"Putting people first," and his stress on "the economy, stupid," pitched an optimistic if still gritty populism at a middle class that had suffered under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush."

if you liberals repeat something often enough, it becomes true. i was around and i didn't see all this suffering you are talking about. what suffering do you mean?

you should be glad the average slate reader doesn't call you on your crapola.

well if *you* didn't see then it must not have existed, right? I mean that is just absolutely damning anecdotal evidence, some random guy who was around in the 80's didn't see much poverty!

There's that strong faculty for critical thinking that you conservatives are known for.

does anyone ever call *you* on *your* crapola?

there wasn't any more suffering than usual and if you think there was, you are a fool being plated by some dumbass politicians. the real suffering was under carter. the misery index and all that. things were much better under reagan and bush one than carter.

if things were so peachy under clinton, how do you think he managed to put the economy into the dumper by 2000?

The point is, you, perhaps rightly, pick on the article for not providing any evidence to back up their claim. But where are your numbers? How do you actually know things were better under Reagan and Bush I besides your gut feeling and the fact that "you were there"? Who gives a shit? I was there too, and I thought it sucked, but that's just *my* gut feeling.

As for the how Clinton ruined the economy I don't know, please explain it to me, because it sure seemed like the economy was mostly fine until Bush II and friends f'***ed it.

OK. Let's do it this way. suppose you twits share with us your sad stories of witnessing the suffering middle class. i want first had accounts.

there was all this supposed suffering so i'm sure you have many tales of woe and misery.

fine, my grandparents lost their shirts in the S&L crisis under Ron's watch ... is that enough suffering for you, or would you like to ad hom them a little?

Reagon and Bush = increasing budget deficits.

Clinton = decreasing budget deficits.

How is that for a simple argument based on hard numbers?

the 80's was a fantastic time to be part of the middle class. there were more opportunities than ever. if you wanted to make a few bucks, they were there to be had if you worked hard.

if you sat around whining about how bad you had it, i'm sure they were miserable times. times are always miserable for people like that. of course they sit around and want the government to take care of them and beg for scraps like dogs.

very funny Irving that comment about the government--since the 'prosperity of the 80's' as you put it was in large point based on unparelled deficit borrowing. Clinton's 90's economy, was not. It is absolutely fair to say that he took the U.S.' largest deficit economy in history and (because he understood math better than the old guy and you) and left a surplus when he left office.

In real terms try this, Irving. Less young men died in urban cities from murder in cities such as Oakland CA during the Clinton years, than during the Reagan years or now. Yes, crime went down under Clinton.

Both gas prices and mortgage interest rates hit their peaks during the Reagan years. The gas prices wouldn't reach the same peak until the Katrina disaster. And the Reagan era interest rates (>15%) is unmatched since. So yes- there was plenty of suffering. Of course, Mr. Irving Chang didn't suffer- because you were, as you are, blinded by idelogical blinders.