Loading Loading
Just for optimization

Politics.comnews

freecreditcheck.com |  creditreports.com |  whois.domaintools.com |  bookclub.com
News Bush's Economic Policies Failure

Bush's Economic Policies Failure Bush's Economic Policies Failure

Submitted by FreedomGirl | 2 months ago

The Atlantic - 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.

Tags: econimics, Bush, failure

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Torchlight2 (Republican) - 2 months ago

Show full conversation (2 messages)
Reply to FREEDOMMM
Waiting for the other shoe to drop; this is yet another hit piece on Supply Side Economics. Just ano … Show full comment

I agree with supply side economics. Under Reagan spending should have been reigned in but wasn't because he had Democratic majorities in both houses. Bush W. cut taxes as well, not to the extent Reagan did but he cut them none the less. However there was no excuse this time for not cutting spending as well since Republicans at least had a working majority for six out of the eight years he was President and an absolute majority for five of those years. That is where the failure occurred.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Torchlight2 (Republican) - 2 months ago

Show full conversation (2 messages)
Reply to ChipBuffalo
This is such an old story. Look, Bush and the Republicans lost BIG because of their economic failure … Show full comment

The problem is for five out of the eight years he was president the Republicans held majorities and spent money like there was no tomorrow and Bush you are correct never used the veto pen so that makes him duplicitous.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

D-IIIII (Republican) - 2 months ago

Show full conversation (2 messages)
Reply to Torchlight2
Clinton had the benefit of a conservative congress to hold him in check. That was before Republican … Show full comment

Absolutely right on. Time for the conservatives among us to take back the party from the neo-cons. They are as liberal as the dems, and deserve our contempt for so many reasons.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

FREEDOMMM (Republican) - 2 months ago

Waiting for the other shoe to drop; this is yet another hit piece on Supply Side Economics. Just another way to give Obama Cover for depleting the nation's capital and spreading his uh er OUR wealth around. This story just doesn't pass the smell test,

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

ChipBuffalo (Constitutionalist) - 2 months ago

This is such an old story. Look, Bush and the Republicans lost BIG because of their economic failures in the early years of his administration. They were severely punished for their betrayal. After that, when the economy took a real dive, the only thing Bush can be held responsible for is not vetoing the crap the dems were pushing. The president can not spend with out the congress sending it to him.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Torchlight2 (Republican) - 2 months ago

Clinton had the benefit of a conservative congress to hold him in check. That was before Republicans turned into Democrats. No argument from this conservative on the economic failure of the Bush Presidency. One of the worst since Nixon.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

1 - 6 / 6