Forbes: Economy Did Best When CLINTON Was In Office

[Triana]

Here's something for the Clinton-haters to choke on...this is straight from Forbes.com - what the rest of us knew all along - THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE. Only Republicans do. Just LOOK who's at the BOTTOM of the list (see article and listing below)!

HA! His illustrious SON is even WORSE, too.

_ _ _ _ _

Forbes.com - Presidents and Prosperity: Economy Did Best When CLINTON Was In Office.

Clinton's two terms in office, from 1993 to 2001, were marked by strong numbers that put him first among the ten postwar presidents.

By Dan Ackman
Updated: 2:15 p.m. ET July 21, 2004

The death of Ronald Reagan and the popularity of Bill Clinton's book have sparked an unusually intense interest in presidents past.

During the week of his funeral, several commentators declared Reagan the best president of the 20th century, even better than Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom Reagan himself admired. A recent Gallup Organization poll indicates that Americans rank John F. Kennedy slightly ahead of FDR, and both of them ahead of Reagan. Clinton supporters, meanwhile, note that he turned large federal deficits into surpluses and presided over a booming economy.

It's the kind of argument that will never be settled, like who was a better ballplayer, Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle. But we took a look at the numbers, and for the money, among presidents since World War II, Clinton scores highest.

...

Rank Presidents and prosperity
Rank President
1. Bill Clinton <------------
2. Lyndon B. Johnson
3. John F. Kennedy
4. Ronald Reagan
5. Gerald R. Ford
6. Jimmy Carter
7. Harry S. Truman
8. Richard M. Nixon
9. Dwight D. Eisenhower
10. George H. W. Bush <--------------!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580/

[Spinzonner]

1. Well of course

That's because the Republicans believe in Supply My Side economics

[Triana]

4. hahaaa!

"That's because the Republicans believe in Supply My Side economics"

Very true...

It's SO REFRESHING to see a prominent business magazine like Forbes admit publicly that when it comes to the Economy, Clinton was a historical success as President.

God, I miss him...

[Tight_rope]

34. No Surprise here....Check this out.

http://www.dean-justinspoliticaljournal.cafeprogressive.com/bush_record_budget_deficit.htm

The chart above from the Congressional Budget Office says it all.

Related Links:

Team Bush's Clueless New Math
No matter how you crunch the numbers, the President's fiscal policy is irresponsible, and could lead to serious trouble down the road.

Why Deficits Matter
Deficits such as these matter because the increased government borrowing creates a drag on the economy.

Big deficit will hurt Boomers
About 77 million Baby Boomers will start retiring five years from now. That should scare the hell out of you.

US confidence hits 10-year low and:

White House forecasts record deficit of $455B this year
The White House predicted lasting deficits that will spike up into record territory this year, reaching $455 billion in fiscal 2003 and $475 billion during fiscal 2004.

[wicket]

2. Hahahaha nice!

Repubs always like to claim that Reagan's economy was the best ever.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. No suprise here! Democrats have historically out done....

Rethugs in this area!

[Triana]

8. well to believe the polls sometimes...

...esp when Duhbya was first selected, many/most thought Repigs are best for the economy.

BUT - the numbers don't lie. History doesn't lie.

One thing Republicans can't argue with is the facts - though they will twist, screw and fudge them to make themselves look good. Just look at today's 'job' numbers. Jeeeeze.

If Republicans relied on their true platform and belief system -and the facts- to campaign for office instead of LYING to make themselves look like something other than a self-serve party for the Rich, they'd never get into public office. NO ONE would vote for them.

Pretense and Propoganda is their forte.

[JohnKleeb]

5. Those who say Reagan was better than FDR are nuts

Personally if I were polled, I'd rank FDR higher than JFK, no offense to JFK but FDR's 12 years were amazing but both sparked their respective era's I guess you could say.

[wabeewoman]

13. Agreed...

JFK's standing rose immensely when he was assassinated (not that he wasn't a good president but he didn't have a lot of time in office). If you look at what was accomplished FDR was probably #1. But the people who remember FDR are dying off. I remember my parents talking about FDR like he was a god. Reagan may have been good for business with his union busting and deregulation but he wasn't good for the ordinary person.

[JohnKleeb]

20. thats right

My grandparents are of the FDR generation and he's their fave, though my grandfather finds Truman underrated and admires him for firing McArthur.

[Orangepeel]

6. "We did not rank the current president, whose term is not yet over."

hmmm.... wonder why not?

[Triana]

9. It's because...

...Gee Duhhhbya has the WORST jobs creation record since Herbert Hoover...that's why.

Historical fact...(which to a Republican is like Holy Water on a Vampire...)

[MadHound]

7. Sorry friend I don't buy this spin,

After all, it is written by, for, and directed to people who directly benefitted from Clinton's pro business, pro market economic plan. While the markets went up and up, with brokers and the wealthy few making obscene amounts of money, the poor got poorer, along with the middle class. Real world wages went down, the gap between the wealthy elite and the rest of us widened to a record breaking chasm, the working poor became a commonplace occurence and the social safety net was shredded.

The Clinton economy was a bubble economy, one that benefitted a few at the expense of the vast majority. If you want a more scholarly view on this subject, I suggest that you read Kevin Phillip's "Wealth and Democracy", it is a real eye opener.

[rock]

10. All good right wing talking points

But they're just that. And, of course, all wrong.

[MadHound]

11. How can you say that they're wrong, when the numbers back them up?

Look friend, I'm as much as a leftist as you, in fact probably more so, and for a longer period of time. But I also don't let party doctrine blind me to the truth. And the truth is that Clinton's economy WAS geared to favor big business and the wealthy over the rest of us. Otherwise, how do you explain things like NAFTA, welfare reform, the '96 Telecom Act, a record gap between the wealthy and the rest of us, the appearance of the working poor as a major societal segment, etc. etc.

Clinton's major backer's were trial lawyers, stock brokers, and those involved with the market sector. He geared his policies towards pleasing them, and left the rest of us out in the cold. You can't explain away these matters as partisan politicing, they occured, they're the reality that millions had to face every day Clinton was in office. If you don't believe me, like I said, go read Phillip's book, or some Hightower or Palast. These issues are well documented. To deny them is to engage in willful partisan blindness.

[rock]

15. Admitedly, I'm talking about anecdotal evidence

My life. Under the bushes I lost ground, a lot of ground. Under Clinton I gained ground, even more ground than I lost under bush I. Of course, if he was just lucky, I say, we need a few more lucky presidents.

On edit: Look at the graph in #12. It exactly reflects my personal experience.

[Triana]

17. that has been my personal experience as well...

...and the experience of many, many others. Clinton's economic policies weren't perfect (NAFTA - I hate NAFTA), but one has to ask if we're better off now than a few years ago. The resounding answer is NO.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. The Numbers Don't Back Them Up

The poor didn't get poorer. True, the difference in net worth increased between the top 5% and the bottom 5%, but to reaach your conlcusion would require the incorrect assumption that it's a zero sum gain. It's not.

The poor did NOT get poorer during Clinton for 3 reasons:

1) Average income rose in real terms for the lowest 10% of the wage earners.

2) CPI + energy + housing rose by 0.82% less than the rate of the real wage increase which positively affects the bottom 1/3rd of income earning households.

3) The lack of gov't borrowing reduced the competition for flowing capital, which kept interest rates lower than idiots like Greenspan (fighting off non-existent inflation) would have brought them. This improved the net financial condition for the bottom 75% of wage earners.

As someone who actually publishes economic treatises, i can tell you the numbers back up my points, and don't support yours, unless you don't bother to look at those numbers that contradict your pre-existing opinion.
The Professor

[MadHound]

23. Do you have any sources to back your claims?

I gave you the sources for my claims, you can go check them out if you wish. Do you have anything to back your claims?

[fdr_hst_fan]

21. I don't know about that-

I used to have a manager (who was a closet Repuke, although he hotly denied it) who used to tell me the same thing: the economy actually did BETTER under the Dems.
:hi:

[Langis]

29. Wow you sound just like those people on

Fox news!

[mistertrickster]

31. Okay, I read Wealth and Democracy--while Clinton didn't do as

much as he could have for the poor--the welfare "reform" just threw kids to the wolves, for instance--wealth inequality did DECREASE for the first time in 20 years under Clinton.

Your right to look at who's doing the defining of "good economy," but even then, employment was a lot better under Clinton.

[Bandit]

12. According to this little graph they got Nixon and Reagan mixed up

Nixon left America in almost as good shape as he got it but not Reagan.

[Triana]

14. wow look at the 2 bu$h numbers....

*boom*

both hit bottom.

What a surprise...

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Duh!

What brilliant analyst did the work on this? It should have been obvious from real GDP growth alone, and fraction of GDP growth from consumption sans long term debt should have confirmed it.
The Professor

[Triana]

19. OF course!

We DU'ers knew. It's no news here.

I just found it interesting that Forbes ack'd it.

[SammyBlue]

22. Simply put, it seems the walls are cracking

Forbes is so in the Republican corner to say that things were Great under Bill Clinton (even to say that the ecomony ran best under him) is really amazing.

If the National Review comes out with things supporting democrats, you know the Messiah is coming (I'm Jewish, he hasn't come yet).

[ParisFrance]

24. Anybody not banned at Hannity.com might you post this

They will probably write this off by saying forbes is liberal, these are not facts, and they will likely post the current economy numbers

[Bandit]

25. Post This.... It is Fact

[DaveSZ]

26. I agree about the poor and labor

Clinton stabbed both those on welfare and labor in the back, and you could argue all of us in the back with the Telecom deregulation act that has left our media nothing but a shill for wall street and arms dealers.

Still, let's hope we repudiate those policies in a Kerry admin, and build on the positive things Clinton did.


I've heard some Repubs say Kerry and Edwards are "Great Society Liberals," and I'd take that to be a compliment.

I hope it's true.

[DaveSZ]

27. Forbes is anything but liberal

Steve Forbes himself is an absolute neocon pig.

[FighttheFuture]

28. So what's baby Bush's rank? 39, 40... 43?

I'd love to see that analysis. Of course, his taint, like untreated syphilis, will be felt for years to come and the big whammy will be at the end!!

[erpowers]

30. Three Democrats

The main thing that I noticed was that the top three were all Democrats. We could just as well say the economy does better under a Democrat. This should prove that Reagannomics does not work-it is pretty much so a failure.

[gulliver]

32. Republicans don't represent free enterprise.

That's the great irony. The Republican party is controlled by the no-talents, the cronies, the owner's sons of the business world. Bush is the biggest example of the kind of executive that Republicans stand for -- a lifelong failure who gets by not by developing product but by bending rules. That sort of "business success" isn't business success: It's a disease.

[Killarney]

33. Conclusion

The economy does better under Democrats.

The best three were D's and the worst three were R's.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

35. This should be rammed down every Republican's throat

I'd love to know what the FRepuglik are saying about this, it would probably go like this:

dems_r_commie: forbes iz gon librul!

i_h8_poor_peeple: yea, he used too b gud, but now hez a frickin librul

bush_04: msnbc an forbes are shil for librul media