Digg - 75% Blame Bush's Policies for Deterioriating Economy

Remove

Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.

485 Comments
Who Dugg It?

alapoet, on 06/25/2008, -35/+141Let's hope that Americans have the common sense not to do the McSame thing and expect different results.
- stonebear, on 06/26/2008, -6/+18Perhaps the more important question is whether American voters actually have anything to say about it.
  - ElAssoWipo, on 06/26/2008, -6/+4Bleh, even when they pick the right guy, they pick him for the wrong reasons.
    
    Drawing names out of a hat would probably be more reasonnable.
    - fr3ddie, on 06/26/2008, -3/+6speaking of drawing names out of hats.... LOL... "ElAssoWipo"
    - mummbleswers, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2That picture looks like Max Headroom ***** Sgt. Slaughter and that's the illegitimate son!
    - stonebear, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Never heard him described quite that way, but I can't help thinking The Duke Of Nukem would approve. It's very much along the lines of the ribald insults he spins all through the game.
    - ElAssoWipo, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1This is where I got my name (circa 1997):
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdwU3PHt4ks
  - didiman, on 06/27/2008, -3/+175% are morons, 50% of which are on Digg
- mal1964, on 06/26/2008, -10/+8I'm probably not voting for him but you should have more common sense to know that McCain is not the alasame.
  - haydesigner, on 06/26/2008, -2/+9Well, he sure sounds like it. Can you point to a handful of major policies where he significantly differs?
    - mal1964, on 06/26/2008, -10/+3If you don't know, Me explaining it to you wont do any good.
    - mal1964, on 06/26/2008, -6/+2I'll answer most questions but while looking through you comments i see you talk like you are politically advanced. So do you really want to know where they differ or are you just wasting my time?
    - YourDoom123, on 06/27/2008, -0/+6so your answer to his question is the childish "i know the answer but i'm not going to tell you"?
      
      qft
    - haydesigner, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Yes, I sincerely do want to know. Nothing I have seen/heard/read from him the past 2-3 years shows me anything different.
  - mal1964, on 06/27/2008, -5/+3@yourdoom12 ,Bush is a conservative, McCain is "more" liberal
    "so your answer to his question is the childish "i know the answer but I'm not going to tell you"?
    No its more like he knows why and is being childish.
    Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.m ...
    John McCain, New Hampshire front-runner Mitt Romney said Saturday that his GOP presidential rival had failed "Reagan 101" by twice opposing President Bush's tax cuts.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008 ...
    McCain also backed stem cell funding, which President Bush opposed.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
    
    "McCain tries to assure conservatives"
    “We made it very clear to him that if he doesn’t start speaking on family issues, he’s going to lose Ohio,” said Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values. “He needs to make the issues he agrees with us on very clear.”
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/26/ ...
    - xceptionaly, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2So they differ on a handful of unimportant buzzwords? Big deal.
  - mikeyeah, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2@mal1964
    
    John McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007. Thanks for just naming the 5% of the time when he didn't.
- LukasSmith, on 06/26/2008, -21/+11What happened to self responsibility? If anyone is responsible for the way this world is that would be the American people. Greedy, self absorbed, and clueless Americans.
  
  I deserve to drive when I want, I deserve to buy whatever I want, I deserve to enjoy the finer things, I deserve to live 1000x better then half the world that lives on $1.00 a day, Let them eat cake.
  Sincerely,
  America.
  - oderdigg, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6This also applies to Alberta Canada. Just as hick red-neck as the best the US has to offer.
    - mal1964, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6What's the last thing a redneck says before he dies?
      
      Hey! Watch this...
  - xsquirrel378x, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1copypasta?
  - insanebrain, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1nail .. hammer. .. hitting :)
  - GassyTurd, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Lukas, you are an ugly little *****.
- dsmx, on 06/26/2008, -5/+10A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
  - mal1964, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4That's AA and NA talk.
- insanebrain, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6"Let's hope that Americans have the common sense. .. ".
  There's your problem.
- haydesigner, on 06/26/2008, -4/+9Wait a sec... Bush actually HAS policies?
  - theaceoffire, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Does war count?
    - haydesigner, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Sadly... yes.
- TdiFFRob6876, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1dugg for new use of Mc
- SopMan99, on 06/27/2008, -3/+3Yes vote for CHANGE!!!!! (don't know exactly what to change... or what change means.... just change).
  
  I get enraged when I watch the news or listen to the radio and hear about how we all wish we had a politicians who has definitive positions, a voting record that has never wavered from his political philosophy, etc... We say we want that person but when he actually runs, we claim that he "can't win". Guess who I'm referring to....
  - nmessick, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3sigh.... Ron Paul. His sign is still in my yard.
- JohnFromChicago, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2Hopefully, American's have the common sense to realize it's the Fed that's as much responsible as any one politician. As long as we spend as much as we can tax + as much as we can borrow + as much as we can print out of thin air, the economy is going to continue to tank until it collapses. Until the American people realize this and demand a solution, it makes no difference whether McCain or Obama wins. Silver and gold coinage is still by legal definition "lawful money". A good start would be to require the government and the banks to obey the law.
  - MikeFromAmerica, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1You lost me at "American's have the common sense."
- nikitab, on 06/27/2008, -3/+3Riiight, so when it is convenient, the majority thought all of a sudden becomes truth...
  
  Lame... as Vietnam has shown, people in US are no better than people anywhere else: at the smallest inconvenience they start kicking and screaming for blood assigning blame left and right. The US is, for the first time, actually doing something meaningful (dangerous, questionable, but meaningful), yet people who scream loudest care about nothing but their agenda and people who support them care more about high price of gas than violation of human rights of civilians in Iran, Syria, Sudan, etc. by their own governments...
  
  Ignorance is truly bliss and most people treat hatred of republicans as therapy... well, good for you. Although, from my vantage point, morally bankrupt.
  - stickyman, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0What exactly are you trying to say. You didnt say anything then.
- seandaly, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Yeah, let's vote for McCain...
  
  "Nine percent of respondents said the country's economic condition had improved since Bush became president".
  
  Exactly what I would expect from an administration / party who's agenda is to cater to the top 10%.
  
  You know things are going in reverse when the top 10% are able to increase their incomes year over year, even during a "slow" or "recessive" economy, yet the middle & bottom have seen their incomes drop significantly.
  
  Trickle-down economics do not work... Rich people are rich for a reason, they love money, know how to earn it and definitely are not interested in sharing it. If you give the rich ways of keeping or earning more money, they'll just find new and innovating ways to make sure that less of it makes it back to your pockets.
  
  It's like the average Joe who invests in the stock market and loses big... He figures that the money just kind of vanishes. He doesn't realize that for every loser there are winners and his loss is often someone else's carefully calculated profit.
  
  ***** I hate economics!
neognostic, on 06/25/2008, -32/+243Remaining 25% still trying to tell their ass from a hole in the ground.
- sponeil, on 06/26/2008, -1/+14No, I think even they've figured it out, and that the remaining 25% work for companies like Halliburton and Blackwater.
- mummbleswers, on 06/26/2008, -1/+14Yeah, theres' always one ***** isn't there! "4 out of 5 doctors / dentists / drivers / diggers / cats / camels / henchmen etc... The list goes on... Always one friggin' pre-madonna / dumbass in the group.
  - GassyTurd, on 06/26/2008, -0/+12prima donna
    
    sorry
    - STPZ, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3hah pre-madonna 4 outta 5 diggers would have overlooked that
      
      good call
  - mummbleswers, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Shtoops - My bad, good show.
- anillop, on 06/26/2008, -1/+17Surprisingly thats the same amount that still supports president Bush no matter what he does.
  - MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/27/2008, -0/+8Many of those people simply don't follow the news at all and just aren't aware of what's going on.
- zooplibob, on 06/26/2008, -5/+11The headline is inaccurate. The actual poll results were:
  "Nine percent of respondents said the country's economic condition had improved since Bush became president, compared with 75% who said conditions had worsened."
  
  The question had nothing to do with blame, just whether the economy was better or worse since 2001. Everyone should agree that its worse, which is what the poll shows. Whether Bush is responsible is another question that this poll does not address.
  - biotch, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5Its not misleading.
    The question:
    "Q36. Would you say the country is better off because of George W. Bush's economic policies than when he became president
    almost eight years ago, or worse off, or is the country about the same as it was then? (IF BETTER OR WORSE) Is the country
    much (better/worse) off or only somewhat (better/worse) off?"
    
    The question includes "because of GWB's economic policies"
    - STPZ, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1most ppl polled wouldnt actually contemplate the actually meaning of the question and follow the simple model of bush=bad, and those who try to understand the question confuse themselves thus drawing false understanding and therefore those opinions should be disqualified.
      
      polls aren't perfect but common sense shows similar conclusions
  - zooplibob, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3That question doesn't even make sense. There's another missing option, which is that the country IS worse off since 2001, but that his fiscal policies have helped soften the blow.
    
    This question only allows the person to link those two together.
- mydigg1012, on 06/26/2008, -4/+2Remaining 25% are on medicare.
  - zombies187, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Don't they prefer medicare to no medicare? Are they trying to get private insurance?
- calantus, on 06/26/2008, -8/+1This crash of the economy has been waiting to happen for a LONG time, bush just helped it along. It's not only his fault.
- diggrnumber1, on 06/27/2008, -3/+2remaining 25% are either blind bush supporters or they are smart enough to realize that other things have a larger influence on the economy than the president: The Fed, the price of oil, Congressional policies, other countries' policies, growth in emerging market economies, other central banks around the world, and the ridiculous amount of credit that was being extended to consumers.
- dexter411, on 06/27/2008, -7/+1What percent of the 75% (or the 100% of Digg sheep) can actually put SPECIFICALLY into words (or, better yet, into a little flow chart) what Bush did that caused the economy to deteriorate?
  
  Note: saying "Iraq" will need to be accompanied by why Alan Greenspan was wrong when he recently said that this war has only had a minimal effect on the economic downturn.
  - zombies187, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Iraq, because Greenspan is a tool who says whatever the boss tells him to say.
  - pagno, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5Buried for the "sheep" comment. I dont come to your house and call you a pig *****, do I? It doesnt matter if you do ***** pigs, because that would be disrespectful.
  - herbertstrasse, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2buried for awkward sentence structure; not only do you use too many modifiers, but you also see the need to randomly capitalize one word as if it lends a greater emphasis to your arguments.
    
    hay guise ur all sheepz lol go bush!
    - dexter411, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1Buried for improper use of a semicolon, lack of capitalization, for writing "see the need" instead of the correct "feel the need," and for writing as if emphasis can be lent (the word would be credence).
    - herbertstrasse, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2uh..
      
      "See the need" is a perfectly acceptable phrase, and I didn't mean to use the word credence. The semicolon was incorrect in the sense that the first clause was not technically independent...although that would make your entire critique grammatically incorrect as well.
      
      So, I didn't capitalize the first word. I guess I just ***** suck, eh?
  - dexter411, on 06/27/2008, -2/+111 hours later, still no one who can explain to me how Bush's policies are to blame for a deteriorating economy. Way to go, Digg.
  - Adamande, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Sigh...Bush spent tons of money he didn't have, taking up more foreign debt than all other US presidents combined. It's not exactly a secret, and digg probably assumed you knew this, cause everyone else here does. Bush's reckless spending has been discussed here just about daily for several years. So way to go, dexter. (BTW, Alan Greenspan is a crook. He has yet to admit to his own economic mismanagement, of which there is plenty.)
  - solistus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Dude, dexter, it's not rocket science:
    
    1. Iraq. I don't give a flying ***** what Greenspan thinks. We've spent trillions of dollars we didn't have. This is a huge issue. Explain how this WOULDN'T be bad for the economy rather than hiding behind appeals to authority. That's before we even get into the instability in the Middle East this has caused and the meteoric rise of gas prices that have resulted. And shall we discuss no bid contracts?
    
    2. Tax cuts. Never before in US history have we gone to war without raising taxes. See #1 for why this is a terrible idea. To make matters worse, Bush decided to _cut_ taxes during his expensive overseas adventure. Now, his cheerleaders insist that we must make these cuts permanent. There is no actual economic evidence in support of asinine trickle down economic theories. There is plenty of actual evidence that giving away money when you're already well past broke is a bad idea.
    
    3. China. For the past 8 years, Congress has been anti-China, but Bush has been unbelievably pro-Chinese interests. We've seen a ballooning trade imbalance, and China now owns almost 10% of the US economy in the form of T-Bills. In the past few years we've begun to see Chinese SOEs trying to buy up American companies, and that's only going to increase. Bush has prevented Congress from doing a damn thing about this, systematically opposing any bills that would increase trade pressure on China.
- orangekid13, on 06/27/2008, -1/+175% or Americans have above average intelligence
  :P hehe, think about that stat
diggFunction, on 06/25/2008, -56/+34Interesting that the economy started going to hell about two years ago. I wonder what happen at that time.

hmmmm.................

hint: congressional control
- MadKennyP, on 06/25/2008, -19/+36Right. "Two years ago." Just pulling crap out of your butt??
  
  About $3.2 trillion (over one-third) of our $8.9 trillion total national debt was accumulated during the first six years of the Bush Administration.
  - LupusDei, on 06/26/2008, -9/+8yea... but that doesn't mean the economy was down. There have been many times in history where the debt has gone up... but same with the economy.
    - GawtMilk, on 06/26/2008, -4/+7Many Diggers seemingly don't understand supply side economics, but you are right. When Reagan cut taxes for the rich, national debt rose 310% but the gross GDP rose 350%
    - LupusDei, on 06/27/2008, -2/+0Its not a matter of not understand, but quite the opposite. Read much about economic policy? You will find that Reagan's policy was quite effective. "Mr. Reagan's … agenda of tax cuts and deregulation ignited the boom that restored U.S. confidence. … [His] economic policies get less credit than they deserve because of the budget deficits and the 1982 recession." —The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2004 . Two major ways to get rid of debt. You can increase the GDP (double GDP then and debt stays constant then the debt is only half as big) or you can inflate the dollar, making the debt worth less. Now, if the national debt went up 310%, and GDP went up 350% then quite obviously the debt is respectively less than before. Thats 310/350 of what it used to be, respectively.
  - Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -3/+8Most of the the rest was accumulated under Reagan Reagan Bush Clinton Clinton.
    
    Plenty of blame to go around.
    - Tenlow, on 06/26/2008, -6/+9Yet somehow it nearly doubled under GWB. Sure there's plenty of blame, but we don't need to spread it too far.
    - Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -4/+3It does seem to be spiralling out of control. I think that would have happened under any president though.
      That's how addiction progresses. You have to keep taking bigger and bigger doses of whatever your drug is to get the same effect.
      
      What pisses me off most is that this administration is vindicating the most pessimistic predictions of Karl Marx.
- ssn697, on 06/26/2008, -6/+56you can't really believe the economy started going bad two years ago, or that years of mismanagement didn't lead up to this, can you? How old are you?
  - LupusDei, on 06/27/2008, -5/+1How bad is the economy going? I was pretty sure it has gone up the last two years. I was pretty sure it has been going up at about the same speed it has in the past. I was pretty sure unemployment is about the same as it was several years ago. Are you basing your assumptions off of increased gas prices? This idea that the economy is going bad is mostly propaganda (keep in mind this is election time, so there will be a lot of propaganda)... Yes, the rate of GROWTH (yes, it has still be growing) has gone down 1-2%, depending on the month, but the economy isn't going 'bad'. And yes, the DOW has gone down about 8% over the last three or four months, but that is very much due to the price of oil... and that is certainly not good, but it doesn't mean the economy is going 'bad'. The economy is still growing quite a bit, and once this oil issue has been either dealt with or ignored so much that it is taken into account, the economy will continue to grow and maybe a tid bit faster. I suggest that you think twice sir.
- Dumbledorito, on 06/26/2008, -8/+36Ah, so we're on a two-year scale, now? What happened to claiming that the problems of a Republican president's first term economy (four years) was the fault of the previous administration?
  
  You people will twist your brains into all sorts of shapes to avoid responsibility, won't you? Just so long as the wealthiest 1% get another tax cut...
  - kanabiis, on 06/26/2008, -3/+14Bingo... you hit the nail right on the head.
    
    Wish I could digg you twice.
  - DaDrake, on 06/26/2008, -14/+4Find me a major economist who believes the Bush tax cuts hurt the US economy. The fact is there was much speculation on the success of them.... after they were implemented, there is nearly a complete consensus that the Bush tax cuts helped the US economy.
    - WasabiBomb, on 06/26/2008, -3/+13I'd like to see anyone explain how cutting taxes- specifically on the rich- and leading the nation into an extremely expensive war can possibly help the economy.
    - biotch, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9"there is nearly a complete consensus that the Bush tax cuts helped the US economy. "
      
      Source?
    - apothekari, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5How about I find you a pissed off Truckdriver who has to quit hauling freight because diesel is over 5.00 a gallon.
      Or a person{one of millions} like me who can remember a time when juggling bills wasn't a full time occupation.
      Or how about I find you a kick in the nuts for being an ignorant jackass.
    - solistus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Drake, you're an idiot. Those economists who 'supported' Bush's tax cuts were supporting it as a political/ideological plan to reform the US tax code in the long term. They readily admitted that these policies would NOT lead to any short-term economic relief. In their words:
      
      "The tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to these problems. Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term. The permanent dividend tax cut in particular is not credible as short-term stimulus."
      
      That was from the first Google result for "economists on bush's tax cuts." I could find you a dozen better sources with a little research, including the many Nobel winning economists who have come out against the tax cuts, but given how bad the economy is these days, I don't think I should give my research skills away for free to ignorant ideologues like you.
  - Albear89, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1what do you mean you people?
    
    see what I did there?
  - LupusDei, on 06/26/2008, -5/+5First off... he isn't 'you people'. Way way over generalizing virtually never solves anything. Secondly, what is wrong with the wealthiest 1% getting tax cuts? What obligation do they have to anyone else? Should the wealthy be forced to pay for the poor only because the poor are not as rich as them? Should those with skill and talent be forced to compensate for those without? Should those whom are the best... be punished for being the best? You don't make any sense... In order for anyone (other than thieves) to make a buck, they must do or make something for someone else... So you want to force the people that already do and make the most to do more? You want to force the successful to have to carry and drag along the unsuccessful in order for the successful to get their reward? How in the hell does that seem fair? How in the hell is that what this country was founded upon?
    - kanabiis, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3It is quite clear that you completely misunderstand how the US tax code works.
      
      But don't take my word for it, let Warren Buffet, a man richer then you and 10 generations of your decedents will ever be. You see, he paid 17% on his 46 million dollars, while his Secretary paid 30% on her 40 thousand dollars. So, who is paying for who exactly?
      
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
    - JayWright, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5Yes. The wealthy ARE responsible for the poor.
      
      For every million dollars that a rich person makes, it takes many, MANY poorer people working below them in some way--most likely working much harder and for much less money. A trickle UP economy is a much more accurate description than Regan's trickle down *****. It takes many, many people working hard so that one person can benefit and get rich from their labor.
      
      Also, because of the many, many workers that millionaires DEPEND on to obtain their wealth, the millionaire is actually responsible for a greater portion of usage of the "commons." For example, each of the workers who create wealth for the millionaire must use public roads or public transportation to get to their jobs. Therefore, the millionaires and billionaires are disproportionately responsible for a far greater amount of usage of the commons in order to get their wealth, and so they should be taxed at a much HIGHER rate than those of us who use much less of the "commons."
    - LupusDei, on 06/27/2008, -4/+0LOL! Sorry kanabils... but you are very wrong. You misunderstand the US tax code I am afraid. If you actually read into that article the tax that Buffet was paying was capital gain tax. That is the same kind of tax that his assistant was paying. The difference is that his assistant was paying regular old income tax, which is generally around 30-40%, but capital gain tax is around 15%. Capital gain is a different type of income. Capital gain is the money you make when you sell something that you invested in. That is why he was taxed less sir. When you read an article and use it as your citation, make sure you know what it means. If his assistant had bought and sold, stocks lets say, she would have been taxed just the same. And by the way, that wasn't even what I was talking about in my comment... so nice try.
    - LupusDei, on 06/27/2008, -4/+0JayWright... I don't even know what to tell you. Do you know why people work for millionaires? Its because they get paid to do it... Do you know why the millionaire makes that much more money? It is because the work he is doing is worth more the any given buyer than the work his employees are doing. So if we go based of what your saying... it seems to me that you would be go yuppy about communism. Unfortunately, that system as a government has proven not to work all that well. Also, you didn't seem to listen to what I said... In order for those millionaires to make the money that they did they must have given more product or provided more service to their customers than the millionaires employees did. The resposibility of giving back occurs before you make the money, not after. Afterward it should be up to the owner of the money. Like Warren Buffet... we could taxed the ***** out of him, or we could let him donate 40 billion to an excellent organization (Bill and Mary) that will make far better use of the money than the government ever could (because they don't have to deal with quite so much stupid bureaucracy). So I suggest that you check your premises.
    - JayWright, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Warren Buffet is a great guy... he's also everyone's favorite example of billionaires doing responsible philanthropy with their money. Of course there is not a single other example of someone as generous as Warren Buffet, but don't let that fact stop anyone from using his name as fuel to their "argument."
      
      That aside, I realize that millionaires have made their money based on their unique ability to do whatever their job is better than the people that work for them. That doesn't change the FACT that in order for the millionaires to get their wealth it takes many people working below them. Each of these people below them has a small individual burden on the use of the COMMONS. The millionaire therefore has a culmination of the burden from his own direct use of the commons and a portion of every employee's burden that works FOR him to create his wealth! It's as simple as that. The millionaire has a GREATER responsibility for the USE (and destruction) of the COMMONS through both direct and indirect methods, and therefore the millionaire should be taxed at a HIGHER RATE to support the maintenance and upkeep of those same commons.
    - LupusDei, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0First off, I used Warren Buffet as an example because kanabils decided to use him. And yes, a great man he certainly is. My favorite billionaire doing the right thing isn't actually Buffet though... It is the third richest man (I think that is what he still is) who is indian. He just started construction of his 1 billion dollar house. Why is this my favorite example? Because this house will drastically increase the productive power of all the companies involved. Rather than just giving people money for no reason, he has given them a project to work for their money, and it is a project that will force the companies he is using to get much better at what they do. This is the best way to increase the economy. By recycling money through work. Also, if by commons you mean resources Earth has to offer, then yes we are all limited by the same factor. However, that does not mean a millionaire should pay a higher percentage. You say that he has a greater responsibility to these commons for each dollar he makes, and it is proportional to the amount of money he earns. Well sir, thats why he pays a percentage of his income. So that for each dollar he makes, he pays the same amount back as everyone else. He would be giving back the exact same amount per dollar as everyone else... the difference is that he makes a ***** load more dollars so he gives a ***** load more back. But you didn't explain why his tax rate should be HIGHER... If he is taxed at the same rate, he has to give back they same amount per amount that he makes... why should he have to give back more than the same amount per amount he makes?
- mummbleswers, on 06/26/2008, -7/+4And you are part of the 25% of people that are suffering from a disease called headupyourass-itus. It's not that rare in the states... Mostly effects the south.
- biotch, on 06/26/2008, -3/+8Interesting how the lower average GDP, record breaking deficits and debt accrued, poorer stock market performance (even after factoring in the stock crash in 2001 the dow remained up more than 300% what it was when Clinon took office), inferior jobs growth, and higher poverty and ridiculous oil prices as compared to Clinton, makes you think that economic woes started 2 years ago. And by the way, 2 years ago, the republicans still had the largest majority in congress ever during the Bush administration. The Dems took a slim non filibuster proof majority 1.5 years ago and have been filibustered by the republicans at every move keeping Bush's policies in play.
  
  Debt by party
  http://i27.tinypic.com/120m447.jpg
  
  GDP
  http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp? ...
  
  Stocks:
  http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900. ...
  
  Production and jobs growth:
  http://www.bls.gov/cps/
  http://www.factcheck.org/bush/facts_of_the_union_2 ...
  http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_clinton ...
  
  Poverty:
  http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate ...
- SoulDrift404, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Things were going SOOOOOO well in 2005!
katie212, on 06/25/2008, -42/+23Whether Obama or McCain it really won't make any difference...Both are for the nanny socialist state so, we are still sunk. That is what is wrong with America, everyone wants the government to take care of them. Socialism doesnot work as you will see soon enough.
- onetimer, on 06/26/2008, -13/+34Yes... a country with "socialist" policies could never work...
  
  Just for fun, let's look at countries with a higher tax-revenue-as-percentage of-GDP than this country:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
  
  Oh look, the US ranks 36th. Look at all those socialist countries! They must be suffering there...
  
  Hey, let's look at countries with the highest Human development index (aka standard of living):
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Ind ...
  
  Oh look, the US is...still looking...12th???? We must be taxing waaaay to much... What countries could possibly beat us?
  
  Well, look at that. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY ahead of us on the list were countries that also were more "socialist" than us.
  
  But your right, besides those ELEVEN countries, socialism could *never* work.
  
  So, how many libertarian-based countries are there currently?
  - Dumbledorito, on 06/26/2008, -1/+22What? Haven't you heard of the lost continent of Libertopia?
    
    It was said to be a paradise where corporations never screwed their customers, and were free to do whatever they liked because no one held their accounting or business activitites to any kind of standards. The people magically knew which businesses didn't poison them or lie to them or treated their workers fairly. No workplace regulation was needed because if your boss was a meanie, there was somehow (again, magically) a new job that paid just as much or more and would relocate your entire family to the new city where you'd work.
    
    Legend has it that they were protected by "The Invisible Hand of the God Mar-Ket," but that the whole place sank beneath the ocean when they couldn't get a government bail out after their entire economy became based on unregulated hedge funds.
  - Flipdawg27, on 06/26/2008, -8/+4You're missing the point. Our country was founded on skepticism of the government and personal responsibility. It isn't the government's role to take care of everyone. That was never the intention of the founding fathers or the Constitution.
  - onetimer, on 06/26/2008, -1/+8@flipdawg
    
    That can be debated, as any legal scholar will tell you in regard to the "General Welfare" clause. If people vote in congressman with the intent of them establishing social programs, I see no problem with that if they are representing the will of the people.
    
    Regardless, it wasn't the point of my post to argue the merits of socialism versus capitalism. It was simply to address katie212's ignorant "socialism can never work" statement, when there is much evidence against that.
  - PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -6/+2Logical fallacy to ask people to point to libertarian states. We are not the nation we live in. Nationalism and socialism divides people into classes and tramples over the rights of the individual.
    - WasabiBomb, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5... except in those countries that are socialist *and* doing better than us by every social and economic scale, right?
    - PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2But why? All you've given me is an uninformative generalization. A lack of spending on wars and foreign occupations perhaps? This certainly contributes to the issue. But these are relative comparisons between nations. It would be better to compare nations based on commodity values, taxation and other policies which more directly effect commerce.
    - ghuytro, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Out of the countries listed in onetimer's post, which countries divide people into classes and tramples over their individual rights?
    - jvittetoe, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Have you ever stepped outside of this country? Have you ever been to London? Your TV doesn't give you news from around the world. It gives you a script, it gives you entertainment.
  - onetimer, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Logical fallacy? Is that really the best you can think of?
    
    Ok, how do you want me to phrase this...how about...list some countries that successfully operate on the principles of absolute laissez-faire capitalism and/or libertarianism?
    
    As for the "taxation tramples the rights of individuals", please don't inject that personal opinion as a fact.
    - PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -4/+2If you support the initiation and use of force to effect change, there's no reason for me to continue a discussion with you because you will constantly tell me in one form or the other that my points are wrong and I'm being illogical.
      
      Again, you missed the point. I don't have to give you examples of entire nations engaged in capitalism. Individuals in all nations engage in free exchange all of the time without causing the world to end. Disprove that.
      
      Your request does not permit for an informative answer because you are only looking at economics in terms of nations. Nations do not make decisions, people do.
    - jvittetoe, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2That sir, was a well articulated elbow drop from the top ***** turnbuckle. Macho Man Randy Savage style.
    - zombies187, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2@peppermintpig
      Individuals in all nations engage in free exchange all of the time without causing the world to end.
      This is exactly why its Ok to have a little bit of order imposed by the government.
  - Nuken, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2did you bother to look up those GDPs?
    The US has the largest in the world excluding the EU since they are not a single country.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
    so the government here has over $3,779,364,225,000 isnt that enough?
    
    Your 2nd link was broken so i cant compair this number to the number in any of those 11 countries.
    so the current US tax load per person is $12,550
    if I forced everyone to pay the same amount babies too this is no free ride.
    - planet87, on 06/26/2008, -5/+3nuken, add an "ex" to the end of the URL.
      
      It's based on Life Expectancy and a bunch of other BS.
      
      There is of course no "Freedom Index"
      
      All the so-called liberals in this country are really totalitarianists.
- UncleJessy, on 06/26/2008, -4/+3Totally agree.
- toowired77, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2I assume you never ask for help. Thank God we have superman on Digg.
- 0Xonox0, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Socialism dose not work!
  Capitalsim < Poverty < Socialism
SheilaNoya, on 06/25/2008, -13/+21I can't believe no one has bashed me for my typo in the title yet. That's what I get for retyping the damn thing instead of just copying it directly from the article.

Oh well... it's still a good article which should help prove that John McCain is going to find it difficult to keep pushing Bush's same economic agenda.
- ssn697, on 06/26/2008, -2/+41This is Digg. Deteriorating is WAY too big a word to notice the typo ;-)
  - Krisgi, on 06/26/2008, -11/+2So what are you doing here, genius?
    - ssn697, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7That would be MR. gee-nee-us to you...
      
      I am here, supporting the right had side of the Bell curve, spfff....
- form3hide, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2i was stuck doing the math on that percentage to see your typo...
  
  ...okay, i'm kidding.
- silentforest, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2OK, I'll bite. You suck! Learn to use spell check you loser!
  
  Let's just hope McSame doesn't have the same election riggers that Bush did. Can anybody say disenfranchised voters?
- travmatron86, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4I just took it as a poke at Bush's illiteracy.
m2garand, on 06/26/2008, -13/+81Oh come on, endless wars, massive government entitlement spending, and no tax increases. We can have it all, just tell the Fed to print more money to pay for it all. That won't hurt anything. /s
- curtisag, on 06/26/2008, -3/+10It is monetary policy, not fiscal policy, that created this economic downturn. Look to Alan Greenspan, he lowered interest rates down to 1%, which fueled the massive risk taking in the sub-prime mortgage industry. Deficit spending, while bad in the long term, does not affect the economy in the short term. In fact, it temporarily boosts GDP (see economic stimulus package/giveaway), while lowering it in the future when we have to pay for our excessive spending. Every election year we hear the same *****/blame-game in politics. And all the while the real people who deserve blame go free. Obama has no choice but to raise taxes, which will help us pay off our debt in the long term, but will do nothing for short term economic growth. The federal reserve also caused oil prices to skyrocket by devaluing our currency, expanding the money supply every year at about 14%.
  - biotch, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4The President appoints the fed.
    If Bush had a brain and understood monetary policy, he could have worked with Greenspan as Clinton did to make sure that didnt happen. But no, he and his administration were a bit busy trying to convince America that Iraq needed to be invaded.
    
    "Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton's handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we've had in a while.""
    
    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_clinton ...
- blitz718, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Sorry curtisag, but the fiscal policy is as much to blame. Running on a massive budget deficit cripples the growth of the economy in the long run, and that is what we should be worried about. Sure these things made the economy look good back in 03 but the effects of no growth are starting to show, and coupled with the mortgage crisis it puts us in the face of a very solid recession. The reason the Money Supply has been expanding at this rate, to put it simply, is borrowing money from the Fed in order to pay off the huge debts to India/China. The methodology is well known by economists and this is why the exchange rate is so low.
- m2garand, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Inflation and government spending go hand and hand. Inflation is the course the government takes when they want to spend money but can't tax or borrow it. Since people oppose taxes the government just prints more money. The war in Iraq would have not happened without the Federal Reserve system printing money to fund it.
  - blitz718, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1It's really no where near as simple as you make it out to be.
mattc908, on 06/26/2008, -31/+13Hate to break it to everyone, the economy does this IT GOES UP AND DOWN. We've been in recessions before (not same thing as a depression). It bounces back and will go down again in the future, thats how it works.
- Tenlow, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Yes. It goes up and down. This is true. It is also true that we (meaning our leaders) caused this downturn. Poor policy is to blame, not "that's just what happens".
- mummbleswers, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Nothing to see here. More of the same is exactly what we need to keep doing.
- JoeVet, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Is it just coincidence that it goes down under a republican president and goes up under the democrats? Odd how that happens! President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a federal budget surplus of $127 billion. President George Bush ran a deficit of $319 billion in 2005. Bush still refuses to budget in our occupation of Iraq. Ignoring such a large budget item is no way to control costs. McCain wants to stay and he also hasn't told us how he is going to pay for it.
- rolfeman02, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2you must be one of the 25%
Krisgi, on 06/26/2008, -18/+2125% of Americans eligible to vote are idiots.

What does that tell you?
- CptCoolguy, on 06/26/2008, -8/+0
  - 0Xonox0, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Minorities?
- Berkana, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5Darwin was right about this: in the end, how much you reproduce means more to the population as a whole than how snazzy your mind is. There are limits to human intelligence, but there is no limit at all to human idiocy. If morons will breed, morons will rule. I'm not advocating eugenics or anything, I'm just saying, look at the populations most likely to have 4-6 kids per family vs. those who opt to have 1 or less.
  - Risingashes, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1There is nothing more dangerous than an idiot who thinks he is above the rest of society.
    
    If you were honest with yourself do you understand more than a surface understanding of economics- and yet you'd believe your views on the economy are valid wouldn't you?
    
    Do you know anything about the true cause and effect of punishment- and yet you would criticize the legal system?
    
    How many times have you agreed with statistics that have presented correlation as causation?
    
    Do you believe that there is or isn't a God? Do you understand why either view is as ridiculous as the other?
    
    The majority of the population lacks a concrete understanding on the majority of issues. The only ones really doing damage are the people who believe that they have a unique insight in to everything and do not have the willingness to entertain the notion that they are likely completely wrong.
- whyknot2k, on 06/26/2008, -4/+4Correction, that's 75%, not 25%.
greengarfield, on 06/26/2008, -16/+12675% blaming the president, and how many taking responsibility for voting for him twice?
- fourzerofour, on 06/26/2008, -0/+15you'd be surprised, I was when I started asking co-workers. better yet they said they would vote for him again if they could
  - arplayer2k, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2You know what to do. Finish them! /joke
  - Lith25, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2My mom said the same thing and I was floored.
  - Amazetbm, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2People will vote against their own economic prosperity to feel morally/socially superior if a candidate panders to some issue that sparks emotion in them.
- pintomp3, on 06/26/2008, -4/+23elect bush once, shame on bush. elect bush twice, shame on you.
  - sloppychris, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5A fooled man cant get cooled again.
  - MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3"Fool me once... shame on... shame on you... fool me can't get fooled again."
    
    or better yet...
    "America where wings take dream."
    
    best...
    "Is that you Condelicious?"
    - zombies187, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Bush said condelicious? That IS the best.
- chispito, on 06/26/2008, -5/+7How many are taking responsibility for taking out loans they couldn't afford?
  
  You can't pin it all on the lenders.
  - Mejari, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8That's a little different. When a professional banker tells you you can do something, you tend to trust them. Plus, people voted for Bush twice, that's like someone who just got ***** by sub-prime mortgages taking out another one.
  - biotch, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2agreed ... totally valid.
    Although part of the problem is that people were expecting to be making more money in the future. Income for the majority of the population has remained stagnant, and has actually fallen when inflation is considered. So people couldnt keep up with the loans they had taken out as they otherwise would have had the economy performed better.
  - JoeVet, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4Actually yes you can blame the lenders. They used predatory practices that convinced people it was possible to finance more than what they could afford. The fed just busted hundreds of those mortgage brokers.
    - tbbuccfan, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1Does anyone take personal responsibility for anything anymore? What "practices" are you referring to? If you are stupid enough to enter in to a mortgage that you know is going to rise in rates (i.e. ARM loan), you deserve to lose your home. Is it the credit card companies fault for idiots that sign up for every solicitation that they get too? You pinpoint the exact problem with this country. BLAME SOMEONE ELSE! It is never the fault of the fool who made the choice. This goes for corporations as well. I am tired of the government bailing out these idiots for making the loans (or buying the paper that is securitized by these loans). The bank I work at followed strict underwriting standards and our past due loans are ten times lower than the average bank. The reason? We didn't lend to people that couldn't afford the loans. Maybe these people that took out the sub prime mortgages should read their documents before signing their life away. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything anymore. We have turned into a bunch of gutless fools.
    - zombies187, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2@tbbuccfan
      This is why I could never be a republican. I will never agree to a philosophy that views people this way. If you are too stupid you deserve to lose your house. That's just...wrong. We should protect the stupid and weak. We should do our best to help them. Not put them down. No response necessary. Don't bother rephrasing it. You guys should make that your campaign slogan.
- WasabiBomb, on 06/26/2008, -2/+7That's the most depressing thing about this election.
  
  All those people that voted Bush into office are now trying to convince us to vote for their guy instead of someone different. "No, really- THIS time I'm picking the right guy, I promise!"
  - biotch, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5The same thing has been happening since Reagan's re-election. And each time we acquire record breaking debt and deficits. And yet each time they run claiming they are the party of conservative spending. I dont know how the hell they ever got that reputation.
    
    http://i27.tinypic.com/120m447.jpg
- PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Well, very few people actually vote, and given the relatively minute sampling of people for this poll, there's quite a large gap that could justify the conflicting figures.
  
  In other words, that figure could be higher.
  - brentnclemson, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0In other words, that figure could be lower...
    - PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Humor.
      
      Yes, could be lower too. It's just a statistic.
- Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9Diebold machines feel no remorse, only cool digital self-satisfaction.
- xtinamo, on 06/26/2008, -3/+6I admit that I inadvertently voted for Bush in 2004. My parents were in control of my absentee ballot and despite me telling them to vote for Kerry, I found out almost a year later that they voted for Bush instead. And they wonder why I moved across the country.
  - PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5Yay, vote fraud.
  - biotch, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3oh man!
    Id never let them hear the end of that!
    Be sure to send them a thank you card with this on it
    http://i27.tinypic.com/120m447.jpg
- 0Xonox0, on 06/27/2008, -1/+125%
phreak79, on 06/26/2008, -24/+9Interestingly Obama seemed to blame other countries for the woes of the American economy.
- SheilaNoya, on 06/26/2008, -2/+11Huh? In his speeches, Obama cites our record breaking deficits, the fact that we're wasting all of our money on the incompetent way Bush is fighting terrorism, senseless tax breaks for companies who move American jobs overseas, failure to have an energy plan that makes sense, Bush's wasteful prescription drug plan for Medicare that makes it illegal to negotiate lower prices, etc, etc, etc.
  
  So exactly what are you referring to when you say Obama blames other countries for our bad economy?
  - phreak79, on 06/26/2008, -4/+4Sorry, I could have sworn I heard him saying NAFTA should be fundamentally changed to protect American companies. Thankfully now he has the nomination he's toned down his populist economic policies.
    - SheilaNoya, on 06/26/2008, -3/+6You mean... NAFTA should be renegotiated to make it more fair to American workers and we should dump the tax incentives for American companies to offshore jobs overseas.
    - phreak79, on 06/26/2008, -6/+5No, I mean he's already turning back on his rhetoric and admitting that during campaigns things get overheated. All he was doing was appealing to the trade union vote. Even his chief economic advisor said the rhetoric was political positioning rather than any real belief.
      
      Does seem that the Digg populous has taken to digging down anything remotely critical of the man. Where have all the Ron Paul supporters gone?
    - Manther, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0Did anyone else think about the Family Guy episode where Bill Clinton asks Lois if she's up for a NAFTA?? 'Nother Afternoon F**king That Ass'??? Anyone??
- rationalbeats, on 06/26/2008, -3/+8LOL how many points did you get for that comment you troll?
  - phreak79, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1Huh? Are you saying that he didn't call NAFTA devestating and a mistake? I'm a Brit so have no partisan interest either way, but America is the champion of the free market, and I'd like them to stay that way.
    - mummbleswers, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Your PM sucks.
  - Jackson0909, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2Pot. Kettle. Black.
johnnywatkins, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1375%? Pretty scary. Any chance of a recount?
- Mejari, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6"After a Katherine Harris-led recount it is now reported that 110% of Americans love Bush and want to give him backrubs all day."
  - biotch, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2I hope Katherine Harris is proud of her infamous reputation as the clown that ***** America
- nickvdk, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0With a statistical error give or take 25%
chicofaraby, on 06/26/2008, -14/+26Gee, so the policies that resulted in inflation and unemployment when they were implemented by the Reagan administration resulted in inflation and unemployment when implemented by the Bush administration? Who could have predicted that? It's almost as if laissez faire capitalism always falls apart....
- rationalbeats, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1Yup and home loans were at 16-18% for a 30 year fixed rate.
  
  Wonder if we will see those days again.
- Flipdawg27, on 06/26/2008, -2/+11The current economic status has virtually nothing to do with policies set forth by the president. The problems today stem primarily from poor lending practices from major financial institutions which has led to insolvency and a high rate of foreclosure. The aggregate impact of rising oil prices due to speculation and the shake down in the financial sector are the primary drivers of the current economic woes. Also, your statement is incorrect in many ways. Unemployment has been relatively constant (and by all indicators - low). And, the Fed just held rates in order to stem inflationary fears. If you'd taken any finance/econ classes you would know that full employment is not 0% unemployment - it is more like 3-5%.
  
  FYI - regulation of either of the issues highlighted above would begin with legislation in Congress.
  - pyronik, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4I almost ***** myself when I read someone actual give explanations for whats going on other than "its Bush's fault"
    
    As a Finance/Accounting major and an economic minor I can appreciate actual analysis ...
  - MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/27/2008, -2/+2What? The Iraq war costs something like 6000$ a second.
- chispito, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6Sigh. Someone else trying to say that Reagan messed up the economy. Do you have any idea what things looked like under Carter, before Reagan took office? Sure he wasn't perfect, but no President and no policy is. But there is a reason he was re-elected in a landslide.
  - PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Relative to what though? In objective terms, every administration wastes money and pushes for ***** policies. Spending is increasing.
  - chicofaraby, on 06/26/2008, -4/+5"Do you have any idea what things looked like under Carter, before Reagan took office?"
    
    Yes. Carter's Fed used high interest rates to strangle the stagflation left over from the economic mismanagement of Nixon. It was unpopular, but it was the right thing to do and it worked. Re-election doesn't mean Reagan was a good president. George W Dumbass got re-elected.
    - sealbeater, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3I can't digg you up enough.
    - WileEPeyote, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2My concern is that Obama will end up in the same situation as Carter, although maybe his foreign policy won't be so wishy-washy.
      We are going to need to raise taxes just to cover the last 8 years of wild spending.
- honthraj, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1Not quite accurate.
  
  These are the unemployment rate figures for Reagan's presidency from the US Department of Labor
  
  1981-02-01 7.4
  1981-03-01 7.4
  1981-04-01 7.2
  1981-05-01 7.5
  1981-06-01 7.5
  1981-07-01 7.2
  1981-08-01 7.4
  1981-09-01 7.6
  1981-10-01 7.9
  1981-11-01 8.3
  1981-12-01 8.5
  1982-01-01 8.6
  1982-02-01 8.9
  1982-03-01 9.0
  1982-04-01 9.3
  1982-05-01 9.4
  1982-06-01 9.6
  1982-07-01 9.8
  1982-08-01 9.8
  1982-09-01 10.1
  1982-10-01 10.4
  1982-11-01 10.8
  1982-12-01 10.8
  1983-01-01 10.4
  1983-02-01 10.4
  1983-03-01 10.3
  1983-04-01 10.2
  1983-05-01 10.1
  1983-06-01 10.1
  1983-07-01 9.4
  1983-08-01 9.5
  1983-09-01 9.2
  1983-10-01 8.8
  1983-11-01 8.5
  1983-12-01 8.3
  1984-01-01 8.0
  1984-02-01 7.8
  1984-03-01 7.8
  1984-04-01 7.7
  1984-05-01 7.4
  1984-06-01 7.2
  1984-07-01 7.5
  1984-08-01 7.5
  1984-09-01 7.3
  1984-10-01 7.4
  1984-11-01 7.2
  1984-12-01 7.3
  1985-01-01 7.3
  1985-02-01 7.2
  1985-03-01 7.2
  1985-04-01 7.3
  1985-05-01 7.2
  1985-06-01 7.4
  1985-07-01 7.4
  1985-08-01 7.1
  1985-09-01 7.1
  1985-10-01 7.1
  1985-11-01 7.0
  1985-12-01 7.0
  1986-01-01 6.7
  1986-02-01 7.2
  1986-03-01 7.2
  1986-04-01 7.1
  1986-05-01 7.2
  1986-06-01 7.2
  1986-07-01 7.0
  1986-08-01 6.9
  1986-09-01 7.0
  1986-10-01 7.0
  1986-11-01 6.9
  1986-12-01 6.6
  1987-01-01 6.6
  1987-02-01 6.6
  1987-03-01 6.6
  1987-04-01 6.3
  1987-05-01 6.3
  1987-06-01 6.2
  1987-07-01 6.1
  1987-08-01 6.0
  1987-09-01 5.9
  1987-10-01 6.0
  1987-11-01 5.8
  1987-12-01 5.7
  1988-01-01 5.7
  1988-02-01 5.7
  1988-03-01 5.7
  1988-04-01 5.4
  1988-05-01 5.6
  1988-06-01 5.4
  1988-07-01 5.4
  1988-08-01 5.6
  1988-09-01 5.4
  1988-10-01 5.4
  1988-11-01 5.3
  1988-12-01 5.3
  1989-01-01 5.4
  - chicofaraby, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3We all know that the government's figures on inflation and unemployment show that currently everything is great. The problem is that the government's figures fail to reflect many American's personal reality.
    
    People who aren't counted on the government unemployment rolls are still unemployed. Taking food and fuel out of the government inflation numbers doesn't remove them from our personal budgets.
    
    This isn't about government numbers. It's about reality.
  - MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Everybody knows 1987-12-01 was 5.8 not 5.7 you scammer!
    - honthraj, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Then I suggest you take it up with the Department of Labor since those figures come directly from their website.
- PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5LOL, that's not capitalism. Trying to manipulate the economy with a centralized currency and interests rates is absolutely corrupt.
  
  It's almost as if you see and believe what you want.
- joeanon, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Unemployment rates a lone are completely useless. Without figuring in income employment means nothing.
  
  For instance, wages have not gone up, while costs have. So OF COURSE employment stays low because more people are working 2 jobs for less many.
  
  More importantly see how low Clinton was able to take unemployment rates... WHILE raising average family income.
  
  Clinton marks the longest period of economic expansion in US history.
  
  Reagan was a complete failure as a President and administration.
  
  The only thing trickling down from the rich to the poor is when they take a ***** on the middle class.
  
  Reagan lost money, Nixon lost money, Bush lost money.
  
  The only President competent enough to create a surplus was Bill Clinton.
  - Flipdawg27, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I've read through a few of your comments now, and your lack of understanding of finance, and macro economics in general, coupled with your blind and vocal support for leftist economic ideals is almost laughable. Clinton presided over the period of greatest economic growth ever. Saying "see how low Clinton was able to take unemployment rates... WHILE raising average family income" is foolishly naive.
    
    Now - feel free to go get on whatever high horse you feel compelled to ride, but before you do I suggest you take a moment to question whether or not you're really qualified to speak on these topics.
- vonmises05, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Buried for stupidity. Reagan did not bring about unemployment and inflation; he helped fight them by opening up the free market to work correctly and efficiently. You are a moron. Reagan was the best president we had since George Washington. How dare you attack one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever had!
Carl306, on 06/26/2008, -14/+43Misleading title. Bush's policies definitely have a substantial impact on the deteriorating economy, but the US households also have to take some credit for their fiscal irresponsibility. How many foreclosures are happening on a daily basis? How many people are up to their eyeballs in credit card and other sources of debt? Learn to budget and spend within your means, please.

But in actuality Bush takes the cake for financial stupidity, seeing as how he has no sense of budgeting, financial prudence, etc...
- toconnor, on 06/26/2008, -6/+15I thought it was Congress that established the federal budget.
  - rrouse, on 06/26/2008, -8/+8The Captain of the ship is responsible for what happens to the ship at all times and Bush is the Captain.
    - hittnrun, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4WEll, unless good things happen, then it was someone else.....the DEMOCRATS!!!!
      
      Yeah, that's it.
    - yoda133113, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2um...actually I'm pretty sure our government was designed SPECIFICALLY to not put one person responsible/in charge of everything, there's that whole Checks and Balances thing.
  - EBFoxbat, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6You thought wrong. The Executive branch proposes the federal budget and congress approves it.
    
    Because it is subject to congressional approval, often congress works with the executive branch to draft a budget that will pass rather than have a silly back-and-forth to hammer out the details.
  - mwrl, on 06/26/2008, -4/+4No you have to blame the Republicans and not the Liberal Democrats. His Holiness the Godly Lord Obama will lead us to happiness! All hail his glory and lick his sweet as we sheep vote mindlessly to destroy ourselves under the oppression of his socialist hammer!
    - nmessick, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1awesome!
- EBFoxbat, on 06/26/2008, -4/+13uhhh.... misreading the title? 75 % Blame.. it doesn't say anywhere in the title that Bush is to blame just that people blame him.
  - nmessick, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2then 75% of people are idiots who can't think for themselves.
  - EBFoxbat, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2HA... it's considerably higher than 75 % that are idiots and can't think for themselves.
- biotch, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5Indeed this is true. But part of why people are foreclosing is because they took out loans predicting they would be making more money in the future. The economy has performed poorly and income has been stagnant or lower when inflation is factored. Job growth has fallen lower than the needed 150k per month to stay even with population growth. Therefore because the economy has not performed better, people dont have the money to continue making increasing payments on loans, in what would otherwise (in a growing economy) have been an expensive yet sustainable loan payment.
  - Carl306, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2I understand that, but just because the economy tanked doesn't mean these people shouldn't be held accountable. Failing to plan is planning to fail...
    
    A large portion (note: not all) of these people defaulting on their loans failed to plan accordingly. If given your current salary you can only afford the MINIMUM monthly payments (which are essentially only payments of interest and do literally nothing to your overall balance on the loan) on a mortgage that you take out, odds are you are seeking a residence outside your means and should look into something more appropriate.
    - biotch, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3agreed.... I think the two mistakes have exacerbated the effects of each other. Its unfortunate we will have to deal with the aftermath for years to come.
- joeanon, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1That's now how it works at all.
  
  What happened was in 2000 the housing market was on the decline.
  
  Then Bush came to office, 911 happened and as a foolish response we tried to stimulate the economy, instead of just letting it naturally heal on it's own.
  
  So, there are the end of a housing boom, we initiated emergency rate cuts.
  
  That drove the housing market even though the money wasn't really there to drive it.
  
  In 1970 the average house was 1400 sqft... now it's 2300 sqft.
  
  American's invested into larger houses at interest rates that simply weren't real AS the energy crisis hit.
  
  The proof is in the money trail.
  
  American's aren't out of work, they simply can't afford to pay their utility bills AND their mortgages.
  
  The government and corporate America lied to us about the energy crisis. They propagated it as a conspiracy theory and many American's are still in denial that it's happening.
  
  Instead of preparing we got hit with an energy crisis, inflation and an over extended housing market.
  
  As energy costs go up, those BIG homes go down in value, so now rather than being investments, they are liabilities.
  
  Most home owners really didn't have a chance unless they were smart enough to not believe the lies of their own government and corporate enterprises.
  
  Still today real estate agents are saying there is no recession... come buy a huge house, don't worry about the utility bills.
  
  In the 70s, even with all the bad times... people had more money and things cost less than they do today.
  
  Energy and medical costs are the ones going up the most, not housing. Just follow the money people. Look at your bills. It's not your taxes or mortgage that is out of control, it's energy and medical bills.
  
  Home owners didn't buy too big. They bought what they could afford and then the market had a major spike.
  
  AND... why have energy costs gone up so high that people cannot afford their large homes ?
  
  Because the dollar fell drastically under Bush's rule. Foreign investors hate him and his policies. He spends money without and possible return in investment.
  
  America is not showing the capability to pay back it's debts and borrowing without a second thought. So... down goes the dollar.
  
  With the fall of our currency imports cost 25-50% more. AND things like coal not compete to foreign buying this driving the price of ALL resources up.
  
  Europeans can make money buying cheap American coal because of the dollar decline for instance.
  
  So...
  
  Yes Bush's emergency rate cuts, his tax cuts and his wars coupled with borrowing almost 5 trillion dollars without now even remote sign of payback... has indeed caused the majority of our economic woes.
  
  We are 10 trillion in debt people and 80% or more has come under GOP Presidents.
  
  When will we hold them accountable and stop making excuses for their obvious and consistent failures.
  
  On top of that... I know for a fact real estate agencies have been working closely with appraisers to keep upward real estate pricing trends going.
  
  We have sole proprietary fly by night appraisers with basically no fiscal or moral obligation to not help push real estate prices up.
  
  The bad part of course is that when you exaggerate your appraisals so everyone can make a little more cake money... eventually the bottom falls out and people can't afford to rent or own.
  
  With wages no going up... WHAT WHERE YOU PEOPLE THINKING. Home values can't go up without average family income going up.
  
  Instead average family income when down while all other costs went up.
  
  So, homeowners had the rug pulled out from under them and many of them, even with their houses paid off are losing home value as their huge houses were not designed for the age of expensive energy.
  
  You'll see soon republican's as your mansions devalue and your trailer park rent skyrockets.
  
  No more big guzzling pick trucks either. It's all going electric and green and who do we have the thank the most.
  
  Bush... because from complete failure comes reform.
  
  The Democrats could NEVER have done it without a born failure like Bush in the White House. Everything that boy has touched has turned to *****, what did you fools think was going to happen.
- WileEPeyote, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4"How many people are up to their eyeballs in credit card and other sources of debt? Learn to budget and spend within your means, please."
  
  Wow, if only the U.S. Government would follow that policy. Instead we are drowning our country in debt.
  Also, if it weren't for all the people putting themselves in debt to consume our economy would be even worse off than it is at the moment. We (all of us) will have to pay the piper eventually though.
- protofear, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1umm, hello.. households aren't printing money out of thin air to fund big government..
MetalLizard, on 06/26/2008, -7/+33I'm not defending Bush, or his policies, but there are MANY other people helping to destroy our economy. Of course it must ALL be because of Bush though... It seems like he was put there to be used as a punching bag so these other assholes won't take the blame. Just like every other president. They are meant to be loved, or hated.
- EBFoxbat, on 06/26/2008, -6/+11Listen pal, $4.25 a gallon is killing me. I don't own a home, I don't rent more than I can afford. This simple fact of the matter is that I have a long commute. A year ago I traded in my car and took on more debt for a new one that got twice the milage.
  
  This is government is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. If the people make a mistakes the government should help. That doesn't mean bail them out it means help.
  
  It's not only assholes that are in hard times now douchebag. I need the government's help to get by. Not directly, like welfare or food stamps, but by things like not taking on an extra 1/2 trillion dollars in debt FORCING tax raises to pay it off. And not allowing illegal speculating to artificially double the price of a barrel of crude oil.
  
  The government should be a punching bag for every single one of it's faults. Go vote for Mcsame since you seem to think there govenment shouldn't be blamed.
  
  We are living in the middle of the GREATEST FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT this nation as ever seen. Congress gave the Executive branch expanded powers that the Constitution specifically delegated to them for a reason. The Executive branch has used legal loopholes further it's own agenda. The Judicial branch has fecklessly backed down from anything that might possibly slow the Executive branch. 2000-2008 has been the greatest FAIL evar.
  - chispito, on 06/26/2008, -5/+5"GREATEST FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT"
    
    Calm down, Chicken Little. There have been far, far worse moments in our nation's history but you'd have to crack open a history book to find out.
    - dha07030, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3In classic Digg fashion he gets dugg down. There is a little event called The Great Depression and he gets dugg down, ***** sheep.
  - JHB800, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4You're an ignorant fool if you honestly think all of these problems are due to Bush. The economic policies of the last two administrations have been completely unsustainable, and are the main source of the problems we're seeing today. The mortgage crisis? Yeah, you have Bill Clinton's deregulation and relaxation of regulation to thank for that.
    
    The problem with people like you is that you think you have a right to demand a tax increase on people who happen to make more than you. (many of whom work HARD for the money they make) Here's a stat for you: the top 1% of all tax earners pay 29% of all taxes, the top 5% pay 50% of all taxes. Tell me in what world that is fair, and why that number should be pushed even higher. Why should 5% of our population pay almost $1 trillion dollars worth of taxes?
    
    What we're seeing is the long, drawn out conclusion of unsustainable policies enacted during the Great Depression. If you think, somehow, this can all be the fault of one man or one particular administration, you're ignorant and naive.
    - verevi, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1And 85% of all statics are completely made up.
    - sealbeater, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1@JHB800
      
      It's been 8 years, how long are you going to blame Clinton?
    - JHB800, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2The mortgage crisis is a direct result of Clinton's deregulation of mortgage lenders, which allowed them to lend to borrowers that were extremely risky. Thats a fact, you may not like it, but its a fact.
  - JHB800, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1@Verevi. I got my stat directly from the IRS. You're full of *****.
  - JohnLawson, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Summary of the man above me.
    
    ***** hit the fan, let's blame it on the government.
- joeanon, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0The economy is going down because of Republican borrow and spend.
  
  They REFUSE to create a realistic check against spending by taxing.
  
  In common man terms. They want to lower their income and increase their debt.
  
  WELL GEE.. guess what happens. The US Credit Score is in the ***** and the world has devalued our currency.
  
  The GOP Is also aligned with China, their biggest lender so they refuse to stand up to them.
  
  It's not ONLY Bush, but certainly more than any other person or organization.. it's Bush and his administration.
  
  Corporate America led us down this path, but Bush accelerated by causing a housing crash during a natural housing market decline by trying to artificially keep the market alive with stimuli's measures. That was Greenspan's career failure.
  
  You just don't realize how deliberate and consistently the GOP has setup this situation we are in.
  
  Reagan KILLED the renewable energy tax incentives, taking the US from the number ONE in renewable energy technology to nothing.
  
  Reagan killed the third party drug review, so now drug companies pay for and completely control their own clinical trails and then disclose ONLY the info they deem necessary to the rubber stamp of the FDA.
  
  Bush follow in his footsteps. The GOP killed Medicare's ability to negotiate for lower prices, so drug companies charge ANYTHING they want.
  
  Bush killed coal power plant incentives to move to modern, cleaner and more efficient plants.
  
  Bush started two wars and wants to start a third with Iran. All have sent the prices of oil and natural gas up while pushing foreign investors out of America simply as an unstable investment.
  
  Bush gave 1 billion dollars to churches for abstinence training... which has proven time and time again ALL over the world to not work even fractionally as well as health education and condoms.
  
  Bush has us labeled as the democracy of torture and spying.
  
  Bush still wants to spend more and lower taxes with this magical assumption that money will appear out of nowhere. He has NO GRASP of the global market.
  
  Bush wants to drill for oil off some of the most profitable tourist coastlines in the world.. for enough oil to last a few years at best... PLUS that oil would be on the global market under a weak US dollar.
  
  He is, and will be remembered without a doubt as the worst US President of all time.
  
  The entire world hates him and wants him tried for war crimes.
  
  What the ***** more do you want before you grow some balls and stand up against this greedy spoiled rich boy criminal ?
  
  Saying... oh that's just the way it is... is a child's logic.
  
  This is a democracy.. we MAKE IT.. the way it is. It's our apathy... YOUR APATHY... that is allowing people to walk all over the constitution and have the US labeled as a nation that tortures people.
  
  We didn't even torture the Nazi's and they killed tens of millions of people. Bush deserve to burn in hell and have a pineapple rammed up his ***** every day for ETERNITY.
  
  His grand daddy helped fund and make profit off Hitler's empire of murder, theft and propaganda.
  
  What sorry sense of morality allows you to keep giving him the benefit of the doubt.
  
  He lied to you and led your nation to war. He used blatant scare tactics on you. He locked people up without due process. He manipulated the media with government news reports.
  
  On top of all that .. this lunatic appointed several supreme court justices who will now poison our nation for another 30+ years.
  
  This economic downturn you feel now... it's just the tip of the iceburg people.
  
  Without low cost energy... there is no turning back.
  
  The US uses 20 million barrels a day.. that's 25% of the worlds oil output. So... high energy hurts us more than India, China, UK, France and Germany combined.
  
  Instead of posting ignorance.... read and learn my friend.
  
  Hold your leader accountable and make a good example for your children and citizens instead of being a lazy slacker too afraid of his government to open your eyes to the obvious truth.
  
  Bush sold your nation for defense contracts and he's made billions for his 'friends'.
  
  Did you see when his mom visited the Katrina victims and said... Oh.. well for most of them this is better housing then they are used to.
  
  That's the mentality that raised this man. He feels the wealthy are all that matters and the working class is entirely expendable.
  
  AND... while you make excuses and defer blame... the rich keep getting richer at a faster and faster rate.
  
  Read a history book... the outcome of an out of control wealth gap, is and always will be national peril, revolution and perhaps total collapse.
  
  I'm ashamed to have to explain these things.. OVER AND OVER again to people who supposedly graduated from some type of American learning establishment.
  
  How do you people even get this far in life being so stupid and blindly obedient ?
  
  If I can't see it from my backyard.... it ain't happening... YEEE HAW.
  
  Well, you'll see it, and you won't be prepared and when the US goes down.. world food prices are going to skyrocket and the entire global economy will take a giant ***** in the shape of George Bush's face.
  
  Of course... liberals aren't going to wait that long. We'll riot and burn down the corporate headquarters before we starved or freeze to death.
  
  The wealthy need to be humbled for what they've done. If it's not by taxes it will be through riots.
  
  Just watch and learn... history is not all that unpredictable.
Tomak00, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5I like money though.
- Conwaysb0718, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1If I had some money and a room at the White House, I'd be like, "It's mine, all night!"
- blechler, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4If I had some money I would go to Starbucks because I also like sex.
  - Mejari, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2We don't have time for that!
- elister, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0I like money.... and chicks too, amazing we have so much in common, we should hang out.
- PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1You like money too? We should hang out.
- voyage34, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Let's get ya sworn in! House of Representin'
Dralha, on 06/26/2008, -14/+20Republican borrow-and-spend, spend, spend fiscal policies have decimated America.
- Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4By a show of hands, who here never thought they would ever read the words ”Republican" and "borrow-and-spend" right next to each other in their lifetimes?
  
  This is why we are *****.
  - JoeVet, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3This has been GOP practice since Nixon. Suggesting this is new takes either a lot of balls or a lot of ignorance.
- JHB800, on 06/26/2008, -5/+7As opposed to the democratic tax-the-people-to-death and spend method?
  - ph1sh55, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5Does it really have to be broken down why spending an inordinate amount of money you don't have is a bad idea?
  - biotch, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5oh gee a whole 3% for mid income earners and 3% - 6% for upper and high income earners waaaahhhh. And the Dems, namely Clinton, instigated "pay as you go" which balanced the budget. And the Dems spend LESS than repubs. Personally if I spend 3% more in taxes and it results in this?
    http://i27.tinypic.com/120m447.jpg
    
    Im fine with that.
    
    Let me ask you this.... when did you plan on paying for the record deficits and debt that reagan and Bush sr. created? Did you just think it would magically evaporate? I got news for you too... We are going to have to pay even more for this fiscal mess Bush has created. If you dont want to be taxed, then stop electing idiots who amass record debt.
    
    source for tax policy change,
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.htm ...
    
    spending
    http://www.factcheck.org/defending_spending_bushs_ ...
    - JHB800, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1It may 'just' be 3-6%, but why should it be increased at all considering that those same people consist of just 5% of the population and yet pay 50% of the taxes? What we need is lower spending, not more taxes.
    - nmessick, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0Thats the deficit... but what are the overall expenditures ??????
    - biotch, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1@ JHB800
      They should be increased because the richest in this nation continue to pull in a larger amount of the total income pie at the cost of every other income bracket with the exception of only a few years since 1981, whether they are taxed at the Clinton level or not. The Clinton level only slowed the problem down.
      
      http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h02a ...
    - biotch, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1@nmessick
      "where are the overall expenditures??????"
      
      at the bottom of my post that you didnt finish reading
  - JoeVet, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4Democrats at least try to keep America in American hands. The GOP don't give a second thought to selling us out to the lowest bidder. I would rather have my taxes raised to support our government than to sell our debt to the Chinese.
- PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -3/+3It's both parties. Sometimes it sucks bad, and sometimes it sucks really bad, but they both do it. Making a comparison between two big spending parties to try and suggest one party is doing a good job with spending is economic relativism daydreaming.
- pyronik, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Dralha, would you mind characterizing the how those policies have created today's economic conditions...
  
  Digg and Financial and or Economic analysis is an oxymoron... If its a Bush policy, its to blame
jlhoben, on 06/26/2008, -5/+13The Fed and the MIC have ruined America not just Bush II.
- rrouse, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5Bush II would take credit if times were good.
  - Hangly, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2He'd be wrong though.
    
    Anyway, riding a series of economic bubbles isn't quite what I would call "good."
    It's good the same way hard drugs are good. Which is to say, bad.
  - PeppermintPig, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That's what politicians like to do.
ozymandias2012, on 06/26/2008, -5/+23Yeah, Bush screwed up a lot, but I'm sure everything will be substantially better after the election. The richest 1% of Americans will gleefully hand over billions more to the government which will of course wisely and fairly redistribute it to the remaining 99% of the population while simultaneously balancing the budget, eliminating the trade deficit, and reducing energy costs. Folks, it's going to be magical time to be alive.
- Y0tsuya, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8I have visions of flying pigs in my head. People are pinning so much hope on Obama you'd think they'd all achieve simultaneous orgasms the moment he's elected. But the sad fact of the matter is he's powerless to stop the deleveraging of the global capital markets. Everything they've done so far (mostly by printing money like crazy) only made things worse for J6P. But looks like major pain will be over by 2012 and he'll be credited for rescuing the nation even though little he does will be of any material help. That's politics for you.
  - Lavarock, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Yup. The economy is cyclical, following the presidential elections.
- pyronik, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3ozymandias, Hypothetical...
  
  We are a bunch of cavemen... we all go out scavenging for food.... I spend a lot of my time hunting for food... you spend most of yours lounging around..
  
  I devise methods of storing the food so it won't go bad, ... you just eat all of what you get
  
  I have a large quantity of food saved for the winter... you don't
  
  What the hell gives you the right to come back to me and make demands for my good when your cold and hungry? How do you justify your "right" to my food? Cause this is what you are advocating.
  
  It makes me sick that you describe stealing billions of dollars from people who have earned it and call it "magical" to give it away to everyone else. It is sick and wreaks of class warfare and jealousy
  - planet87, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2pyronik,
    
    I think he was being sarcastic. Lighten up and vote for Bob Barr.
  - Fubarepublic, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0I'm voting for the chimp!
  - WileEPeyote, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1"What the hell gives you the right to come back to me and make demands for my good when your cold and hungry? How do you justify your "right" to my food? Cause this is what you are advocating."
    
    That is a terrible analogy. It is more appropriate to say:
    
    We are a bunch of cavemen, we are all out scavanging for food except your

75% Blame Bush's Policies for Deterioriating Economy

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Senator Al Franken PWNS Ann Coulter thumb

75% Blame Bush's Policies for Deterioriating Economy

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Senator Al Franken PWNS Ann Coulter thumb

Related by Keyword

McCain’s Economic Policies Like A Third Bush Term? Yes

Economic difference between McCain/Bush?: "Uhhhh..."

President Bush to protect ocean reefs, fish and volcanoes