OPPS... Clinton telling big fibs!!

[The ClayTaurus]

For the most part goverment is normally a drag on the economy through taxation. Hence when taxes are lowered as during Reagan's administration the economy perks up. The economy now is doing well and at least some of the reason is Bush's tax cuts. Cut taxes; more money in the private sector for investment and spending.

Well now you've totally contradicted yourself. I know you hate Clinton, but could you please clarify whether or not you think the president has any effect on poverty?

 

[Annie]

Well now you've totally contradicted yourself. I know you hate Clinton, but could you please clarify whether or not you think the president has any effect on poverty?

How did he contradict himself?

As for your question, I think the President has 0 effect on poverty. He may help or hinder the causes of poverty, but not the choices individuals make.

 

[manu1959]

sorry but...... poverty is a choice.....

 

[Annie]

sorry but...... poverty is a choice.....

Well ya. I could have chosen to stay with spose whose income was over $150k per year. I chose differently. Price to pay.

On the other hand, if a child is born into poverty, over the course of 15 years or so, they should meet a decent teacher, advisor, something. Choices presented and accepted/rejected. Not easy by a long shot-which is why so few get out.

 

[manu1959]

Well ya. I could have chosen to stay with spose whose income was over $150k per year. I chose differently. Price to pay.

On the other hand, if a child is born into poverty, over the course of 15 years or so, they should meet a decent teacher, advisor, something. Choices presented and accepted/rejected. Not easy by a long shot-which is why so few get out.

children should not be born into poverty......if you can not afford something you should not "buy" it

 

[Annie]

children should not be born into poverty......if you can not afford something you should not "buy" it

Won't argue the 'should' but have to deal with the 'reality.'

 

[The ClayTaurus]

How did he contradict himself?

As for your question, I think the President has 0 effect on poverty. He may help or hinder the causes of poverty, but not the choices individuals make.

Eh?

The President has 0 effect on poverty.

He may help or hinder the causes of poverty.

Doesn't the latter contradict the former?

If you put a bunch of people who didn't know how to swim in a tank, wouldn't the guy who fills or empties the tank have an effect on who lives and who drowns? If the tank never had a lot of water in it, no one would ever drown. So the guy who fills the tank, it would seem to me, would effect things if only because there would no longer be any guarantee that no one would drown.

I guess what you're trying to say is the president can make it harder or easier to not live in poverty, but ultimately can't take you by the hand and lead you out of it? (ie he can't swim for you)

I guess I agree on that point, although it would seem logical that presidents who make it harder to not live in poverty would have a rate increase, while those that make it easier have a decrease... or would you argue it's all coincidence based on whatever choices the "poverty at risk" community makes at that time?

Poverty is always a personal problem, and never a social problem. Is that your arguement?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

children should not be born into poverty......if you can not afford something you should not "buy" it

Completely true. But that won't stop it from happening. Your solution is to ignore children born into poverty because they got idiot parents off the draw?

 

[Annie]

Eh?

The President has 0 effect on poverty.

He may help or hinder the causes of poverty.

Doesn't the latter contradict the former?

If you put a bunch of people who didn't know how to swim in a tank, wouldn't the guy who fills or empties the tank have an effect on who lives and who drowns? If the tank never had a lot of water in it, no one would ever drown. So the guy who fills the tank, it would seem to me, would effect things if only because there would no longer be any guarantee that no one would drown.

I guess what you're trying to say is the president can make it harder or easier to not live in poverty, but ultimately can't take you by the hand and lead you out of it? (ie he can't swim for you)

I guess I agree on that point, although it would seem logical that presidents who make it harder to not live in poverty would have a rate increase, while those that make it easier have a decrease... or would you argue it's all coincidence based on whatever choices the "poverty at risk" community makes at that time?

Poverty is always a personal problem, and never a social problem. Is that your arguement?

Again, the president cannot solve everyone's personal problems. Being 'poor' is personal. Poverty in the larger set however is an economic problem, which can be slightly effected by some policy moves by the government, but not one branch alone.

Interestingly enough-which took more people out of poverty?

LBJ's War on Poverty?
Clinton's choice to limit welfare?
Tax cuts?

 

[Adam's Apple]

I'm trying to state Bill O'Reilly spun a statistic.

I don't really see where Bill O'Reilly "spun" a statistic. He compared the figures for the last year of Clinton's first term with the last year of Bush's first term. Perhaps putting the figures side by side, for the years in which there are figures to compare, will help:

Poverty Rate During First Term of Clinton and Bush Presidencies:
First Year: Clinton - 15.1%; Bush 11.7%
Second Year: Clinton - 14.5%; Bush 12.1%
Third Year: Clinton - 13.8%; Bush, 12.5%
Fourth Year: Clinton - 13.7%; Bush 12.7%

As you can see, Bush's figures are lower than Clinton's each year of their first terms as president, the only years in which there are figures to compare. So I fail to see how O'Reilly was "spinning" the data.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I don't really see where Bill O'Reilly "spun" a statistic. He compared the figures for the last year of Clinton's first term with the last year of Bush's first term. Perhaps putting the figures side by side, for the years in which there are figures to compare, will help:

Poverty Rate During First Term of Clinton and Bush Presidencies:
First Year: Clinton - 15.1%; Bush 11.7%
Second Year: Clinton - 14.5%; Bush 12.1%
Third Year: Clinton - 13.8%; Bush, 12.5%
Fourth Year: Clinton - 13.7%; Bush 12.7%

As you can see, Bush's figures are lower than Clinton's each year of their first terms as president, the only years in which there are figures to compare. So I fail to see how O'Reilly was "spinning" the data.

Look at how the poverty rates have changed from year to year. That was my point.

Bush started 4 percentage points lower than Clinton did, and after 4 years they were only 1 percentage point away. Whether you believe the president has any effect on the rate or not, the rates went down under Clinton and have gone up under Bush.

O'Reilly spins the statistic because he makes it sound as if both started with the same poverty rate, and that Bush was able to get it lower than Clinton did.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Again, the president cannot solve everyone's personal problems. Being 'poor' is personal. Poverty in the larger set however is an economic problem, which can be slightly effected by some policy moves by the government, but not one branch alone.

Interestingly enough-which took more people out of poverty?

LBJ's War on Poverty?
Clinton's choice to limit welfare?
Tax cuts?

Going by the statistics that I used earlier, the poverty rate decreased the most under Kennedy/LBJ. I don't think the war on poverty was the answer, but it appears to have reduced the poverty rate.

I guess the way I feel is that the war on poverty was effective initially, but has encouraged laziness a lack of personal responsibility. As for a purely statistical answer, though, the rate is lower now than it was before the war started.

I assume you disagree?

 

[Annie]

Going by the statistics that I used earlier, the poverty rate decreased the most under Kennedy/LBJ. I don't think the war on poverty was the answer, but it appears to have reduced the poverty rate.

I guess the way I feel is that the war on poverty was effective initially, but has encouraged laziness a lack of personal responsibility. As for a purely statistical answer, though, the rate is lower now than it was before the war started.

I assume you disagree?

Interesting point on the 60's. Question to ponder: Was it JFK's tax cuts or LBJ's "War on Poverty" that would be responsible? At this time, mid 60's, the US was still in the post WWII job boom, with the economy expanding faster than people could keep up with. To be unemployed, even under employed during this period would indicate serious problems with the individual.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Interesting point on the 60's. Question to ponder: Was it JFK's tax cuts or LBJ's "War on Poverty" that would be responsible? At this time, mid 60's, the US was still in the post WWII job boom, with the economy expanding faster than people could keep up with. To be unemployed, even under employed during this period would indicate serious problems with the individual.

I suppose both probably played their role. Here is my point: I agree that, to a certain extent, poverty is a personal problem that requires personal responsibility to get out of. I do not agree that everyone who lives in poverty makes the choice to do so, however. It's difficult to save any money at a minimum wage job after paying rent and food and transportation, especially if you have a family. If it's difficult to save any money, then it's impossible to own a house, especially if you want it in any kind of a safe neighborhood.

I believe there are people who work hard every day to get out of poverty, and that there are people who don't, but whine like they can't catch a break. I have no real interest in saving those that don't want to put in the work, but I do have an interest in helping a family out who may have fell into poverty and needs a little hand to get back out. These are the people willing to go through structured sheltered programs like South Oakland Shelters from where I'm from. The shelter moves each week to a different location (churches, synagogues, community centers). Transportation is provided from the shelter to and from your workplace or to a job training/recruiting center. There are time limits as to how long you can go without having a job, and you can only stay in the program for a one year span. You also have to put 75% of your earnings away to save for some form of home ownership. There is a zero tolerance policy on the rules. You can't leave the shelter except for to go to work (or school if you're a child). You leave, you're out. No if ands or buts. I've seen them throw someone out who just went down the street to get some cigarettes. The rules are the rules.

I've seen welfare programs that work with a similar mantra. You get welfare for X amount of time, along with free job training and placement services. Once it runs out, any normal person willing to put the effort in would have landed something. It definitely goes a long way to filter out those who are willing to work their way out of poverty, and those that want a free ride.


If tax cuts have an effect on the poor, then that seems like another way the president can effect the poverty rate.

I'm not saying everyone should get welfare checks until they decide to do something. I'd like to repeal most of the war on poverty legislation and replace it with tough love policies, because there are citizens out there who go through a rough stretch financially and a little helping hand for 6-12 months would go a long way. Just my 2 cents :usa:

 

[dmp]

I suppose both probably played their role. Here is my point: I agree that, to a certain extent, poverty is a personal problem that requires personal responsibility to get out of. I do not agree that everyone who lives in poverty makes the choice to do so, however. It's difficult to save any money at a minimum wage job after paying rent and food and transportation, especially if you have a family. If it's difficult to save any money, then it's impossible to own a house, especially if you want it in any kind of a safe neighborhood.

I used to believe as you do - until I started working with immigrants and my father's non-profit organization. I started seeing people who spoke NO english, with sometimes 8-10 member families, and $100 in their pockets, rise from poverty to 6-digit incomes.

People are poor because they are too lazy to fix their situation. People continue cycles of poverty because they haven't the work ethic to change their circumstances.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I used to believe as you do - until I started working with immigrants and my father's non-profit organization. I started seeing people who spoke NO english, with sometimes 8-10 member families, and $100 in their pockets, rise from poverty to 6-digit incomes.

I've seen similar situations, and it's great that they were able to do so. But, I have also seen people who run across some bad luck. These people definitely won't stay in poverty forever, and after 5 years they might be able to recover on their own. I'm of the belief that if a little hand helps someone get out of poverty in under a year as opposed to 5 years, it's worth it. That can't happen, though, unless the helping hand isn't naive.

Right now, the helping hand is not only naive, it's blindfolded with ear plugs. And it's getting robbed.

People are poor because they are too lazy to fix their situation. People continue cycles of poverty because they haven't the work ethic to change their circumstances.

Yes. People who are perpetually poor do not help themselves at all. I have no interest in them. I have an interest in taking someone who might be poor for 5 years working hard on their own and reducing it to a year.