From the Census Dept.
Change, real median household income (2003 adjusted dollars)
Bush II: -$1,535
Clinton: +$5,489
Bush I: -$1,314
Change, number in poverty
Bush II: +4,280,000
Clinton: -6,433,000
Bush I: +6,269,000
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If anyone is observant or bored enough to see this newly added comment, I'm throwing Jen a second conversation. The economy. I'm not being sneaky here, well not completely. I am a bit shy around an economics minor, but this post was already here. It shows the median household incomes and the change of the number of people currently impoverished. It's from the Census, you can click the link to get the entire report. I didn't read all of it, so I will admit to defeat if someone proves me wrong from the same document. My post to this was just that these are interesting numbers given the earlier discussion about supply side economics. There is a strong case towards the possibility of the prior administration doing the right things to allow for the growth in median income and shrinking of the poverty class, but it's sort of debunked when you see that Clinton's four years had some pretty good consistency when it came to economic growth and fiscal responsibility(I'm just throwing that in, the Census doesn't care about that shit) after H.W.Bush failed to handle Reagan's trickle down theory and the idea that Clinton set W up for failure just seems like nonsense to me. I don't know, maybe I'm naive and fooled, but something is odd about the largest surplus in US history becoming the largest deficit while Bush still wants to spend more money going after more countries. I could rant about that for hours though, one thing that's a bad idea is to get me started on W. There's not a single thing that I think he's accomplished, INCLUDING his handling of 9/11. His own campaign even altered the audio of his famous 2 days after speech at ground zero to make it sound like the President didn't flub up and say almost an entirely different statment(that statement was "The whole world is going to hear you", he didn't say that actually, he just said "I can hear you and they can hear you". Not really a big deal, but these liars, they can't even .. See, this is whiskey and an RNC nomination. My starter is the census numbers, comments? Or lets just talk directly about the real fact pros and cons of supply side economics vs. I don't know what's the term? "Tax and spend"? That's always the accusatory two party argument. Is there something else better that neither side is offering? If that doesn't start anything, what about the constitution party and their idea that the US government should be reduced to the base elements framed by the constitution. A complete removal of government social services, but not necessarily regulative services. Okay not really the economy, but I'm tired and I'm going to try to reference another "third" party whenever I can tie one in, if I have to I'll start naming Australian political party ideals. Mommy, why can't we have a runoff election?
drunkenly typed 4 instead of 8 on the Clinton business, sorry to bring up Clinton again.
Post a Comment