Where is the US economy headed?

Do you have data to link to show what you are claiming, cyclops? I won't say you are wrong, but just want to see which graph or set of data you are basing it on.

Isn't that the segment of the population this administration represents?

There are a lot of different factors that we could look at or get into, but here's a simple graph showing poverty changes under respective presidents:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There are a lot of different factors that we could look at or get into, but here's a simple graph showing poverty changes under respective presidents:

And, can you provide data on how poverty was defined and is defined in terms of income or whatever, cyclops, as that really is what determines how the graph looks?

Besides, if you look at your graph, the average under Bush is probably better than the average under Clinton. Thanks for disproving your own statements. Bother to look at your own graphs before making your accusations.

One question, do they factor in the huge tax refunds given by Bush tax breaks to the poor, when evaluating the poverty level of people? If not, your graph is worthless, for at least one reason, maybe more.

[
Well, the average under Clinton is a drop of a few percentage points, whereas the average under Bush is a rise of a few. So there's no possible way that that average under Bush is better than that of Clinton. You shouldn't have edited the snarky line into your post.

The tax refunds given by Bush are accounted for.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[
Well, the average under Clinton is a drop of a few percentage points, whereas the average under Bush is a rise of a few. So there's no possible way that that average under Bush is better than that of Clinton. You shouldn't have edited the snarky line into your post.

The tax refunds given by Bush are accounted for.

Cycloptichorn

I did a visual average and came up with 13.4 for Clinton and 12.3 for Bush, so Bush's average is better. And where are the last two years under Bush?

And what is the poverty line considered to be during the duration of the graph? Without that information, I would not even consider it as valid evidence anyway.

If you guys can be snarky, constantly accusing Bush of not caring about the poor, my snarkiness pales in comparison.

The tax refunds are accounted for? According to what evidence? Do you have it?

Come on dys, your side thought so in the 90's. It is one indicator, not the only indicator. But I would rather the market be going good than bad, as long as it is not a false bubble. The bubble of the 90's had to be corrected, and it took time, I do agree with that.

Come on dys, your side thought so in the 90's

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[
Well, the average under Clinton is a drop of a few percentage points, whereas the average under Bush is a rise of a few. So there's no possible way that that average under Bush is better than that of Clinton. You shouldn't have edited the snarky line into your post.

The tax refunds given by Bush are accounted for.

Cycloptichorn

I did a visual average and came up with 13.4 for Clinton and 12.3 for Bush, so Bush's average is better. And where are the last two years under Bush?

And what is the poverty line considered to be during the duration of the graph? Without that information, I would not even consider it as valid evidence anyway.

If you guys can be snarky, constantly accusing Bush of not caring about the poor, my snarkiness pales in comparison.

The tax refunds are accounted for? According to what evidence? Do you have it?

What matters is the percent change, not where the level was at when they started, which neither of them could have affected. Clinton's economy had a net positive effect in lifting people out of poverty, whereas Bush has had a net negative effect. C'mon, man, this is simple stuff...

Don't get your panties in a twist over Bush. He's the one who refers to the richest people in America as his 'base.' And he hasn't done much to help poor folks at all; their taxes dipped slightly while every program designed to help them has been cut. He has noone to blame but himself for this perception.

Cycloptichorn

okie wrote:

Come on dys, your side thought so in the 90's. It is one indicator, not the only indicator. But I would rather the market be going good than bad, as long as it is not a false bubble. The bubble of the 90's had to be corrected, and it took time, I do agree with that.

Quote:

Come on dys, your side thought so in the 90's

My side? do you actually ever read anyone's posts without extreme prejudice? I never ever voted for Clinton and I am no democrat so don't give me any more of the "your side crap"

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[
Well, the average under Clinton is a drop of a few percentage points, whereas the average under Bush is a rise of a few. So there's no possible way that that average under Bush is better than that of Clinton. You shouldn't have edited the snarky line into your post.

The tax refunds given by Bush are accounted for.

Cycloptichorn

I did a visual average and came up with 13.4 for Clinton and 12.3 for Bush, so Bush's average is better. And where are the last two years under Bush?

And what is the poverty line considered to be during the duration of the graph? Without that information, I would not even consider it as valid evidence anyway.

If you guys can be snarky, constantly accusing Bush of not caring about the poor, my snarkiness pales in comparison.

The tax refunds are accounted for? According to what evidence? Do you have it?

What matters is the percent change, not where the level was at when they started, which neither of them could have affected. Clinton's economy had a net positive effect in lifting people out of poverty, whereas Bush has had a net negative effect. C'mon, man, this is simple stuff...

Don't get your panties in a twist over Bush. He's the one who refers to the richest people in America as his 'base.' And he hasn't done much to help poor folks at all; their taxes dipped slightly while every program designed to help them has been cut. He has noone to blame but himself for this perception.

Cycloptichorn

You mantra gets tiresome, and it is totally nonsense. Quit whinin. People are breakin the doors down to get here, cyclops. Get a life!

What are the liberals going to do when the standard deduction for middle class people goes back down in 2010 when the Bush tax package is no longer in effect?

Yes, I admit to making comments, like "Get a life," and things like that, as the rich vs poor liberal mantra is not only tiresome, it is the same old worn out class envy card that Democrats play all the time.

You haven't answered all my questions about your graph with any evidence, and even your graph has more than one way to interpret it. And it is missing the last couple of years, so until you come up with something better, I don't see much point to your argument, besides being the same old card, as I described above.

nothing. yeah, that sounds about right. Liberals will further increase the tax burden on the middle class effectively destroying any progress they have made due to the propaganda against Bush.

It will be a short lived Deomcratic term. 2012 will be another conservative landslide after America realizes the liberals are bad for America.