shakran

A) If you seriously think Gingrich was responsible for eliminating the deficit. . . there's not a whole lot we can do to help you.

B) The 4.4% unemployment number is bullshit, and is designed to trick you. I see it worked. Sure, it's 4.4% unemployment, which by the way is not down from the 3.9% Clinton got in September of 2000. Two problems:
1) you want some unemployment in an economy - otherwise it can't grow.
2) While the numbers look good on the surface, when you realize that Bush and his policies have elimintated scores of well paying middle class jobs and have replaced them with jobs at Walmart, where "living wage" is considered a swear word, things don't look as good.

So now we have Bush, still at a higher unemployment level than Clinton, and with more low-wage jobs than Clinton had, and you sit there and tell us the economy is rosy?

And I'm confused as to why you think increasing the gap between the poor and the rich is a good idea, no matter what the rest of the world looks like by comparison. If you're poor and you think increasing your poverty level is good then again, there's no help for you. If you're rich and you think increasing the gap is good, you should realize that there are a lot more poor people than there are rich people and eventually they're going to get pissed and do something about it.

Plus, our poor are looking increasingly richer only if you compare them to 3rd world countries. Running around cheering that "our poor are living better than starving people in 3rd world countries!" does not sound like a ringing endorsement for current economic policies to me.