Democratic President

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Jan 6 2006, 03:09 PM']It's not me who has made assumptions and conclusions based on the data from a Census shart.  It's you.  I'm challenging you to defend your conclusion from the data you provided.  It's you who claim to have proven something with the chart.  If your conclusions are true, you should be able to defend them, whether I'm troll-like or not.  My poor physical appearance and other shortcomings have no bearing on the false conclusions you espouse.
[right][snapback]848113[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I've made no assumptions.

You look at the graph and it tells you numbers.


Pretty simple really. Kind of

Oh I don't know

Obvious

You are the one who says that the chart isn't telling the whole truth. Yet you back it up with nothing

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 08:49 AM']If you correspond it [the graph] to the time periods that were with a Republican administration and a Republican congress, the amount of people living in poverty has risen
[right][snapback]847805[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 11:06 AM']Can you deny that there is a corresponding trend in administrations?
[right][snapback]847881[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do believe I have countered this statement sufficiently. The last time these two aligned was at least 30 or 40 years ago. Only again in 2000 was there a Republican Congress with a Republican President. I think you've contradicted yourself, what do you think?

Again, this habit of pinning the blame with the President in this thread is, I think, kinda a false grasp.

[Socrates]

These charts and such really clearly show nothing.

The economy is complex, and for themost part is outside the control of the president or any other single person.
(and as noted, the trends toward more poverty in Republican administrations began while Dems were still in charge.)

The whole blaming (or crediting) the state of the economy on who's in office is the fallacy of post hoc, ad proctor hoc.
It's convenient for playing politics, but factually unsubstantiated.

All the economic trends shown have factors in play which have nothing to do with the President and are outside his control.

And what about those periods such as the '80s, with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, or the '90s, with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 6 2006, 07:31 PM']And what about those periods such as the '80s, with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, or the '90s, with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress?
[right][snapback]848351[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My point exactly.

[Socrates]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 6 2006, 06:33 PM']My point exactly. 
[right][snapback]848353[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
A certain liberal on these boards once argued about how Clinton's policies supposedly lowered abortion rates, then later, on another thread, blamed Newt Gingrich's policies for forcing more women to have abortions.

He apparently forgot that Clinton and Gingrich were in office at the same time!

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 6 2006, 07:31 PM']These charts and such really clearly show nothing.

The economy is complex, and for themost part is outside the control of the president or any other single person.
(and as noted, the trends toward more poverty in Republican administrations began while Dems were still in charge.)

The whole blaming (or crediting) the state of the economy on who's in office is the fallacy of post hoc, ad proctor hoc.
It's convenient for playing politics, but factually unsubstantiated.

All the economic trends shown have factors in play which have nothing to do with the President and are outside his control.

And what about those periods such as the '80s, with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, or the '90s, with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress?
[right][snapback]848351[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Of course economics are complex. Yes congress is involved and there are variables that are outside of any one person's control.

But the buck stops with the leader. Sometimes it works for you. Sometimes it doesn't.

Bush Sr lost his reelection because of the economy. He was left with the bill that Reagan accrued in deficit spending and it sent us into a recession. Clinton was reelected because of the economy and how it turned around. Bush Jr has taken a surplus and turned it into the largest deficit ever. It is certainly a large factor in the fact that the poverty rate has grown every year he's been in power.

The reality is that presidential policies have a significant effect on the economy.

And I don't believe that either of you believe otherwise.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 7 2006, 10:49 AM']And I don't believe that either of you believe otherwise.
[right][snapback]848687[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oui, just answering the question from last page.

[zwergel88]

In my opinion,democrats usually are more focused on the poor, and they certainly faired better in the last administration. Tax cuts for the rich are bad.