Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

hold the phone, the thread I posted re: poverty INCREASING under Bush every year since 2000 most definitely contradicts your last statements . . . .

No it does not. Again and though I cannot stand W, a 12.7 poverty rate is historically good when compared to the last 15 years despite its rising every year, which everyone admits is a bad thing: shrug:

Also, that W gave over like 14% of the budget and an historical amount does not in any way support any statement that W is ignoring the poor. That is a staggering amount and way more than every before.

So, though I despise W and his most of his policies and I am alarmed that the rate has risen and readily concede that that is a bad thing, the facts clearly indicate W is working toward correcting that and 12.7 is a comparatively good number.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Did you look at this page? http://mediamatters.org/items/200509130002

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. Interestingly, Clinton's lowest numbers were in the boom times and W managed to maintain close to those in the recession.

Again, I think W is a bad President, but these facts are not that bad against him and I cannot see how Bush 2006 budget's allotment a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, which was an historic 14.6 percent of the entire budget, is not a good attempt at staying or even reducing this 12.7% number.

Maybe the make up of the 14.6 % is bogus, but no one I could find is reporting that

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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. Interestingly, Clinton's lowest numbers were in the boom times and W managed to maintain close to those in the recession.

Again, I think W is a bad President, but these facts are not that bad against him and I cannot see how Bush 2006 budget's allotment a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, which was an historic 14.6 percent of the entire budget, is not a good attempt at staying or even reducing this 12.7% number.

Maybe the make up of the 14.6 % is bogus, but no one I could find is reporting that

ok lets take a look at my thread again

here's another article with graphs and stuff..

now: kindly show me where Clinton's numbers were worse than Bushwads.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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. Interestingly, Clinton's lowest numbers were in the boom times and W managed to maintain close to those in the recession.

Again, I think W is a bad President, but these facts are not that bad against him and I cannot see how Bush 2006 budget's allotment a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, which was an historic 14.6 percent of the entire budget, is not a good attempt at staying or even reducing this 12.7% number.

Maybe the make up of the 14.6 % is bogus, but no one I could find is reporting that

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.crankyliberal.com/?p=449

I know, because of the URL the site probably isn't "credible". When are people going to start listening to the geeks and tune out these "manly men".

[strandinthewind]

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

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Media Matters reported that number

No, if you look again they are quoting O'Reilley.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

No, if you look again they are quoting O'Reilley.

I'll take your word for it, but it still is a huge amount of money - 14 percent of the budget. So, to my point, W is working to stay that rise and 12.7 is still historically low, esp. at what appears to be the end of the recession - how is that a bad thing and how does that show W is neglecting the poor

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

W inherited a failing economy

you are a LAFF RIOT! Clinton balanced the budget under his watch. and the tech bubble didnt burst and the Stock markets didnt decline until Dingleberry took office. FACT. You dont like it but Too Freakin bad.

Personally I think the fact that W was PLACED into the White House undermined the confidence people had in the stability of our economy and various other aspects. Things were sort of in limbo until the Supreme Court GAVE Bushwad the job...then they fell apart in a big way.

Dont give me that tired old refrain "the seeds were sown in Clintons term" because Clinton took the heat for stuff that HE inherited. Bush is a bumbler, his economic policies favor the rich and I wish he were GONE.

[macfanken]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I'll take your word for it, but it still is a huge amount of money - 14 percent of the budget. So, to my point, W is working to stay that rise and 12.7 is still historically low, esp. at what appears to be the end of the recession - how is that a bad thing and how does that show W is neglecting the poor

I'm jumping into the middle of this but I noticed that the graph seems to show poverty decreasing every single year under Clinton and increasing every single year under Bush. Not sure what my point is.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by macfanken

I'm jumping into the middle of this but I noticed that the graph seems to show poverty decreasing every single year under Clinton and increasing every single year under Bush. Not sure what my point is.

then let me help you:
Bush's numbers are WORSE than Clinton's. Sometimes I think Jason gets his news from an alternate Universe.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

you are a LAFF RIOT! Clinton balanced the budget under his watch. and the tech bubble didnt burst and the Stock markets didnt decline until Dingleberry took office. FACT. You dont like it but Too Freakin bad.

Personally I think the fact that W was PLACED into the White House undermined the confidence people had in the stability of our economy and various other aspects. Things were sort of in limbo until the Supreme Court GAVE Bushwad the job...then they fell apart in a big way.

Dont give me that tired old refrain "the seeds were sown in Clintons term" because Clinton took the heat for stuff that HE inherited. Bush is a bumbler, his economic policies favor the rich and I wish he were GONE.

Well, then I guess you really think that the very minute W took office, America lost like 1/4 of its wealth and several million jobs and that nothing prior to then caused that

What utter cra*p espoused by predictably by you.

Again, anyone with a brain can see that the tech bubble began to burst way before Clinton left office and all that phantom wealth created by those atronomical IPO's was lost, which meant a huge loss in jobs.

Then, just the loss of Enron and MCI caused the effective loss of trillions. All of that fraud helped build the Clinton economy and it burst druing W's.

But, you never face facts, so why start now.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I'll take your word for it, but it still is a huge amount of money - 14 percent of the budget. So, to my point, W is working to stay that rise and 12.7 is still historically low, esp. at what appears to be the end of the recession - how is that a bad thing and how does that show W is neglecting the poor

I also don't trust that 14% figure. Remember, Bush tends to leave out things when he does his "budget", like the cost of the Iraq war, for instance. I have not seen the budget though so I don't know for sure.

What I'm saying is more people are sinking into poverty under Bush. 14+ million more to be more precise. Doesn't that seem like a lot to you? The 12.7 figure may be "historically" low but that percentage doesn't wipe out the fact that 14 million more people are poor today than were in 1999.

[macfanken]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

then let me help you:
Bush's numbers are WORSE than Clinton's. Sometimes I think Jason gets his news from an alternate Universe.

I'm really tired... I was hoping someone would make my point for me!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by macfanken

I'm jumping into the middle of this but I noticed that the graph seems to show poverty decreasing every single year under Clinton and increasing every single year under Bush. Not sure what my point is.

Contrary to Mary's inane point, I agree that it decreased every year under Clinton and that was a great thing (though much of it was built on phantomn IPO's and corp. fraud) - but my point was though it has sadly risen under W, W is throwing money at it to stop that rise and 12.7 is historically very low. That is all I am saying.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

then let me help you:
Bush's numbers are WORSE than Clinton's. Sometimes I think Jason gets his news from an alternate Universe.

No, Mary, I get them from facts, which you avoid so you can make idiotic points like your avoiding answering the question of how those numbers in any way support that W cares so little for the poor.

But, then again, you think the minute W was sworm in the economy caved - whatever