The Official CNN/Tea Party Express Debate Discussion Thread

[krazen1211]

nine.
nine.
nine.

Damn!  I shoulda made "nine" my drinking word for tonight instead of "ponzi"

3 words that are smarter than 2000 pages of steaming dog crap.

[krazen1211]

Unfortunately for Bachmann nobody gives a damn about this vaccine business when the poverty king is currently in office.

[krazen1211]

Unfortunately for Bachmann nobody gives a damn about this vaccine business when the poverty king is currently in office.

Perry ain't president yet.

You don't have to worry, if you actually are one of the few who care about poverty. It was lower under all of the last 3 Texas Presidents.

[krazen1211]

Unfortunately for Bachmann nobody gives a damn about this vaccine business when the poverty king is currently in office.

Perry ain't president yet.

You don't have to worry, if you actually are one of the few who care about poverty. It was lower under all of the last 3 Texas Presidents.

You mean Lyndon Johnson--Great Society--Texas President?

He would be one of 3. Of course, government spending was much lower then even at the peak of the Vietnam war.

[krazen1211]

That is a very nice graph that unfortunately cuts off quite a bit too soon. Poverty is now likely over 15%.

[krazen1211]

That is a very nice graph that unfortunately cuts off quite a bit too soon. Poverty is now likely over 15%.

2011 data does not exist yet.  It was 14.3 in 2010.

14.3 in 2009 actually, for which the data was released in September 2010. We should be due for new figures soon.

[krazen1211]

It should be pretty obvious that I was making fun of krazen's factually inaccurate comment about "Texas presidents" reducing poverty. Hence why it was, you know, quoted.

Obviously the comprehension of english words is not your strong suit.

[krazen1211]

JohnnyLongtorso,

Not to sound like a broken record, but WTF?  Nice graph, as has been pointed out, but the employment certainly fluctuates.  No new information there.

Not sure what "Good job Texas Presidents" is meant to say either.  The Republic of Texas only had a few presidents, and all of them died long before the 20th century began.  In the time period covered, only one US President was born in Texas, and poverty, according to the graph, fell from about 20 percent to about 12 percent during his tenure.

More broadly, what are we meant to take from this graph?  There doesn't seem to be any correlation to anything.  Even the purple "recession" periods don't show any monotonic increase or decrease.   In some case it's up, in some cases it's down, and in some cases it's just sort of flat.

And, when I try to look at periods wherein congress was controlled by Republicans, sometimes I see unemployment going up and sometimes it's going down.  Similarly, I see times when Democrats controlled congress and unemployment went up and sometimes it's down.

So, what's your point?

It should be pretty obvious that I was making fun of krazen's factually inaccurate comment about "Texas presidents" reducing poverty.

Since his actual statement was,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

it is quite obvious that you are constructing a strawman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I suspect his lack of grasp of English might lead the words 'lower' and 'reduce' somehow being substituted for each other.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[krazen1211]

That is a very nice graph that unfortunately cuts off quite a bit too soon. Poverty is now likely over 15%.

2011 data does not exist yet.  It was 14.3 in 2010.

14.3 in 2009 actually, for which the data was released in September 2010. We should be due for new figures soon.

Prophetic!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/13/national/main20105376.shtml

Poverty continues to rise in U.S., now 15.1%



Since the crown fits, wear it with pride, obama.