[quote name='BigT']You guys all sound like a chorus of John Edwards clones:
Under Bill Clinton (and the democrats), we all lived in the Garden of Eden... but then Evil GW Bush came to power and thrust us into a horrific dystopian society that neither Orwell nor Huxley could ever have dreamt up.
Is life really that bad for you guys under Bush? Are we living in the streets, too poor to afford medical care, basic needs, or education? I somehow doubt that...[/quote]
We're heading there if the Bush years are any indication.
The chart demonstrates a unique employment measure, the employment/population ratio (the % of adults who are working at any given time). Some argue that it's a better statistic to measure the economy than the "umemployment rate," since that can fluctuate based not on employment activity, but on the activity of those who decide to not seek jobs (who then "drop out" of the measure). That is, hypothetically, if nobody is looking for work at all, the "unemployment rate" is 0%. It's an imperfect measure.
As you can see, under Bush that ratio dropped 3%, rebounded by a 1% or so, and is declining yet again as we head into his final year.
How I'm doing as an individual is irrelevant. I'm not the kind of rube who would think "oh, I bought an HDTV and 360 under Bush, so he must have been a good president." Show me data on the nation as a whole, show me his record deficit spending, show me the impact of the housing market burst (where areas, such as Washington DC, having 5% of ALL homes under some form of foreclosure - and they aren't as bad as other major areas, like Detroit).
Give me the raw numbers, not some condescending back-patting asking about me personally. I am not America by myself, and I am interested in how others are doing. If I happen to be doing incredibly awesome compared to 8 years ago (let's say I had all my stock in oil companies), the remainder of the country would still be doing worse, and my perspective wouldn't change.
...the Clinton years were profitable for certain people and not profitable for others. The dot.com craze occured at about that time so people in that industry did quite well; on the other hand, people whose jobs relied on defense contracts did not do so well...
Go look at that chart again. There's also the fact that the mean household income hasn't really increased since the beginning of Clinton's term (it's about $1,100 higher than in 1992). If you think that $1,100 covers the increased cost of all goods, from groceries to gas to tuition, compared to 1992, well - then I don't know how to point out the real world to you.
With Bush over the past few year, people who rely on defense contracts have made out like bandits. Heck, with the low interest rates and the home craze that we had 2-3 years ago, real estate agents, mortgage firms, and building contractors made bank. Of course, I'm sure that there were many other industries that didn't do so hot.
I can think of people who aren't doing so well right now: the people who were sold houses by those 'bank-making' real estate agents, those who were lent money by mortgage firms, and, well - building contractors who are sitting on 300 homes that aren't selling at the moment and thus have no work to begin in 2008. If you think building contractors have a positive view of the Bush years, you've got blinders on.
Every president has his good sides and bad sides.
Yes, but we're not children, so let's not pretend like presidents are equally bad all around, k?
off.
Mission Accomplished
Si se puede! 
