bkellyusa wrote:
This is not true. GW, despite having to conduct an expensive war presided over a rather successful economy for all but the last three months of his two term presidency. That's about 96.5% of his presidency. Unemployment was less than it had been during the Clinton years.
Wow... Tremendous spin there. When Clinton took over, the employment rate was quite high -- the result of Bush-41's mismanagement. It trended down throughout his term, going from 7.3% in Jan-93 to 4.2% in Jan-2001, hence Clinton is responsible for it declining 3.1%
On the other hand, Bush-43's term was just the reverse: starting low, and ending high -- As cited above, 4.2% at the start and 8.2% by Feb-2009 when Obama took over. So, Bush is responsible for a 4% rise.
Quote:
Obama on the other hand has had almost seven years
Well, that's your problem there -- you can't do simple math. (Obama has been in office barely 5 1/2 years)
Quote:
to do anything positive with our economy and he's done nothing but make it worse.
When he took office, the unemployment rate was 8.2% and losing 200K jobs a month; it's now 6.1% and gaining 200K a month. During his term, the DJIA has nearly doubled. The economy is UNQUESTIONABLY far better now than it was when Bush-43 left.
Quote:
I've said over and over and over the biggest difference between Obama and Bush is that Bush actually liked America while Obama wants to see it fundamentally destroyed.
The biggest difference is the Reagan/Bush/Bush wanted to turn the country over to corporate interests, while Clinton/Obama are trying nto give it back to the people.
Quote:
He's humiliated us more than any other politician who ever lived.
Don't be a fool. The US is a laughing stock around the world because
a) we refuse to acknowledge climate change.
b) We have mass killing is schools and movie theater but refuse to do anything about them.
c) we want to teach creationalism instead of evolution in schools.