Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

As for the olive branch - how generous of you.

oh Jason have it your way.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . 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 . . . .

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]

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:

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?

[sparky]

Originally Posted by dissention

Christ, you two are still going at it?

I tried to distract them.

[strandinthewind]

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.

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:

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.

[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