Hitlery Clinton is quite fond of saying how our economy ALWAYS performs better when we have a Democrat in the White House. While I suppose one could argue that such rhetoric is to be expected in the heat of a presidential campaign, what should also be expected is that there will be very few people willing to take the time to verify the validity of such a claim. Because her claim ignores completely the state of our economy during the recent presidencies of three men, all of whom were…Democrats. That would be, of course, the presidencies of Jimmy Carter, ‘Slick Wille’ Clinton and of course that of our current disaster of a president, Barry “Almighty’.
When it comes to Carter many of us will remember the economic disaster fondly referred to as, ‘The Carter Malaise’. The Carter nightmare included four years of crippling high unemployment, stagflation of 13.5%, unimaginable 21.5% interest rates, record gas prices, shortages and gas lines, and a doubling of the deficit from $27 billion to almost $60 billion. Needless to say not a stellar job handling the economy. It was also under Carter that we had U.S. embassy personnel in Iran held hostage, an unsuccessful hostage rescue attempt, the embarrassing decline of our military, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. America almost did not survive Jimmy Carter.
Next on our hit parade we have ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, the rapist husband of the current Democrat candidate and one of only two presidents, both Democrats, to have ever been impeached. Oddly enough when it comes to the performance of the economy under this loser, we find that there are two rather inescapable flaws that mar ‘Slick Wille’s’ economic legend. One is conveniently papered over; the other conveniently forgotten. But with that said I suppose, a flawed legend is better than the economic reality Barry ‘Almighty’s’ policies have produced, so it is no surprise the sitting President has outsourced his economic messaging to the former President.
The first flaw is the claim that despite the fact that ‘Slick Willie’ raised taxes, the economy during his tenure still boomed. Now the flaw here, and it’s a rather sizable one, is that the narrative ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact. The timeline matters. ‘Slick Willie’ raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and it was because of that that job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous ‘Clinton Era’ boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year. Four years may seem like a small detail, but details like this matter.
The second flaw marring ‘The Slickmeister’s” economic saga is a recession. Because the fact is ‘Slick Willie’ did not leave his successor a booming economy. What he did leave President George W. Bush was a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after old ‘Slick’ left office. And even though they may try, even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession. It was, in fact, the ‘Slick Willie’ recession. And yet, I don’t seem to recall hearing George W. Bush, 7 years into his presidency, running around blaming things on his predecessor, ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton. Or was I just not paying attention?
Which brings us to presidency of Barry “Almighty’. Now there has been much talk over the course of the last many years, all of which was about some mythical economic recovery that was supposed to be ongoing. The fact is we are now at a time where the number of Americans participating in the nation’s workforce hasn’t been this low since Carter was president. And the monthly unemployment numbers are nothing more than a work of pure fiction. And yet another sad fact when it comes to the ‘Obama Economy’ is that over half of working Americans, 51 percent, make less than $30,000 a year. Is that what anyone would call a booming economy?
And keep in mind that that’s $2,500 a month before taxes and just over the federal poverty level for a family of five. In 2014, half of working Americans reported an income at or below $28,851 (the median wage), and 51 percent reported an income of less than $30,000. Forty percent are making less than $20,000. The federal government considers a family of four living on an income of less than $24,250 to be impoverished. The wage index doesn’t take into account any of the eight million Americans who are unemployed, or the tens of millions of working age Americans who are not participating in the nation’s workforce.
And we are now at a point, with a Democrat in the White House, where nearly 40 percent of Americans are not working, which is the lowest participation rate since 1977, when we had another Democrat in the White House. A coincidence? No, I think not! Although it has been claimed that the unemployment rate has dropped from double-digits in the height of the 2008 recession to about 5 percent in the latest bogus jobs report, wages have remained largely stagnant. Wages and share of income for the bottom 90 percent of American wage-earners declined over the past 40 years, as the foreign-born population increased rather dramatically.
It was the Congressional Research Service (CRS) that recently charted the correlation between wages and the number of foreign-born workers in the U.S. between 1945 and 2010. Before 1970, wages rose sharply as the number of foreign-born persons declined. However after 1970, that population increased dramatically as wages stagnated, increased slightly and then dropped. And it’s that population that has accelerated rather significantly under the very watchful eye of the Democrat we now have in the White house. And it’s that same Democrat who has had an ulterior motive for doing so while caring little about the impact on the American worker.
So, how are we supposed take seriously this claim from Democrat presidential candidate Hitlery. Do we simply accept it as being nothing more than pure politics, or do we view her as being more than delusional, taking into consideration the fact that she is, after all, a Clinton. Or, are we to view such idiotic claims as being nothing more than another example of how it is that Hitlery will lie about anything. But you see, her lying is one thing, but the more important issue is that there are people out there who fail to see how it is that Democrats are toxic to economic prosperity, they act in much the same way as a cancer acts on the human body.