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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (111242)	2/10/2008 11:07:50 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

ff, i understand the theory, and to some extend it is true. but it is no more true than giving tons of money to the poor will enable the rich to save more. both work in theory. having said that, why did the child poverty rate EXPLODE as bush was cutting taxes for the rich? in 2000, the poverty rate was 11%. in 2002, some 17% lived in poverty - a whopping 50%+ increase. looking at this historically, under bill clinton (demican), the poverty rate for children went from 15% to 11% and DECLINED all 8 years he was in office. bush (republicrat) gets into office and the poverty rate EXPLODES about 55% in just 2-3 years. the scientific method isn't about grabbing a theory and holding on to it for dear life because it makes one feel good. it is about testing one's theory. the data indicate your theory is fatally flawed. do you think the "needy" prefer to have the poverty rate decline or explode 55% in 2-3 years? given this, who takes better care of the needy? who kicked out all 100s of thousands of mentally ill onto the streets? it was ronald reagan, right? i'm sure those needy folks appreciated that, at least the billionaires go an extra $100 million to save. it surely warms the cackles of their heart as they freeze at night, i'm sure. democraticunderground.com informationclearinghouse.info oh, and another 1.1 million joined the poverty ranks in 2004 - so the early trend of the republicrat administration continued well into to 2004. usatoday.com again, under clinton, poverty rates declined every year. this chart does a much better job of correlating poverty rate with tax cuts than anything else: upload.wikimedia.org en.wikipedia.org so, the two points i made still stand (you only brought up one). 1. the demicans do more for the poor, despite the republicrats economic theory that, btw, is set on the premise of loading their own pockets full of boat loads of cold, hard cash (i know, it is a tough job, but someone has to hold onto that cash - good thing the wealthy are so altruistic, eh?). 2. the demicans don't do a very good job helping the poor, but at least they do something, even if often screwed up, which is more than most republicrats can say since they believe lining their own pockets with cash is the best thing they can do for the poor.