Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[irishgrl]

If you two are as good in the sack as you are at arguing, you could make a lot of people very happy.

wellllllllll.....my boytoys arent complaining! :thumbsup:



ah well, its been fun but Ive got Court tomorrow (my 4 year battle is supposed to go to trial finally) and Im going to have to call it a night. Jason, the last word is yours. You wont be right but you WILL be last! enjoy :D

[strandinthewind]

JASON! you said the exact opposite! you said right along that Bush did better than Clinton until Suze posted that link which proved you wrong! Good Grief!
Truly the King of Spin you are!

I did display your entire words the first time I posted them. If you had read that post, we probably could have saved 5 pages of arguing :shrug:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

and if you think W is doing a good job, all I can say is you have absolutely NO concept of what it is like to be poor. I can tell you right now, in my county we've applied for special status (exempt from foodstamp workability requirements) due to the high unemployment rate. We've also had to scale back our General Assistance benefits to the 2002 level. I cant tell you how many years welfare recipients didnt get a cost of living adjustment (COLA Increase)

Again, the 12.7 is historically very good and it was lower for the last three or four years, but you will never admit that though the facts clearly support it. W also is giving an unprecedented 14% of the budget to stop that number from rising anymore, but you will never admit that. All you can say is I have no idea what it is like to be poor, which does not negate any fact I proffered.

Regarding COLA - SSI has gotten one every year :shrug: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/SSIamts.html

I think you are talking about state programs, which are the realm of the state Gov. though the Feds do help them.

[strandinthewind]

If you two are as good in the sack as you are at arguing, you could make a lot of people very happy.

Wanna have a three way :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Actually, I am off to bed - ta

[dissention]

Wanna have a three way :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Actually, I am off to bed - ta

Y'all couldn't handle the junk in this trunk.

:xoxo:

[irishgrl]

I have no idea what you are talking about.



Again, the 12.7 is historically very good and it was lower for the last three or four years, but you will never admit that though the facts clearly support it. W also is giving an unprecedented 14% of the budget to stop that number from rising anymore, but you will never admit that. All you can say is I have no idea what it is like to be poor, which does not negate any fact I proffered.

Regarding COLA - SSI has gotten one every year :shrug: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/SSIamts.html

I think you are talking about state programs, which are the realm of the state Gov. though the Feds do help them.

I am talking about both. Fed (foodstamp ABAWD requirements) and State (AFDC or TANF--no COLA raises). and County too actually (General Assistance--actually CUT back to 2003 levels).

again: 14% of the budget is probably what he CUT from social programs to begin with so: IM NOT IMPRESSED. Its the money those programs should have gotten right along. NOT. IMPRESSED.

nighty nite....*yawn*

[sparky]

I got out in 2000. It's a damn good thing because I'd have nothing left today.

I pumped my cash into real estate. Which in California 6 or 7 years ago turned into a currently beautiful thing.

On another note, I was cleaning my back room earlier as I am certain there is a rat in my house. THAT'S ANOTHER THREAD ALTOGETHER.

Anyway, I pulled these three big assed totebins out marked Ali Baba Tent Fabric And Stuff. I hadn't gotten them out in 2 years. I discover they are filled with all this ridiculous fabric I used a few summers ago to make this enormous Morrocan tent thing up by the pool for a party. It was a leftover stuff from old jobs I did. I am a total fabric whore. I buy that crap for big sets and always go for the silk cut velvet, emroidered metallics, stuff like that. I have no shame and spend 70-100 bucks a yard. Plus these enormous foo-foo tassles that are about 100 bucks a piece. And the shows never want it, so I drag it home.

So here I am, staring at probably 2 grand worth of fabric in these bins. It is fantastic stuff. It occured to that this is the kind of over the top, self indulgent crazy crap that Markolas was bringing up earlier in the thread. Why did I have this ? Was it really necessary ? I hadn't even used it in years, and when I did it was for a nutty pool party where me and my friends drank expensive Tequila, ate like pigs and played in the pool till midnight. I took it all and dumped it in the middle of the room and stared at it. I spread the stuff all over the room and marveled at the beauty of it. Then I took off all my clothes and rolled around in it naked and laughed myself silly.

:laugh:

Not really. But I thought about it. And that was sure fun to write. :eek: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I pumped my cash into real estate. Which in California 6 or 7 years ago turned into a currently beautiful thing.

On another note, I was cleaning my back room earlier as I am certain there is a rat in my house. THAT'S ANOTHER THREAD ALTOGETHER.

Anyway, I pulled these three big assed totebins out marked Ali Baba Tent Fabric And Stuff. I hadn't gotten them out in 2 years. I discover they are filled with all this ridiculous fabric I used a few summers ago to make this enormous Morrocan tent thing up by the pool for a party. It was a leftover stuff from old jobs I did. I am a total fabric whore. I buy that crap for big sets and always go for the silk cut velvet, emroidered metallics, stuff like that. I have no shame and spend 70-100 bucks a yard. Plus these enormous foo-foo tassles that are about 100 bucks a piece. And the shows never want it, so I drag it home.

So here I am, staring at probably 2 grand worth of fabric in these bins. It is fantastic stuff. It occured to that this is the kind of over the top, self indulgent crazy crap that Markolas was bringing up earlier in the thread. Why did I have this ? Was it really necessary ? I hadn't even used it in years, and when I did it was for a nutty pool party where me and my friends drank expensive Tequila, ate like pigs and played in the pool till midnight. I took it all and dumped it in the middle of the room and stared at it. I spread the stuff all over the room and marveled at the beauty of it. Then I took off all my clothes and rolled around in it naked and laughed myself silly.

:laugh:

Not really. But I thought about it. And that was sure fun to write. :eek: :wavey:

I love you for that and wish I had been there, though we would have needed servants (plural) to serve during it and one of us would have worn that drag as a cape and turban and done our best Norma Desmond, which may have required a staircase we could strike an hour later -- its a high class problem :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

. . . again: 14% of the budget is probably what he CUT from social programs to begin with so: IM NOT IMPRESSED. Its the money those programs should have gotten right along. NOT. IMPRESSED. . . .

Impressed or not, it appears you are once again wrong.

The facts demonstrate 14% of the budget is the highest ever or at least in a long time, which has been stated many times and I cannot find evidence to the contrary. If you can, let's see it.

Again, I am not saying this historically large 14% of the budget going towards poverty will be the end all of poverty, though I wish it would be. I am just saying that statements like W does not care at all about the poor are not supported by the facts. I support my conclusion by correctly noting that the current 12.7% poverty figure is still a very good number when you look at all the numbers in the last 15 or so years. Also, though the numbers have climbed a mere 1.4% in five years to 12.7% under W (which sucks), this apparently historically large 14% of the budget may stop that climb. Finally, this continued climb to 12.7% has been comparatively slight in the time of a rather large recession, when one would expect the nation's poverty percentage to be far higher than 12.7%. The facts support me 100% on this.

Will the 14% work? Who knows.

What is the 14% composed of? I do not know. If you find out, let me know.

Until then, this horse is beaten to death.

[SuzeQuze]

Thank God I didn't have much left in the market to lose. The only things left, Home Base and MCI, totally **** the bed. I lost about 7 grand. I pulled most of my money out in 98 when it was all cresting. Timing is everything.

Well, I lost some money in my stock options and stocks I had purchased in my company. I worked for a consulting firm that initially specialized in moving companies from mainframe systems to PCs. It grew so fast and did not adjust to the internet boom. Also, there were some shady things going on. So I as the little guy got screwed while the executives dumped lots of shares and made millions. It sucked.

[irishgrl]

Impressed or not, it appears you are once again wrong.

The facts demonstrate 14% of the budget is the highest ever or at least in a long time, which has been stated many times and I cannot find evidence to the contrary. If you can, let's see it.

Again, I am not saying this historically large 14% of the budget going towards poverty will be the end all of poverty, though I wish it would be. I am just saying that statements like W does not care at all about the poor are not supported by the facts. I support my conclusion by correctly noting that the current 12.7% poverty figure is still a very good number when you look at all the numbers in the last 15 or so years. Also, though the numbers have climbed a mere 1.4% in five years to 12.7% under W (which sucks), this apparently historically large 14% of the budget may stop that climb. Finally, this continued climb to 12.7% has been comparatively slight in the time of a rather large recession, when one would expect the nation's poverty percentage to be far higher than 12.7%. The facts support me 100% on this.

Will the 14% work? Who knows.

What is the 14% composed of? I do not know. If you find out, let me know.

Until then, this horse is beaten to death.

You are wrongly attributing to me comments I didnt make. (As USUAL.)
I didnt say in this thread that Bush didnt care about the Poor. (although I'll say it now) I said YOU were WRONG for saying Bush did better than Clinton. And YOU ARE. I made no comment about the amount of Bush's help other than its probably what he took from them in the first place. As for the "relatively slight climb in the face of the recession" GIVE ME A BREAK. This is a recession HE caused. And, even though you optimistically think this
"historic" amount of money will help reduce the poverty numbers, I predict time will prove you wrong (AGAIN). You simply have no clue what it is like to live the kind of life where you have to use foodstamps or public assistance. And your superior attitude is inappropriate. You discuss the lives of Americas poor with a professor's detachment, without a thought of what their reality is. I can tell you first hand, having been there, that it is miserable. Shopping for clothes for your kids at thrift stores because you cant even afford Kmart....buying Ramen and Rice because they are cheap...
going hungry when the foodstamps run out even though you shopped wisely, waiting for commodity giveaways once a month, needing housing subsidies to pay the rent.....NO, I dont think you understand if you think this 14 % is a good thing. Its a drop in the bucket and its what he should have given the poor in the first place. So Spare me your supercilious snobbery. This is about more than bare numbers or thinking that if you throw enough money at it, it will make you look good...Bush Smells, and elitist attitudes smell.
The ONLY point I have made in this thread (until now) is that Clinton did Better than Bush. Suze's link/graph proved me right. You just have to live with it.

[strandinthewind]

I think you are wrongly attributing to me comments I didnt make. As USUAL.
I didnt say in this thread that Bush didnt care about the Poor. I said YOU were WRONG for saying Bush did better than Clinton. And YOU ARE.
I make no comment about the amount of Bush's help other than its probably what he took from them in the first place.
The ONLY point I have made in this thread is that Clinton did Better than Bush. Suze's link/graph proved me right. You just have to live with it.


Mary can't admit she's wrong - Mary can't admit she's wrong :laugh:

LOL - you are something. You have proven nothing except that you cannot make a fact based argument.

Again, I never said Bush has done better than Clinton.

But, why don't you beat this dead horse and your incorrect assumption into the ground some more. In fact, you can have the last word, which will again be unsupported by any facts.

[irishgrl]

Mary can't admit she's wrong - Mary can't admit she's wrong :laugh:

LOL - you are something. You have proven nothing except that you cannot make a fact based argument.

Again, I never said Bush has done better than Clinton.

But, why don't you beat this dead horse and your incorrect assumption into the ground some more. In fact, you can have the last word, which will again be unsupported by any facts.

My facts were in my thread from the Census data and Suze's link with the graph.
and you DID say Bush did better than Clinton. I posted your own words twice.
YOU are the one that cant admit you are wrong.

[strandinthewind]

NO, I dont think you understand if you think this 14 % is a good thing. Its a drop in the bucket and its what he should have given the poor in the first place.

Since you want to compare Clinton so much, the facts i can find demonstrate he gave only 12% - so he must be worse, right?

So Spare me your supercilious snobbery
This is about more than bare numbers or thinking that if you throw enough money at it, it will make you look good...Bush Smells, and elitist attitudes smell.
The ONLY point I have made in this thread (until now) is that Clinton did Better than Bush. Suze's link/graph proved me right. You just have to live with it. [/QUOTE]

I request that you stop personally attacking me. If you like, we can take it to the moderators.

Also, 12.7 is historically low, why can't you admit that fact?

[irishgrl]

I request that you stop personally attacking me. If you like, we can take it to the moderators.

I request that you stop condescending to ME. You called me inane, a "nice lady with some crazy ideas" you seem to LOVE to say I am wrong for things I havent even said. You think this is some sort of fun game to needle me, when I have repeatedly offered proof. You ignore that however...

[strandinthewind]

I request that you stop condescending to ME. You called me inane, a "nice lady with some crazy ideas" you seem to LOVE to say I am wrong for things I havent even said. You think this is some sort of fun game to needle me, when I have repeatedly offered proof. You ignore that however...

No, I called your aruments inane and since when is calling someone a "nice lady" an insult?

You have offered no proof and thus, IMO, cannot argue rationally.

Here's the deal, obviously, you think I am a horrible person who cannot relate to you and my arguments are pious and unfounded. Thus, I request you no longer speak to me about politics.

[irishgrl]

No, I called your aruments inane and since when is calling someone a "nice lady" an insult?

You have offered no proof and thus, IMO, cannot argue rationally.

Here's the deal, obviously, you think I am a horrible person who cannot relate to you and my arguments are pious and unfounded. Thus, I request you no longer speak to me about politics.
it wasnt the "nice lady" part that was hurtful, it was the "crazy ideas" part.
My ideas are no more crazy than anyone elses here and you dont have to act as though I were some strange relative that you tolerated...that is uncalled for.
AGAIN: my only statement from the beginning was that Bush did worse than Clinton and my proof was in my census thread and in Suze's link with the Graph. Why is that so hard for you to understand or grasp? You leapfrog past what I say to attack me: you've called me a "male basher" and a femi-nazi.....thats a personal attack by the way......
As for discussing politics with you, I just post on the threads that I am interested in and comment where I feel it appropriate.

Its too bad we always seem to be on opposite sides, its not something I plan, but you need to examine your knee jerk need to always say I am wrong, even when I am not. Truthfully, I'd rather we find some common ground if possible.

[irishgrl]

Also, 12.7 is historically low, why can't you admit that fact?

I dont know what the numbers have been from one year to the next, so I cant comment on that one way or another. If you say so, then I'll accept your assessment.

I wont kiss your butt, but I do respect you--and in the interests of Peace, I'll extend an olive branch. I cant promise that we wont argue again, we seem to be like oil and water, but next time, I think we can both be a bit more respectful. Im willing if you are :angel:

[reebokandlace]

I can't believe you two woke up this morning to continue this disagreement. :p
(I went to bed around page 12)

I can't believe I woke up and read it this morning. :shocked:


I need a hobby. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

it wasnt the "nice lady" part that was hurtful, it was the "crazy ideas" part.
My ideas are no more crazy than anyone elses here and you dont have to act as though I were some strange relative that you tolerated...that is uncalled for.
AGAIN: my only statement from the beginning was that Bush did worse than Clinton and my proof was in my census thread and in Suze's link with the Graph. Why is that so hard for you to understand or grasp? You leapfrog past what I say to attack me: you've called me a "male basher" and a femi-nazi.....thats a personal attack by the way......
As for discussing politics with you, I just post on the threads that I am interested in and comment where I feel it appropriate.

Its too bad we always seem to be on opposite sides, its not something I plan, but you need to examine your knee jerk need to always say I am wrong, even when I am not. Truthfully, I'd rather we find some common ground if possible.

Your ideas are crazy because they are not grounded in fact. For example, 14% of the budget is an historically high number and ostensibly is a good thing. Instead of admitting that fact, you go on about what a heel W is and what an elistist I am. You do not address the issue.

Also, I called you a male basher because you admitted prior to then that you had little use for men, thought they were all mostly bad, etc. So, I was going on what you said. As for femi nazi - it was a joke and I clearly indicated as much.

In the end, there can be no common ground because you cannot face the facts when they are presented. So, I'd rather we just do not converse anymore.

[strandinthewind]

I dont know what the numbers have been from one year to the next, so I cant comment on that one way or another. If you say so, then I'll accept your assessment.

In post 128, Suze posted a link to this graph

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/strandinthewind/poverty_clinton_bush.gif

which was a visual demonstration of the other things posted. Thus, clearly the rise in the Bush terms has not been dramatic and is historically low.

[irishgrl]

Your ideas are crazy because they are not grounded in fact. For example, 14% of the budget is an historically high number and ostensibly is a good thing. Instead of admitting that fact, you go on about what a heel W is and what an elistist I am. You do not address the issue.

Also, I called you a male basher because you admitted prior to then that you had little use for men, thought they were all mostly bad, etc. So, I was going on what you said. As for femi nazi - it was a joke and I clearly indicated as much.

In the end, there can be no common ground because you cannot face the facts when they are presented. So, I'd rather we just do not converse anymore.

Jason, now you are being unreasonable. I posted that I have no comment on the 14% because I dont KNOW what the historical numbers are. You are talking about something completely different than me! I am only saying Clinton did Better than Bush contrary to what YOU first said!
You characterized me as a male basher because I posted feminist comments about the inequal treatment between men and women. I later said that the men in my life have been no good and I choose to live alone. I ALSO said that some of my best friends are men and I know there are good men out there, they are just all taken~ dont you remember? You calling me a male basher based on that is no different than my saying you speak like an elitist based on YOUR comments. You cant have it both ways.
Im sorry you cant be big enough to shake hands and call a truce. Im sure I'll live though......

[strandinthewind]

Jason, now you are being unreasonable. I posted that I have no comment on the 14% because I dont KNOW what the historical numbers are. You are talking about something completely different than me! I am only saying Clinton did Better than Bush contrary to what YOU first said!

Once again, I never said Bush did better than Clinton. As I mentioned pages ago, that would be impossible becuase the poverty level consistently declined under Clinton and it has risen under Bush. What I said was the increments it has increased under W are less than the increments it decreased under Clinton, which is a good thing. But, if you want to take that to mean I said Bush did better than Clinton, whatever.

You characterized me as a male basher because I posted feminist comments about the inequal treatment between men and women. I later said that the men in my life have been no good and I choose to live alone. I ALSO said that some of my best friends are men and I know there are good men out there, they are just all taken~ dont you remember? You calling me a male basher based on that is no different than my saying you speak like an elitist based on YOUR comments. You cant have it both ways.
Im sorry you cant be big enough to shake hands and call a truce. Im sure I'll live though......

No, I called you a male basher because awhile back you indicated you have no use for men and thought most of them were awful people who abused women. Yes, you mentioned later that you like a few guys, but that was about it.

As for the olive branch - how generous of you.

[irishgrl]

Once again, I never said Bush did better than Clinton. As I mentioned pages ago, that would be impossible becuase the poverty level consistently declined under Clinton and it has risen under Bush. What I said was the increments it has increased under W are less than the increments it decreased under Clinton, which is a good thing. But, if you want to take that to mean I said Bush did better than Clinton, whatever.

Jason, you did. I quoted you twice. and yes, you did say "the increments it has increased under W are less than the increments it decreased under Clinton" but that was later in thread. By the way, your statement is confusing~

No, I called you a male basher because awhile back you indicated you have no use for men and thought most of them were awful people who abused women. Yes, you mentioned later that you like a few guys, but that was about it.
What I said was, the men in MY life have all been, without exception, bad news and that I choose to live alone. I have a few men friends and a couple of boy toys. I like my life the way it is :shrug:

As for the olive branch - how generous of you.
oh Jason :shrug: have it your way.

[strandinthewind]

Jason, you did. I quoted you twice. and yes, you did say "the increments it has increased under W are less than the increments it decreased under Clinton" but that was later in thread. By the way, your statement is confusing~

You were quoting Bill O'Reilly then and not me. If not, please refer to the post number.

My point with the increments under W was and is that for a recession, the numbers under W are historically low. However, when I made that comment you called me a clueless elitist who had no idea what it meant to be poor, which in no way refuted that 1.4% growth in four years to 12.7% in a recession is rather good.

. . . What I said was, the men in MY life have all been, without exception, bad news and that I choose to live alone. I have a few men friends and a couple of boy toys. I like my life the way it is :shrug: . . . .

No, this was not in that thread, it was in another one and you know that because you referred to it, I think, in the most recent thread.

[irishgrl]

You were quoting Bill O'Reilly then and not me. If not, please refer to the post number.

My point with the increments under W was and is that for a recession, the numbers under W are historically low. However, when I made that comment you called me a clueless elitist who had no idea what it meant to be poor, which in no way refuted that 1.4% growth in four years to 12.7% in a recession is rather good.

The way I see it, any increase in poverty is NOT good. How you can put a positive spin on it is beyond me. Again, if you are a single mom, trying to raise a family (either on welfare or as the working poor) this is nothing to be proud of, recession or not. And again, you are looking at numbers and not the reality of life at the bottom of the economic ladder (which I have lived firsthand and thus speak from experience, as opposed to the detached number crunching you are spouting)

And I conceded that one of the comments you posted was from Bill O Reilly, but the other one was in your words which I posted. Twice. see post #167.
Suze asked you if you had seen the link/graph and you said:
Yes, and it indicates that though the poverty rate has risen a little under W, it is nowhere near the record levels under Clinton and I still submit that W's historic amount of money given has the potential to stay or even reduce the slow rise W has seen.
nothing out of context, not quoting Bill O'Reilly. Plain as day, you said that Bush did better than Clinton. You only reversed yourself after it was pointed out that Suze's graph/link showed otherwise. As for the money Bush is NOW throwing at the problem, I never had any comment on that except to say its probably money he cut from social programs to begin with. REPEAT: I never had any comment on that, and I even said I took your word for its historical ranking.

[dissention]

Christ, you two are still going at it? :shocked:

[strandinthewind]

The way I see it, any increase in poverty is NOT good. How you can put a positive spin on it is beyond me. Again, if you are a single mom, trying to raise a family (either on welfare or as the working poor) this is nothing to be proud of, recession or not. And again, you are looking at numbers and not the reality of life at the bottom of the economic ladder (which I have lived firsthand and thus speak from experience, as opposed to the detached number crunching you are spouting)

I am not spinning anything. I repeatedly said I was not happy about the increase and also that it was horrible. All I said was the 1.4% rise and the 12.7% number were pretty good considering what it could be in a recession as that graph indicates and W is throwing a ton on money at it to try and stop the increase.

And I conceded that one of the comments you posted was from Bill O Reilly, but the other one was in your words which I posted. Twice. see post #167.
Suze asked you if you had seen the link/graph and you said:

Yes, and it indicates that though the poverty rate has risen a little under W, it is nowhere near the record levels under Clinton and I still submit that W's historic amount of money given has the potential to stay or even reduce the slow rise W has seen.

nothing out of context, not quoting Bill O'Reilly. Plain as day, you said that Bush did better than Clinton. You only reversed yourself after it was pointed out that Suze's graph/link showed otherwise.

I was noting from an historical perspective that the poverty rate was higher during Clinton's administration. But, the higher numbers were due to the fact that Clinton took over a bad economy. That is what I was saying when I said "it is nowhere near the record levels under Clinton." I am not saying Clinton caused those higher levels or is in any way responsible for them.

Similarly, I never said W has done a better job than Clinton in this regard because the poverty level consistently decreased during Clinton's administration as opposed to consistently increasing under W's. Thus, W has not done as good a job as Clinton did at controlling the poverty levels and I never said that.

The above is a separate thought and issue from W's ability to control the poverty level in a recession to the point where it rose only 1.4% in four years to 12.7%, which that graph indicates is still historically low, esp. for a recession. Moreover, W is throwing 14% of the budget at that 12.7% in an effort to stop further growth. Hopefully, this historical increase in money will be a good thing and it is, I believe, more than Clinton ever allotted when the poverty level was at higher points than now in his administration. The additional money does not mean W is doing better than Clinton at controlling the poverty rate, which I think you think is what I am saying. It just means it is costing W more money to control what Clinton could with less money. Thus, W fails in the Clinton comparison test here as well.

If you take that to mean I said W is doing a better job despite the umpteenth and hopefully final explanation, so be it, but you are incorrect for thinking that.

[sparky]

Christ, you two are still going at it? :shocked:

I tried to distract them.

[sparky]

I love you for that and wish I had been there, though we would have needed servants (plural) to serve during it and one of us would have worn that drag as a cape and turban and done our best Norma Desmond, which may have required a staircase we could strike an hour later -- its a high class problem :wavey:

Max, take me to Paramount ! I have a meeting with Mr DeMille. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Max, take me to Paramount ! I have a meeting with Mr DeMille. :laugh:


You will pardon me Madame - The shadow over the left eye is not quite balanced

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/strandinthewind/12m.gif

PS - Glorious Gloria says she didn't need no welfare state :D

[irishgrl]

I am not spinning anything. I repeatedly said I was not happy about the increase and also that it was horrible. All I said was the 1.4% rise and the 12.7% number were pretty good considering what it could be in a recession as that graph indicates and W is throwing a ton on money at it to try and stop the increase.

Then I am not sure why you are attacking me, because again I had no comment on the 14% number and we both agree the increase is horrible.

I was noting from an historical perspective that the poverty rate was higher during Clinton's administration. But, the higher numbers were due to the fact that Clinton took over a bad economy. That is what I was saying when I said "it is nowhere near the record levels under Clinton." I am not saying Clinton caused those higher levels or is in any way responsible for them. Similarly, I never said W has done a better job than Clinton in this regard because the poverty level consistently decreased during Clinton's administration as opposed to consistently increasing under W's. Thus, W has not done as good a job as Clinton did at controlling the poverty levels and I never said that.
If you had explained yourself to this degree in your first comment, we wouldnt be having this argument at all because I agree with what you just said.



The above is a separate thought and issue from W's ability to control the poverty level in a recession to the point where it rose only 1.4% in four years to 12.7%, which that graph indicates is still historically low, esp. for a recession. Moreover, W is throwing 14% of the budget at that 12.7% in an effort to stop further growth. Hopefully, this historical increase in money will be a good thing and it is, I believe, more than Clinton ever allotted when the poverty level was at higher points than now in his administration. The additional money does not mean W is doing better than Clinton at controlling the poverty rate, which I think you think is what I am saying. It just means it is costing W more money to control what Clinton could with less money. Thus, W fails in the Clinton comparison test here as well.
Well, again we agree. surprise surprise.

If you take that to mean I said W is doing a better job despite the umpteenth and hopefully final explanation, so be it, but you are incorrect for thinking that.
that is what your first comment implied, but I am willing to accept your explanation and even agree with your clarification. And, Im willing to let this die peacefully in its sleep :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

. . . And, Im willing to let this die peacefully in its sleep :wavey:

If I were there, I'd buy you a cocktail :xoxo:

isn't making up fun

[irishgrl]

If I were there, I'd buy you a cocktail :xoxo:

isn't making up fun
I'll hold you to that and take a raincheck :thumbsup:
and yes, making up is fun :laugh: :angel:

[strandinthewind]

Hmmmmm - maybe we can borrow the money from China :rolleyes:

Spending Cuts Unlikely To Finance Much Hurricane Relief

POSTED: 8:22 am CDT September 22, 2005
UPDATED: 8:40 am CDT September 22, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Washington lawmakers are having trouble figuring out where to get the cash to pay for hurricane recovery.

Katrina-related spending is already at $62 billion and could go to $200 billion. And there's no telling how much Hurricane Rita might cost.

The question is where will that money come from.

Some suggest delaying the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Others say cut Amtrak subsidies, crop supports, grants to state and local governments and hometown projects.

Still others offer federal spending freezes, stripping "pork barrel" projects out of already approved bills, increasing airline ticket taxes or stopping construction of two new federal prisons.

All those ideas have pretty much been rejected or ignored.

A group of House conservatives has announced "Operation Offset" but members admit there is no agreement on a roster of spending cut ideas.

www.wdsu.com

[gldstwmn]

Hmmmmm - maybe we can borrow the money from China :rolleyes:



Why not? They pretty much own us anyway. I'm in a kind of Tom Cruise WTF mood anyway. :laugh: