Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irishgrl
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irishgrl
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. |
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.