How many jobs did we net during the first and second Clinton administration? (this isn't a loaded question, I just don't know). Under Bush I? Under Reagan's first and second? I'd be interested to see...

Job creation was more robust under all three previous administrations. But, they did not have catastrophic terrorists attacks or inherit an economy already in recession.

I think Bill is just trying to dispell the misleading Kerry talking points that Bush has had the worst job creation since President Hoover. Not quite true as we can see.

I don't know the specific benchmark at the end of the first term, but I recall that Clinton averaged a job gain of like 2.38% a year, so he stomped Bush. The jobs were also higher paying and more full time, but it's of course important to remember that the broader economic factors that cause employment shifts are largely beyond a President's control.

So just as I don't give Clinton complete credit for the boom, I certainly don't give Bush total responsbility and credit for the downturn and recovery.

That being said, tax cuts certainly helped, and this whole business about Bush doing job creation a great disservice is bunk.

I keep hearing talk of a VAT or consumption tax and disolving or heavily reforming the IRS... is this realistic or just chatter?

Who knows. Some type of attempted reform/simplification of the tax code looks likely - consumption tax would be cool, but it's pretty radical. I seriously doubt it.

We should also adjust our perceptions of the strength of the economy under Clinton for the fact that some of the gains were illusions...due to the market bubble, and even corporate fraud.

If the economic numbers during that time truly reflected the underlying strength of the economy, those numbers would have been good but not quite as good as they looked.

Also, some of the gains were realized as we spent the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War...in retrospect, that was foolish.

Another factor: we blithely assumed we had no national security threats. Had Clinton done a better job recognizing and dealing with the growing terrorist threats, we would have been better off in the long run but in the short run would not have felt as secure, which might have dampened economic enthusiasm.

It's foolish to use the Clinton years as some sort of benchmark for the economy, as part of the glow of those years was an illusion, and as we paid a larger price for these illusions than we would have wanted to, in hindsight.

To me the Clinton years were like the roaring 20's...good times economically, but a time that also led to very serious problems around the corner.

To (sort of) answer McGurk's questions, here's an article associating unemployment rates with presidential administration, all the way back to Truman. They're not listed chronologically, but by rate, and there's some odd choices in the averaging (separate rates for Clinton's first three years and his whole first term, for example), but it does show that this is not the worst unemployment we've had, by any means.

The author also says that FDR's unemployment rate was in the high teens until WWII.

What I'm curious about is when the re-evaluate the 'household survey' and compare that with this years tax returns. (That is, are they mostly people with 'supplemental' sort of jobs, or are they people that have decided to strike out on their own for good.)

Keep in mind:

1. Presidents do not create "jobs".

2. During the late 90's, corporations were borrowing big to spend on Y2K fixes.

3. The IT and Telcom industries over inflated themselves, and the market could not keep up, thus the DOT COM bust and Telcom failures.

4. When the Baby-Boomers retire (less than 5 years from now), there will be so many open spots that businesses will be forced to close because they won't be able to find any employees. As it is, businesses hire illegal aliens to fill spots Americans refuse to do.

I hate presidents yacking about how many jobs they created or candidates how many jobs they or their opponents did or didn't create.

A president has some influence over the policies that affect jobs (tax cuts, etc), but beyond that unless they are actually adding or expanding government jobs, they have very little to do with the actual creation.

I would love to see a massive reformation of the tax code-especially the IRS, but I think the income tax is too much of a sacred cow to both parties to see that one get revamped overly much or eliminated.

Another way to 'calibrate' how much to blame/praise a president...

We have a roughly $10 TRILLION economy. The actual discretionary spending in the Federal budget that the Pres./Congress are free to adjust is under/about $1 trillion. Of that, due to entrenched spending, so-called 'political realities', etc., only a few tens of billions are really in play. Finally, the efficiency with which those Federal $$ influence the ecomony is subject to debate. So, the politicians are trying to steer this huge economy across the currents of domestic and international events with a rudder of one percent or less the size of the economy.

- Eric.

You have to admit though that the tax cuts helped fan the fire of job creation. It fueled small businesses (like the one I work for) to be able to expand quicker with the rising market. It was inevitable to go back up though. When you fall head first into shit, the only thing you can do is get back up. I doubt much Tax reform can happen due to the power of the IRS. You never know though when the House, Senate, Pres, and with 3 upcoming Judges all see red.
Now that I think about it. If I was a moonbat, I'd be pissed, too!

Iraqi Intelligence
Yes, the FairTax is a concrete proposal to replace the existing tax system with a national retail level sales tax on goods and services (NOT a VAT). I've done a bit of analysis on it at the FairTax Blog.

Why are we still paying attention to the increasingly worthless Payroll survey? Time to wish it well and turn it out to pasture, along with the 5 O'clock whistle, the lifetime Union employment contract, and other relics of the industrial age which has been supplanted with the information economy.

The figures depend on what you count as "jobs" if you leave out the self-employed the number gainfully employed is atrificially low.

Figures for US Civilain Labor Force can be found here
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/fedstl/clf16ov

2001 01 143,787,000
2004 10 147,850,000

Correct me if I am wrong but I seem to see an almost 4 million increase?

The page has a neat gif chart function
choose 1 2000 to 10 2004 when you use it and you don't have to bother subtracting numbers to see the increase ;-)

I was watching ABC news just now. They ran a story on leaking of exit polls. The blame was attributed to Bloggers who put the information out on the Internet without analysts to guide the readers through the numbers. Isn't it ironic that the MSM doesn't blame the leakers (aka the MSM staff) and of course leaks to the MSM are a 1st amendment right, but leaks to alternative media are some how very bad. The quote I copied was:

"Four years ago the networks got it wrong. This time it was the internet."

The other thing to remember is that a president's economic legacy does not start or end the second he gets in/out of office.

If you put Clinton's responsibility on the first portion of the economic downturn that Bush couldn't have caused, thusly removing a large amount of negative economic data for Bush, it evens things out alot.

That being said, I blame neither Bush nor Clinton for the business cycle, I think its just something that happens. I don't think either of them 'create jobs', or lose them. Its only how condusive your policies are to positive economic growth and job creation that matters.

Testing TypeKey....

We need to keep in mind that when a Pres is inaugurated it takes him a while to even pass his first budget.

Bush didn't even have a budget passed until Oct of 2001. Also there is a lag time for an policy to impact our macroeconomy.

In reality, it would be more accurate to measure the impact of Bush's first term economically from 2003 on...