is pretty tough to do - just doing nothing usually will result in 1-2 percent growth.

By comparison, let's look at the real growth of GDP under Clinton and Bush. This is the best measure of the growth of the U.S. economy.

The actual figures are available at the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Here are the GDP figures in current dollars:

End of 1992 - $6.5 trillion
End of 2000 - $10.0 trillion
End of 2007 - $14.1 trillion

So under Clinton, GDP grew by $3.5 trillion and under Bush in 6 years it has grown by $4.1 trillion.

However, the percentage growth shows that GDP growth was much faster under Clinton. The economy grew by 53.8 percent [(10.0-6.5)/6.5] under Clinton versus 41 percent [(14.1-10/0)/10.0] under Bush.

We will have to see what the final numbers are, but the rate of economic growth is slowing quite rapidly.

Republicans love to tout Bush's fiscal performance and say that Bush was able to keep economic growth going. It is a joke. Under Carter, the economy grew and he did it without exploding the debt. The four years under Carter saw GDP grow from $1.885 trillion to $2.917 trillion. So we saw GDP grow by $1 trillion and 54.7 percent.

4 Comments:

At 12:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you kidding? Let me put the accurate perspective out there for your either purposely skewed math or obvious lack of math prowess. For an explanation of growth you do not divide by the beginning number in the year they took office. You divide by the number of years. It's called an average. Here are the actual numbers by the way with the truthful conclusion that under Clinton GDP grew 103.7% and under Bush it grew 109%.

President
Year
% Growth
GDP (Adjusted for inflation on a year 2000 scale)

Bill Clinton
1993
102.6729
7,532.7

Bill Clinton
1994
104.0198
7,835.5

Bill Clinton
1995
102.504
8,031.7

Bill Clinton
1996
103.7003
8,328.9

Bill Clinton
1997
104.4976
8,703.5

Bill Clinton
1998
104.1753
9,066.9

Bill Clinton
1999
104.4492
9,470.3

Bill Clinton
2000
103.6609
9,817.0

Total average growth: 103.7

George Bush
2001
100.7507
9,890.7

George Bush
2002
101.5985
10,048.8

George Bush
2003
102.5098
10,301.0

George Bush
2004
103.6385
10,675.8

George Bush
2005
102.9384
10,989.5

George Bush
2006
102.7781
11,294.8

George Bush
2007
102.0284
11,523.9

George Bush
2008
101.4687
11,693.2

Total average growth: 109.0

Additionally, EVERY President since LBJ, with the exception of Bush Sr. has inherited a recession. In this instance it should be more than obvious that a time bomb exploded causing the greatest economy in American history to suddenly crumble. I noticed that you failed to mention the housing bubble bursting which lies in Clinton's anti-redlining policies failing.

Sadly however, we both know that you already knew this. Now, I don't know you and I honestly have nothing against you but please (at least for your wife and kids sake) decide on issues based on WHAT is right, not a stubbornness embittering you to have to BE right.

 
At 1:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, how does Bush get an average of 109 without ever going higher than 103.6?

 
At 5:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, now who's an idiot. 109% was a blatant misrepresentation. The math shows Bush's real average to be 102.2% by your numbers which I will accept for the purposes of this discussion. I guess when he still fell under Clinton you had no choice but to make something up? That's sad especially for a supposed math wizard like yourself.

Let's just be honest here... Clinton was every Republican's wet dream and that's why they couldn't stand him from the other side. I mean who keeps GDP growth going and pays for it with surplus? The Republicans could never do it and it took the hillbilly from Arkansas to show them how. He cut the size of government and basically did everything the conservatives talk about doing but can never figure out to do in practice. The only thing Clinton did not do was cut taxes because one thing Bubba knew is that tax-cutting is deficit negative, not deficit neutral and definitely not deficit positive. You don't purposefully cut government proceeds when you know you have money to pay back no matter how politically expedient that might be.

 
At 10:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, get it right, the President Clinton took an economy that was read hot and turned it stone cold blue 18 months later - and in 1993 the Republicans took control of both house of Congress and forced President into a zero-based budget process which began the process of running surpluses, which had a positive impact on the overall economy - President Bush, on the other hand took over an economy that was going into a recession and then had 9/11 to deal with; yet, somehow the economy for most of his term had sub 5% unemployment, in spite of the Democrats expending all t heir energy to blow-up the economy, which the finally succeeded with the mark-to-market rule in late 2008 - get your facts straight dude...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home