White House: A vote for D.C. ‘unconstitutional’

Yes, economic surge. If you're going to argue about the economy, dont throw in a war that you disagree with. Numbers dont lie and yes, there was an economic surge under Bush. You prove this article to be true. You are too focused on a war you disagree with that you discredit any accomplishment from the Bush administration. You lose credibility when you ignore facts and start talking ideology.

Economic surge under Bush, That's a laugh! Spending $600 billion for socalled WMDs. The only people that have done good are the Rich with big tax cuts with the National Debt adding more red ink. Lets not forget the stockholders of Haliburton and Becthel who made a millions on the blood of American troops. Rich Republicans Chickenhawks don't and will never serve the military. But it's alright for the poor to go and fight and die.

Jimmie Carter is my man. 22% interest rates. Mobile homes recommended for housing. Clinton lets the Feds pay for everything - medical, housing, poor (that's everyone except the Hilton End. I WAS working then so I picked up the tab. Now I burn corn to stay warm.

If unemployment is so high across the co., the cost of living higher than ever & job insecurity @an all-time high, what's so great about this ecom v. Clintons'?!?

Is that why the gap between the rich and poor is the greatest since 1929, right before the Great Depression?

The economy is truly robust. Now, if we can keep big government, tax and waste Democrats from gaining control, we can keep it going. Clinton stood for nothing but what the polls told him he should do. We are suffering now because of what Carter didn't do in Iran many years ago. The Iraq war may not be popular with everyone, but if we fail there the repercussions will be astronomical for the whole world.

How about the Bush national debt????????? oh, and we had to do away with the middle class so the rich could get richer!! I resent any comparison to the Clinton surplus and the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Well, let's see...You have domestic manufacturing on the ropes and down for the count (it was growing strongly and healthily ten years ago). You have unemployment rates that clearly are fake, given that they are mathematically impossible due to the combination of continued population growth and anemic new job creation numbers. You have bloated budget and trade deficits which replaced a surplus at the end of the Clinton years that if left alone, would have wiped out the national debt by the end of the decade. You have a dollar that has lost 30% of its value against global currencies, contributing to the worst bloating in energy prices ini 30+ years. You have record levels of personal debt and personal bankruptcy in an economic environment where the top 10% of the income pyramid is literally enjoying 110% of the personal income growth, while the bottom 90% is LOSING ground. All this is confirmed by the government's own figures when read accurately. And Bush is asserting that his econom

The BIGGEST "minus" to the Clinton economy was that it's base the .com boom was a sham.

hows the national debt under bush, does he have a surplus yet I don't think so!!! six years and counting bush!!! under clinton we had a niece surplus!!!

Dems and Reps are equally guilty of spinning numbers to make their side look more favorable than the other. They know most folks are basically stupid and will readily embrace their party's line. For example, "Labor Department reported that 180,000 new jobs were created in March and the unemployment rate fell to 4.4 percent." Sounds pretty good right? How many of those jobs were given to illegal foreigners who keep pouring over our borders? How much of the unemployment rate drop represented folks accepting jobs as opposed to being removed merely because their unemployment benefits ran out. Yep, once a person's benefits runs out the government no longer counts him as being unemployed even though he still doesn't have a job. Spin spin spin. Both parties play the game.

I can't speak for the overall economy of the business world but my part of the country is in bad shape and getting worse. Whether it has anything to do with who was/is president is an interesting concept but you can "see" our bad economy just by looking at the empty storefronts and aging for sale signs in the neighborhood.

Everything is more expensive and people earn less. Stronger?

I'd like to know what program Elijah is on where he is getting $350 a month in tax breaks. In northern Michigan everything is at a standstill, houses for sale for the last 2 or 3 years and still on the market, business's closing down, no new business starting up, you don't see people coming up north for vacation or hunting/fishing. It's over a $100 bill just for gas for a roundtrip here to Detroit. I can't say much for the rest of the country but the economy here blows and is getting worse each day. I'm one disaster away from extinction.

During the Bush years, the number of Americans below the poverty line has increased by 5.37 million, while under Clinton the number fell by 7.68 million. THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW. the White House will spin anything to control and confuse the masses ... you can not have a "strong" economy if 5.37 MILLION citizens fell into living life below the poverty line. I think the President that moved 7.5 MILLION OUT of living below the poverty line gets to win this - unless your playing number games and ignoring reality.

My take on the economy is this. In Indiana during the Clinton years Fast food restaurants had signs out touting wages of $8.00--$8.25 per hour. Grocery and chain stores were the same. During the Bush years those same business now pay minimum wage and the Republican controlled congress continually defeated efforts to raise the minimum wage. Charles S.

do you think you or some reporter could do some homework and determine who is correct? isn't that part of your job as opposed to acting as a 'mouthpiece for the opposition'. if Bush's claim is correct, what right do the Clinton people have to a headline disputing a known fact? this is not even a political issue but by not publishing the facts, you make it one.

I am low - middle class, and own no stock of any kind. My family is MUCH much better off now then we were under Clinton. His tax cuts put about $350/month back into our pockets, and made the difference between going back to college or not. I don't know hat country the doom-and-gloomers live in, but it's not mine...

Sperling is right! There is no comparison! The Bush economy far outpaces the pseudo-economy of clinton. In fact, clinton did evrything possible, through record-breaking soaring tax increases on the poor and middle classes, to wreck the robust Reagan economy. clinton's "economy" was totally ersatz. Economic actoivity and prosperity are created only through the action of the private sector. Any government action that raises taxes to fund giveaways to political cronies and toadies is not "investment' as clinton falsely claimed. In fact, if it's absurdity that Sperling is pointing to, it would be the 8 year curse from Jan. 20, 1993 to Jan. 20, 2001 of bill in the Oval Office that this dear country had to endure.

Bush Economy better? For who? The Bush Chickenhawks who own Haliburton stock. What kind of drugs are these people on saying Bush economy is better that Clintons. Where have all the W bumper stickers gone? Bush is no Reagan! Bush is not a good Republican.

You might want to mention that Kudlow is a little biased. He was an economic advisor to Reagan. Not only that he has carried water for the Bush administration for years and is a huge proponent of supply side economics. Given who Kudlow is, the fact that not even he can spin Bush's economy as being better than Clinton's is very telling.

Too bad many of those corporate leaders that spurred the Clinton growth are in jail from fraud. Let us not forget why there is now a SOX Act, why companies had to restate earnings all the way back to 1998, and why cash flow statements are broken up into three separate segments now. I won't mention the annual testing of goodwill for impairment now instead of just writing it off over years like a hard asset. Whoops, I guess I did.

"Since the early Reagan years, we have had 25 years of virtually uninterrupted prosperity," Kudlow said. This is absoulutely right. Both the Clinton and Bush growth is just a continuation of what Reagan started!

"In terms of job creation, in terms of wage growth, in terms of business investment, in terms of poverty, there's absolutely no comparison." He is absolutely right. There is no comparison. Thing are better all the way around no matter how bad the media or Democrats want to make it sound. I and everyone I know are far better off now than in the Clinton years. I just hope that the present tax suts turn into something I heard Congressman Linder(sp) tlaking about a Fair Tax Plan. Make America the worlds Tax haven. It will create even more jobs.