Wonderful, but your opinion is mistaken.
1. Its factually inaccurate to say that the poverty rate increased every year under Bush. There were a couple of years when the poverty rate did go down.
2. The subject of that thread was about calling the recent decade, the decade from hell. I pointed out correctly that the average poverty rate during the 00s as well as under Bush, was less than the average poverty rate during the 90s or under Bill Clinton. Thats a FACT, just as it is a fact that the average unemployment rate during the 00s was less than that during the 90s.
3. Its a fact that a higher percentage of people lived in poverty during the Clinton years vs the Bush years.
I then factually rebutted that and again explained why I interpret the statistics the way I do and why I think that is reasonable.
LOL of course they do. You will not find many more places where George Bush is this unpopular. Its inconcievable for many here to acknowledge that Bush ever did anything right, or that things were not as bad as many say they were while he was in office.
How could an opinion be mistaken? There are plenty of Republicans capable of reasonable discussion.
We already went through the numbers in the other thread.
You saying that more people lived in poverty or that average unemployment was higher in the 1990s is not something that can be reasonably used to defend George Bush. This is where my argument was. 2000 Clinton was in office. We were talking more about politics then we were the exact date of change in decade when I entered the discussion. Looking at the 2 decades in comparison gives the mediocre 90,91,92 period to Clinton and the very good year 2000 to Bush. So comparisons of the 2 decades do not work if we are discussing the 2 Presidents.
Again, Clinton started with high unemployment and poverty rates and knocked them down throughout his Presidency to historic lows.
Bush started with those historic lows, and in the case of poverty, it got consistently worse, in the case of unemployment, it went up and down. But it started low and ended high. 2 million jobs for Bush vs 23 million for Clinton. Wages, salaries, after tax income, all much better under Clinton.
When you look at where 8 years of Clinton policies left us versus where 8 years of Bush policies left us, you will not find anyone who will take 8 years of Bush.
2000 we had the lowest number of people living in poverty ever, 3.9% unemployment, more Americans had moved out of poverty into the middle class, more Americans going to college than ever, more manufacturing jobs than in any decade since the 1960s, surplus, lower debt, etc. We have been through it all.
You did not factually rebut me on anything, and you never explain why we should all look at your interpretations as more reasonable. You THINK you did, but you think alot of things, so that's ok.
Even in this thread, you are still stuck on trying to defend George Bush's economic record, which is pretty difficult to do. Especially when compared to Bill Clinton's.
You are also still stuck on claiming that I do not discuss issues, but other forum members. I will put my discussion and explanation of the issues up against anyone's. Certainly against your one line repetitions of the same numbers using faulty logic.
All I do is call out other people who do not discuss issues. This is what I have been trying to get INDY to do. He has been asked to discuss issues by many here, and asked to explain himself and has not.
So again, stop accusing me of violating your made up rules of the forum that have already been rejected by the moderators. YOU ARE NOT A MODERATOR HERE, YOU DO NOT DECIDE WHAT IS RELEVANT TO DISCUSSION OR WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE POSTED. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MODERATORS HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU THIS.
There are plenty of places where George Bush is this unpopular. You don't get out much. The anti Bush people here are generally very diverse and they constantly discuss issues Obama is dealing with, and they disagree with each other. They disagree with Obama. They disagree with other liberals. They use facts, they explain themselves.
Again, you are stuck on calling the entire forum a bunch of Bush haters and not seeing my point. Again, I ask you, when have you and I ever had a discussion about any of Bush's policies?? We have only discussed your unwillingness to face what happened when he was President. Not even whether he was responsible or not, which there are plenty of good points for "Yes" and plenty of good points for "NO." What the facts were, what happened, how employment numbers looked, how poverty trends looked, how income looked, etc- this is what we have discussed. Alot more forum members have seen the flaws in how you present things than how I present things. How is this indicative of some kind of hostile to Bush crowd? All it is is people looking at what the facts say and coming to the conclusion that you are misrepresenting them. You can be a died in the wool Republican and still come to that conclusion. So no, its not a bunch of people agreeing with me because they are whacko liberals. People have pointed out their work with statistics and numbers and told you how what you are doing is not logical, without injecting their political views into it at all.
The pro Bush people here, by in large, use talking points and make generalizations about "liberals" because this is how you have been taught to discuss by people like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. This was not how debating between Democrats and Republicans worked prior to the mid 80s when this talk radio culture took off.
Your poverty comparison of Bush and Clinton, for example, is right out of a Bill O'Reilly segment that was widely rebutted by independent sources years ago.
Now, all you other forum members, try and find anything I do that is right out of any left win spinmeister's playbook.
And this guy is accusing me of spinning?! What a pathetic existence.
