Democratic President

[Norseman82]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 07:49 AM']Here is the graph of the poverty line and population underneath that line from 1959-2002

[img]http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty02/pov02fig1.jpg[/img]

If you correspond it to the time periods that were with a Republican administration and a Republican congress, the amount of people living in poverty has risen
[right][snapback]847805[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, reading this graph, the poverty rate rose during the Carter years and went down during the Reagan years (after an initial rise early in his presidency, but keep in mind that it appears to be a continuation of the rise during the Carter years).

[StatingTheObvious]

hot stuff, you falsehod generator, you still have not addressed the fact of changing the standard of poverty.

You have not proven that it is solely the Government that affects poverty. What about the effects of other economies, wars, droughts, national disastors, import/export policies of other governemnts, Global demands for finished products, global demands on raw goods. What about the 9/11 effects on the world economy? What about the tsunami? What about the effects of China's building program that has affected the availablity of concrete and steel world wide? What effect does that have on other's economies and how does that affect the US's economy.

At best, one can say there may be a conincidental relationship, but you have not come close to providing a single fact that a measurable increase or decrease in poverty levels are caused by or occur despit any governmental policy, whether it's a Republican administration or Democratic administration.

[Jaime]

I knew 9/11 would come into the picture.

You're the one who is solely focusing on Bush. You want to do that? Great!!

How about job creation during the administrations? Do a little research on that and see how well Bush has done. How about deficit spending?

How are those for indicators?


You are still unsuccessfully trying to convolute things by calling me a liar.


The question still remains, how does the poor fare under different administrations.

You at best (and showing no proof other than your own opinions) say that the administration has no control over economic factors.

[StatingTheObvious]

I never mentioned Bush. I am only challenging your conclusions using recent history that the younger people may be aware of. Would it have been more appropo for me to mention the Viet Nam war or the Oil Embargo during Carter's administration or the fall of the Shah of Iran? To be fair, those things had a tremendous effect on whichever administration was in power at the time.

You still have not provided anything that establishes the Census graph as having a consistent measure of poverty.
You have not provided anything that establishes a cause and effect relationship with specific administration policies and specific changes in the poverty rates.

IF you were intellectually honest, you would read up on the Census website, using the link provided by myself, and read how a number of organizations would like to specifically address these issues and draw sound scientific conclusions from available data.

You are treating your conjecture and coincidence as fact. I am challenging your assumptions and 'conclusions'. Nothing more.

[Jaime]

[quote]You have not proven that it is solely the Government that affects poverty. What about the effects of other economies, wars, droughts, national disastors, import/export policies of other governemnts, Global demands for finished products, global demands on raw goods. What about the 9/11 effects on the world economy? What about the tsunami? What about the effects of China's building program that has affected the availablity of concrete and steel world wide? What effect does that have on other's economies and how does that affect the US's economy.
[/quote]

Yeah I don't have a clue how I read "Bush" in that

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 12:41 PM']Yeah I don't have a clue how I read "Bush" in that
[right][snapback]847961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]get off you inflated ego, stop thinking i'm out to get YOU, and get real with your bias. why bring do you saim i'm bringing up "bush" just because i was using current world events that had an affect on current golobal economies? the point, idjut, is thay people also have to consider other factors when evaluating the effects of an administration's policies.

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Jan 6 2006, 12:48 PM']get off you inflated ego, stop thinking i'm out to get YOU, and get real with your bias.  why bring do you saim i'm bringing up "bush" just because i was using current world events that had an affect on current golobal economies?  the point, idjut, is thay people also have to consider other factors when evaluating the effects of an administration's policies.
[right][snapback]847970[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please... you're a troll.

I'm not demonstrating a bias.

Everything Norseman said is correct. the Carter years sucked. Having a democratic administration is no guarantee

However (and yet one more time) the question on the board is how do the poor fare under administrations


Show me a better measurement than the US Census.

But you can't. You're preference is to rant.

[mp15]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 10:57 AM']Please... you're a troll.

I'm not demonstrating a bias. 

Everything Norseman said is correct.  the Carter years sucked.  Having a democratic administration is no guarantee

However (and yet one more time) the question on the board is how do the poor fare under administrations
Show me a better measurement than the US Census. 

But you can't.  You're preference is to rant.
[right][snapback]847977[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Which he has a right to do if he so choses. Get off your intellectual high horse.

[StatingTheObvious]

It's not me who has made assumptions and conclusions based on the data from a Census shart. It's you. I'm challenging you to defend your conclusion from the data you provided. It's you who claim to have proven something with the chart. If your conclusions are true, you should be able to defend them, whether I'm troll-like or not. My poor physical appearance and other shortcomings have no bearing on the false conclusions you espouse.

[God the Father]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Jan 6 2006, 02:38 AM']PURE EVIL
[right][snapback]847725[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Pure evil is not for ingestion. If accidentally swallowed, induce vomiting and call a poison control center immediately. If contact with skin is made, wash affected area thoroughly with soap and water, and expose affected area to air. If contact with eyes is made, flush with water for fifteen minutes, and contact a poison control center. If inhaled, call a poison control center, enter a well ventilated area, breathe in slowly through the mouth and out sharply through the nose. Keep out of reach of children.

I agree with the rest of Lounge Daddy's post for the most part, it isn't the government's job to look after the poor, really. It is mostly the duty of better off citizens to take it upon themselves.

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Jan 6 2006, 03:09 PM']It's not me who has made assumptions and conclusions based on the data from a Census shart.  It's you.  I'm challenging you to defend your conclusion from the data you provided.  It's you who claim to have proven something with the chart.  If your conclusions are true, you should be able to defend them, whether I'm troll-like or not.  My poor physical appearance and other shortcomings have no bearing on the false conclusions you espouse.
[right][snapback]848113[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I've made no assumptions.

You look at the graph and it tells you numbers.


Pretty simple really. Kind of

Oh I don't know

Obvious

You are the one who says that the chart isn't telling the whole truth. Yet you back it up with nothing

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 08:49 AM']If you correspond it [the graph] to the time periods that were with a Republican administration and a Republican congress, the amount of people living in poverty has risen
[right][snapback]847805[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 11:06 AM']Can you deny that there is a corresponding trend in administrations?
[right][snapback]847881[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do believe I have countered this statement sufficiently. The last time these two aligned was at least 30 or 40 years ago. Only again in 2000 was there a Republican Congress with a Republican President. I think you've contradicted yourself, what do you think?

Again, this habit of pinning the blame with the President in this thread is, I think, kinda a false grasp.

[Socrates]

These charts and such really clearly show nothing.

The economy is complex, and for themost part is outside the control of the president or any other single person.
(and as noted, the trends toward more poverty in Republican administrations began while Dems were still in charge.)

The whole blaming (or crediting) the state of the economy on who's in office is the fallacy of post hoc, ad proctor hoc.
It's convenient for playing politics, but factually unsubstantiated.

All the economic trends shown have factors in play which have nothing to do with the President and are outside his control.

And what about those periods such as the '80s, with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, or the '90s, with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 6 2006, 07:31 PM']And what about those periods such as the '80s, with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, or the '90s, with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress?
[right][snapback]848351[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My point exactly.

[Socrates]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 6 2006, 06:33 PM']My point exactly. 
[right][snapback]848353[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
A certain liberal on these boards once argued about how Clinton's policies supposedly lowered abortion rates, then later, on another thread, blamed Newt Gingrich's policies for forcing more women to have abortions.

He apparently forgot that Clinton and Gingrich were in office at the same time!