Working family incomes increased an average of $7,500 under President Clinton. They fell $2000 under bush...?

Question

The statistics from the bush years are equally grim when you look at poverty figures, job creation, gas prices, number of people without health insurance, inflation, government spending, foreclosure rate. Almost all indicators of national health have declined during the bush years.

Bush really does represent a tremendous step backwards for America, doesn't he?

Answer 1

Yes, he does.

Fortunately, Obama isn't going to tax the middle class. Anyone making under $250,000 won't recieve any difference in taxes. And as far as those above, they've been recieving tax breaks lower than the normal rate over the past eight years anyway. Their taxes aren't even going to go up that much.

Answer 2

Its obvious to anyone that actually has to support a family that wages have decreased or stagnated in the last 8 years while the cost of energy, supplies, tuition, health care and general services has skyrocketed. The tax breaks and stimulus checks we received were not even enough to pay for the increase in gas and utilities, let alone the increase in food and other essentials. I'd rather my money go towards paying off the debt, rebuilding national infrastructure or to invest and create jobs in green technologies, than to go towards consolidating wealth into as few hands as possible.

Answer 3

Those numbers are simply not true.  I'd love to see a reliable source, not affiliated with the Obama campaign..

Answer 4

Your correct but Congressman got their 3% raises they wrote into the Constitution so we wont hear about it each year.

Take that amount % times what they get at $175,000 a year for only (88) days in session.

Any one up for re-election starting at the State level Im voting out.!! This Country is in a mess and the same ones in office year after year think they are (untouchable). Lets prove them wrong this year!!

Answer 5

He doesn't represent a step backward, he took a giant leap backward and drug the rest of us with him.

Answer 6

Yes, he does.  And it will continue if McCain is elected.

Answer 7

Hey, I'm sorry that Bush didn't get handed internet commerce on a silver platter.  But you know as well as anyone that Clinton didn't create the internet boom during his administration.

Answer 8

yea but look what he did in iraq, somebody has to pay for that shining example of debotchery

Answer 9

Another post by a liberal without any evidence. Getting old. Bush gave familys more then that back in tax cuts and stimulus checks so I doubt your facts are facts at all.

Answer 10

Kridgeway3 - You forgot to mention that Clinton inherited a 7% unemployment rate and decreased it every quarter until he averaged a 4.2% rate during his second term - 4th lowest rate since post-WWII.  Only in the first few years, before his policies began to take affect, was the unemployment rate higher than Bush's is now.

Here are some numbers:  

Clinton moved from (then) record deficits to record  $236 billion surplus

Bush moved from record surplus to record $331 billion deficit (this was a few years ago).

Clinton: 22 million jobs created and lowest unemployment rate in 30 years and added at the fastest rate since Truman

Bush:  0.3 million jobs  created (but net civilian job loss) and highest unemployment rate in nine years (he actually has a net job loss)

Clinton: Biggest expansion in college aid since GI bill (especially considering Reagan cut student loan funding)

Bush: Under-funds own education initiative



Median Household Income:

W Bush $43,318

Clinton $44,853 (2004 dollars)

HW Bush $37,880 (2001 dollars)



Clinton also had to deal with the World Trade Center attack just weeks after being sworn in.

Some more numbers as of 2004:

Finally, comparing the static unemployment rate today to that in 1996 is a bit like arguing that two cars whizzing by each other on a highway are at the exact same point, even if they are headed in opposite directions. It fails to capture the fact that under President Clinton the unemployment rate had fallen by 30 percent to reach its 5.1 percent level in August of 1996, while it has increased 29 percent to reach its 5.4 percent level under Bush. It fails to account for the 2 million fewer unemployed people in August 1996 than in January 1993 and the 2 million more unemployed people today than in January 2001. This is not to mention the 10.4 million jobs that had been created under Clinton compared to the 1 million jobs lost under Bush.

Sorry for the length, but what are ya gonna do whan people ask for resources?

Answer 11

Yea...If all these nay sayers "KNOW SOME REAL FACTS" and secretes of the bush administration then every republican who voted republican would throw it away....  read up on some important facts of this administration , why have more of our liberties been taking away in secret? and maximum increased national security...wow.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER  

Answer 12

Yes. The US is in the worst financial crisis it's been in since WWII.

Answer 13

Yes.  A few yrs ago when I noticed miles of a high way near by of closed buildings I knew Bush was a liar when he said the economy was great, I also worked at a bank for  our base was  to affluent customer and business base of one of the wealthiest counties in the United States and could see first hand what was going on.  Unfortunately so much damage  has been  done and some of the public is clueless or does not care,  they think that so many people are stupid when it is they whom need to find out a little more, that has been being put past them while blaming people that have absolutely nothing to do with the sorry situation we are in and quit buying lame excuses for the disaster.  I have seen people quite wealthy say the most ridiculous things because while they are profiting on th expense of others they are out of touch with reality and choose not to realize why some of their own family members are being impoverished . NOw that they are starting to feel the pain they are begining to wake up, thankfully.  Others that have been against this administration are people that have seen criminal activity and incompetence and where it is going and have been fed up.  People a yr and a half ago told me no way would Obama get elected or even make it, and I disagree, a person with integrity knows and identify with it, the ones that think it is bunk .....is a tell tale of themselves and their character, is  one explanation that folks cant understand or even care to find out if what they believe is true or not, it is good to double check,

I mvoting Obama and I will still watch McCain just to see what he thinks people are going to buy and then I know what I m dealing with when people that tell me absurdities about Obama or what a great "thinker" he is I know, becuase I pay attention for yrs daily

Answer 14

Source or is this just your thinking?

Answer 15

Funny because the reason this may have some validity is that the ultra rich have been falling and the middle class has been rising.  I thought republicans were only for the wealthy.

To check the data, go to this page at the USCB, then choose "Family" for any of the income years 2000 through 2005, then choose "FINC-07: Income Distribution to $250,000 or More for Families

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/di...

Of the total increase of 5 million families (from 72.4 million to 77.4 million):

• The number of families under $50K increased by 3.1 million;

• The number of families between $50 and $150K increased by 2.6 million;

• Big surprise: the number of families making above $150K decreased by 0.6 million.

In short: Fewer rich, more non-rich.  [I wonder if part of that is explained by a few ex-execs from Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing}

the middle class appears to be moving up into higher income brackets

Why would anyone think that's a problem, and want to "fix" it?  Why not propose growth-friendly policies designed to accelerate what's happening?  

I think that those who argue that the middle class is "disappearing" are failing to see that their standard of the middle class is just getting higher.

Answer 16

Yes unless you are a CEO for a pharmaceutical or insurance or oil company, or Halliburton or a military contractor

Answer 17

Actually economic statistic rarely reflect who happens to be in the Oval office. World events, economic cycles, and a number of unrelated events often determine how life is despite or in spite of that the the president says or does. Also, Congress and even the judiciary can  be a balance to any policy or actions the president is trying to achieve. So in reality who is the president is really quite inconsequential in many respects. Yes, policies can change, yes hopes come and go, but basically people and their efforts decide what kind of life they will have. I think of the president more like a mail person, toll collector on the turnpike, or at best a 2nd lieutenant in the army. Way way too much blame and or praise is centered on the oval office which for the most part doesn't count for much in any body's life.  

Answer 18

That is a very biased report that came from one of Obama's guys.  I heard it too and laughed.

Answer 19

of course i still dont understand who considers votign for mccain hes the $hit as bush and als ohow i nthe world did bush get relelected  

Answer 20

Don`t forget that Americans families had the first negative savings rate in 2007 since the Republican Great Depression in the 30s

Answer 21

YES he does - and so will John Sidney McSame!

Answer 22

My income increased by $25k.

Answer 23

Mr. Clinton reaped the benefits of the legislation regarding taxes passed during the Reagan years.  Mr. Bush inherited the trouble of the Clinton years (such as the drastic drawdown of military strength, and greatly increased taxes)  ...  as well as the Congress NOT voting in his full cabinet even at the time of 9/11 -- almost 9 months after he had taken office.  He had to face that tragic event shortly after taking office (without a full cabinet) ...   an event Mr. Clinton admits he could have prevented had he arrested Osama Bin Ladin when he had the chance.

In addition, the unemployment rate that is being screamed about now as so high, is actually LOWER than what it was during the main portion of the Clinton years, when the same number was considered quite LOW.

One must have a full picture of history to realize the facts, not just rely on statistics that can be "massaged".  

Answer 24

Seems to me that most all of our Domestic problems started in January of 2007. Any guess on what else "Changed" that month.