24
Marie Has No Idea How to Interpret Statistics
It’s not surprising, I know, but it was just too good to pass up:
Hold on America, here comes more spin by Bill Clinton and the biased media that perpetuates ignorance of real statistics that show President Bush has given more of America’s money to help the poor. Bill Clinton did less to help the black or white poor in the years of his presidency. He was only perceived as the friend of the poor due to his quivering lower lip and a very liberal, very biased media.
Facts
Poverty rate under Clinton was 13.7% under Bush it is 12.7%
Truly amazing. Let’s take a look at the U.S. Census Bureau’s table of historical poverty rates:
Percentage of People Living Below Poverty Level During the Clinton Administration:
1993: 15.1%
1994: 14.5%
1995: 13.8%
1996: 13.7%
1997: 13.3%
1998: 12.7%
1999: 11.9%
2000: 11.3%
Marie, do ya notice something about those numbers? That’s right! In every single year, the percentage of Americans living in poverty dropped! Every. Single. One.
And remember that when Clinton was elected in 1992, national unemployment was averaging more than 7%, and we were still recovering from a recession. So of course there was a higher poverty rate at the start of Clinton’s administration- how could there not be? But by the end of the decade, the poverty rate had dropped to an astonishingly low 11.3%- the lowest overall rate since 1974.
Now, let’s take a look at what’s happened since Bush took over in 2001:
Percentage of People Living Below Poverty Level Under the Bush Administration:
2001: 11.7%
2002: 12.1%
2003: 12.5%
2004: 12.7%
Well looky-looky! The poverty rate has actually risen every year since George W. Bush took office! Granted, it’s not high compared to the early ’80s, when Volcker was contracting the money supply in order to bring down inflation. But the trend is certainly not a positive one (and I doubt it’s gonna get any better this year either).
Here’s another one:
Greater GNP (Gross National Product) under Bush than under Clinton.
There bloody well better be! Marie, take a look at this chart. You’ll notice that the only time GNP actually shrank over a four-year period was during the Great Depression.
GregH said,
September 24, 2005 at 17:29
The ironic thing is that if you’re going to cherry pick statistics like Marie apparently did you’d think that you’d choose the poverty rate under Clinton in 1993 (15.1%) versus Bush in (11.7%). Are the wingers feeling a little bit up against the ropes and starting to soften their lies and misrepresentations of the facts?
GregH said,
September 24, 2005 at 17:31
Oh and I like this ’sentence’ from Marie’s latest PePo turd: Upon hearing that Clinton had the unmediated gall to undermine President George W. Bush yesterday.
Brad R. said,
September 24, 2005 at 17:38
Upon hearing that Clinton had the unmediated gall to undermine President George W. Bush yesterday.
Oh shit, I was gonna mention that. But Marie, if you’re reading, Greg’s right- that’s not a complete sentence.
GregH said,
September 24, 2005 at 17:42
Not only that but here in ‘meraka we usually say “unmitigated gall.”
Brad R. said,
September 24, 2005 at 17:44
“unmitigated gall.”
Heh, I didn’t even catch that. Guess it’s time for me to row my boat ashore midst frightening high winds in search of homosexual capers aplenty.
tg said,
September 24, 2005 at 17:45
unmediated??
I don’t bereave she intracted to use that meticulous word.
GregH said,
September 24, 2005 at 17:46
Awesome tg! You have a future in wingnuttery!
Pinko Punko said,
September 24, 2005 at 17:49
Seriously, there was no mediation going on.
tg said,
September 24, 2005 at 18:12
Actually, it WAS mediated gall. Clinton wanted to use the phrase “heartless spoiled fuckhead brat”, but he agreed to tone it down in order to meet decency standards for prime-time TV. It’s all about mediation.
D. Sidhe said,
September 24, 2005 at 18:29
My theory is that Bush 1 mediated Clinton’s remarks.
Actually, poverty rates probably will go down in the next three years. You can already see the strategy being outlined in the editorial pages of WSJ.
My God, you say. Are they finally going to do something about job flight? Are they going to stop throwing money at inefficient pork barrel jobs programs like Alaska’s Bridges to Nowhere and start rebuilding schools instead? Are they planning to actually create day care for single parents so they can get some decent jobs?
You wish. They’re probably just going to redefine poverty, since the current guidelines (slightly over nineteen thousand annually for a family of four) is totally living high on the hog.
Paris Motorlodge said,
September 24, 2005 at 18:50
“He was only perceived as the friend of the poor due to his quivering lower lip and a very liberal, very biased media.”
Whereas Bush II is perceived as a friend of the poor only by magic bean-eating unicorns and talking leprechaun turds.
GregH said,
September 24, 2005 at 18:54
From PePo
Black home ownership has risen 2% under Bush, from where it was under Clinton.
1993-42.3%,
1994-42.7%,
1995-44.1%,
1996-44.8%,
1997-45.6%,
1998-46.3%,
1999-47.2%,
2000-47.7%,
2001-47.3%,
2002-47.4%,
2003-48.1%,
2004-49.1%
I question the 2% figure as it looks more like 1.4% compared to the 5.4% increase under Clinton.
More spending on Education for the poor, under Bush than under Clinton.
A citation would be nice here especially one adjusted for inflation that includes a break down of Federal spending, State spending and income brackets. I assume with the NCLB boondoggle that what she is saying is true but it definitely seems counter to conservative local-governance principles.
Greater GNP (Gross National Product) under Bush than under Clinton. Clinton continued to raise taxes for every year he was in office. As you know, Bush gave an across-the-board tax cut and now the U.S. Treasury revenues are higher than they have ever been. Reiterating what Brad said, they?d better have! While I?m sure that total revenues are up I?d like to see the revenues corrected for inflation and normalized by population. I?m sure that would show a much different picture of where we?re at under wingnut-o-nomics. In fact I?m so positive that is the case that I?m willing to wager the Virgen de Shapiro?s maidenhead on the deal.
Detlef said,
September 24, 2005 at 19:01
They’re probably just going to redefine poverty, since the current guidelines (slightly over nineteen thousand annually for a family of four) is totally living high on the hog.
Very true!
You don?t want to end like the Germans. (Via Crooked Timber)
http://tinyurl.com/b7cqu
In Berlin, a city with 19 per cent unemployment, the cafes are packed with people drinking over-priced caf? lattes, the employed and unemployed alike happily indulging themselves. Will economic circumstances soon hurt enough to give people the swift kick they apparently need?
willie said,
September 24, 2005 at 19:05
hey gregh,
well, here you go: in 2004, federal revenues were 16.3% of gdp, down from 20.9% of gdp in 2000. 20.9%, incidentally, was the highest they had been since 1944, while 16.3% was the lowest since 1959.
here’s the chart
GregH said,
September 24, 2005 at 19:17
That’s cool Willie! I also found this at the Congressional Budget Office. Year 2000 revenues – $2,025.2 billion and year 2004 revenues $1,880.1 billion Hey look at that over there! What’s that? Oh it’s MJ’s pants on fire hanging from a telephone wire!!!!!
Tommyd said,
September 24, 2005 at 19:27
It appears as if she is just re-gurgitating the “no spin” talking point that Bill OReilly has been touting on his radio and TV show….
In an attempt to LIE and MISLEAD he would parse the statistics as comparing the poverty numbers for Bush and Clinton at the end of each one’s first term and thus only referecing the numbers presented in this piece… He crowed this as how great Bush has been for poverty prevention when compared to Clinton…. Ignoring the context that it declined every year under Clinton and Increased every year under Bush…
What a Scumbag….
Beth said,
September 24, 2005 at 19:36
So, to summarize, Clinton showed his contempt for the poor by succeeding some jerk who had left the country with a 15% poverty rate, while Bush, in his infinite compassion waited until it had been brought down below 12% before taking office.
Once you realize that the worth of a president is determined not by the America he creates but by the America he inherits, it’s clear that by almost any measure, Bush is far superior to Clinton.
Frederick said,
September 24, 2005 at 19:39
That’ll teach Marie to use reality-based criteria like statistics. Stick to your Republican fantasies, Marie.
Karl said,
September 24, 2005 at 19:43
So Marie Jon’’s ‘rithmetic isn’t much gooder than her readin or (shudder) ‘ritin. Sounds like another “child left behind” to me.
Realist said,
September 24, 2005 at 20:26
Funny, the word that comes to mind when I think of Marie is “unmedicated.”
Rowan Berkeley said,
September 24, 2005 at 20:44
I don’t know about her statistics (I should imagine the poverty threshold shows different distortions every year, because it is presumably based on a more or less arbitary cost-of-living yardstick), but her english is so poor that we would rate it at about average 14-year-old level here.Unfortunately, people become victims under this socialistic approach. They end up using social programs as a way of life from generation to generation. These types of social welfare programs insult the needy by not showing them ways to improve their own lives and taking personal responsibility for themselves.– make that “ways to improve their own lives and take (not ‘taking’) responsibility for themselves (or ‘personal responsibility’ but not both).In America those who succeed are those who stay in school and do not do illegal drugs. They do not have children out of wedlock and keep out of the jails by being good citizens. It really is mostly that simple.– or ‘it mostly is really that simple.’ Or neither.There are more white poor people in America than black.– absolutely, maybe, but not relatively.The race baiting playing cards are always to used by the likes of Bill Clinton – Al Sharpton – Jesse Jackson – NAACP etc.– ‘playing the race card’ is not the same as ‘race baiting’, in the cases the Divine Doofusette refers to it is actually the reverse.The Democrats seem to pull those race cards out of their pockets at any given moment.– this is not what ‘at any given moment’ means. Whatever you had in mind, Doofusette, find another phrase that actually MEANS THAT.They have used that race game for way too long in order to keep black Americans down and under the socialist Democratic sway. Republicans want better for all people. We wish to see all poor people, black and white, succeed in life. America should no longer be a divided nation by monetary factors. We all can be a success story.– “America should no longer be a divided nation by monetary factors” is actually Swanksterspeak for “America should no longer be a nation divided by monetary factors” etc.
Realist said,
September 24, 2005 at 21:36
I’d like to dedicate this image to GregH, who inspired it.
For your viewing pleasure: Marie’s pants on fire
GregH said,
September 24, 2005 at 21:57
DOOD! REALIST! That’s the funniest thing ever!!
Timmah420 said,
September 24, 2005 at 22:00
More lies and echoed talking points from none other than the king of misleading and lies. O’lielly got his ass handed to him in a paper bag by donahue the other day btw. Video at crooksandliars
Brad R. said,
September 24, 2005 at 22:12
Realist- you’re going to hell for that. And so am I for posting it on the main page…
Pinko Punko said,
September 24, 2005 at 22:14
Oh my gosh, GregH do NOT snort those ashes.
mdh?tter said,
September 24, 2005 at 23:11
Realist,
100,000 in the streets couldn’t have said it better.
GregH said,
September 24, 2005 at 23:20
PP, Too late.
Marq said,
September 25, 2005 at 0:03
Ah, damnit! ,i>I was gonna make an “unmedicated” joke, but Realist beat me to it. Curse yer eyes, Realist! (fume, fume)
GregH said,
September 25, 2005 at 2:51
Snooze you loose.
Uncle Mike said,
September 25, 2005 at 3:48
You are hereby notified to stop this libel and slander of Marie Jon’ immediately. Her unmitigatedly mediated use of statistics and percentages is above reprise. And you are all illegal and going to hell.
Wile E. Coyote
Super Lawyer
ACME Law Firm
New York
Marq said,
September 26, 2005 at 2:19
Well, duh! We all knew that already!
Yosef said,
September 26, 2005 at 5:53
I thought a couple of years ago they went ahead and lowered the annual income needed to be considered poor.
nobody said,
September 29, 2005 at 0:13
national malaise, pass it on.
bob reed said,
October 11, 2005 at 12:14
Yes! The poor needs jobs, and the rich , doesn’t need all the money .
But , if the poor gets jobs the rich well have more money .
Jared said,
November 30, 2005 at 17:10
The poverty rate is still lower at this point in the Bush admin. than in the Clinton one. Also pull out a history book and read what 9/11 did to our economy before going on an idiotic rant.
Liberals are so desperate.
HairlessMonkeyDK said,
January 14, 2007 at 20:59
“Jared said, (nay, regurgitated!)
November 30, 2005 at 17:10
The poverty rate is still lower at this point in the Bush admin. than in the Clinton one. Also pull out a history book and read what 9/11 did to our economy before going on an idiotic rant.
Liberals are so desperate”
Yeah, and the wrong war in the wrong country ISN’T destroying
Americas economy? Right?