aceventura3

I was in Arkansas last week and visited the Clinton Presidential Library. It is truely a remarkable building, and a worthwhile visit if in the area of Little Rock.

However, what is striking is seeing the building and then driving literally two blocks east and seeing the extreme poverty and then driving further to see the run down public housing project. In addition, I travelled through parts of the state and saw some of the smaller towns which were islands of third world conditions in the middle vast amounts of, what was most likely large corporate owned, farm land. It is an embarassment to all Americans, but I would think would would be particullarly embarassing to President Clinton, a multiple term President,a mutiple term Govenor of the State and favorite son of the state.

To be in the library and to listen to Clinton's ideals and then to see the conditions in his state, further reinforced my feeling that government is not the answer. When I talked to people in the state about the conditions in the impoverished areas the general response was that the people in those conditions were almost totally dependent on government and have failed to take any individual initiative to improve their condition.

If liberals think money is the answer to the question of poverty, why did they raise and spend millions on a library in sight of some of the worse poverty in this country?

Arkansas ranks about 10th in the percentage of people below the poverty line, Louisiana ranks first. I have never been to Lousiana but if it is worse than Arkansas it has to be pretty bad.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

kutulu

Jesus f'in Christ, that is such a lame combination of "poor people are poor because they are lazy pieces of shit' and 'but Clinton'. President's get libraries in their name, would you feel better if they put it in a nice rich area so that you don't have to see the results of American greed? Who knows, maybe the placement of the library was intentional, to make sure that anyone visiting it had to see those areas.

You can visit any state in the nation and see those conditions.

That is such a load of bs. While it is true that the individual can take steps to improve their lives, our economy is dependant on tens of millions who work as virtual indentured servants to the top one percent. Who are the ones that set the wages? Who is making the decision that they don't deserve proper health care? Who said that 50 hours a week is worth less than $20k/yr?

Even if every poor person woke up with a sudden burst of drive and motivation, we'd still have just as many poor people because there aren't enough good jobs out there. Someone has to do the shit jobs. It's society's obligation to ensure that those people are guaranteed a minimum standard of living. This can be done be either paying them enough that there isn't a need for govt assistance or by redistribution. I don't see CEO's and board members sacrificing the third yacht any time soon, so we end up with the latter.

Shit, 5.15/hr isn't low enough for some people, they want to end minimum wage.

host

You REALLY wanna go THERE ?????

(Poverty rate equals income of 125 percent of poverty level and below:

1961- President Kennedy Takes Office,
Poverty rate = 30% or 54 million of 181 million total population

1966- President Lyndon Johnson announces "War on Poverty" in U.S.
Poverty rate = 24.1% or 46 million of 191 million total population

1969- President Nixon takes office,
Poverty Rate= 17.4% or 35 million of 200 million total population

1977- President Carter Takes Office,
Poverty Rate= 16.7% or 36 million of 214 million total population

1981- President Reagan Takes Office,
Poverty Rate= 19.3% or 44 million of 227 million total population

1993- President Clinton Takes Office,
Poverty Rate= 20% or 52 million of 259 million total population

2001- President Bush Takes Office,
Poverty Rate= 16.1% or 45 million of 281 million total population

After eight years of republican control, in 1961, 54 million Americans or 30 percent, lived below the poverty level defined by the government as the level where government assistance (food stamps, etc.) is awarded.

After four years of democratic control, in 1966, poverty level had dropped to 24.1 percent and 8 milklion less lived in poverty. With 46 million still living in poverty, President Johnson launched a "War on Poverty". At the end of 1969, when Johnson's influence on budgets and programs had ended, 17.4 percetn lived in poverty, and the number of people living in poverty had dropped to 35 million.

At the end of 1977, with Carter in office and 8 years of republican influenced budgets and programs ended, 16.7 percent, or 36 million lived in poverty.
At the end of 1981, with Reagan in office and 4 years of democratic influenced budgets and programs ended, 19.3 percent, or 44 million lived in poverty. <b>The Total Federal Debt was .930 trillion dollars.</b>

At the end of 1993, with Clinton in office and 12 years of republican influenced budgets and programs ended, 20 percent, or 52 million lived in poverty. <b>The Total Federal Debt was <a href="http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm">4.064 trillion dollars</a>.</b>

At the end of 2001, with Bush in office and 8 years of republican influenced budgets and programs ended, 16.1 percent, or 45 million lived in poverty.
<b>The Total Federal Debt was <a href="http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm">5.674 trillion dollars</a>.</b>

By 2005, just 4 years into the Bush presidency, 17.1 percent, or 50 million lived in poverty. <b>The Total Federal Debt was <a href="http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm">7.932 trillion dollars</a>.</b>

<b>In the final 4 years of the Clinton presidency, The Total Federal Debt increased by .673 trillion dollars. In the first 4 years of the Bush presidency, The Total Federal Debt increased by 2.258 trillion dollars.</b>

maximusveritas

I'm guessing it's just a coincidence that Clinton was in town a couple days ago as part of the Heifer International function. As a resident of Arkansas, I must point out that while your description of the state is relatively accurate, it is in no way just Clinton's fault or responsibilty. This is a problem that has afflicted most of the South for a long time. You don't like liberals' attempts to deal with the problem, but you offer no real solutions of your own other than just blaming the poor people themselves, but that's just a cop-out.

ASU2003

I was thinking about this earlier today. 2 years ago, I was pretty much broke. But, I changed my lifestyle and reduced my consumption. I found things I could do for free.

Now that I make 50k/year, I still do the free stuff, but I now keep my apartment at 50 degrees in the winter. I save around 30% of my paycheck, and only buy needed items.*

Socialism won't work in America because people are different and belong to different cultures. There isn't outright racism anymore, but about half of the people from each race have some negative stereotype about the others. They can't come out and say hispanic workers shouldn't make $5.15/hour for farm or hotel work, but they can try and prevent the minimum wage from going up or eliminate it outright. They can't say we need to cut back welfare because poor inner city black people are collecting it and selling stuff on the black market which they don't report to the IRS. That white guy is fat and lazy and likes beer and nascar.

The government should provide some help if needed, but it should do more to encourage people to be productive and protect the little people from the large corporations that can decide that producing a product in China is cheaper (no EPA regs, lax labor laws), so you don't have a job anymore.


(*This past week I bought something that I really don't need, but wanted for a long time. It is a 37" HDTV with 1080p resolution so I can use it as a computer monitor. )

tecoyah

I recommend you visit the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station , TX.

"Only Brownsville, TX with a poverty rate of 44% has a higher poverty rate among cities with populations over 50,000 than College Station .Others in the "top five" were College Station with 38%; Monroe, LA with 37.8%; Laredo, TX with 37.3%; and Camden, NJ with 36.6%. Detroit had the highest rate among large U.S. cities with 32.4% followed by Chicago with 21.6%. Current poverty levels are defined by the federal government to be $6,652/yr for one person, $8,509/yr for a family of two, $10,419/yr for a family of three, and $13,359/yr for a family of four."

http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touc...96/poverty.htm

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Rekna

ace it seems like you are doing bad science here. You are taking observations and fitting them to your theories. Good science takes observations and draws theories based on them. It doesn't take much to realize poverty is much more complex then "Clinton's fault". I'm also not sure how eliminating social programs would prevent poverty. This is akin to saying, if a boat is sinking and their are only enough life rafts for 30% of the people then we should take away all of the life rafts because clearly the liferafts aren't working.

ratbastid

Where I come from, we call that "grasping at straws." It's the last act of the desperate.

I mean... this OP didn't even make sense. "There are poor people near the Clinton Library, so Clinton obviously failed and the left is stoopid." Are you really that hungry to score points on the left?

The current administration is the biggest economic disaster this country has ever seen. Rather than dealing with the national debt... they pass legislation to increase the debt cap! Hey, that's smart! I only pray that our great-grandchildren can dig out of the debt the current admin is putting us in before China owns us all.

Marvelous Marv

Uhh, aren't you the guy who told me that in discussions of George W. Bush, when I brought up Clinton's offenses, it was a "tired old strategy?"

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Marvelous Marv

The reason you're evoking such hatred/getting slammed is that your history totally destroys the philosophy, so prevalent around here, that people must take some responsibility for their well-being.

Didn't you know more government is the answer to everything?

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

tecoyah

Yes...I am. Though I fail to see what that accurate statement (in my opinion) has to do with my post. If you fail to see the intent I will Clarify for you:

The OP draws a correlation between Mr. Clintons social programs and Poverty around the Library honoring him.

My post attempted to place context on the assumed tie between said social programs and abject Poverty throughout this country, by placing the preceding presidents library in the same light. That you decided to go off tangent is not a suprise, but it does no service to the discussion.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Ustwo

Actually I'd think the OP's point was to highlight the hypocrisy of liberals

The democratic leadership doesn't CARE if people are poor, they only care to have poor people voting for them. Eliminating poverty is not a real issue for either party, but exploiting it is for the democrats.

If eliminating poverty was something really important to them, you would think that things like school vouchers allowing the poor to attend better schools wouldn’t be subject to automatic rejection due to the teachers union financial interests.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

lurkette

All politicians are essentially hypocrites, and political parties more so. Lobbing the "liberals are hypocrites" bomb is a tired tactic that's not worth responding to.

Government in particular and society in general always has a number of important and often conficting priorities. Despite the fact (or maybe because of the fact) that most people these days have the attention span of a gnat and the historical IQ of my cat, I think it's a valid public interest to maintain the records of a presidency. It's a privilege that has been granted to every president. Could it be done in a more efficient manner? Absolutely.

Poverty reduction is another social aim that probably should get higher priority, but not at the absolute expense of all other cultural goals. There will always be poverty, relatively speaking. The causes are multiple and complex, and can't be solved by the "solutions" offered on either side of the ideological fence. Government spending per se is not the answer, particularly when that money is spent inefficiently or on programs that have no proven record of impact. Demanding "personal responsibility" sounds all hard-assed and tough-love but neglects the institutional roots of the problems, from a failing education system to a failed drug policy to failed urban infrastructure to ridiculous and counter-productive TANF requirements. The solution can't be either-or, it has to be "both-and".

The library issue is a red herring.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

tecoyah

I am well aware of the intent of the OP....which I had tried to redirect into a viable thread topic by pointing out a part of it, and moving towards something that can be discissed, rather than argued. To be honest the continuous Libs do this....Cons do that has become rather pointless on this board, as I suppose my post inadvertently pointed out. Something needs to be done to correct this issue, as it has made this part of TFP stagnant, and distasteful. Look for changes in the near future as we try to...."Redirect" what has become a rather tedious excersize in political partisanship.

unfortunately....this has become nothing but another spoiled thread, as we fall back into the same practice of generalization of the opposition, rather than specific debate......its time for a change in the Tilted Politics Board.


We Shall See

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha