Census Bureau Report released on Bush

[mpicky]

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:

Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.

Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.

...

The fact that the economy performed significantly better for average families under Clinton than under the elder or younger Bush or Ronald Reagan doesn't conclusively answer how the country should proceed now. Obama isn't replicating the Clinton economic strategy (which increased federal spending in areas like education and research much more modestly, and placed greater emphasis on deficit reduction-to the point of increasing taxes in his first term). Nor has anyone suggested that it would make sense to reprise that approach in today's conditions. But at the least, the wretched two-term record compiled by the younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?


http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/closing_the_book_on_the_bush_legacy.php

[Jennifer Lynn]

So, Bush basically undid the good things Clinton achieved, and then some?

[jennypage]

But.... but..... but..... CLINTON FORNICATED WITH THAT WOMAN! He couldn't POSSIBLY do ANYTHING good!



Clinton was a badass. And he's MINE, Mel. You keep your hands off him.

[Jennifer Lynn]

Those numbers don't mean anything, they're totally "misunderstood."

[Wicked]

Don't you know that now that Obama is in office he is installing a socialist regime that hired people to the census bureau just to put out reports like that to discredit awesome capitalism so that he can smooth talk us into going communist?

DUH!

[Marley]

I won't believe it unless it comes from wikipedia or a blog. Can you find a more credible source than the US Census?

[jennypage]

at all the comments in this thread.

[Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Jennifer Lynn Those numbers don't mean anything, they're totally "misunderstood."

If it was a fwd, I would believe it, but some socialist census site....

[OliveJuice]

I could have SWORN that Clinton signed a bill that allowed American companies to create factories outside of the US so that they could get cheaper labor than American citizens.....I'm trying to find the name of it but I can't find anything.....Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

[Germanchick]

Bush is just once again being completely misunderestimated