BUSINESS

The Economy Sucks. But Is It ’92 Redux?

For the first time since Bill Clinton took the White House, the economy could be the deciding factor.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Davemathes @ 01/20/2008 3:17:20 PM

    It is once again the"Economy Stupid" and both parties better get that soon. In light of the Republican stupid responses (Cut taxes again for the rich and make the Bush taxes permanant) they clearly show they don't get it. The Democrats numbers are just as bad. We need alot more than ashort time $800 per person break to take care of the economic problems that will bring us down in the next year. Both the Obama solution and the Clinton solution are not enough to shake the problem when forclosures continue, mortgages become impossible to get and insurance companies that back debt can't pay off. This is the BUSH recession!

  • Posted By: ObamaMama @ 01/17/2008 5:53:55 PM

    Thanks for contributing this knowledge! Kudos to writer Andrew Romano/ Stumper/ "The Race War" and his unbiased presentation of remarks during the course of several days. Closes with something like, "You decide....'" The campaign tactics attack dogs unleashed by the Clinton camp on Senator Obama give every indication of HER STATUS QUO:dirty politics as usual, including reaching to the most experienced in that vein. EXACTLY OPPOSITE of how Senator Obama hopes to mend the great American divide. Mrs. Clinton's initial announcement: "I'm in it to win it.'", supported by suing over caucuses in Nevada is a bellwether of their tactics. Remember, No matter where you go, there you are!!! Senator Obama, showing true leadership qualities, was first to announce a "truce" of sorts to the remarks. FIRST. And he has Americans in mind FIRST, not a private agenda. Mrs Clinton has copied "change" and "American" from him. But there's one thing that won't change: her, her motives, her vendetta. She's very feeble about LBJ. The efforts of a nation and its movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King and other passionate supporters, and wholly supported by the Kennedy administration left LBJ little more than to sign off on it, something he himself acknowledged. And if she can't take the heat in the kitchen, she needs to get out!!! The Clinton camp is the one with "'Open mouth, insert....' " (You decide.) HER camp is having to backtrack, put spin on badmouth comments. Senator Obama embodies very positive leadership qualities and abilities. He is particularly EXPERIENCED in thinking before speaking, and his clearcut concern is to run a very ethical campaign. Intelligent voters don't choose a candidate based on ONE factor: (like I'm a woman). Both Senator Obama and Mrs. Clinton have provided the public insight into how they personally deal with events, remarks, issues! WATCH!!!!

  • Posted By: stanjz @ 01/16/2008 7:23:37 PM

    History has been overtly generous to the Clintons in what it perceives they have done for the poor.
    Federal Minimum Wage Bush one-April 1991 $4.25
    Clinton-October 1996 $4.75 Clinton-September 1997 $5.15 You don't close the gap between the rich and poor with a .90 /hr raise over 8 years!
    ???The income gap actually grew more during the Democratic Clinton administration than it has during the Bush administration. According to U.S. Census data, the share of income for the wealthiest 5 percent rose from 18.6 percent in 1992 to 22.1 percent in 2000. That???s a jump of almost 19 percent.???
    Furthermore, capital gains tax was only 20 percent during the Clinton Presidency. That means the super rich only paid 20 percent on their income from the stock market. Actual wage earners would pay up to 38 percent. Most CEO???s get paid through stock so they only pay 15% tax now and 20 % back then. The Clinton???s never indexed the minimum wage to inflation like Barack Obama wants to, so the poor immediately saw inflation eat away at their small gains.

  • Posted By: forparity @ 01/16/2008 5:36:07 PM

    Why is the headline, "But Is It ???92 Redux?" And then in the first paragraph again, ???What is this,1992????

    Did or does Newsweek want us to forget about the 2000 election? With the NASDAQ down 58% and the Dow off 1,100; an energy crisis in CA, heating oil costs hurting, gasoline prices up 56% for the year, hundreds of companies going out of business, waves of layoffs, hiring was off, tax stimulus talk was in the air from both parties - the recession was looming. Numerous economists were predicting gloom - and that the crash that we were in the middle of was going to trash the surplus and thrust the Federal budget deep back into deficits. Shhh. Newsweek and the media continues to censor the obvious - always did, always will.

  • Posted By: carnabylane @ 01/16/2008 4:55:35 AM

    DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL Bush and his cronies can put a positive spin on bad economic data but they can't get the public to spend money they don't have.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse