The poverty rate is 1% lower under Bush than Clinton, black homeownership is up under Bush, almost twice as much money is given to poor people under Bush than Clinton, and more revenue is coming into the government under Bush than Clinton, but still democrats claim Bush is not doing enough. Why?

9/28/2005 10:42:09 PM

it's a massive conspiracy designed to confuse you

9/28/2005 10:43:15 PM

Quote :

"The poverty rate is 1% lower under Bush than Clinton"

the poverty rate decreased every year under Clinton and has risen every year under Bush.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

The rest of that information looks suspect to me too, except the part about increased revenues. The problem of revenue (for me) isn't how much is coming in, but the ratio of revenue to expenditure. Of course, I'm not a democrat so I can't really speak for them.

9/28/2005 11:26:24 PM

^^^ Yea, but what has he given us lately but more government and the pork it pays for?

9/28/2005 11:52:13 PM

Is it me or is the President the one of the biggest spenders... ever? I mean I thought, when I voted for him as the Republican candidate, I would get a fiscal conservative. WTF?

9/29/2005 12:04:02 AM

i cant tell if your first post is serious

i'll assume no

and add that i would rather have lower revenue
and less expenditure

^you thought that bush would be fiscally conservative when you voted? please dont vote next time
k thanks

[Edited on September 29, 2005 at 12:18 AM. Reason : .]

9/29/2005 12:18:08 AM

^^Me three. Of course, I have to be honest, he isn't really breaking the bank. The deficit is, last I heard, only 4% GDP. That is huge and indefensible, but it isn't setting any records. It isn't even growing the debt as a share of GDP; an odd twist of mathematics.

You see, the deficit might be 4% of GDP, but the GDP is growing at about 4% a year, so some of the future burden is offset by economic growth.

All that said, there is no excuse for a deficit larger than 2% and a better man might have even managed a 1% deficit by next year thanks to the unexpectedly large boost in tax revenue.

^ You do have a point, logically there is nothing compassionate about conservatism. We should have known which would win.

[Edited on September 29, 2005 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ^]

9/29/2005 12:19:03 AM

Quote :

"Is it me or is the President the one of the biggest spenders... ever? I mean I thought, when I voted for him as the Republican candidate, I would get a fiscal conservative. WTF?"

that's what yo uget for voting for a party rather than paying attention to the man himself.

also, the president doesn't have much affect at all on any of the things the initial post mentions.

9/29/2005 7:12:15 AM

Quote :

"but still democrats claim Bush is not doing enough."

Please look into the widening gap between the working class and the upper class.

9/29/2005 8:26:57 AM

Quote :

"The poverty rate is 1% lower under Bush than Clinton, black homeownership is up under Bush, almost twice as much money is given to poor people under Bush than Clinton, and more revenue is coming into the government under Bush than Clinton "

becuase none of those things are true.

9/29/2005 8:45:56 AM

It's a classic example of making a bunch of statements without supplying any supporting data ("It's true because I read it on the internet"). You're in college for Gods sake! ....

9/29/2005 8:59:48 AM

bigun20, you might try to come up with some original thoughts instead of yanking a quote right from the oreilly factor last night. Of course, in the interview.... Charles Rangel (sp?) said pretty much exactly what boonedocks said here

Quote :

"Please look into the widening gap between the working class and the upper class."

so now that we have the liberal and conservative talking points on this issue already thoroughly laid out


[/thread]

[Edited on September 29, 2005 at 9:08 AM. Reason : h]

9/29/2005 9:07:36 AM

^^^ Actually, lets look at that:

If you look at it, the American median class has a much higher income than any other nation except for Norway, a nation of only 4 million people which exports more oil than Saudi Arabia.

According to the statistics, the only Americans that are truely worse off than their European neighbors are either unemployed or under-employed. For example, the average American living in poverty worked less than two months out of the year.

9/29/2005 9:09:50 AM