Adjustment or Real Crash?

Only an idiot would say all, I'll go with most.
Did you see pictures of the Superdome, 90% of the woman were about 250plus.
 
"If you want to credit the Kennedy tax cuts for reducing the poverty rate in the 1960s, you'll be hard pressed to explain why the Reagan tax cuts, and the Bush junior tax cuts were accompanied by a significant jump in poverty. "


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...v/hstpov2.html

Did you actually look at the numbers Cypress? From 1983 until 1990 it declined... then what happened... oh yeah... Bush raised taxes and we had the first gulf war. In 1994 the numbers started trending down as the economy took off... again, not a real shock. Then the recession began in 2000 and the numbers started ticking up again. But even then it was less than a percent during a time of recession AND war. Which is pretty impressive and hardly a "significant" increase.

Bottom line it looks as though it has been fluctuating within a few percentage points based on economic and geo-political conditions.
 
Foods high in starch are the cheapest, and also the most fattening. (remember macaroni & cheese from your college days?) Often this is about all people on welfare can afford to eat, and that's why they're fat. In addition, I haven't heard of any welfare programs that offer nutrition counselling; it might be a good idea! It costs significantly more to eat a healthy diet.
 
If you really want to compare numbers....

Clinton Bush
15.1 11.7
14.5 12.1
13.8 12.5
13.7 12.7
13.3 12.6

Bush's numbers through his first five years are better than Clintons first five and he had a recession, 9/11, Iraq debacle and Clinton had a booming economy.
 
so, the QUANTITY has nothing to do with it; if they ate a lot less then wouldn't they be able to afford more healty food for the same amount as they spend on crap food? of course they would!! so, you see, your assertion that they don't eat healthy cuz it isn't affordable is bullhockey, as usual. they eat crapo because they LIKE it; it has nothing to do with affordability. plus it's a lot easier to pop into micky d's than to have to use the energy it takes to make a healthy meal..........
 
Superfreak said:
If you really want to compare numbers....

Clinton Bush
15.1 11.7
14.5 12.1
13.8 12.5
13.7 12.7
13.3 12.6

Bush's numbers through his first five years are better than Clintons first five and he had a recession, 9/11, Iraq debacle and Clinton had a booming economy.
Click to expand...


So, poverty rates went down every year Clinton was in office, to end up the historic low of 11.1% in his last year in office, and they have gone up every single year that Bush has been in office?

Right.
 
HipLew said:
hey, 'freak; may as well save your breath, they bailed when they finally figured out they were had!
Click to expand...

Sorry Lew, but your orginal claim on this thread was debunked by the facts.

The Superfreak came along and tried to change the subject, by proving that Clinton's economic policies lowered poverty every year he was in office, until it went down to an historic low in his final year, and that the Bush tax cuts have caused poverty to rise every year since he took office.

Which was an interesting sidebar, don't you think?
 
no, it wasn't. my original claim was that the poverty rate fell much more before the start of the 'war on poverty' and that the welfare state created and trun for over 40 years has done virually nothing to reduce poverty. that claim is correct and the facts support it.
 
........and that wasn't what freak said either. read it again R-E-A-L S-L-O-W and maybe you'll get the point.
 
"Bush tax cuts have caused poverty to rise every year since he took office."

Complete bullshit. The poverty rates went down because of the economic BOOM and went up again when we went into a recession. Yet the whole time during the recession the numbers stayed with ONE percent of where it was when Bush first took office. So with a recession, 9/11, two wars and Katrina... the poverty rate remained relatively stable.

So tell us again Darla... just how were Bush's tax cuts responsible? By the way... the number did go down from 2004 to 2005... so you are wrong in saying it has gone up every year.
 
Jarod said:
When you work 12 hours a day for peanuts.... easier is cheaper...
Click to expand...


????????????????? don't you libs have ANY logic at all???????? and i guarantee that most of those 250 pounders at the superdome hadn't been working 12 hours a day doing anything other than wathcin oprah...........
 
No that's not what he said...that's what his own numbers proved.

I'd love to see his face when he realizes what he did. Not that he'll ever admit to it. But he doesn't have to.

Everyone reading those numbers, and then reading my post, can see exactly what he inadvertently did. It's hysterical. I'm still laughing over it.
 
"So, poverty rates went down every year Clinton was in office, to end up the historic low of 11.1% in his last year in office, and they have gone up every single year that Bush has been in office?

Right."

Actually if you read the link from Cypress it went up in his first year and then down when the economy took off. And you obviously have reading comprehension problems when looking at Bush's numbers.
 
Darla... take a look again. Yes Clintons were trending down and Bush for the most part up. BUT all of Bush's were under Clintons in the first five years... and he had to deal with a recession, 9/11, two wars and Katrina whereas Clinton had to deal with a white hot economy.

If you also actually LOOK at the numbers you will see the down trend began under Ike, then extended under Kennedy (who just happened to cut taxes) then continued on. When Reagan cut taxes, the rates began dropping again until Bush raised taxes and entered the first Gulf War. They began to go down again as the economy heated up.... then the recession hit and they trended up ...SLIGHTLY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top