Poor Behavior

Poor Behavior
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Sep 15, 2005 http://billoreilly.com/


Soon after the horror of Hurricane Katrina, Americans were subjected to another high wind warning when Jesse Jackson and Howard Dean began exploiting the situation for perceived political gain. These guys will never learn. Ardent Bush haters, they had a perfect opening to ask exactly why the President was at least 24 hours late in responding to the chaos. Once the levees breached in New Orleans, the situation became one of national security. I mean, no sitting President can allow a major American city to be wiped out. President Bush should have signed an Executive Order, sent in the Army and regained control. Instead, he allowed a frightened Governor and an overwhelmed Mayor to continue making mistakes. All of this while hundreds of Americans died in front of a stunned population watching on television.
So Jackson and Dean had some powerful ammunition but, as usual, they used it to shoot themselves. Jackson immediately brought race to the forefront (what a shock) and said blacks were treated like they were on "slave ships."

Dean pointed out that the poor got hammered, and that was Bush's fault because of tax cuts for the rich or some such nonsense. Jackson and Dean ran around grabbing cameras and microphones, howling at the moon, booking first class seats on the cheap shot express.

Their rhetoric was so over the top that even though I'm not a Republican, I feel it is my patriotic duty to provide some truth in the matter of the Bush administration vis-Ã*-vis the poor. So here are the facts with apologies to the propagandists.

We'll begin by comparing the halfway point of President Clinton's tenure to the fifty yard line of the Bush administration. In 1996, the poverty level in the USA stood at 13.7%. In 2004, the poverty level was 12.7%, so Bush beats Clinton here by a full percentage point. To be fair, Clinton did bring the poverty rate down during his administration, while it has been rising slightly since 9/11. But at the halfway point, Bush wins.

As far as entitlement spending on poverty programs is concerned, it isn't even close. In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2% of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush's budget kicked 2% more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329 billion dollars. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history. What say you, Jesse and Howard?

For a country that is often accused by leftwing loons of not caring about the poor, we are certainly putting up a good front. In 2006, almost $368 billion dollars will go for Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance, supplemental security income, child nutrition programs, earned income tax credits, welfare payments, child care payments, foster care and adoption assistance, and child health insurance payments to the states. The truth is that the working men and women of this country are providing the tightest safety net in history for the poor. And our private charitable donations rank first in the world as well.

So the next time the poverty propagandists start with the "America ignores the poor" bull, simply walk away. These people are blatantly dishonest and could not care less that America does, indeed, help the less fortunate. The race and class baiters will always ignore the fact that some people simply cannot support themselves no matter what society does. The New Testament states it clearly: "the poor, they will always be with us." But America provides more opportunity for more people than anywhere else on the planet.

So those are the facts, Max. I'm sorry it took a disaster like Katrina to bring them to the forefront.

O'Reilly: "Their rhetoric was so over the top that even though I'm not a Republican..."

He's not a Republican? What, does he just play one on TV?

O'Reilly: "In 1996, the poverty level in the USA stood at 13.7%. In 2004, the poverty level was 12.7%, so Bush beats Clinton here by a full percentage point. To be fair, Clinton did bring the poverty rate down during his administration, while it has been rising slightly since 9/11. But at the halfway point, Bush wins."

I love how Republicans, or those who play one on TV, always look back to 9/11 as the beginning of the W. fiscal woes, as if its to blame and not the massive tax cuts that came right before.

At any rate, according to the Census Bureau, poverty has risen overall under W. after it had fallen under Clinton, after a brief spike in 1994 - to be fair, the man was having to undo 12 years of GOP rule. Poverty rates can be misleading because of population changes, which specifically have gone up. But the number of those living in poverty has gone up under W.

O'Reilly: "In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2% of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush's budget kicked 2% more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329 billion dollars. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history. What say you, Jesse and Howard?"

Well, Ben says, "It's called inflation, asshole."

$10 in 1996 value is worth $8.46 today. You do the math. It's easy to see that spending 2% more in today's money is actually spending less "value" than what Clinton spent in 1996.

O'Reilly: "So the next time the poverty propagandists start with the "America ignores the poor" bull, simply walk away. These people are blatantly dishonest and could not care less that America does, indeed, help the less fortunate. The race and class baiters will always ignore the fact that some people simply cannot support themselves no matter what society does. The New Testament states it clearly: "the poor, they will always be with us." But America provides more opportunity for more people than anywhere else on the planet."

It's always funny to read O'Reilly saying something about dishonesty.

"I'll take 'Things that are ironic for $1,000,' please, Alex."

When a Jesse Jackson or a Howard Dean talks about America ignoring the poor, they're...well...correct.

W's tax cut in 2001 for the lowest 20% of earners in America was 2.6% while for the highest earners the cut was 7.3%. In 2010, when W's tax scheme stops, the lowest earners' cuts will be at 1.2% - a raise over 2001 levels - while the highest earners' cuts will be at a whopping 51.8% - yes, you read that correctly (source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Tax Model, June 2002).

So tell me, how exactly is that helping the poor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhallg2k

O'Reilly: "Their rhetoric was so over the top that even though I'm not a Republican..."

He's not a Republican? What, does he just play one on TV?

O'Reilly: "In 1996, the poverty level in the USA stood at 13.7%. In 2004, the poverty level was 12.7%, so Bush beats Clinton here by a full percentage point. To be fair, Clinton did bring the poverty rate down during his administration, while it has been rising slightly since 9/11. But at the halfway point, Bush wins."

I love how Republicans, or those who play one on TV, always look back to 9/11 as the beginning of the W. fiscal woes, as if its to blame and not the massive tax cuts that came right before.

At any rate, according to the Census Bureau, poverty has risen overall under W. after it had fallen under Clinton, after a brief spike in 1994 - to be fair, the man was having to undo 12 years of GOP rule. Poverty rates can be misleading because of population changes, which specifically have gone up. But the number of those living in poverty has gone up under W.

O'Reilly: "In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2% of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush's budget kicked 2% more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329 billion dollars. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history. What say you, Jesse and Howard?"

Well, Ben says, "It's called inflation, asshole."

$10 in 1996 value is worth $8.46 today. You do the math. It's easy to see that spending 2% more in today's money is actually spending less "value" than what Clinton spent in 1996.

O'Reilly: "So the next time the poverty propagandists start with the "America ignores the poor" bull, simply walk away. These people are blatantly dishonest and could not care less that America does, indeed, help the less fortunate. The race and class baiters will always ignore the fact that some people simply cannot support themselves no matter what society does. The New Testament states it clearly: "the poor, they will always be with us." But America provides more opportunity for more people than anywhere else on the planet."

It's always funny to read O'Reilly saying something about dishonesty.

"I'll take 'Things that are ironic for $1,000,' please, Alex."

When a Jesse Jackson or a Howard Dean talks about America ignoring the poor, they're...well...correct.

W's tax cut in 2001 for the lowest 20% of earners in America was 2.6% while for the highest earners the cut was 7.3%. In 2010, when W's tax scheme stops, the lowest earners' cuts will be at 1.2% - a raise over 2001 levels - while the highest earners' cuts will be at a whopping 51.8% - yes, you read that correctly (source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Tax Model, June 2002).

So tell me, how exactly is that helping the poor?

---

PWNED :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

PWNED :D

---

What does that mean? I really don't know.

i'd just like to point out, that in canada the dollar is worth roughly

1 USD= 1.19 CAD


THREE years ago it was 1 USD= 1.58 CAD


what does that tell you?




that is all.

Meh the Canadian dollar used to be worth more , it tells me markets and currencies fluctuate ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhallg2k

What does that mean? I really don't know.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdo79

Meh the Canadian dollar used to be worth more , it tells me markets and currencies fluctuate ;)

---

well i was trying to get at the fact that the canadian dollar gets more powerful due to a falling us dollar...trying to coincide with a point you made earlier... :o

I was just being an ass Nick sorry ;) I felt mischevious earlier. Bad joke :)

It is time we just sent our softwood and such elsewhere screw the trade agreements they already broke em ;) literally many times. its just flooding our market after all.

Howdy bhall,

You state and ask:

" W's tax cut in 2001 for the lowest 20% of earners in America was 2.6% while for the highest earners the cut was 7.3%. In 2010, when W's tax scheme stops, the lowest earners' cuts will be at 1.2% - a raise over 2001 levels - while the highest earners' cuts will be at a whopping 51.8% - yes, you read that correctly (source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Tax Model, June 2002). "

"So tell me, how exactly is that helping the poor?"

The top earners pay the most in taxes,it makes sense to give them the biggest tax breaks,because they are most often business owners,who can then turn around and re-invest in their company and hire more workers. I think that you won't be happy until it amounts to income redistribution..well..if it's socialism ya want-then move to a socialist country.

Have a good one ...