Surprising numbers from O'Reilley

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

No link, you will have to go to www.foxnews.com and click on the O'Reilley Talking Points video to get this from the horse's mouth.

In 1996 (midway through Clinton's presidency):

Americans living below the poverty line: 13.7 %

Billions of dollars spent by the federal government on entitlement programs: 191

Percentage of federal budget spent on entitlement programs: 12.2%

Now (midway through Bush's presidency):

Americans living below the poverty line: 12.7 %

Billions of dollars spent by the federal government on entitlement programs: 368

Percentage of federal budget spent on entitlement programs: 14.6%

But Bush hates the poor? Can someone explain that logic to me?

[DKW 86 7,450]

The Left hates Bush. Also, the Left hates Bush. And you must know, that the Left hates Bush.

It is those three points which the Left is trying to make with the American People. It seems the Left thinks that the American People are too stoopid to understand those three points....

Back to reality. TM, I think even the total unaware in this country now realize that most of the rhetoric from the Dems is I also think that the Dems are now unaware that they are getting marginalized everyday. I read recently that they are expecting HUGE pickups in 2006. Why? Who are they running? What are their issues?

You see, the Left thinks that they are still in control of the Senate, the House, and the White House. They fail to realize that in 2004, with more money than they have ever had before, they lost the WH, lost more Senate Seats, and lost more House Seats too.

Leave them alone, they are doing a fine job of killing themselves. As long as Dean is in a leadership role, the Conservative side will rule, even when we make colossal errors.

[WarTim 3,457]

With the lack of any credible candidates in '06, I expect the Republicans to pick up seats in the Senate and House.

[Auburn85 432]

also the Bush administration has given more funding for education than the Clinton Administration....how are minorites being supressed? It's perhaps the most diverse administration...I don't think Bush is sending out his homies to keep minorites from voting.......

but remember this was taken not only from Fox News, but Bill O Reilly

But apparently if a candidate has an ® next to his name...he'll more than likely not get much black support...kinda descriminating don't you think?

[TexasTiger 13,053]

No link, you will have to go to www.foxnews.com and click on the O'Reilley Talking Points video to get this from the horse's mouth.

In 1996 (midway through Clinton's presidency):

Americans living below the poverty line:  13.7 %

Billions of dollars spent by the federal government on entitlement programs:  191

Percentage of federal budget spent on entitlement programs:  12.2%

Now (midway through Bush's presidency):

Americans living below the poverty line:  12.7 %

Billions of dollars spent by the federal government on entitlement programs:  368

Percentage of federal budget spent on entitlement programs:  14.6%

But Bush hates the poor?  Can someone explain that logic to me?

181226[/snapback]

That certainly clears up that Bush is the much bigger spender.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

No link, you will have to go to www.foxnews.com and click on the O'Reilley Talking Points video to get this from the horse's mouth.

In 1996 (midway through Clinton's presidency):

Americans living below the poverty line:  13.7 %

Billions of dollars spent by the federal government on entitlement programs:  191

Percentage of federal budget spent on entitlement programs:  12.2%

Now (midway through Bush's presidency):

Americans living below the poverty line:  12.7 %

Billions of dollars spent by the federal government on entitlement programs:  368

Percentage of federal budget spent on entitlement programs:  14.6%

But Bush hates the poor?  Can someone explain that logic to me?

181226[/snapback]

That certainly clears up that Bush is the much bigger spender.

181390[/snapback]

Not the point and you know it. You accuse others of smart remarks in lieu of intelligent discourse and this is the best you can do?

I will agree that Bush has not been the fiscal conservative that you claim to be, but how do you explain the "Bush hates the poor" rhetoric that spews forth anytime anyone left of Ronald Reagan takes to the airwaves these days? That was the point of bringing up these numbers.

I await your explanation...

[TexasTiger 13,053]

No link, you will have to go to www.foxnews.com and click on the O'Reilley Talking Points video to get this from the horse's mouth.

In 1996 (midway through Clinton's presidency):

Americans living below the poverty line:  13.7 %

Billions of dollars spent by the federal government on entitlement programs:  191

Percentage of federal budget spent on entitlement programs:  12.2%

Now (midway through Bush's presidency):

Americans living below the poverty line:  12.7 %

Billions of dollars spent by the federal government on entitlement programs:  368

Percentage of federal budget spent on entitlement programs:  14.6%

But Bush hates the poor?  Can someone explain that logic to me?

181226[/snapback]

That certainly clears up that Bush is the much bigger spender.

181390[/snapback]

Not the point and you know it. You accuse others of smart remarks in lieu of intelligent discourse and this is the best you can do?

I will agree that Bush has not been the fiscal conservative that you claim to be, but how do you explain the "Bush hates the poor" rhetoric that spews forth anytime anyone left of Ronald Reagan takes to the airwaves these days? That was the point of bringing up these numbers.

I await your explanation...

181400[/snapback]

..."'Bush hates the poor' rhetoric that spews forth anytime anyone left of Ronald Reagan takes to the airwaves these days?" Got a link? I suspect you're overstating a bit...

[Tiger in Spain 0]

"The real question is not only those that didn't get out. The question is: why has it taken the government so long to get in. I feel that, if it was in another area, with another economic strata(sic) and racial makeup, that President Bush would have run out of Crawford a lot quicker and FEMA would have found its way in a lot sooner." —Al $harpton

"[Katrina will] necessitate a national discussion on race, on oil, politics, class, infrastructure, the environment, and more." —MSNBC's Brian Williams

"The slow response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina has led to questions about race, poverty, and a seemingly indifferent government." —ABC's Ted Koppel

"Do you think black America's sitting there thinking, if these were middle-class white people, there would be cruise ships in New Orleans, not the Superdome?... Do you think the reason that they're not there or the food is not there or the cruise ships aren't there or all this stuff that you believe should be there, isn't this a matter of race and/or class?" —CNN anchor Aaron Brown, telling a question to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones

"Despite the many angles of this tragedy...there is a great big elephant in the living room that the media seems content to ignore. [We] in the media are ignoring the fact that almost all of the victims in New Orleans are black and poor." —CNN's Jack Cafferty

"It's not a nice topic, it's about race, you know, it's about class, it's about poverty, it's about screw-ups, it's not a happy topic." —MSNBC's Chris Matthews

Enough for you, Tex?

[TexasTiger 13,053]

"The real question is not only those that didn't get out. The question is: why has it taken the government so long to get in. I feel that, if it was in another area, with another economic strata(sic) and racial makeup, that President Bush would have run out of Crawford a lot quicker and FEMA would have found its way in a lot sooner." —Al $harpton

"[Katrina will] necessitate a national discussion on race, on oil, politics, class, infrastructure, the environment, and more." —MSNBC's Brian Williams

"The slow response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina has led to questions about race, poverty, and a seemingly indifferent government." —ABC's Ted Koppel

"Do you think black America's sitting there thinking, if these were middle-class white people, there would be cruise ships in New Orleans, not the Superdome?... Do you think the reason that they're not there or the food is not there or the cruise ships aren't there or all this stuff that you believe should be there, isn't this a matter of race and/or class?" —CNN anchor Aaron Brown, telling a question to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones

"Despite the many angles of this tragedy...there is a great big elephant in the living room that the media seems content to ignore. [We] in the media are ignoring the fact that almost all of the victims in New Orleans are black and poor." —CNN's Jack Cafferty

"It's not a nice topic, it's about race, you know, it's about class, it's about poverty, it's about screw-ups, it's not a happy topic." —MSNBC's Chris Matthews

Enough for you, Tex?

181417[/snapback]

Enough to show me how hypersensitve and out of touch with reality you are. One of them mentions Bush-- Sharpton--- and his comments suggest an indifference, not a hatred. And none of them are elected Dems.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Enough to show me how hypersensitve and out of touch with reality you are.  One of them mentions Bush-- Sharpton--- and his comments suggest an indifference, not a hatred.  And none of them are elected Dems.

181422[/snapback]

OK, whatever Tex. Hatred, indifference...call it what you want. Every one of those quotes alluded to the misguided point that the Bush administration doesn't care about the poor.

Who gives a damn what an elected democrat said. The original point wasn't solely pointed at elected democrats, it was about incorrect picture the pinheads on the left are painting of George W. Bush (be it in the media or the by the chairman of the DNC) over the tragedy in New Orleans. Either way, it is wrong and unfair to the President, and it shouldn't be presented to the American people.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

..."'Bush hates the poor' rhetoric that spews forth anytime anyone left of Ronald Reagan takes to the airwaves these days?"  Got a link?  I suspect you're overstating a bit...

181404[/snapback]

Give me a break. To avoid the main point of the original post, you deflect to an overstated exaggeration that I made.

Ok, Tex, how about this: How do explain the general belief, perpetrated by the media, that the Democrats are the party of the downtrodden and poor, while the Republicans are the party of big business and the rich?

And no, I don't have a link.

[WarTim 3,457]

No link, you will have to go to www.foxnews.com and click on the O'Reilley Talking Points video to get this from the horse's mouth.

In 1996 (midway through Clinton's presidency):

Americans living below the poverty line:  13.7 %

Billions of dollars spent by the federal government on entitlement programs:  191

Percentage of federal budget spent on entitlement programs:  12.2%

Now (midway through Bush's presidency):

Americans living below the poverty line:  12.7 %

Billions of dollars spent by the federal government on entitlement programs:  368

Percentage of federal budget spent on entitlement programs:  14.6%

But Bush hates the poor?  Can someone explain that logic to me?

181226[/snapback]

That certainly clears up that Bush is the much bigger spender.

181390[/snapback]

WOW! Glad to know that we can count on your vote in the next election. After all, isn't BIG SPENDING what liberal leftist are all about!?

[Wishbone 0]

The elites that run this country from both sides of the isle have the same liberal big gov't philosophy. We're just a bunch of cogs in a global economy for them. That's why Bush and Cinton have the same policies in reality.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

..."'Bush hates the poor' rhetoric that spews forth anytime anyone left of Ronald Reagan takes to the airwaves these days?"  Got a link?  I suspect you're overstating a bit...

181404[/snapback]

Give me a break. To avoid the main point of the original post, you deflect to an overstated exaggeration that I made.

Ok, Tex, how about this: How do explain the general belief, perpetrated by the media, that the Democrats are the party of the downtrodden and poor, while the Republicans are the party of big business and the rich?

And no, I don't have a link.

181448[/snapback]

Don't blame me because you create political strawmen to deflect discussion toward. Besides, the original post contained a number of observations that hardly favored one party over the other. If you think otherwise, you're hypersensitive. e.g.:

"The slow response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina has led to questions about race, poverty, and a seemingly indifferent government." —ABC's Ted Koppel

Those folks weren't living on easy street before Bush. They've been poor and vulnerable to this for generations. You hear partisan hatred of Bush in that statement? Why is that?

The Dems are largely portrayed in the media as pretty hapless. That's fairly accurate. Republican policies do favor big business and the rich. Most "conservatives" on this board are convinced that under existing law they will be taxed when they die by the estate tax. Only if they are millionaires. Then there is this one:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...J8OVF&b=1044001

People Lose. While the post-Katrina Gulf represents a paradise for contractors, it is a nightmare for ordinary workers who lack the protections of prevailing wage laws that have existed since the Great Depression. In the Gulf, prevailing wages under the Davis-Bacon Act will never make people rich: A laborer in New Orleans would receive $10.40 per hour in wages and fringe benefits. But the Bush administration’s suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act can and will drive down wages beyond government contracts and perpetuate the poverty so vivid on our television screens in the last two weeks. By suspending the act, contractors will be able to effectively set low wages since they will be a large percentage of the employers in the region. An administration that has thus far failed to veto a single spending bill bloated with earmarks, or to cut a single dime from tax cuts directed at multimillionaires, now proposes to squeeze out a few more pennies by cutting wages for people who today have nothing. This may be consistent with four years of budgeting. It is still wrong.

Do you think the companies getting no-bid contracts will pass on the labor savings to the Fed. Govt? People who need it to rebuild their lives just got a pay cut-- who does that favor?

[Piglet 0]

Ok, Tex, how about this:  How do explain the general belief, perpetrated by the media, that the Democrats are the party of the downtrodden and poor, while the Republicans are the party of big business and the rich?

And no, I don't have a link.

181448[/snapback]

I'm not Tex, but it seems to me that the Republicans have always been the party of big business and the rich, and they still are. The Democrats are still coasting on their reputation earned in the days of Bryan, FDR and LBJ, when they really did care about the downtrodden and the poor--but somewhere between Johnson and Clinton, the party lost its roots and many of the most important party leaders stopped standing for much of anything other than telling people what they wanted to hear. Hence, eg, Kerry taking both sides of every issue, often on the same day. The cult following around Howard Dean is not because Dean is amazingly effective, but because Democrats have been starving for someone--anyone--to actually defend progressive principles.

Seems to me your numbers are more about Clinton not doing what he said he would than about Bush doing anything right.

[DKW 86 7,450]

I'm not Tex, but it seems to me that the Republicans have always been the party of big business and the rich, and they still are.  The Democrats are still coasting on their reputation earned in the days of Bryan, FDR and LBJ, when they really did care about the downtrodden and the poor--but somewhere between Johnson and Clinton, the party lost its roots and many of the most important party leaders stopped standing for much of anything other than telling people what they wanted to hear.  Hence, eg,  Kerry taking both sides of every issue, often on the same day. The cult following around Howard Dean is not because Dean is amazingly effective, but because Democrats have been starving for someone--anyone--to actually defend progressive principles.

Piglet, I am amazed at you actually admitting what so many of us have felt for years. I really think I am a Conservative Democrat. I am told by DNC that I am extinct tho.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

Enough to show me how hypersensitve and out of touch with reality you are.  One of them mentions Bush-- Sharpton--- and his comments suggest an indifference, not a hatred.  And none of them are elected Dems.

181422[/snapback]

OK, whatever Tex. Hatred, indifference...call it what you want. Every one of those quotes alluded to the misguided point that the Bush administration doesn't care about the poor.

Who gives a damn what an elected democrat said. The original point wasn't solely pointed at elected democrats, it was about incorrect picture the pinheads on the left are painting of George W. Bush (be it in the media or the by the chairman of the DNC) over the tragedy in New Orleans. Either way, it is wrong and unfair to the President, and it shouldn't be presented to the American people.

181441[/snapback]

Most politicians are largely indifferent to the poor, Bush included. But most of those quotes aren't directed at Bush.

" shouldn't be presented to the American people."

Yes, we should repress all of those views and say everything is fine.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Most politicians are largely indifferent to the poor, Bush included.  But most of those quotes aren't directed at Bush.

" shouldn't be presented to the American people."

Yes, we should repress all of those views and say everything is fine.

181677[/snapback]

So, you're saying the media are aiming their pointed remarks at white America as a whole? Horsecrap. This is another way for them to beat up on Bush.

Yes, we should repress all of those views and say everything is fine

Nope, but we should demand that these talking heads present us with the truth. If the message is nothing but untruths and slander, it should not be presented to the public. People want to hear the truth, not political spin from these overpaid teleprompter readers.

[Wishbone 0]

Liberals,

How is Bush suppossed to help the "poor"? Do you think subsidizing laziness and irresponsible reproduction has helped the poor?

[tiger88 934]

Bush loves everyone and is spending our tax dollars accordinly, lol. I like the guy but would like to see some stuff reigned in. Especially now with the disaster relief. It's gonna get worse if we don't cut some stuff somewhere.

[Wishbone 0]

I knew the day after that this Hurricane was going to be the biggest scam in the history of the America. Bush's plan of free handouts based on race makes my stomache turn.

[bammanmr 0]

Bush's plan of free handouts based on race makes my stomache turn.

181788[/snapback]

Mine too.