Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
In Clintons entire 8 years, he only had two... 1999 and 2000 that were actually comparable to Bush. But keep ignoring the economy and continue acting like it had something to do with either President.
Adjustment or Real Crash?
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
Wow...I knew realizing what you had done would send you over the edge...but talking to yourself the entire time I was gone...
Get a grip Superfreak. Anyone who knows economic history is aware that the Democrats are better on poverty than Republicans. Sure, you proved it, but others have before you! Chill.
Get a grip Superfreak. Anyone who knows economic history is aware that the Democrats are better on poverty than Republicans. Sure, you proved it, but others have before you! Chill.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Get a grip Superfreak. Anyone who knows economic history is aware that the Democrats are better on poverty than Republicans. Sure, you proved it, but others have before you! Chill."
You have yet to show any evidence that Democrats are better than Republicans. Poverty is more a product of the economy than anything politicians do. Side note... again, look at the numbers moron. Bush was BETTER than Clinton.... and Republicans were in charge of Congress when the lowest rates occurred. Or do you think Clinton somehow lowered poverty all on his own? You truly are a fucking moron.
You have yet to show any evidence that Democrats are better than Republicans. Poverty is more a product of the economy than anything politicians do. Side note... again, look at the numbers moron. Bush was BETTER than Clinton.... and Republicans were in charge of Congress when the lowest rates occurred. Or do you think Clinton somehow lowered poverty all on his own? You truly are a fucking moron.
LOL! I don't have to...you did it for me!
Thanks by the way. All though in fairness, you did get the info from Cypress' link. Which I guess is a good thing, if you had set out to prove how bad bush was and how good Clinton was on poverty by yourself...we could have all looked forward to being entertained with a wikpi economic "disseration".
Thanks by the way. All though in fairness, you did get the info from Cypress' link. Which I guess is a good thing, if you had set out to prove how bad bush was and how good Clinton was on poverty by yourself...we could have all looked forward to being entertained with a wikpi economic "disseration".
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"LOL! I don't have to...you did it for me!
Thanks by the way. All though in fairness, you did get the info from Cypress' link. Which I guess is a good thing, if you had set out to prove how bad bush was and how good Clinton was on poverty by yourself...we could have all looked forward to being entertained with a wikpi economic "disseration""
So in other words, you have absolutely no way to explain it. Because I clearly showed why you are flat out wrong. Yet you seem determined to act to the contrary. as I said...you truly are a fucking moron.
Thanks by the way. All though in fairness, you did get the info from Cypress' link. Which I guess is a good thing, if you had set out to prove how bad bush was and how good Clinton was on poverty by yourself...we could have all looked forward to being entertained with a wikpi economic "disseration""
So in other words, you have absolutely no way to explain it. Because I clearly showed why you are flat out wrong. Yet you seem determined to act to the contrary. as I said...you truly are a fucking moron.
Wow. So clinton inherited high poverty rates fromt he Bush/Reagan years, and brought the rate down every year
And Bush inherited relatively low poverty rates from clinton and then increased them every year
Good work Bush!
Actually if you read the link from Cypress it went up in his first year and then down when the economy took off
Uh, no. You're reading the table wrong.
Clinton's first year in office was 1993. Not 1992. Poppy bush was in office in 1992 until January 1993. So Clinton first year in office was from 1993 to 1994.
Poverty went down every single year under clinton.
LOL He has gone completely batshit ever since I pointed out just this to him.
Uh, no.
The reagan tax cuts were 1981. Poverty went from 14.0% in 1981 to 15.0% in 1982 to 15.2 % in 1983 to 14.4% in in 84. His second term some some very modest reduction in poverty, but nothing like the rate reduction under JFK, LBJ, or Clinton.
What's so hard to understand about the fact that clinton inherited crap, and made things better every single year
While Bush inherited a good economy, yet made poverty worse every single year.
Christ, aren't these guys football fans? If a new head coach took over a team with a crap record, and improved significantly every year transforming the team into a winning record, the coach would get accolades.
If another coach took over a team with a winning record, and year by year progresively made them worse, he would be fired.
What's so hard to understand about the fact that clinton inherited crap, and made things better every single year
While Bush inherited a good economy, yet made poverty worse every single year.
Christ, aren't these guys football fans? If a new head coach took over a team with a crap record, and improved significantly every year transforming the team into a winning record, the coach would get accolades.
If another coach took over a team with a winning record, and year by year progresively made them worse, he would be fired.
It's not hard to understand, in fact, it takes hard work to pretend otherwise.
I can't take either one of them seriously after this. Especially freak. I was just laughing so hard on this. I kept thinking, I can't wait till Cypress sees this! lol
Hip: Poverty got much worse after reagan's tax cuts, and by his final year in office, he had only dropped the poverty rate 1% from when he took office. An extremely modest overall drop, when compared to LBJ, Kennedy and Clinton.
Plus, poverty went up after the Bush tax cuts.
I'm still not convinced in you theory that suppy-side tax cuts have any dramatic effect on reducing povery. The preponderance of evidence is that, at best, they have a small marginal effect, and at worst they make poverty worse.
I'm not convinced that when we cut the poverty rate in half from the early 1960s to the mid 1970s, it had anything to do with tax cuts. Unless you want to claim that a Democrat like kennedy actually knows what the hell he's doing in implementing tax cuts - while reagan and bush junior didn't.
By the way... the number did go down from 2004 to 2005... so you are wrong in saying it has gone up every year
Okay, you're correct here.
From 2004 to 2005 the poverty rate dropped from 12.7% to 12.6%. A drop of 0.1%. That's what those of us with training in science and statistics call a statistically insignificant drop. Doesn't mean much, really. Its static.
In contrast, the average drop in poverty rate under clinton was about half a percent a year. That's a more impressive drop in poverty than was ever seen under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush senior, or Bush junior.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Some many pixels wasted on a truly meaningless topic.
SAVE THE PIXELS!
SAVE THE PIXELS!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Cypress... I acknowledged the decrease under Clintons time... on one hand you say Reagan had a very modest decrease of 1%, but then act like Bush has been bad with less than a 1% increase.
you seem to be discounting several factors
1) The poverty rate began a steady decline after Kennedy cut taxes, it picked up again because of the economy and started a decline again in 1983.
2) It increased under Bush Sr when he raised taxes
3) As the economy picked up under Clinton and a REPUBLICAN Congress the poverty rate went down again.
4) The recession occured, 9/11 occurred and we have two ongoing wars... yet Bush has kept the poverty rate historically low. To act as though he has done a bad job on this front is ridiculous.
5) Clinton had the best economy in our history and the poverty rate was only lower in his final two years.... and that was statistically insignificant in how much lower.
It is the economy that primarily drives the poverty rate.
you seem to be discounting several factors
1) The poverty rate began a steady decline after Kennedy cut taxes, it picked up again because of the economy and started a decline again in 1983.
2) It increased under Bush Sr when he raised taxes
3) As the economy picked up under Clinton and a REPUBLICAN Congress the poverty rate went down again.
4) The recession occured, 9/11 occurred and we have two ongoing wars... yet Bush has kept the poverty rate historically low. To act as though he has done a bad job on this front is ridiculous.
5) Clinton had the best economy in our history and the poverty rate was only lower in his final two years.... and that was statistically insignificant in how much lower.
It is the economy that primarily drives the poverty rate.
Oh yeah, I was laughing so hard I never even noticed that. My bad, he was right on that .1 thing. hahahhahaahaha
Well, what do you want to talk about?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Tell me Darla, since you love Clinton so much... just how is it that he was able to lower the poverty level without the Republican led Congress?
S-freak. You're right about one thing: I'm perfectly happy to say that the poverty rate has only modestly gotten worse under bush.
That wasn't my main point.
Hiplew said tax cuts were responsible in the 1960s, for the dramatic decreases in poverty.
when you look at the reagan and bush tax cuts, this assertion doesn't hold up. The preponderance of the empirical evidence doesn't support it.
Ergo, something else in the 1960s were primarily responsible for reducing poverty. My assertion is that it was elements of the Great Society: Medicare, Medicaid, and increased educational opportunities.
That wasn't my main point.
Hiplew said tax cuts were responsible in the 1960s, for the dramatic decreases in poverty.
when you look at the reagan and bush tax cuts, this assertion doesn't hold up. The preponderance of the empirical evidence doesn't support it.
Ergo, something else in the 1960s were primarily responsible for reducing poverty. My assertion is that it was elements of the Great Society: Medicare, Medicaid, and increased educational opportunities.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"when you look at the reagan and bush tax cuts, this assertion doesn't hold up. The preponderance of the empirical evidence doesn't support it. "
The slide in poverty rates began after the Kennedy tax cuts, they continued to fall until the late 70's early 80's... then Reagan cut taxes and the poverty rates began to fall again (not fast, but they most certainly began to fall and continued to do so until Bush Sr. RAISED taxes. Poverty rates then bounced back to 15%. Then we had the tech/internet/telecom boom in the 90's which helped decrease poverty rates back down to the 11.3% bottom in 2000.
Then came the recession, 9/11, two ongoing wars, Katrina.... yet the poverty rate barely increased.... WHY? All of those negatives should have caused an increase.... what was the other factor that offset these negatives? Tax cuts perhaps? Perhaps not... but I would hardly say the evidence was against them.... especially given the INCREASE in poverty rate when Bush Sr raised taxes, despite a strong economy.
The slide in poverty rates began after the Kennedy tax cuts, they continued to fall until the late 70's early 80's... then Reagan cut taxes and the poverty rates began to fall again (not fast, but they most certainly began to fall and continued to do so until Bush Sr. RAISED taxes. Poverty rates then bounced back to 15%. Then we had the tech/internet/telecom boom in the 90's which helped decrease poverty rates back down to the 11.3% bottom in 2000.
Then came the recession, 9/11, two ongoing wars, Katrina.... yet the poverty rate barely increased.... WHY? All of those negatives should have caused an increase.... what was the other factor that offset these negatives? Tax cuts perhaps? Perhaps not... but I would hardly say the evidence was against them.... especially given the INCREASE in poverty rate when Bush Sr raised taxes, despite a strong economy.