Quote:
|
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
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:
Quote:
|
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.