Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SuzeQuze
I did a search on that number, 368 billion, and got very few hits. I don't know where O'Reilley got that number.
The poverty rate steadily declined every year during Clinton's presidency, it has steadily increased during Dubya's. Over fourteen million people have sunk into poverty since Dubya's reign. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...v/hstpov2.html He's doing a sh*t job.
Here is another way of looking at that "368 billion" figure which may come straight from O'Reilley's butt. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...v/hstpov2.html |
Media Matters reported that number in the post I put up earlier - surely that biased source would not report anything favorable to W if it did not have to
Also, I get that the number has risen under W, but W inherited a failing economy, which was sure to make that number rise and after four or five years, it is still historically low
How is what I am saying false?
P.S. If anyone is going to argue the economy failed the very day W took office and that it was all peaches and cream until the last day of Clinton's Presidency, that is utter crap because:
1. the tech bubble burst in Clinton's terms and
2. something like 1/4 of the nation's wealth was lost in that burst and in the phantom profits created by fraudulent companies like Enron, MCI, and others in largest companies in the US.
All of that happened under Clinton and to assign its devastating effects solely to W because he, not Clinton, was in office is incorrect