Why do people say the economy was good with Clinton?

Comparing Clinton (a) to Bush (b),

inflation (a) 2.6% (b) 1.9%

unemployment rate (a) 6.2%, (b) 5.5%

productivity growth (a) 0.5% (b) 4.1%

hourly compensation (a) -0.3% (b) +0.8

and the list goes on

How is inflation going up, high unemployment, less productivity, and lowering pay help the economy. I am no Bush lover, but the numbers show the economy is better with him.

Why do people say the economy was good with Clinton?construction loans

There was a high level of economic growth and a federal budget surplus for most of the Clinton years, which is certainly not true of the Bush years. Nonetheless, these figures you list might still be accurate.

Many people have the sense to judge the economy on what actually happens in their lives instead of what statistics analysts and investors are quoting at them. They can see things have been getting steadily worse for the poor and middle classes ever since the 1970s compared to the rich. In that sense, things really were better under Clinton, but they were still getting worse.

People say things were better under Clinton simply because they don%26#039;t like Bush. The dot com bubble lets them rightfully say that there was a higher level of growth under Clinton, and Bush%26#039;s tax cuts and invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan brought a deficit. These are the facts, and so I agree, Clinton doesn%26#039;t really deserve credit for a better economy, but neither does Bush.

Why do people say the economy was good with Clinton?

loan

Who in the right mind says that? Remember the 2000 recession under Clinton? It%26#039;s funny how the the current slump corresponds with the Democrats controlling Congress! Is this just coincidence? By the way I am a Democrat. Please vote Democrat. Thank you|||The same reason why people say that the country was good during the Regan years.|||You are either cherry picking numbers, got them wrong, or confusing trends with levels.

If you compare the beginning of Clinton to the end you find nearly every rising upward. Under Bush you find things going down and then up and then stalling again.

Under Clinton you find real wages, incomes, median wages, average wages, employment participation all rising. Poverty falling. Under Bush you had falling or flat wages, rising poverty, until very late. Look also at the trade, personal savings and US budget deficits.|||Your statistics, especially with productivity and inflation are probably wrong, but anyway....

Under Clinton the unemployment rate started very high but eventually dropped to below 4%. Under Bush we have never gotten below 4.5%.

Your productivity stats are totally wrong; productivity growth in the mid- to late 1990s was much, much higher than 0.5 percent.

Also, with regards to hourly compensation. It actually increased in the 1990s. In the 2000s nearly all the economic growth was limited to the top 10% of income earners. Economic inequality is skyrocketing under the Bush/GOP policies.

Clinton economics was far, far better than Bush economics for the average American. The growth actually benefited the majority of society, not just the wealthy few.|||If you look at productivity growth graph at

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02...

You will see it was increasing under Clinton and falling under Bush. With the increasing productivity, incomes increased faster than they had since the 60%26#039;s and unemployment fell to the lowest levels in decades. If you asked people if they are better of than they were 7 years ago in 2000 almost everybody said yes. How many people would say yes today?