"Remember, he did have sex with that woman -- and lied about it."

And unnecessarily killed people in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, and the United States.

And did a whole host of other unconstitutional things. Example? Just name any one thing Clinton did, and the odds are it was unconstitutional.

Priorities. What a concept! Enjoyed your satire, Mr. Kroll-Smith.

Yeah, but the last bit bothers me. Is it implying that the number of children living in poverty was all that much better while Clinton was in office? I find that a little hard to believe.

The projected 500 billion dollar surplus of the Clinton Administrion never existed. It was a paper number based on a projection that the rapid economic growth of the mid 90's would continue for years and years. We all know this now as the "technology bubble", which started it's decline in '96, entered recession in Spring of 2000 and took a dive on 9/11.

Nice and creative (in a literary sense) try at Bush bashing.

Hugh Jorgan

The NR most have needed some filler space these morning, in letters to the editor.

" one out of four American children live in poverty." How could I have missed this one?

I seriously question the 1 in 4 number.

Poverty by whose definition? The poorest in our country are weathly compared to the third world.

Poverty?--They have access to public healthcare at the county health dept., WIC vouchers, Food Stamps, subsidized housing(that is wired for cable), public transportation, free legal aid, free public education for their children, and education programs for themselves.

They may live hand to mouth but I bet they have a better cable TV package than I do.

Hugh Jorgan
The National Center for Children in Poverty defines poverty in family as a family of 4 living under 18,850; family 3 15670; and family of 2 12,490 and they also point that a family must make a certain amount to provide just the basics and these are as follows 4:37,700;3:31,340 and
2:24,580 and any family not reaching these points a low income,ie they cant provide the basics.

In America there are 70 million children with 17% living in poverty and with 38% living in low income. So yes 1 in 4 is wrong but 55% of children today in america live in low incomes or worse and the study pointed out has gradually gotten worse since 2000.

Given your comments obvously you havent had to make the choice between putting food on the table or buying clothes for your kids or making payments.

Mr not hyphenated

I guess then our current multi-billion debt is also just our imagination?

What a horrible letter.....puh.....

One in four live in poverty? This is just another example of the left throwing numbers out and hoping a gullable public will swallow it. "Having sex with that woman" was a 57ish man leadind a 20 something child into his bed. Not a crime, but it speaks volumes about his charater.

Hayes your numbers don't calculate in the added value of social service freebies given to folks who qualify, which in some cases adds up to $10,000 a year or more.

That automatically places your 2 person family at $22,000 and the four person family at $28,000.

Those are hardly poverty rates, unless the national center for poverty is figuring some type of most recent video game deprivation factor, maybe cable TV rates, credit card debt and basic living beyond your means types of adjustments.

But how can any President change people's spending habits? I believe a lot of folks live in lower income brackets because they have no self control with their money. It's a personal choice--videos or not, pizza delivery or not, fancy car payment or not, spending $1000-2000 at chrismas or not.

I get a bit miffed when I'm in line at the grocery store and the person ahead of me use their food stamp card for a cartload of groceries then drives off in a car that is a heck of lot newer and a lot nicer than the one I drive.

The poor of the world envy our "poor" for our poor are wealthy by comparison.

Regarding all the children living in poverty, from someone who, himself, grew up in poverty, benefitted from welfare and an academic scholarship:

There is no amount of money the government or anyone else can throw at the poor that will solve the problem as long as people make poor choices. Granted, (before anyone jumps all over me) not all who live in poverty have made poor choices, but some have. Some live in poverty due to poor health; mental, physical, or otherwise. Some live in poverty due to other circumstances beyond their immediate control.

But some have children before they are able to care for them. Granted, again, that is not the children's fault, and the children need to be cared for. But we absolutely must - somehow - regain some sense of personal responsibility in this country. It is not the governments responsibilty to raise the children.

Some spend their resources foolishly. They have a big-screen TV, cable, nice cars, but their children are poorly clothed and poorly fed. And they think the government should bail them out.

Some immigrants have come to this country, worked two or three jobs, saved their money, and bought a house. Their children are some of the brightest and most disciplined in our schools. They made their choices. Others have no job, sit around all day in public housing, eating food bought with food stamps, while ther children are constantly in trouble at school; and they want me to feel bad because they have nothing.

We all make choices, and those choices have consequences. Slavery is not dead. If one chooses to be enslaved to poverty, or drugs or alcohol, one has that choice. If one chooses to be free, one has that choice. Nobody said the road would be easy. Take it from one who has travelled it.

I'm precaffinated this morning. One more thing:

"Given your comments obvously you havent had to make the choice between putting food on the table or buying clothes for your kids or making payments."

Your assumption is hillarious and wrong at the same time. By personal choice due to family emergency I made 1/2 of my normal income in 2004. I missed my mortgage payment and had to double up the next month. Had my water disconnected. I had to buy the discounted meat at the store and shop at the discount grocery. I didn't go to movies, didn't rent videos, cut back to "basic" cable (gasp!) and had only two changes of clothes for my kid and two for me. I wore the same pair of pants every other day until the cuff hems shredded, and haven't bought a new pair of shoes in two years.

No one's fault for this. I made the decision for personal reasons.

One other thing. Fat kids are a problem in America. I laugh at the concept that anyone goes hungry here. (except maybe some kids whose parents are crackheads and fail at their parental responsiblity).

""Having sex with that woman" was a 57ish man leadind a 20 something child into his bed."

Correction. He led her to the bathroom sink.

I always love it when people throw around numbers, statistics, and studies. There is a book out there each of you who like to use those things should read. It's titled, "How to lie with statistics." If you read it, you will find that you can reinforce your argument with numbers and studies that don't mean squat.

It all has to do with the demographics of the study. If I go to rural South Carolina and interview only one hundred people I'm willing to bet that I get at least one in four children living in poverty. Then, all I have to do is say that's the way it is across the U.S.

Conversely, I can go to an "expert" on economics who theorizes that a surplus didn't exist during the Clinton administration. Then I can say his theory applies to every economic "expert." What I won't tell you is that my expert was a conservative republican and I only used him.

Here's an historical example of a skewed statistic. Dewey versus Truman. The major poll of the day said Dewey would win by a landslide. Every paper printed this. The Radio shouted it. Dewey was a shoe-in to be president. Anyone remember the famous picture? A triumphant Truman holding the newspaper with the huge font that read, "Dewey Wins." Anyone recall a President Dewey? What happened? Well, the major poll was conducted by a magazine that had a large republican-based audience. Guess who they polled? Their readers. Guess who they were voting for? Dewey the republican.

Always be aware that when someone throws out numbers it is meant to confuse, alarm, or make the speaker/writer appear intelligent. Most people are not number savy and will buy into anything thrown at them numerically. The only way to make a study or statistic reflect an entire nation is to have everyone in that nation take it. That will never happen.

As for this letter, I'm torn. I agreed with Doug and Tater when I first read it. I think it had to do with calling the things on his shoulder sprites. After a couple of more readings I began to see the satire of it as Yvonne did. It's all about beating the dead horse of one incident and ignoring others.

Allen,

You are absolutely right about personal responsibility. We should demand that from everyone, including all the illegals who are as bad as Americans for abusing the system. To infer most immigrants, legal or not, work hard and sustain themselves without public assistance is wrong. Like Americans, some are sucking the system dry.

I have been a proponent of having welfare parent(s) enrolled in some type of schooling to prepare them to enter the work force as a condition of receiving assistance. No enrollment and attendance, no check, no subsidized housing, no food stamps, no medicaid, etc. I also support a limited time for able-bodied folks to use welfare. I think this is a compromise to indiscriminately handing out tax monies to deadbeats.

While there will always be poverty, I still fail to understand how this administration justifies spending more than $300 billion to make life better for the Iraqi people as long as there exists such poverty in the USA. After all, Bush is the president of the USA and charity should begin at home. (By charity, I do not necessarily mean money or freebies.)

I think this was one of the points of the letter.

First, I find no credibility in someone who uses such a sophomoric ID. The fact is that men who use such monikers are usually just the opposite in the nether region and the brain. After all both of those brains are connected.

Second, I find it ridiculous to compare one year of "suffering" to a lifetime of econmic despair. I wonder how he afforded the computer and access to the internet? I guess he's at the library. He still has basic cable so I guess he splurged for that instead of going to an antennae so he could afford new shoes.

Give me a break! He's whining more than the people he's attacking.

One more thing.....why not spend your time working instead of on the boards here. You just might make enough money for that extra pair of pants.

Jon and Hugh, That "child" told the television audience she set HER sights on Clinton and was prepared to do whatever it took to have him. While I do not condone what he did and think this does not excuses his dog-like behavior, that "child" was an adult woman who has some personal responsibility for her participation in the performance of oral sex.

Also I think when you compare Clinton's overall performance for the American people to that of Bush's, the American people were better off with dog man.

Clinton is a sexual predator, a sex offender. He is a despicable human being and a disaster as our president. He destroyed the Justice Department, the economy, and the faith of the world in our government by his horrendous actions. He let good soldiers die in Somalia for nothing. He failed to take action when we were attacked 6 times during his tenure by Al Queda.
He uses his power to prey on women, as we saw in Paula Jones, Katherine Willy, Juanita Broderick, and Monica Lewinsky. He is a classic psychological example of a sexual predator.

Dang Larry....you'd better be ready to defend all that because you will surely see some comments directed towards you. ;-)

Joe Schmoe, man I know we don't always see eye to eye on EVERY topic but I swear we are together on this issue. I too saw the satire the writer was trying to paint; however, I found it to be one-sided and not even worthy of being published. I trult hope the N&R receives more constructive letters in the future and they consider not printing such rubbish...

Yvonne! My dear Yvonne, I cannot believe this but we have found a common ground when it comes to poverty and how to deal with it. Your idea about forcing welfare recipients to go through schooling in order to receive their checks is a wonderful idea. That should definitely draw bi-partisan support!! WHOO HOO! The only question I have is, "How do we pay for it?"

As for everyone else, I would like to suggest we just drop the attacks on Clinton AND Bush. I have been one of the biggest perpetrators of this so don't think I am pointing fingers (We all know I support the Republican agenda most of the time); however, Joe Shmoe is right. We could all throw out arguments and stats to support our side. Clinton got some in the Oval Office, question his morals, committed adultry, lied on the stand, and had his own foreign policy problems. Bush has led us into a war, question his motivations, blame the poor economy on him, and think he is too cavalier when creating his policies. We all seem to be educated to most of the facts so I doubt any of us are going to change our minds so why don't we all just agree to disagree....for once.

WOW! I don't know what I was on when I wrote that last post but what I was TRYING to say was,

"As for everyone else, I would like to suggest we just drop the attacks on Clinton AND Bush. I have been one of the biggest perpetrators of this so don't think I am pointing fingers (We all know I support the Republican agenda most of the time); however, Joe Shmoe is right. We could all throw out arguments and stats to support our side. Clinton got some in the Oval Office, has questionable morals, committed adultry, lied on the stand, and had his own foreign policy problems. Bush has led us into a war, has questionable motivations, is blamed for the poor economy, and some think he is too cavalier when creating his policies. We all seem to be educated to most of the facts so I doubt any of us are going to change our minds or opinions; therefore, why don't we all just agree to disagree....for once."

Maybe that makes more sense. Sorry for that horrible post....I am somewhat embarrassed!!!!

Sarah, sorry you don't like my name.

I think you are bit misled to say that I was attacking anyone by illustrating the facts of financial life for a lot of people.

And my getting "miffed" is my perogative, not an attack.

What I would like to attack is the system that allows someome making 28,000(or whatever the threshold is) per year with a family of four to be qualified as "poverty" and thus recieve assistance in the amount of up to $10,000/year in the form of Section8, food stamps, and WIC, while the people earning $28,001 are out of luck. The incentive is to not advance because one would lose the freebies that you and I are paying for.

Oh, BTW, the income is adjusting upward just fine now (by my choice) and my work schedule is none of your business because I don't/didn't seek public assistance.

"Also I think when you compare Clinton's overall performance for the American people to that of Bush's, the American people were better off with dog man."

Well Sarah I would say that roughly 3000 Americans who got up and went to work one morning in September, (the 11th it was, 2001 remember?) would disagree with you. While Clinton was busy with his "dog-like behavior" our enemies were attacking us over and over again while he did nothing. Heck he was even offered Bin Laden himself and turned the deal down.

Patricia, honey I'm not Yvonne. I'm the one who got on Hugh Jazzwhole for whining and comparing his problems to the impoverished. Yvonne said we were better with the dog. Read a little more carefully next time.

Tater, I think it is one sided also. However, most opinion pieces are. We're usually on the same side of the fence on these things. Later, Tater.

Also, to anyone citing statistics it would be nice to know where those are originating. How about giving us a reference so we can confirm or deny them. To quote the musician Todd Snyder from his song The Statistician Blues, "Ninety-six percent of all statistics are made-up on the spot."

Hugh
I was only responding to your statement about the 1 in 4 in poverty. I looked up the numbers on the web site and the numbers from this site seem to represent the numbers I usually hear when the government talks about the poverty level. I didnt create the numbers or imagine them. And as far as the numbers I took it to mean only EARNED INCOME and they do go into details about how this changes due to region or city where the people live. Again these are not my numbers or families.

So before anyone jumps on the numbers they are not mine but I do accept them. And regardless of who is at fault or why 55% of children in this country live in a household that can not provide them basic needs. This is sad.

And Hugh if my last comment was over the top then I apologize but your last comment just came across little harsh at first reading.And given your situation I am surprised you dont have more sympathy since you know up close sometimes things are out of your control and s**t happens.

Tater
I am the first in line with holding back the attacks BUT do you think it is really possible.

Joe
I read your post after sending mine so here is the reference for the numbers I used. Basically I went with AMERICA/CHILDREN/POVERTY and it brought me to a site with several choices. I looked at the National Center for Children in Poverty or nccp.org and the numbers they used seem to be the same or close to acouple of others.

This letter is crap. If Clinton's only vice was getting a blowjob and lying about it, that would be a fair letter. Unfortunately, Clinton had a lot of other issues including people mysteriously committing suicide all around him. If you're going to compare 2 presidencies, why not show the weaknesses and strengths of each.

Hugh, I am happy to hear your situation is improving and I would not hold it aganist you if you had received temporary federal assistance. In my opinion that is what it is for, a temporary helping hand.

As most of the regular posters know, I lived in subsidized housing for a while because as a newly separated woman in the early 70's with three children no one would rent to me. It was discriminatory but what choice did I have?

I also went to school under the CETA program (discontinued), worked hard and landed a good job in the medical profession in 1982. Since that time I have paid back in taxes way more than the government spent on me. I thank God assistance programs were there for me. (And before anyone jumps to conclusions, I worked AND went to school.)

When I read stats I like to break the figures down into real life situations. If a family of four has an income of 28,000 dollars, is that before or after taxes? If it's before, that would leave around $20,000 for four people for a year. (I don't know how much taxes would be held on that amount of money. I know I pay a combined amount of about 40% so I figured 25-28%.)

Anyway, that leaves around 1700/month for everything. I would have a hard time making it on that amount and I am single with no dependents. IMO, everything is relative.

Tater, I'm totally impressed with your last post. It was well thoughtout and fair. And I agree, as a group of intelligent folks here in and around Greensboro, we need to put aside blame and unite to change what we don't like about our America.

Now I know you aren't going to particularly like my answer to your question of who is going to pay for the program I suggested but hear me out please. I have already told you how well it worked for me. (When I was married I was considered well off but it was my then husband who considered himself well off.) I went from money to proverty to money with the help of the federal government. Now I am an asset, not a libility.

If there are minor children I think the government should provide safe daycare while the parent(s) are in training or school. After the training or schooling is completed, the parent(s) have one year to become self-sufficient. If their choice is to ignore their deadline, it is their choice to loose all federal subsidizes and I have no sympathy for them.

I have sent Doyle and Burr emails with this proposal. Have had no reply. Perhaps if a whole group sent this message, they would respond.

Hayes, I appreciate your effort to give the background to what you cite. I used to quote The Rock when my students would debate and reference without citation......"Don't sing it, just bring it!" I know, I'm a little old for the melodrama of 'rassilin' but it helped the kids "smell what I was cooking." ;)

Wow, some really good thought going on here today. Tater, man you hit it good today. Joe, again I have to agree with you today. Yvonne, we been getting closer and closer on policy since we first banged heads. Don't hold your breath about getting answers from either office and don't grow old waiting for a return phone call from either office . I just called yesterday and today to both offices and sent emails a week ago. NOBODY HOME would appear.
It would indeed make more sense for all of us to stop pointing the fingers , and yea, I am guilty also but am learning, stop the idiocy of name calling, hope some are listening who insist folks are stupid when they disagree, and commence putting out heads together to put forth a platform containing sound programs and policies without the political BS attached. Do what is good for the country. Yea, I know that is hard when one thinks giving away the farm is good and the other thinks locking the doors is good , but seeing what I have observed in the last several weeks I think by golly we could do it.
Anybody want to put forth an effort and some ideas?

Sorry about that Sarah, my first day on the boards. I should have looked more closely.

MrP
I go back to an earlier suggestion about putting together a platform. I think most of those who are now "old" hands at this have at least developed a repect for the others and realized the other with a different opinion is not a walking idiot but actually an intelligent person with only a different view.

I hve noticed someone here set up his own personal blog. I am computer stupid,actually a walking idiot here, but it seems possible we couldnt set up a blog either through someone name here or even through the N-R as a way to be all inclusive.

I think there is a huge middle,ie political views, that has lost any reasonable voice and we need to get it back.

And last point more often than not it is not a either or proposition actually there is something valid and useful in both positions the trick is to bring them together.

My dear Yvonne,

I too have seen the helpful nature of government programs up close, Medicaid in particular. My wife and I were both students at the time we got married and we found out the condoms "don't always work". (She had problems with the pill) We were still on school insurance and we were both healthy so neither of us ever bought insurance or anything remotely similiar to maternity insurance. haha! We were a little surprised to say the least!

Well all in all, I buckled my butt down and took around 18 hours my last two semesters and worked around 20 hours a week to try and pay all the bills. She also stayed in school as long as she could but seemed to have problems finding gainful employment that didn't require physical activities. When it came down to it we finally agreed that the only way we could make it was by her getting on Medicaid and allowing them to pay all of the bills...something I was COMPLETELY against at first. I would have rather quit school and got a full time job then see her become a "welfare mom" but she insisted and I agreed. I think it was more of a pride thing with me.

When all was said and done, my wife ended up going to the best pre-natal care facility in Asheville, NC and had our son in a wonderful hospital called Mission-St. Joseph Hospital (one of the best in the state) expense free. My son also was able to see his regular doctor for an entire year expense free since he was "born into the program."

Immediately after I graduated college, I found a full time job and bought my son Blue Cross/ Blue Shield insurance and did the same for my wife. I worked very hard and made it where should could be a stay at home mother and be with our son for approx. two years. To ME, that's what Medicaid (and every other government program) is for. It's should only be there when you NEED it and you should become independant of it as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, we are now going through a nasty separation and it seems as though there is no end in sight. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER TOPIC! I will say that I feel as though good fathers get screwed in our court system...

Hey Tater, Small world. One of my son's was born at St. Jo's also.

Hayes, Could not agree more with your statements. Really good when folks with different strokes can still agree to disagree but come together on many things. A seperate blog would be great but I , like you am puter challenged in that regards. Maybe some of the other more literate folks here could offer a suggestion.

Tater, you are right about Mission-St Jo. Outstanding hospital. I agree with you on the Medicaid . When used properly and not taken advantage of it is a great program. Abused, it is like the rest of the programs.

On the subject, I kinda thought the original letter was sorta funny, dumb, but funny ,and yes N&R musta been hard up for something to put in the letters section. Oh well, some folks don't have a sence of humor.

Tater, I don't know the circumstances of your divorce but, imo children should be considered first and foremost. I hope your wife and the courts will consider joint custody for your son's sake. Children often benefit by this arrangement.

Based on posts from the past, a lot of us seem to agree with regard to prolonged use of welfare benefits for able-bodied people. Yet more and more of our tax dollars are disappearing into that black hole without end. How can this be the will of the people IF so many ordinary people are aganist it?

IMO, it comes down to what Doug posted a few days ago. He was personally told by some candidates they would do this and this before election but did that and that after election.

It reminds me of a contractor who wooed me like an ardent suitor before the contract was signed but I rarely saw him afterwards. AND he did not do what was promised and in the contract. Sueing could have cost me more than the thirty thousand he ripped me off for. Much like with the politicians. They feel comfortable AFTER they have had their way with you, so to speak.

The public needs to have a viable recourse when this happens, without having to wait until election time again. After all, they are suppose to represent their constituents.

My suggestion is to demand accountability for election promises. I know this is simplistic but sometimes simple is a positive word. Whether through this forum or another, let's unite to put an end to all this wastefulness.

Hugh:

If we accept your numbers, and as a reality check against the $5.15 minimum wage, ... $22,000 is $11 / hour, and $28,000 is $14 / hour.

Now contrast that against Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern, both earning $30 million'ish - that's $15,000 per hour for not a single meaningful contribution to America.

Contrast it also against the millions and millions just-convicted Kozlowski "earned" (perhaps $600 million over a few years) and overlooking his shipment overseas of living wage employment, his single most meaningful contribution to America was to set up Tyco as a Bermuda Corporation - so all profits from his company became expenses - and Tyco received a tax deduction rather than a tax liability. 100% legal, and stating clearly: "Damm the rest of you Americans, this is for me."

Have you noticed this country is facing huge (and growing) twin deficits? I see a connection, but then I'm just a conservative socialist for a truly democratic republic of and for the people.

JDR, the Tyco guys deserve to get burned and their family name erased from history.

The Rush and Stern comparison is moral relativisim on your part. There's always going to be extremes. And besides, those guys are entertainers who command galactic salaries because they bring in the advertising bucks.

"Family of 4" indicates to me 2 wage earners and 2 kids. That's $6.50-$7.00hr each.

As far as the national debt goes, yes, I'm not pleased at the way Bush has expanded government spending.

Got in late on the discussion. Some interesting stuff. 2 things. Thanks Hugh for changing your moniker.

Thanks Sarah for using the term "nether regions", I haven't heard that for years.

"The Rush and Stern comparison is moral relativisim on your part."

True - they're just good examples. I do have a problem with the typical movie star being paid more for 6 months "work" than a schoolful of teachers for a years work.

" 'Family of 4' indicates to me 2 wage earners and 2 kids. That's $6.50-$7.00hr each."

Combine these two, and contrast it to 50 years ago, when a single bread winner could build wigets during the day and bring home enough on friday to support a stay at home spouse raising respectful kids that looked forward to going to the moon.

OK - I'm generalizing and stereotyping and all that - but one cannot state that it can't happen - because it has.

My real issue is a few folks are taking everything, and writing the rules so they get the crumbs too, pretty much decimating our country.

We don't build widgets anymore. Those jobs have been outsourced.

"My real issue is a few folks are taking everything, and writing the rules so they get the crumbs too, pretty much decimating our country."

Pretty proletarian stuff from a guy that calls himself James D. Rockefeller.

My favorite is from Warren Buffett, 2nd richest fellow in the country. Not an exact quote but goes something like... there is a class war in this country & my class is winning.

Most everything that has happened in the last 4 years and much that's happened in the last 25 affirms the truth of his statement.

"Pretty proletarian stuff from a guy that calls himself James D. Rockefeller."

Yea, the depression was harder on my family then we let on ;-)