Bill Bennett:aborting black babies would lower crime

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

And here's a bubble buster for Great Society fans:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty99/pov99.html

Check out that graph. Poverty rates decreased at a roughly constant slope in the DECADE preceding 1969. It went from 23% in 1959 to 12% in 1969. Basically it dropped 1.1% per year for a full decade.

From the graph it can be seen that LBJ's "Great Society" did nothing to accelerate the decline in poverty rate. In fact, the poverty rate decline flattened out at about the same time the Great Society programs came on line.

Poverty rates have wavered cycliclly between 11% and 15% in the years since, until the chart ends in 1999.

Note also that poverty rates appear to follow long term trends and aren't immediately sensitive to short term recession.

This page: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povmeas/toc.html

leads to a definition of poverty. I didn't wade through the whole thing, but it appears the poverty threshold is a moving target that adjusted for inflation and other factors.

But the bottom line it that the poverty statistic is remarkably independent of political party, political ideology, and how much money is thrown at it.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Sorry for the double post, if someone could remove #76 that would be cool.

 

[Stinger]

For all of you who say that Blacks were better off before the Great Society:

Prior to Johnson's Great Society, with all of its programs including Affirmative Action, the poverty rates for blacks was 56%.

Yes folks, thats right, prior to the Great Society, 56% black Americans lived in third world poverty conditions.

Today, the poverty rate for Blacks is 22%.

See there you go again, trying to cite figures without knowing what they really say. Misrepresentation of factual data. Let's look at the figures.

One again Individual first and then family, look at that poverty rates. Was just over 40% when the Great Society was inacted. It was already on a good trend downward having been at 54.9 7 years earlier so that was a drop of almost 15% even before the so-called Great Society came to be. And that trend continued till it leveled off in the low 30's and just stayed there inspite of the massive spending the Great Society cost all of us. And of course at the same time crime became rampant in the black community, the families broke down as individual and familia responsiblity was replaced by the great government nanny state, education was no longer needed because big daddy government would provide and men no longer had to stay home and provide for their families. Black women certainly didn't need to marry since the government was there to provide for them but still wanting to satisfy their own inner desire to have children it was just rationalized as a right and now we have the overwhelming majority of black children born out of wedlock which starts them on a path of failure. And notice that the next real drop in poverty rates for blacks did not occurred until the Democrat opposed wel-fare reform was passed and tax cuts which grew the economy.

So as poverty dropped in black society crime has sky-rocketed. Care to reconcile that with your theory that poverty causes crime?

2001...... 35,871 8,136 22.7 29,869 6,389 21.4
2000 12/.. 35,425 7,982 22.5 29,378 6,221 21.2
1999 11/.. 35,756 8,441 23.6 29,819 6,758 22.7
1998...... 34,877 9,091 26.1 29,333 7,259 24.7
1997...... 34,458 9,116 26.5 28,962 7,386 25.5
1996...... 34,110 9,694 28.4 28,933 7,993 27.6
1995...... 33,740 9,872 29.3 28,777 8,189 28.5
1994...... 33,353 10,196 30.6 28,499 8,447 29.6
1993 10/.. 32,910 10,877 33.1 28,106 9,242 32.9
1992 9/... 32,411 10,827 33.4 27,790 9,134 32.9
1991 8/... 31,313 10,242 32.7 26,565 8,504 32.0
1990...... 30,806 9,837 31.9 26,296 8,160 31.0
1989...... 30,332 9,302 30.7 25,931 7,704 29.7
1988...... 29,849 9,356 31.3 25,484 7,650 30.0
1987 7/... 29,362 9,520 32.4 25,128 7,848 31.2
1986...... 28,871 8,983 31.1 24,910 7,410 29.7
1985 ..... 28,485 8,926 31.3 24,620 7,504 30.5
1984...... 28,087 9,490 33.8 24,387 8,104 33.2
1983 6/... 27,678 9,882 35.7 24,138 8,376 34.7
1982...... 27,216 9,697 35.6 23,948 8,355 34.9
1981 5/... 26,834 9,173 34.2 23,423 7,780 33.2
1980...... 26,408 8,579 32.5 23,084 7,190 31.1
1979 4/... 25,944 8,050 31.0 22,666 6,800 30.0
1978...... 24,956 7,625 30.6 22,027 6,493 29.5
1977...... 24,710 7,726 31.3 21,850 6,667 30.5
1976...... 24,399 7,595 31.1 21,840 6,576 30.1
1975...... 24,089 7,545 31.3 21,687 6,533 30.1
1974 3/... 23,699 7,182 30.3 21,341 6,255 29.3
1973...... 23,512 7,388 31.4 21,328 6,560 30.8
1972...... 23,144 7,710 33.3 21,116 6,841 32.4
1971 2/... 22,784 7,396 32.5 20,900 6,530 31.2
1970...... 22,515 7,548 33.5 20,724 6,683 32.2
1969...... 22,011 7,095 32.2 20,192 6,245 30.9
1968...... 21,944 7,616 34.7 (NA) 6,839 33.7
1967 1/... 21,590 8,486 39.3 (NA) 7,677 38.4
1966...... 21,206 8,867 41.8 (NA) 8,090 40.9

 

[Stinger]

I'm a liberal...at least since the way I saw republicans act when Clinton was in office, but that's another story...

I don't think anything Bennet said was racist and it certainly does not deserve an apology.

I think the problem is, alot of listeners are not used to hearing an intelligent man speak....the guy qualified his statement by saying it was "morally reprehensible."

That should settle it for anyone with a high school education, or above...I cannot believe the outcry over this?!

:clap: I reasoned honest accessment.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And here's a bubble buster for Great Society fans:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty99/pov99.html

Check out that graph. Poverty rates decreased at a roughly constant slope in the DECADE preceding 1969. It went from 23% in 1959 to 12% in 1969. Basically it dropped 1.1% per year for a full decade.

From the graph it can be seen that LBJ's "Great Society" did nothing to accelerate the decline in poverty rate. In fact, the poverty rate decline flattened out at about the same time the Great Society programs came on line.

Poverty rates have wavered cycliclly between 11% and 15% in the years since, until the chart ends in 1999.

Note also that poverty rates appear to follow long term trends and aren't immediately sensitive to short term recession.

This page: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povmeas/toc.html

leads to a definition of poverty. I didn't wade through the whole thing, but it appears the poverty threshold is a moving target that adjusted for inflation and other factors.

But the bottom line it that the poverty statistic is remarkably independent of political party, political ideology, and how much money is thrown at it.

So basically, since the great society, they have never been as high as they were previous. Right??

Moreover, the bulk of the drop in poverty rates occured after the Great Society legislation passed and went into effect. If you look at the table posted above, Black poverty rates dropped by 25% in the 3 years after the Great Society programs went into effect.

Finally, even if the poverty rate did not move an inch because of the Great Society, we still see huge benefits from it because of the huge number of National Parks created, PBS, NPR, Medicare, and countless other programs that we all take for granted today.

 

[Stinger]

I will admit I was wrong on violent crime rates, as I went by murder rates instead of violent crime rates. But your comparison of poverty rates durring the Bush years as compared to the Clinton years is intellectually dishonest.

When Clinton took office in 1993, the poverty rate was: 13.6%
By Clinton's 5th year in office, the poverty rate was: 11.2%
When Clinton left office, the poverty rate was 9.6%.

Which is the lowest that the poverty rate has ever been.

For Bush's first year in office, the poverty rate was 9.9%
Now, at Bush's 5th year in office, the poverty rate is: 11%

Therefore the poverty rate dropped every yeah Clinton was in office, and has risen every year Bush has been in office.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

Census figures

ALL RACES
2004...... 290,605 36,997 12.7 241,153 26,564 11.0
2003...... 287,699 35,861 12.5 238,903 25,684 10.8
2002...... 285,317 34,570 12.1 236,921 24,534 10.4
2001...... 281,475 32,907 11.7 233,911 23,215 9.9
2000 12/.. 278,944 31,581 11.3 231,909 22,347 9.6
1999 11/.. 276,208 32,791 11.9 230,789 23,830 10.3
1998...... 271,059 34,476 12.7 227,229 25,370 11.2
1997...... 268,480 35,574 13.3 225,369 26,217 11.6
1996...... 266,218 36,529 13.7 223,955 27,376 12.2
1995...... 263,733 36,425 13.8 222,792 27,501 12.3
1994...... 261,616 38,059 14.5 221,430 28,985 13.1
1993 10/.. 259,278 39,265 15.1 219,489 29,927 13.6

Clinton came into office inheriting a growing economy. Bush came into office
on a contracting economy. The substantial decline in poverty was due to the
welfare reform act which Clinton OPPOSED and vowed to REPEAL. So what exactly is your point?

Now let's look at just black poverty rates which is the subject of this thread

BLACK
2001...... 35,871 8,136 22.7 29,869 6,389 21.4
2000 12/.. 35,425 7,982 22.5 29,378 6,221 21.2
1999 11/.. 35,756 8,441 23.6 29,819 6,758 22.7
1998...... 34,877 9,091 26.1 29,333 7,259 24.7
1997...... 34,458 9,116 26.5 28,962 7,386 25.5
1996...... 34,110 9,694 28.4 28,933 7,993 27.6
1995...... 33,740 9,872 29.3 28,777 8,189 28.5
1994...... 33,353 10,196 30.6 28,499 8,447 29.6
1993 10/.. 32,910 10,877 33.1 28,106 9,242 32.9
1992 9/... 32,411 10,827 33.4 27,790 9,134 32.9
1991 8/... 31,313 10,242 32.7 26,565 8,504 32.0
1990...... 30,806 9,837 31.9 26,296 8,160 31.0
1989...... 30,332 9,302 30.7 25,931 7,704 29.7
1988...... 29,849 9,356 31.3 25,484 7,650 30.0
1987 7/... 29,362 9,520 32.4 25,128 7,848 31.2
1986...... 28,871 8,983 31.1 24,910 7,410 29.7
Again note no real change until the wel-fare reform act which Clinton and the Democrats stridently opposed.

All tables from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
where they can probably be viewed easier due to the formatting that takes place here when pasting.

 

[Stinger]

It looks like the White House is now condemning Bill Bennett's remarks:

:rofl WOW what a condemnation!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

See there you go again, trying to cite figures without knowing what they really say. Misrepresentation of factual data. Let's look at the figures.

One again Individual first and then family, look at that poverty rates. Was just over 40% when the Great Society was inacted. It was already on a good trend downward having been at 54.9 7 years earlier so that was a drop of almost 15% even before the so-called Great Society came to be. And that trend continued till it leveled off in the low 30's and just stayed there inspite of the massive spending the Great Society cost all of us. And of course at the same time crime became rampant in the black community, the families broke down as individual and familia responsiblity was replaced by the great government nanny state, education was no longer needed because big daddy government would provide and men no longer had to stay home and provide for their families. Black women certainly didn't need to marry since the government was there to provide for them but still wanting to satisfy their own inner desire to have children it was just rationalized as a right and now we have the overwhelming majority of black children born out of wedlock which starts them on a path of failure. And notice that the next real drop in poverty rates for blacks did not occurred until the Democrat opposed wel-fare reform was passed and tax cuts which grew the economy.

So as poverty dropped in black society crime has sky-rocketed. Care to reconcile that with your theory that poverty causes crime?

2001...... 35,871 8,136 22.7 29,869 6,389 21.4
2000 12/.. 35,425 7,982 22.5 29,378 6,221 21.2
1999 11/.. 35,756 8,441 23.6 29,819 6,758 22.7
1998...... 34,877 9,091 26.1 29,333 7,259 24.7
1997...... 34,458 9,116 26.5 28,962 7,386 25.5
1996...... 34,110 9,694 28.4 28,933 7,993 27.6
1995...... 33,740 9,872 29.3 28,777 8,189 28.5
1994...... 33,353 10,196 30.6 28,499 8,447 29.6
1993 10/.. 32,910 10,877 33.1 28,106 9,242 32.9
1992 9/... 32,411 10,827 33.4 27,790 9,134 32.9
1991 8/... 31,313 10,242 32.7 26,565 8,504 32.0
1990...... 30,806 9,837 31.9 26,296 8,160 31.0
1989...... 30,332 9,302 30.7 25,931 7,704 29.7
1988...... 29,849 9,356 31.3 25,484 7,650 30.0
1987 7/... 29,362 9,520 32.4 25,128 7,848 31.2
1986...... 28,871 8,983 31.1 24,910 7,410 29.7
1985 ..... 28,485 8,926 31.3 24,620 7,504 30.5
1984...... 28,087 9,490 33.8 24,387 8,104 33.2
1983 6/... 27,678 9,882 35.7 24,138 8,376 34.7
1982...... 27,216 9,697 35.6 23,948 8,355 34.9
1981 5/... 26,834 9,173 34.2 23,423 7,780 33.2
1980...... 26,408 8,579 32.5 23,084 7,190 31.1
1979 4/... 25,944 8,050 31.0 22,666 6,800 30.0
1978...... 24,956 7,625 30.6 22,027 6,493 29.5
1977...... 24,710 7,726 31.3 21,850 6,667 30.5
1976...... 24,399 7,595 31.1 21,840 6,576 30.1
1975...... 24,089 7,545 31.3 21,687 6,533 30.1
1974 3/... 23,699 7,182 30.3 21,341 6,255 29.3
1973...... 23,512 7,388 31.4 21,328 6,560 30.8
1972...... 23,144 7,710 33.3 21,116 6,841 32.4
1971 2/... 22,784 7,396 32.5 20,900 6,530 31.2
1970...... 22,515 7,548 33.5 20,724 6,683 32.2
1969...... 22,011 7,095 32.2 20,192 6,245 30.9
1968...... 21,944 7,616 34.7 (NA) 6,839 33.7
1967 1/... 21,590 8,486 39.3 (NA) 7,677 38.4
1966...... 21,206 8,867 41.8 (NA) 8,090 40.9

Among other things that you have that are simply assertions with no real empirical data to back it up, you exclaim that poverty rates went down during the nineties after welfare reform and after tax cuts. The taxes had been increased during the nineties in 1993 on the top bracket. Poverty rates dropped from 1993 - 2000. Every single year. Once again, they have risen every single year since Bush has taken office. Moreover, median income has remained stagnant now for a record 5 years. Which adds up to almost all of the economic growth since Bush took office at being at the upper most income levels as there is really no other place the income could have went being that median income has been flat and poverty rates have risen.

Your data above only shows that poverty rates for blacks go down as the economy grows. Imagine that. I might add, that I supported welfare reform as well.

Just the same, its pointless debating this because it really boils down to philosophical differences more than anything else.

 

[Stinger]

Stinger, we will just have to agree to disagree here. At least we were both by the grace of God lucky enough to be born southerners.

You can hold whatever opinion you want but you are not entitled to your own facts. The historical record is clear, Democrats NOT Republicans opposed civil rights legislation. The Democrats have done a very good job of taking all the credit when in fact the opposite is true.

For a historical accurate review of what actually happened you might read this

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5436

To say that Bush has a lower poverty rate in his 5th year than Clinton did is intellectually dishonest, because Clinton had reduced the poverty rate for every year while Bush started with the record low during the Clinton years and it has risen every year since.

Black poverty or ALL poverty? I have posted full charts of both now and what is clearly indicated is that poverty marginally feel with the growing economy Clinton inherited, but he had no polices to lower it. Wel-fare reform which he opposed was inacted in 1996 and only after then did the rate begin to fall from historical trends especially for blacks, the contracting economy which began during Clintons term, but nothing do to any actions he took other than cooking the books and putting off the eventual stock market decline and perhaps worsening it, increased rates which have since fallen again.

 

[cmitch06]

Quoting facts does not make you a racist. You cannot say anything about the black race that is statistically true. Its too taboo. Its not politically correct. Facts or Facts people. Its sad that you can't even hold anyone accountable for what they do anymore. Stop griping because someone quoted some facts that are absolutely true and do something about it. Thats the only thing I see with African Americans they get mad because people say these things but then they do nothing to change the statistics. Personal responsibility is everything.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You can hold whatever opinion you want but you are not entitled to your own facts. The historical record is clear, Democrats NOT Republicans opposed civil rights legislation. The Democrats have done a very good job of taking all the credit when in fact the opposite is true.

For a historical accurate review of what actually happened you might read this

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5436





Black poverty or ALL poverty? I have posted full charts of both now and what is clearly indicated is that poverty marginally feel with the growing economy Clinton inherited, but he had no polices to lower it. Wel-fare reform which he opposed was inacted in 1996 and only after then did the rate begin to fall from historical trends especially for blacks, the contracting economy which began during Clintons term, but nothing do to any actions he took other than cooking the books and putting off the eventual stock market decline and perhaps worsening it, increased rates which have since fallen again.

1. The poverty rate did not just marginally fall during the nineties. It actually fell to the lowest point on record.

2. The economy of the nineties was the second longest period of economic growth in our nations history.

3. Median income in the nineties grew at a higher rate than at any other time in postwar history.

4. Clinton had nothing to do with the stock market decline. It was all irrational exuberance by investors like most of us in late 1999 through early 2000 that resulted in the decline. If you blame the dot com burst on Clinton, then you have to blame the 1987 stock market crash on Reagan (doing either would be a mistake).

5. Even with the recession that occurred in 2001, and the below average job growth thereafter, there has still been a net of almost 19 million jobs created during the Clinton years.

When jobs are created, median income grows, and the economy grows, the poverty rate drops. That is just common sense. Moreover, I think that welfare reform was very well timed for impoverished people to take advantage of that growth and opportunity.

However, there were several anti-poverty programs instituted by the Clinton Administration. They include the following:

• Technology Literacy Program
• GEAR-UP Initiative
• Reading Excellence Program
• Youth Opportunity Grants
• Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI)
• Strengthened and Simplified the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
• Empowerment Zones (EZs) and Enterprise Communities (ECs)
• Economic Development Initiative (EDI) and Section 108 Loan Guarantee
• Brownfields Tax Incentive
• $500 Per-Child Tax Credit
• Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
• Established of Individual Development Accounts (IDAs)
• Welfare-to-Work Initiative
• Passage of Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit and Work Opportunity Tax Credit
• Welfare-to-Work Housing Vouchers

If an outsider were just to look at the economy of the nineties on paper, and that individual had no partisan bias either way, they would conclude, as even Alan Greenspan has, that the economy of the nineties was as strong as it had ever been in our nations history. Even Alan Greenspan himself credits the Clinton Administration and its pragmatic economic agenda with what was literally the most prosperous time in our nation's history.

You may disagree, but on this one, the facts are solidly on my side and I would challenge you to find very many Americans at all that would not trade the Clinton years for the Bush years in a heart beat. (of course a lot of people would take the Reagan years over Bush as well)

 

[cnredd]

I like how you say that Democrats were the ones fillibustering, the record for longest fillibuster is held by Strom Thurmond A REPUBLICAN, and it was over civil rights.

Thurmond, Strom (James Strom Thurmond) (thûr'mənd), 1902–2003, U.S. senator from South Carolina (1954–2003), b. Edgefield, S.C. He read law while teaching (1923–29) in South Carolina schools and was admitted to the bar in 1930. Thurmond was elected (1933) a state senator and became (1938) a circuit-court judge. After serving in World War II, he was elected (1946) governor of South Carolina. In 1948, Thurmond was nominated for president by the States' Rights Democrats (“Dixiecrats”), southerners who bolted the Democratic party in opposition to President Truman's civil-rights program; he won 39 electoral votes. In 1954 he was a successful write-in candidate for U.S. Senate. In 1957 he staged the longest filibuster in Senate history, speaking for over 24 hours against a civil-rights bill. Thurmond switched from the Democratic to the Republican party in 1964, and later chaired the Senate judiciary (1981–87) and armed services (1995–99) committees. In 1996 he became the oldest sitting, in 1997 the longest serving, U.S. senator in history. The posthumous revelation in 2003 that he had an illegitimate child in 1925 with an African-American maid and that he and his daughter had had a long-standing, warm relationship proved a thought-provoking footnote to his political career.

http://www.answers.com/topic/strom-thurmond

I'm SURE what you really meant was "the record for longest fillibuster is held by Strom Thurmond A DEMOCRAT".:roll:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So basically, since the great society, they have never been as high as they were previous. Right??

That is a deliberately dishonest and misleading post. I made it perfectly clear that the Great Society programs had nothing to do with the decline in povert rates observed in the 1960's.

You can do better than that.

Moreover, the bulk of the drop in poverty rates occured after the Great Society legislation passed and went into effect. If you look at the table posted above, Black poverty rates dropped by 25% in the 3 years after the Great Society programs went into effect.

First off, no more than half the decline happened under the Great Society, since more than half the the linear decline happened before the Great Con was implemented. "The Bulk" implies more than half, and hence SD's assertion is patently false.

And since I'm not a racist, I expect that government plans are intended to affect all persons equally, as that is required under the Fourteenth Amendment. As far as I know, white people will suffer starvation and poverty no differently than a black person. Who but a racist would implement programs intended to differentiate between races?

Finally, even if the poverty rate did not move an inch because of the Great Society, we still see huge benefits from it because of the huge number of National Parks created, PBS, NPR, Medicare, and countless other programs that we all take for granted today.

No one except wine swilling elitist pigs has ever benefitted from PBS and NPR. The theft of plasma TV's in New Orleans proves that PBS is a dinosaur that should be eliminated. Clearly all the poor people now have cable-ready TV, so their kids can watch Nick Jr and learn from Dora the Explorer.

The existence of medicare and the entire notion of third-party payers is the specific reason health care costs are soaring out of sight. And not only do I not see any authorization for "National" parks in the Constitution, I don't necessarily see any benefit from them, either. This is definitely far off topic, though.

 

[Stinger]

Among other things that you have that are simply assertions with no real empirical data to back it up, you exclaim that poverty rates went down during the nineties after welfare reform and after tax cuts. The taxes had been increased during the nineties in 1993 on the top bracket. Poverty rates dropped from 1993 - 2000.

No the empirical data backs up exactly what I am saying. Yes the rates did drop in 1993, to levels that were still within the previous ranges. The TREND was basically what it had been UNTIL the tax cuts and welfare reform the Republican congress forced on Clinton.

Every single year. Once again, they have risen every single year since Bush has taken office.

Yes he inherited a recession and then we were attacked and the economy suffered for it, but that has turned around and the rate is dropping once again. Now how low can it go? Who knows.

Moreover, median income has remained stagnant now for a record 5 years.

Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2003

(Households as of March of the following year. Income in
current and 2003 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars28/)

INCOME IN CURRENT DOLLARS
United States
2003 $43,318
2002 $42,409
2001 $42,228
I don't believe 2004 data is available as of yet, but with the growth of the economy and rising home ownership rates and the lower unemployement I have no reason to believe income fell.

Your data above only shows that poverty rates for blacks go down as the economy grows. Imagine that. I might add, that I supported welfare reform as well.

Nope shows more than the, the fall increase more than previously during growing economic times AFTER the welfare reform bill was signed.

Just the same, its pointless debating this because it really boils down to philosophical differences more than anything else.

Perhaps you are dealing with opinion, I am dealing with factual data.

 

[Stinger]

1. The poverty rate did not just marginally fall during the nineties. It actually fell to the lowest point on record.

AFTER 1996 until then it was just meandering through historical range.

2. The economy of the nineties was the second longest period of economic growth in our nations history.

OK

3. Median income in the nineties grew at a higher rate than at any other time in postwar history.

OK

4. Clinton had nothing to do with the stock market decline. It was all irrational exuberance by investors like most of us in late 1999 through early 2000 that resulted in the decline. If you blame the dot com burst on Clinton, then you have to blame the 1987 stock market crash on Reagan (doing either would be a mistake).

Where did I "blame" it on him? It is fact that his administrations cooked the books to hide the declining earnings which exaserbated the bust by putting if off.

5. Even with the recession that occurred in 2001, and the below average job growth thereafter, there has still been a net of almost 19 million jobs created during the Clinton years.

OK

When jobs are created, median income grows, and the economy grows, the poverty rate drops. That is just common sense. Moreover, I think that welfare reform was very well timed for impoverished people to take advantage of that growth and opportunity.

I don't think it was "timed" it took a Republican congress to over come the voricious objection of the Democrats and liberals.

However, there were several anti-poverty programs instituted by the Clinton Administration.

And which ones were part of the welfare reform to which he objected and what exact were the results of the others?

If an outsider were just to look at the economy of the nineties on paper, and that individual had no partisan bias either way, they would conclude, as even Alan Greenspan has, that the economy of the nineties was as strong as it had ever been in our nations history.

OK no one has said differently, but will you admit that the economy of the 2000's even coming out of the slowdown and 9/11 and the war in Iraq has not been as bad as many would make it out to be?

Even Alan Greenspan himself credits the Clinton Administration and its pragmatic economic agenda with what was literally the most prosperous time in our nation's history.

And specifically what was that agenda? Other than the tax increases he passed his first year which delayed the recovery he inherited from getting up to full steam, what economic bills or measures did he propose and get passed?

You may disagree, but on this one, the facts are solidly on my side and I would challenge you to find very many Americans at all that would not trade the Clinton years for the Bush years in a heart beat. (of course a lot of people would take the Reagan years over Bush as well)

How about me. Economic growth in my state, especially manufacturing is doing much better now than when Clinton was in office.

But you seem to be blaming Bush for something, or at least his policies. What policies are you objecting to and why? He inheritied a retracting economy, one which had already had negative growth, you know what you would call the Clinton economy. The tax cuts were of course the proper response and we can be thankful they had been passed before 9/11 because they helped to soften that blow. And he has kept taxes down and allowed the economy to do it's thing and recover and create jobs and increase incomes as the data I posted shows. So if you think the economy is so horrible and it is because of some Bush economic policy then please explain.

 

[Stinger]

I like how you say that Democrats were the ones fillibustering, the record for longest fillibuster is held by Strom Thurmond A REPUBLICAN, and it was over civil rights.

"Although the Democrats controlled both houses of the Congress at the time, a much-higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill. For example, in the House, Republicans voted for civil rights by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent, 136-35. The Democrats' margin was 153-91 or 63 percent to 37 percent.
However, the single-most-important vote for the legislation was the attempt to cut off the anti-civil-rights filibuster in the Senate. In order for the bill to pass, civil-rights supporters needed two thirds of the Senate to break a filibuster by the opposition. Republicans voted overwhelmingly to break the filibuster by 81.8 percent (27-6), but only 65.7 percent of the Democrats voted to end the filibuster (44-23). Thus, if only Republicans in the Congress had voted, any potential filibuster would easily have been overridden. But, if only Democrats had voted, the pro-civil-rights forces would not have been able to obtain the necessary two/thirds vote to break the filibuster and the civil-rights bill would have died. No Republicans in Congress, no civil-rights bill — it is as simple as that."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5436

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

4. Clinton had nothing to do with the stock market decline. It was all irrational exuberance by investors like most of us in late 1999 through early 2000 that resulted in the decline. If you blame the dot com burst on Clinton, then you have to blame the 1987 stock market crash on Reagan (doing either would be a mistake).

Be strictly accurate.

Clinton had nothing to do with the stock market rise. Unless you're one of those fools that think Al Gore was capable in inventing the Internet.

 

[Hoot]

Originally Posted by shuamort>>It looks like the White House is now condemning Bill Bennett's remarks:<<


>>WOW what a condemnation!<<Stinger

See...this proves my point, I said anyone with over a High School education would know that the remark was taken out of context, and would not condemn it. ROTFL!!!

 

[Pacridge]

How do you keep a minority a "minority"?

Keep telling them they're a "minority"...

So if you tell them they're a majority their numbers will increase? Lost on that logic.

 

[cnredd]

So if you tell them they're a majority their numbers will increase? Lost on that logic.

The more you tell people that they can't stand on there own two feet and must be continually given entitlements does nothing more than keep them in your pocket and gives them no sense of self-being...

Talk to Mister Cosby sometime...He told the people to rise up themselves and stop acting like morons....He was immediately shot down...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3075

 

[Pacridge]

The more you tell people that they can't stand on there own two feet and must be continually given entitlements does nothing more than keep them in your pocket and gives them no sense of self-being...

Talk to Mister Cosby sometime...He told the people to rise up themselves and stop acting like morons....He was immediately shot down...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3075

I have a feeling "The Coz" wouldn't give me the time of day no matter how much Jello I bought.

So, you equate being a minority with being unable to stand on your own two feet?

 

[cnredd]

I have a feeling "The Coz" wouldn't give me the time of day no matter how much Jello I bought.

So, you equate being a minority with being unable to stand on your own two feet?

Quite the oposite!!!!!

It's not the people's ability that keeps them down...It's the people believing what they're TOLD that keeps them down.

There are certain groups (NAACPETCPWDTLU) and certain politicians that keep saying "You can't do things by yourself so we will hold you by the hand and give you stuff so you don't HAVE to do things by yourself"...

If you keep giving your children an allowance every week for years & years & years and let them live free in your house...what's their incentive to get a job and go out on their own?

There has to be some point in time when you kick your kids out and say "Time to do things on your own"...That's when people get their crap in gear...when they HAVE to...

 

[Pacridge]

Quite the oposite!!!!!

It's not the people's ability that keeps them down...It's the people believing what they're TOLD that keeps them down.

There are certain groups (NAACPETCPWDTLU) and certain politicians that keep saying "You can't do things by yourself so we will hold you by the hand and give you stuff so you don't HAVE to do things by yourself"...

If you keep giving your children an allowance every week for years & years & years and let them live free in your house...what's their incentive to get a job and go out on their own?

There has to be some point in time when you kick your kids out and say "Time to do things on your own"...That's when people get their crap in gear...when they HAVE to...

Sounds like you should have said "How do you keep a poor person poor? keep telling them they're poor"?

Rather then: How do you keep a minority a "minority"?

Keep telling them they're a "minority"...

What the heck is NAACPETCPWDTLU?

 

[cnredd]

Sounds like you should have said "How do you keep a poor person poor? keep telling them they're poor"?

Rather then: How do you keep a minority a "minority"?


Keep telling them they're a "minority"...

Very true statement...I could've...Keep in mind the title of the thread...

What the heck is NAACPETCPWDTLU?

Nation Association for the Advancement of Colored People Except Those Colored People Who Don't Think Like Us

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

Although the Democrats controlled both houses of the Congress at the time, a much-higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill. For example, in the House, Republicans voted for civil rights by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent, 136-35. The Democrats' margin was 153-91 or 63 percent to 37 percent.
However, the single-most-important vote for the legislation was the attempt to cut off the anti-civil-rights filibuster in the Senate. In order for the bill to pass, civil-rights supporters needed two thirds of the Senate to break a filibuster by the opposition. Republicans voted overwhelmingly to break the filibuster by 81.8 percent (27-6), but only 65.7 percent of the Democrats voted to end the filibuster (44-23). Thus, if only Republicans in the Congress had voted, any potential filibuster would easily have been overridden. But, if only Democrats had voted, the pro-civil-rights forces would not have been able to obtain the necessary two/thirds vote to break the filibuster and the civil-rights bill would have died. No Republicans in Congress, no civil-rights bill — it is as simple as that."

Dixiecrats. Racism was not, and is not, a party bound issue. The carping over who did what during the civil rights movement is irrelevant. They were all white guys, and those that had racist views acted on them.