Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (250897)	9/11/2005 4:48:08 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570499

Bush 2 had to deal with the Clinton recession, remember???

To: combjelly who wrote (250897)	9/11/2005 7:26:41 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570499

CJ, If you look at the last 4 years of Clinton's administration, you will probably see a lower poverty rate. Easy to pick-n-choose the time periods. Maybe we can all hope for another late 90's bubble, only this time we'll get a warning before it pops. Tenchusatsu

To: combjelly who wrote (250897)	9/12/2005 12:29:06 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570499

"Why is a 17.8 percent poverty rate now considered so much worse than a 19.7 percent poverty rate from 1993 to 2000?" Figures lie and liars figure. Because the 19.7% is an average over the whole 8 years, the first few were the recovery from Bush41's recession. If you look at the last 4 years of Clinton's administration, you will probably see a lower poverty rate. Not that you have a prayer at actually understanding that... Its not probable, its fact that the poverty rate was lower at the end of Clinton's term.....well below the 17.8% average for Bush's YTD. Under Bush, the rate has been rising every year since the Clinton's years. And the author of that article knows it......he purposely went out to bald face lie. No wonder Republicans are so confused when it comes to the facts. ted