Democratic President

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 10:26 AM']I'm dishonest

I quote the US CENSUS and I'm being dishonest.
That's laughable. 

How about responding with facts and not personal opinion?
[right][snapback]847847[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You are being dishonest about what the CENSUS means. I did respond with the fact that the measure for 'poverty threshold' has been inconsitent according to the NAS and others and there are a multitude of recommendations. This info is available by going to the website your graph is from and exploring it. I also pointed out the poverty 'rate' has decreased. What's not fact?

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Jan 6 2006, 10:33 AM']You are being dishonest about what the CENSUS  means.  I did respond with the fact that the measure for 'poverty threshold' has been inconsitent according to the NAS and others and there are a multitude of recommendations.  This info is available by going to the website your graph is from and exploring it.  I also pointed out the poverty 'rate' has decreased.  What's not fact?
[right][snapback]847850[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You've provided nothing but assertions.

Back something up

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 10:39 AM']You've provided nothing but assertions. 

Back something up
[right][snapback]847854[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Look at your own chart, [color=red]{pre-edited to save the mods the effort}. [/color]Has or has not the poverty rate decreased? Am I stating a falsehood that the Census site has discussion about the changing measure of poverty.
[color=red]{edited again. Personal attack.}[/color]
Go here, [color=red]{dang. another edit. what a potty mouth[/color]}. [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povmeas/reports.html"]Poverty Measurement[/url]

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Jan 6 2006, 10:44 AM']Look at your own chart, [color=red]{pre-edited to save the mods the effort}.  [/color]Has or has not the poverty rate decreased?  Am I stating a falsehood that the Census site has discussion about the changing measure of poverty.
[color=red]{edited again.  Personal attack.}[/color]
Go here, [color=red]{dang.  another edit.  what a potty mouth[/color]}.  [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povmeas/reports.html"]Poverty Measurement[/url]
[right][snapback]847858[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What is obvious is that you can't read.

The poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent to 12.5 in its last year taken

And while the govt looks at other "proposed" ways to look at poverty. Both democratic and republican administrations would be measured against the same flippin study.

You are trying to convolute the obvious

[qfnol31]

Here's something interesting:

[url="http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-227.pdf#page=6"]http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-227.pdf#page=6[/url]

Is it really fair to say that Republicans are repsonsible for the increase in the percentage of those people below the poverty line?

Even in the graph you posted, hot stuff, there is a sharp increase at the beginning of 2000. I don't think that is enough time for a President to make that big of a difference in the percent of poor people in America.

[qfnol31]

Not standing up for either, however. I disagree with enough of both.

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 6 2006, 11:02 AM']Here's something interesting:

[url="http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-227.pdf#page=6"]http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-227.pdf#page=6[/url]

Is it really fair to say that Republicans are repsonsible for the increase in the percentage of those people below the poverty line?

Even in the graph you posted, hot stuff, there is a sharp increase at the beginning of 2000.  I don't think that is enough time for a President to make that big of a difference in the percent of poor people in America.
[right][snapback]847878[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Zach the graph goes further back than 2003.

Can you deny that there is a corresponding trend in administrations?

[qfnol31]

Possibly.

It went down during the years of Reagan, then went up during his Vice President's Presidency. Reagan and Bush were both Republicans.

It went down a year after Clinton was in office but went up as soon as he was out. Not that this matters too much, but during his Presidency there was a Republican Congress.

Lastly, I do think it is unreasonable, at this time, to look at much between 2001 and 2003.

[Jaime]

[quote]The poverty rate climbed in 2004 to 12.7 percent, from 12.5 percent in 2003 -- the fourth year in a row that poverty has risen. The increase was borne completely by non-Hispanic whites, the only ethnic group that saw its poverty rate rise. The percentage of whites in poverty rose from 8.2 percent in 2003 to 8.6 percent. African Americans saw no change in their poverty rate, which remained at 24.7 percent. The poverty rate for Hispanics remained at 21.9 percent, while Asian Americans' poverty levels dropped by two percentage points, to 9.8 percent.[/quote]

That's from the Washington post


Is four years fair enough?

[qfnol31]

Four years sounds pretty fair. Where'd you read that at?

[Jaime]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/30/AR2005083001727.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5083001727.html[/url]

[franciscanheart]

i didnt read anything before this (shame on me) but even from a pretty republican standpoint i would have to say that i saw a better economy with our democratic president than i am seeing now. its sad really. bill clinton whooped butt with the economy. props to him on that.

[qfnol31]

In all of my reading, there is an interesting phenomenon.

All of the inclines I've found actually begin under Democrats and peak under Republicans and vice versa. In the graph above (posted by hot stuff) The peak during Reagans years started in Jimmy Carter's Presidency.

The peak under Clinton's years started in Bush's time.

Now that that's said, what about Congress? This is only about Presidents, which I think is misleading. If you look, it has been a while since we've had a straigh color through both offices (right now we do).

During earlier Bush's years we had a Democrat Congress. During Clinton's a Republican.

[franciscanheart]

i seem to remember hearing something quite different from my economics professor... ill have to ask him again about that.

[Norseman82]

1) I think that both parties like to think that they help the poor, they just have different ways of going about it. Democrats in general believe in maintaining the social net of government programs and targeted tax breaks for the poor, Republicans in general believe reducing taxes will spur growth in the private sector and that will help reduce poverty. The main argument is which approach actually works better.

2) I don't know how many of you were alive during the Carter presidency, but the economy really tanked then with inflation and interest rates going through the roof.

3) Not everything is under the president's control:
a) Greenspan and the Federal reserve policies must be factored in
b) During the last 75% of Clinton's presidency Republicans controlled Congress, and only during the first 75% of Reagan's presidency did Republicans control the Senate; they never controlled the House.
c) Two factors drove the "tech boom" of the mid-to-late 1990s. One was the advent of widespread inteernet usage. The other was a once in a 1000-years event: Y2K. The spending on Y2K I'm sure accounted for much of the spending on technology by businesses (trust me, I work in IT and was part of the increased flurry).