Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, doesn't that somewhat beg the question of why W caught Enron. I mean the fraud went on in Texas while W was the gov. -- so he certainly gets no free pass.

AHA! The REAL culprit! I knew it!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I dont see how you can fault Clinton if he didnt know about it--the whistle blowers only acted during Bush's term

Oh I don't know - its his job

Originally Posted by irishgrl

again, I believe the people that lost jobs from those two companies were absorbed back into the work force.

According to you, there were no new jobs the second W took office

Seriously, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in a failing economy. Who was going to absord them?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

AHA! The REAL culprit! I knew it!

Enron did it across state lines, which makes it a Federal Crime, which Clinton was supposed to catch.

Personally, I think Clinton was caught off guard and was not about to examine what he knew would be his "rosy picture" economic legacy too much, though he did talk about the speculation and how it was not a good thing. But, if you take the credit, you can take the blame as far as I am concerned.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I never said Bush did better - please quote me saying that.

here ya go:

it indicates that though the poverty rate has risen a little under W, it is nowhere near the record levels under Clinton

thus, you are saying Bush did better than Clinton.

Geez, ya think ya'd double check your own words before you make such statements!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

here ya go:

thus, you are saying Bush did better than Clinton.

Geez, ya think ya'd double check your own words before you make such statements!

No, you took me out of context and did not display my entire words. Clinton inhereited a crappy poverty rate and did wonders with it. I mean I have said several times that poverty numbers declined every year under Clinton and rose every year under W. Thus, it would be impossible for W to beat Clinton in that context.

My point was and is W is doing a pretty good job of slowing that rise, which has been there but slow and in a recesssion, and I hope his current and future plans work. I am not comparing him to Clinton, though that is where this started, with BO responding to Clinton's comments comparing himself to W.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Oh I don't know - its his job



According to you, there were no new jobs the second W took office

Seriously, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in a failing economy. Who was going to absord them?

According the Bush and Co.........Mc Donalds.
yessiree Bob! you can just go out and get hired at Mickey Dee's.
woo hoo.

to answer your question, I dont know. but I would bet you those people are not sitting on their butts doing nothing if they have house payments or car payments......unless of course they are now getting welfare and have already lost their homes/cars..............which means they can experience first hand the LACK of caring by this administration for the poorest of the poor.
which is back to the original tone of this thread.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

According the Bush and Co.........Mc Donalds.
yessiree Bob! you can just go out and get hired at Mickey Dee's.
woo hoo.

to answer your question, I dont know. but I would bet you those people are not sitting on their butts doing nothing if they have house payments or car payments......unless of course they are now getting welfare and have already lost their homes/cars..............which means they can experience first hand the LACK of caring by this administration for the poorest of the poor.
which is back to the original tone of this thread.

Well, then 12.7 is a relatively very good number and they are throwing an unprecedented amount of money at solving that problem, which indicates they are concerned about it.

As for the out of work, of course not. Many people tried to find jobs and many found them, though lots of them were forced to take lesser paying jobs.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No, you took me out of context and did not display my entire words. I have said several times that poverty numbers declined every year under Clinton and rose every year under W. Thus, it would be impossible for W to beat Clinton in that context.

My point was and is W is doing a pretty good job of slowing that rise, which has been there but slow and in a recesssion, and I hope his current and future plans work. I am not comparing him to Clinton, though that is where this started, with BO responding to Clinton's comments comparing himself to W.

JASON! you said the exact opposite! you said right along that Bush did better than Clinton until Suze posted that link which proved you wrong! Good Grief!
Truly the King of Spin you are!

I did display your entire words the first time I posted them. If you had read that post, we probably could have saved 5 pages of arguing

and if you think W is doing a good job, all I can say is you have absolutely NO concept of what it is like to be poor. I can tell you right now, in my county we've applied for special status (exempt from foodstamp workability requirements) due to the high unemployment rate. We've also had to scale back our General Assistance benefits to the 2002 level. I cant tell you how many years welfare recipients didnt get a cost of living adjustment (COLA Increase)

[dissention]

If you two are as good in the sack as you are at arguing, you could make a lot of people very happy.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, then 12.7 is a relatively very good number and they are throwing an unprecedented amount of money at solving that problem, which indicates they are concerned about it.

As for the out of work, of course not. Many people tried to find jobs and many found them, though lots of them were forced to take lesser paying jobs.

again, it you would have read my posts, we wouldnt be rehashing this:
You say W is throwing unprecedented amounts of money at the poor now, but I maintain that this is only the money he CUT from them in the first place that shouldnt have been cut! This is money that could have prevented what we've seen with Katrina. And dont kid yourself, its happening all over in cities all across the country and rural areas too! Bush is a day late and a dollar short as usual. Im not going to give the man credit for allocating the same amounts of money he originally cut to these people.
He deserves to be buried neck deep in a dung heap. Plain and Simple.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by dissention

If you two are as good in the sack as you are at arguing, you could make a lot of people very happy.

wellllllllll.....my boytoys arent complaining!



ah well, its been fun but Ive got Court tomorrow (my 4 year battle is supposed to go to trial finally) and Im going to have to call it a night. Jason, the last word is yours. You wont be right but you WILL be last! enjoy

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

JASON! you said the exact opposite! you said right along that Bush did better than Clinton until Suze posted that link which proved you wrong! Good Grief!
Truly the King of Spin you are!

I did display your entire words the first time I posted them. If you had read that post, we probably could have saved 5 pages of arguing

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

and if you think W is doing a good job, all I can say is you have absolutely NO concept of what it is like to be poor. I can tell you right now, in my county we've applied for special status (exempt from foodstamp workability requirements) due to the high unemployment rate. We've also had to scale back our General Assistance benefits to the 2002 level. I cant tell you how many years welfare recipients didnt get a cost of living adjustment (COLA Increase)

Again, the 12.7 is historically very good and it was lower for the last three or four years, but you will never admit that though the facts clearly support it. W also is giving an unprecedented 14% of the budget to stop that number from rising anymore, but you will never admit that. All you can say is I have no idea what it is like to be poor, which does not negate any fact I proffered.

Regarding COLA - SSI has gotten one every year http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/SSIamts.html

I think you are talking about state programs, which are the realm of the state Gov. though the Feds do help them.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

If you two are as good in the sack as you are at arguing, you could make a lot of people very happy.

Wanna have a three way

Actually, I am off to bed - ta

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Wanna have a three way

Actually, I am off to bed - ta

Y'all couldn't handle the junk in this trunk.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I have no idea what you are talking about.



Again, the 12.7 is historically very good and it was lower for the last three or four years, but you will never admit that though the facts clearly support it. W also is giving an unprecedented 14% of the budget to stop that number from rising anymore, but you will never admit that. All you can say is I have no idea what it is like to be poor, which does not negate any fact I proffered.

Regarding COLA - SSI has gotten one every year http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/SSIamts.html

I think you are talking about state programs, which are the realm of the state Gov. though the Feds do help them.

I am talking about both. Fed (foodstamp ABAWD requirements) and State (AFDC or TANF--no COLA raises). and County too actually (General Assistance--actually CUT back to 2003 levels).

again: 14% of the budget is probably what he CUT from social programs to begin with so: IM NOT IMPRESSED. Its the money those programs should have gotten right along. NOT. IMPRESSED.

nighty nite....*yawn*