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.This is also bad news for Republicans who are still chanting their tax-cut mantra like a perseverating deranged person who can't help himself -- or doesn't know anything else to do. This report seems to settle that once and for all: tax cuts for the wealthy do not benefit the average citizen. The "trickle down" theory is a lie.
So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:Nor was this the result of economic collapse in 2008, which didn't really kick in until the last few months of Bush's term. All of these measures were already essentially the same before that.
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 percent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 percent.
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 article concludes:
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?Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment