GW Bush vs Bill Clinton Eras (Bush Era Failure?)

Black Swan

During the 2008 presidential campaign, a lot of emphasis was placed upon how important the presidency was to the nation (perhaps too much so, given that there are other factors that impact on the nation, including the composition of the US Congress, economic cycles, etc.). So for comparison purposes, the two 8 year periods have been labeled the GW Bush Era and the Bill Clinton Era, the word "Era" suggesting that the president, and other factors, influenced the outcome.

*It should also be noted that GW Bush still has about 2 months left in his second term of office, so the outcomes may vary somewhat between now and 20 January 2009.

To begin, I have selected three (3) measures of performance for comparison purposes between these Eras: federal deficit growth, Dow Jones Industrial average performance, and unemployment rates. You may wish to comment on these, as well as add additional measures?

Federal Deficit Growth

• GW Bush Era added to deficit: $4,850,862,413,386.49 for 84.69% increase*
  
• Clinton Era added to deficit: $1,539,684,631,121.04 for 36.76% increase

Data:
11/13/2008 10,578,639,151,691.13*
01/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64
01/20/1993 4,188,092,107,183.60

Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Dow Jones Industrial (DJI) Average Performance

• GW Bush Era DJI lost $2,090.28 for 19.74% loss in value*
  
• Clinton Era DJI gained $7,345.63 for 226.58% increase in value

Data:
16 Nov 2008 $8,497.31*
19 Jan 2001 $10,587.59
20 Jan 1993 $3,241.96

Sources:
http://www.analyzeindices.com/dow-jones-history.shtml
http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?ipage=qdi&Symbol=%24INDU

US Unemployment Rates

Oct 2008 6.5% GW Bush (most recent rate)*
Jan 2001 4.2% Clinton ends & GW Bush begins office
Jan 1993 7.3% Clinton begins office

Source: http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

Conclusion: Although these are gross measures of Era performance (given that you may have more precise ratios or other more rigorous observations to contribute), it would appear that the Bill Clinton Era outperformed the G.W. Bush Era? Further, that the poor relative performance of the Bush Era (given these and other factors) ushered in the major political party shift from Republican to Democrat presidency, as well as the increase of seats in both houses of the US Congress?

turgon

Interesting post. Just one thought though re

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Dow Jones Industrial (DJI) Average Performance

Wouldnt that figure be controlled by other factors such as inflation. Thus taking a simple comparison is insufficient.

Like the way one cents in 1900 was worth a load more than it is now.

Black Swan

turgon wrote: »

Wouldnt that figure be controlled by other factors such as inflation. Thus taking a simple comparison is insufficient.

Agree, hence they were referred to as "gross" measures, lacking precision. But there does seem to be a trend evident, just eyeballing them?

Do you have more precise measures that may support or refute the notion that the performance of one Era was superior or inferior to the other, especially as pertains to the 2008 election results?

Kept hearing that old political statement for the reason why Obama won and McCain lost..."It's the economy stupid!" Jobs are being lost in the US, housing foreclosures are high, and financial institution failures have set new records. So what indicators are there that would suggest this is the case?

I've also heard talk about people wanting to return to the Clinton financial boom times. Where they real or myth? Measures?

brianthebard

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/04/pennsylvania-ch.html

Well the Clinton era was far from good for those not in a particular industry; while income levels didn't fall, they didn't grow either. However under Bush income levels fell in a number of states, and from what I can tell from the map provided by the link, no one's income in Pennsylvania grew (a bit simplistic, but look at the map). Will look for national figures now.