That if the enconomy grew only 0.8% under Bush (or even 2%), they'd be calling it another recession?

However, under Junior that's considered "strong growth".

Two thing some to mind here: a slavish devition by the majot media to socialist / new-age "economics" and the soft bigotry of low expectations...

jpotts wrote:

due to possible (your) smartphone issues, I'm not sure if I am reading your premise correctly. But from what I surmise, my response would be that 0.8% growth following several years of strong growth is dismal. But 0.8% following possibly the worst economy in our history is hopeful.

frankj1 wrote:

still no gubment cheese for X..... 😞

DrafterX wrote:

LOL!

"Wost Economy in History?" What? The Bush years or Idi Amin Jr.'s first junta?

I'd trade eight years under Bush for 8 years under Idi Amin Jr. any day of the week.

In fact, with continual double-digit unemployment, rationing, and an 8-year drought (known as the Dust Bowl), FDR easily had the worst economy over the last century or more.

You are seriously brainwashed.

jpotts wrote: