[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