Minimum wage is up, so I get paid 7.50 now...economically we are in a dive, not good. Politically most would probably be apt to turn to anarchy, again not good. Too many casualties overseas due to a controversial war, really not good. Countries left and right growing more inpatient the US government, also not very good.

So in its entirety no, but I like how much I get paid...does that count?

Well, granted, Mike asked '... are you better off?...',
but I'll dare switch the 'you' for a 'we', and answer Mike's question from that perspective.

For the 8 years Clinton was in office, the national debt went for 4,3 trillion to 5,6 trillion. More importantly, it decreased from 70% to 56% of GDP under Clinton's administration.

For the 8 years 'W' will have been in office, the national debt will have grown from the 5,6 trillion mark to a stratospheric 10,4 trillion.
As an expression of GDP, W.B.'s administering will have reversed all the reduction of the Clinton era, and will have succeeded to push the the debt to 73% of GDP.

More than 50% of that debt is now in the hands of foreign countries, with Japan and China on top of that list.

THAT'S 5 TRILLION DOLLARS EVERY US CITIZENS OWE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

What kind of clout do you think the US has over China, to speak of that country, when it is owed nearly 2 trillion of that debt, and you depend on them to keep buying more of those 'debt' bonds in the future?!?!?

The same clout you have with your banker, when your mortgage is a few months behind, and you want to complain about service charges!!!

Did I mention 'mortgages'?!?!?

As 'KerryO' pointed out:

'... Record numbers of foreclosures? Record numbers of bankruptcies? Pension funds worried about solvency because of the subprime mess? (<--- oops, I misspelled 'investment fraud'.)...'

As for responsibility?!?!?

100% 'W', and 100% the people who voted him in for a second term.

Without even getting into engaging with Iraq, it can all be summed-up in te amateur 'cow-boy' manner of his administration's handling, or rather misshandling of the situation.

He naively figure on a 3-6 months events, with this invasion.
He figured it would 'unbruise' Americans from the 9/11 attacks.
He figure it was going to have only limited impact on the economy: drop in consumer spending.

Well, we all know what happened.
The conflict wasn't over whn the 6 months deadline came up.
When 'W', was asked whether his illegal war was going to hurt the economy, he claimed high and loud, hell NO!

Miraculously, the 'feds' kept supporting an aggressively low interest rate policy (stimulate domestic spending) at a time when all economic indicators were pointing in the opposite direction.

Maybe you can come out unscratched from such 'cowboy' economic policies on a 6 to 12 month window, BUT NOT 5 YEARS OF IT!!!

Hello 'steroid' stimulated domestic spending, and 'subprime' monster!

When you have a 'bozo' running your business, the only way to exercise your rights and responsibilities (being on the hook), is to FIRE THE BUM ON THE SPOT!!!

Not firing the bum is what the US people are on the hook for!


Check out the 'National Debt Clock' :

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html .

Stay for a few minutes on the site, refresh the page every 'second' or so, watch the number change, and make sure to have your 'high-blood' pressure pills right next to you!!!

'... ARE WE DOING BETTER...'

From that vantage point, I don't know who can answer YES!!!

I agree voileazur!

Hard to get tough on your banker when
they threaten Taiwan or point out their
human rights abuses on their own people.

Of course, for those who are still in denial
who got their huge Bush Jr. tax breaks life
is just a bowl of cherries and nothing's wrong.

After all, they got theirs and to hell with
all the rest of us!

You covered it well, I couldn't do better myself. And for those families that have lost and will lose a loved one in Iraq for nothing they are feeling the pinch even more than us regular citizens, they are losing loved ones.

I'm alot better off, but the president had nothing to do with it

Even though I don't blame all the
world's problems and Americans problems
on Bush he is to blame for some of them.

100% yes we are. Regardless of what the news says "omg bush is killing inocent people!!" Our media is caught up on the "body count" more then anything else. Of course lives are lost, lives were lost in many wars that gave us the freedoms we have today in America. Saddam tourchered his own people, he didn't care about them, if they lived or died. Terrorism was something that needed to be delt with, it's something that still is a concern and always will be. Ignoring it didn't work, understandably.

There was a video of a very young Iraqi man(16/17 years) in iraq coming out from a home with a RPG in his hands. He came out, got on his knees, set it up to fire and was shot by our soilders. His RPG was taken away of course. So now, a poor young boy laied dying in the street, probably on his way to get bread for his hungry family. visously shot down by American troops. You have no real idea what is truely going on overseas. I will never trust the news and media to give me a true story.

EDIT: Guess I wasn't clear about the post. The 2nd part of it, I was meaning that he WAS going to kill people. I'm just saying it is a way that the media can twist things around to stir up controversy.

No and he's not been my favorite, but my situation has nothing to do with him.

Why did he have an RPG in his hands if not to kill someone?
And do you think that someone could have been American soldiers? Do those same soldiers not have the right to defend themselves
if someone is trying to kill them?

If the President is the reason for your ills, you have bigger issues than he does.

.. I don't think you understood my post.. I mean that he WAS going to kill them and it WAS american soilders. I mean once they take that RPG away from that boy, the media will see and then broadcast how we are killing 'innocent' people. Sorry if I was completely clear about it.

I understand now. There were a lot of innocent
civilians killed and maimed during the 'shock and awe'
campaign when we bombed Baghdad, including children.

The maimed children missing arms and legs were not
televised in the United States.

See the movie 'Weapons of Mass Deception'.
It might open your eyes as to how well this
war was really conducted.

Well other than the fact that I have to spend 15 months here rather than 12, I'm doing great. Recently bought a house before we deployed (3br 2bath 2012 sq feet, 4.5 acres), married my wife 6 months ago. (who's deployed with me, not too far away). Financially doing great, morale is up because the improvement is visible (sorry won't go further than that). Other than missing my wife and family, I'm doing great. We will get through it, each of us understands the sacrifices sometimes needed. Be it personal, or large scale.

Statistically, more innocents have been killed then combatants on either side throughout the course of this war. Again I don't make these things up. Understand about the news though, and that is why I don't watch it. No, me I like facts so I make sure I have them before I say anything...and everything I type is facts. The fact is that this war and current president have put the US into a economical decline and upped the national defecit, so there is maybe one or two good things about the war and a dozen more bad things.

almost all of the "innocents" which you speak of my friend, were killed by insurgeants, not soldiers. And further more, there are no good things that derive from war. It is a hellish place we should all avoid at most costs. However, since it began it has now become a necessary evil with which we must all bare a burden. Some more than others. God bless our troops, and god be with those that have fallen to the hands of someone else's beliefs.

Care to cite your reference? While indeed hostile casualties has been the higher of all casualties, the fact is that the innocent were not all killed by insurgents, nor has "almost all". It is a fact that the US bombed several civilian warehouses killing civilians in the action, because of are fantastic intelligence that has been proven to be flawed in several areas for several years. I have nothing against the troops they're doing their job, my problem is with the Command that is given. War is indeed hell, but it is something that was unnecessary at the time and to this day still is.

And for the fun of it: http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

See for yourself just how much this war is costing us, not in monetary value but in lives.

sorry bro...guess things could have changed recently. I just know when i was over there the insurgeants were targeting the iraqi civilian populace. Specifically those that supported us. It's kind of a psychological thing. I don't remember the numbers exactly but from my experience, there were 3 of my fellow soldiers killed and about two dozen wounded. Two of which were severly injured. We killed/captured 150 to 200 terrorists/insurgeants. I know of two people that we mistakenly killed. These are people that would drive at us after being told to stop in their language, then we would show a weapon pointed at them, and we fired warning shots, yet they still made no attempt to slow the vehicle (this was standard progression of force, note: we still would not fire unless we actually felt threatened), there was one mistaken injury from a bullet ricochet downtown (injury was not serious), and there were about 50 iraq national guard memebers that were killed by insurgeants, as well as about 100 unarmed civilians from things like suicide bombs, or car bombs. There were probably another 100 or 200 wounded by these same events from insugeants. There were about a dozen iraqi police and the governer of Baghdad ambushed by insurgeants. (No survivors that i can recall). I have witnessed at least the aftermath of all these events. No, i do not have a reliable media source that i can site at this time. And oh yeah, i may be out dated cuz this was 2004-2005 time period, these events took place in Baghdad, Sadre City, and Mosul. Unfortunately the news doesn't very often report our success. No there were no cover-ups, no accounts of us just going gun-crazy. We were professionals, trying to finish the jobs that America sent us to do. (Right up until people changed their minds about us being over there)

Ground and pound, just kidding with that comment. Either way your not Air Force nor the super awesome intelligence that is told the Air Force where to bomb. I'm guessing your either Army or National Guard judgeing from the way you talk about it, trained for excellence. Difference here being you don't know what other branches of the military do or what their told to do, albeit that the rules of warfare of late have had a very high increase in what is not allowed...but when the war started it wasn't like that, the conventional rules of warfare didn't apply because of the enemy dressed like civilians. My point here isn't what you guys are doing over there, my point is why did you guys go there.

This war is in shambles even now, it was when it started and will be until it ends. Remember when we declared victory? How does the military and government alike determine victory these days?

I couldn't agree more

Say that to the dead soldiers.