Read this thread then tell me you support GWB

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JacobJ

Banned
Mar 20, 2003
1,140
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
On his TV show last night, Bill also made the point that the percentage of people living under the poverty line has fallen from 13.7% under Clinton to 12.7% today.
You'd better do some fact checking. Try the US census bureau

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2000/US/09/26/census.poverty.02/

The number of people in the United States living in poverty in 1999 dropped to its lowest level in 20 years, while the median household income last year reached a record high, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Two reports released on Tuesday showed that 11.8 percent of U.S. residents were living in poverty -- a nearly 1 point drop -- while the nation's median household income rose 2.7 percent to $40,816 per year, the highest level recorded by the bureau since data was first gathered in 1967.

It says 11.8% under Clinton in 1999. Umm...11.8% is lower than 12.7%

edit:

an informative graph

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04fig03.pdf

Notice the continued increase in poverty AFTER the recession

 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: JacobJ
So, in conclusion -- the president has an effect on the economy, but I believe his economic policies favor economic expansion that leaves out the poor people of this country.

Doesn't all large-scale economic expansion inevitably leave out the poorest people?
 

JacobJ

Banned
Mar 20, 2003
1,140
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: JacobJ
So, in conclusion -- the president has an effect on the economy, but I believe his economic policies favor economic expansion that leaves out the poor people of this country.

Doesn't all large-scale economic expansion inevitably leave out the poorest people?
No. If you look at this graph from the US census bureau you can see a marked decline in poverty during the economic expansion of the 1990's. Economic expansion ideally represents an increase in economic actitivity for all people...not just the rich. Bush's economic policies are hostile to the poor. He specifically encourages increased economic activity amongh the rich and does little to similarly encourage economic activity among the poor.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: Codewiz

9. Since I just left Iraq, your information is garbage IMO. I see the end in sight. It will take some years but we are making progress everyday.

PWNED!

 

Toasthead

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,621
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: JacobJ
[*]1 million new people under the poverty line last year...despite his so called 'economic recovery'
[*]massive increases in the national debt under his watch...china is buying us out. GWB is anything but a fiscal conservative.
[*]the number of people without health insurance has increased by millions under his watch
[*]no weapons of mass destruction, no meaningful connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda -- nearly all of his original justifications for war were wrong
[*]the FEMA director he hired was fired from a previous job because he literally RUINED the organization...
[*]he created the gargantuanly inefficient department of homeland security -- a departmnent so obsessed with terrorism it cut aside many important tasks for keeping our country safe, including protecting our agriculture and emergergency management
[*]he's cut funding for alternative energy research despite skyrocketing gas prices
[*]the taliban still exists in Afghanistan in large numbers
[*]portions of Iraq are still occupied by terrorists and insurgents with no end in sight and no exit strategy, despite him saying before he was elected that waging war requires an exit strategy
[*]he campaigned on 'No Child Left Behind' then severely underfunded it
[*]on september 10, 2001 bush's newly appointed attorney general cut the FBI?s request for new counterterrorism money by 12 percent
[*]on september 13, 2001 he said "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." Just Six month later he said: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

I didn't vote for Bush in either election.........................


1. The president does not control the economy. it was taking a noise dive when he took office. Bush has done nothing to hurt the economy.

2. Yeah he isn't a fiscal conservative and that bothers me.

3. How is health insurance the government's job? Last time I checked my job provided that or I paid for it myself.

4. Bush had no control over the evidence he was presented. Stating there were no WMDs is stupid. We just didn't find what we expected to find. You need to look at at news reports before we went in. Every country in the UN knew he had them.

5. Don't know anything about that to comment. But the State is to blame for most of the problems. The mayor and government did nothing to prepare or prevent what happened.

6. Total crap. Wanna know why Homeland Security is inefficient? Because they are getting held back having to follow so many government policies. Policy is killing us there.

7. Alternate fuelings will never become mainstream until there is a need for them(looks like that could be approaching but I doubt it). Hybrid car? My wife's car gets better miles/gallon. I love diesel.

8. Not even worth talking about.

9. Since I just left Iraq, your information is garbage IMO. I see the end in sight. It will take some years but we are making progress everyday.

10. Educated has been screwed up and I see no end in sight.

last two, whatever.

Yup...
And just to drive home the point on the poverty issue...

Link
The aftermath of Katrina has produced a debate over poor Americans. The issue is described this way by Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas: 'Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate.' Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that overstatement. In 1996 the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements.
On his TV show last night, Bill also made the point that the percentage of people living under the poverty line has fallen from 13.7% under Clinton to 12.7% today.

But those facts dont back up his original argument , so they must be disregarded.

Isnt that they way it works??

 

jEnus

Senior member
Jun 22, 2004
867
0
76
You, sir, need to get a grasp on reality. I will leave the rest for other people to post.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: mikeford
What is so hard to grasp that many of us don't believe what TV has to say?

With the dropping support, not "as many" as used to. :)

I didn't read the thread and I 100% completely do no support him.

Oh, and zendari....are you fixated with Clinton? He's been out of the office and you seem to love posting about him, eh?

Clinton >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: xirtam
*I read this thread.
*I support GWB.

"
It says 11.8% under Clinton in 1999. Umm...11.8% is lower than 12.7%
What was it in Clinton's 5th year of presidency?

Oh misinformed one.....why don't you do a side by side comparison of the economic progress of Clinton's 5th year against the economy that he inherited and then do the same for Bush and tell me if you think that it is even close. If you are honest with yourself, you will see Bush is sorely lagging behind in the gains department.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
Originally posted by: mikeford
What is so hard to grasp that many of us don't believe what TV has to say?
I guess Fox isn't paying their subliminal suggestion consultants enough, eh?