The years above have given both presidents 6 years in office. When you answer please give wether you had an easier time paying your bills and living in 1998 or 2006. Also please give the reason you belive it is better or worse in the two years and what you think caused the groth or decline of the economy. How do you think we can make it keep growing or bring it out of the slump it is in? Please don't answer with Bush or Clinton made it grow or Bush or Clinton made it decline.
2007-01-27 04:02:59 · 13 answers · asked by ? 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
The Clinton years were irrefutably better for the economy. Fact:Clinton's economy had a debt surplus.
Fact: Unemployment was lower on a national average.
We need a change in office with someone who is concerned with the United States well being. Otherwise we will continue to hit rock bottom.
2007-01-27 04:18:34 · answer #1 · answered by Mythos 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How much of Clinton's presidency was a result of the internet bubble? As a father of 4 children, my life is much better because of the tax cuts that have been made by Bush. I just hope that they continue after he's gone.
2007-01-29 05:11:59 · answer #2 · answered by larspruitt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets see..........under Mr. Bill he cut the military and intellegence services and gained a surplus there. While he was president the dot.coms were going bankrupt and the taxes and interest rates were very high.
Under Mr. Bush the taxes are low and so is the interest rate.
Yes were have a defecite under him but that is because of 9/11 and a few other small things like war and Katrina.
2007-01-28 18:04:48 · answer #3 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush did no longer stick to the "trickle down economics" of Reagan repute. rather, in case you look on the entire Bush 8 years, he appeared to combine the spending conduct of the democrats and the "pay to the fat cats" of the republicans. Clinton got here right into a topic the place he did no longer have the stressful circumstances that Reagan had, so that's complicated to declare. The financial equipment became sturdy...besides the shown fact that it did no longer have a rationalization for it to get undesirable.
2016-11-01 10:23:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush
2007-01-28 18:17:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was much better for the economy. War set aside. Clinton's administration restructured welfare. Bush spends and spends and spends.....
2007-01-27 08:51:50 · answer #6 · answered by Honesty given here! 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It definitely was better under Clinton in my opinion, but I suppose it depends what side of the fence you're on .
2007-01-28 07:15:34 · answer #7 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good for whom? Under BushReich, it's good for millionaires who want to become billionaires. The irrelevant economic indicators are designed by economists from academentia, who are just toy rats for fatcats to play with. Far worse for real Americans under Bush and his anti-American aristocracy.
2007-01-27 06:31:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Compare the actual percentages... Lke it or not it is Bush who is better.
I can now own things which were prohibited under Clinton's bans... I am better off now.
2007-01-27 05:43:09 · answer #9 · answered by Lt. Dan reborn 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Presidents are the result of the economy, not the other way around.
2007-01-27 05:03:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋