Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Jason, dont condescend, I posted Census data, and I posted your own words.
I dont make up anything, and I never have. You havent proven me wrong, tho you fondly imagine you do....Ive often asked YOU for proof but you dodge and weave and spin......

Again, you actually think the second W took office the fomerly peachy keen economy just failed and all the historic data of corp. fraud and the tech bubble burst was and is meaningless as W's oath is what caused America to lose so many jobs and wealth. All I can do is show you the facts, which you refuse to believe because it would mean foresaking Clinton. Whatever.

Here an idea - please prove how the corp. fraud did not occur in Clinton's term and ther tech bubble did not burst then as well.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Actually Bill O'reilly said:

"Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms." I mean if poverty fell one percent, how can that not be a good thing?

Conversley, I said that though the numbers have risen under W, which is a bad thing, 12.7 is still historically low and W is attempting to stop that rise by throwing 14% of the 2006 budget at the cause of that rise.



Of course I linked to them as did Suze. Go back and look and you will see them. I think Media Matters has a graph Suze linked to.

I just posted a quote from that link, as for the comment being from Bill O'Reilly, that wasnt apparent from your post. (it wasnt in a separate block)
therefore I thought it was YOUR words. If not, then I stand corrected.

Personally I dont think Bushwad can throw enough money at the problem, he's already given 50times that amount to his corporate buddies.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by macfanken

The poverty level hasn't stopped rising though... it's grown every year for the last four years, whatever he's doing isn't working... at least not yet.

True, but he walked into a recession and has kept the numbers at 12.7 so far and 12.7 is pretty good over the last 15 years.

Do I know if the current 2006 14% amount will work. No, I do not. But, I hope it does and that during a recession, W and his cronies kept that number at 12.7 speaks well of their ability to stop or at least slow that rise. At least that is what the facts say to me.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

...

unfortunately for you, the data supports MY position and refutes yours:

But the poverty rate declined every year Clinton was in office, from 15.1 percent when he took office in 1993 to a low of 11.3 percent in 2000; it has risen every year that Bush has been in office, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004.

that is from Suze's link.

Right, so it has gone from a low of 11.3 percent to 12.7 which is a difference of 1.4% which equals 14+ million people. I agree with you in that I think this means he's doing a bad job with the poor. But I can't argue this anymore because I don't think we will ALL see eye to eye on this. I agree to disagree. Even if the other side is wrong. Oh I am silly!

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, you actually think the second W took office the fomerly peachy keen economy just failed and all the historic data of corp. fraud and the tech bubble burst was and is meaningless as W's oath is what caused America to lose so many jobs and wealth. All I can do is show you the facts, which you refuse to believe because it would mean foresaking Clinton. Whatever.

Here an idea - please prove how the corp. fraud did not occur in Clinton's term and ther tech bubble did not burst then as well.

The fraud occurred way before Clinton as I said. it just came to a head during Bush's term. Clinton was no more responsible for the tech bubble bursting or the corporate fraud occuring than you or I. Clinton haters like to say that it was his fault and it was brewing before Bush took office, but that is unfair because Clinton had to take the heat for stuff that was brewing long before HE took office. So, if Clinton had to suck it up and fix the previous administration's problems and take responsibility (which he DID) then the same should hold true for Bush.

But, you cant deny that all of this came to a head when Bush took office. His tenure has been plagued by one bad headline after another. The man then compounds the problem by plunging this country into war and cutting funding for social programs and benefits for the elderly, young, students, veterans...

theres no real way of knowing how far back the seeds were sown. but you cant deny that the budget was balanced. Joe Schmoe could afford to buy a house. people had jobs. things WERE rosier under Clinton whether you can admit it or not.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Right, so it has gone from a low of 11.3 percent to 12.7 which is a difference of 1.4% which equals 14+ million people. I agree with you in that I think this means he's doing a bad job with the poor. But I can't argue this anymore because I don't think we will ALL see eye to eye on this. I agree to disagree. Even if the other side is wrong. Oh I am silly!

Well, I think we all agree the consistent rise is a bad thing and needs to be stopped.

But you all seem not to want to go past that and look at what they are doing to solve the problem, which is raising to an historical level the amount of money given to the poor via programs, etc.

My only point there is that though the 1.4% rise was awful and I wish it had not happened, it happened during a bad recession and it was relatively small from an historical perspective. Moreover, 12.7 is still a really good number from an historical perspective though people fell back into poverty.

That is all I am saying.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Right, so it has gone from a low of 11.3 percent to 12.7 which is a difference of 1.4% which equals 14+ million people. I agree with you in that I think this means he's doing a bad job with the poor. But I can't argue this anymore because I don't think we will ALL see eye to eye on this. I agree to disagree. Even if the other side is wrong. Oh I am silly!

Thus, I AM supported by facts, to the chagrin of Jason who unfortunately lost his quarter at the Diner at the end of the Galaxy and couldnt afford to buy a paper. (I am teasing you btw)

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, I think we all agree the consistent rise is a bad thing and needs to be stopped.

But you all seem not to want to go past that and look at what they are doing to solve the problem, which is raising to an historical level the amount of money given to the poor via programs, etc.

My only point there is that though the 1.4% rise was awful and I wish it had not happened, it happened during a bad recession and it was relatively small from an historical perspective. Moreover, 12.7 is still a really good number from an historical perspective though people fell back into poverty.

That is all I am saying.

But Jason, how can you even say this? You are completely ignoring all the monies that have been CUT from social programs to help the poor etc...

as far as it being "relatively small from a historical perspective" try telling that to a single mom on welfare whose grants are being cut because of budget constraints, whose childcare funds have been eliminated, whose financial aid awards have been cut, and on and on......dont you see? the money you say he is now giving should have been given RIGHT ALONG! instead it went to the wealthy few which is WRONG

[Moony]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I am silly!

Silly billy.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Moony

this thread is going to make my head explode.

Me too. I'd bet dollars to donuts that O'Reilly's facts are wrong. And yet, I have no interest in researching them at this time.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

The fraud occurred way before Clinton as I said. it just came to a head during Bush's term. Clinton was no more responsible for the tech bubble bursting or the corporate fraud occuring than you or I. Clinton haters like to say that it was his fault and it was brewing before Bush took office, but that is unfair because Clinton had to take the heat for stuff that was brewing long before HE took office. So, if Clinton had to suck it up and fix the previous administration's problems and take responsibility (which he DID) then the same should hold true for Bush.

But, you cant deny that all of this came to a head when Bush took office. His tenure has been plagued by one bad headline after another. The man then compounds the problem by plunging this country into war and cutting funding for social programs and benefits for the elderly, young, students, veterans...

theres no real way of knowing how far back the seeds were sown. but you cant deny that the budget was balanced. Joe Schmoe could afford to buy a house. people had jobs. things WERE rosier under Clinton whether you can admit it or not.

Actually, the actual fraud that occured in MCI and ENRON started, I believe, in the late 90's

I agree things appeared much rosier when Clinton was President and have never said anything different than that.

My only point is that much of that picture was created by the economic stimulus that happened when trillions in wealth were created though IPO's that had no chance of staying that high. For example, stock prices are guaged on future revenue expectations and none of these companies had ever made a dime. So, they go public and under a true model should have a price per share of like $10.00 at the most, and they are suddenly trading at $180 per share on pure speculation. That means these companies suddenly had billions to hire people, buy industrial goods, rent office space, build buildings, build warehouses, etc. Then, when they continue to make no money, they went belly up and all that commerce no longer existed, which results in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Similarly, the corp. fraud caused a false rise in stock price which allowed those companies to buy buildings, hire people, raise their consumption of consumer goods - which resulted on the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, which were lost when those companies failed.

Finally, the millions of average investors who suddenly lost a ton of money also stopped buying things, which, along with the above to things, caused factories and other comnpanies to lay off people'

All of that facilitated the crash in the economy - how could it not when all that tax rev. was gone

So, that rosy picture was somewhat built on stilts and it crashed.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

and you expect any credibility when you make ridiculous statements like that

Well the stock market certainly went to **** real quick.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

But Jason, how can you even say this? You are completely ignoring all the monies that have been CUT from social programs to help the poor etc...

as far as it being "relatively small from a historical perspective" try telling that to a single mom on welfare whose grants are being cut because of budget constraints, whose childcare funds have been eliminated, whose financial aid awards have been cut, and on and on......dont you see? the money you say he is now giving should have been given RIGHT ALONG! instead it went to the wealthy few which is WRONG

Well, he has been giving all along.

As for "try telling that to a single mom on welfare whose grants are being cut because of budget constraints, whose childcare funds have been eliminated, whose financial aid awards have been cut, and on and on" - I agree, but my point is what if that number were 15%. Again, 12.7% is very low when considered from an historical perspective and it is the highest in W's regime.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

The only REAL losers in that were the employees because I dont think the nation as a whole suffered from that, certainly I didnt and Im sure YOU didnt either.

Strand may not have lost anything. I had stock in MCI, and overnight got nailed with a 3500 dollar loss.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well the stock market certainly went to **** real quick.

Here is a cool article on it

http://www.stock-market-crash.net/nasdaq.htm

Again, to say that it happened all of a sudden once W took the oath ignores that the late 90's boom was built on false speculation and fraud.

I readily admit that W's deficit spending will kill whatever chance his economic policies had of a complete recovery, but to imply the market suddenly crashed because W took office is just unsupported by the facts.