http://www.jbhe.com/latest/index081006_p.html

I repeat black income rose 33% in the Clinton years and black poverty fell 22.5%.

In contrast, black income has fallen 25% in the Bush years.

I'm sure John McCain can surpass that though, and you'll pardon me I hope, if I admit I won't feel a bit bad about it anymore.

In fact it supports what I said and what I cited

According to Census tables, the percentage of African-Americans living below the poverty level was 33.4 percent (10.8 million) in 1992, the year Clinton was first elected president. By 2000, the year Bush was elected, that figure had dropped to 22.5 percent (7.9 million) – a decrease of 10.9 percent. From 2000, however, the Black poverty increased from 22.5 percent to 23.9 percent in 2002 and 24.3 percent in 2003 (9.1 million

Shows what I said is true and going on to explain how blacks have lost these gains under Bush.

You must really be a self-hating black to want to misrepresent history and who delivered for blacks and who didn't.

I feel sorry for you.

The real reason the Clinton's had so much success for all people, but especially blacks as their percentages of poverty reduction and median income increases were higher than for whites comes down to this:

1. They actually DID enact fiscal responsibility. While the Clintons unlike Barrack Obama, believe it is inherently unfair for nurses, truckdrivers and teachers to pay higher tax rates than billionaires, Clinton's 92 tax increase on the rich closed the deficits that Poppy Bush and Reagan had given lip service to, but never bothered to.

2. When then Chair of the Fed Reserve, Greenspan saw someone was serious about closing deficits, he eased up on the money supply which lowered interest rates AND made low interest funds available to capital investors.

3. Where that becomes important was that this was a tech friendly administration. The REAL difference between the parties may in fact be the industries that align behind them.

Republicans favor has-been dried-up mature, automated industries that don't employ people and aren't growing (oil, tobacco, aluminum producers like Alcoa, ad nauseum). New DEmocrats, like Clinton and Gore support high-tech innovative industries that actually are labor intensive, growing, produce vertical spin-off industries AND employ lots of people at good wages (tech, biotechnology, nanotechnology, green industries, etc).

Putting money in the hands of the middle class and domestic professionals instead of billionaires actually DOES grow the economy becuase these are the people who actually SPEND money and buy things that employ other people like cars, computers, refrigerators (instead of yachts and vacations in the Swiss Alps and art investments). And THAT's what keeps the smokestacks going in Gary, which is why we ALL prospered under

"Billary"/Gore.

that's the real reason the Republicans were out to impeach Clinton before he was even inaugerated. His 92 tax increase on the rich forced people the ultra-rich to shell out their first tax dollar in almost 12 years.

Contrast that to both Bush AND Reagan (and now McCain) who have given huge tax windfalls to the extremely wealthy and made them retroactive to their inaugeration. For that reason the economy stalled, the nation was awash with red ink and blacks were particularly hurt because 1) the has-been industries were back in favor and 2) the mountains of red-ink deficits wiped out any discretionary spending on programs to pull people out of poverty.

Go ahead and judge Senator Obama on his record, on his positions, on his personality on his intentions, but please, not on internet posters!

I am. That's the problem. He has a record of virtually no accomplishments and his entire campaign is built around grandstanding on a speech back on a matter he had no skin in.

Since then he's divided the party apart with race-baiting and filthy tactics, knowing all along he doesn't have a prayer of getting elected.

With Charlie Crist as his VP that locks up Florida, and the independents. Crist is known, rightfully, as a REpublican that's been less than a fanatical partisan hack.

McCain/Crist will be unbeatable. All as the inept, incompetent Howard Dean and the DNC he bankrupted stagger helplessly on the sidelines. They're going to retake Congress too and probably in big numbers.

I admit too after all this it disgusts me that HRC would even consider having this dirty,egomanic, Barrack Obama on her ticket. But that's not my say. Just turns me off and reeks of desperation. And it won't work. Will just ensure Dems never get the hispanic vote again.

So, no matter what now, Dems lose. I've prepared for it under Bush. I have acquired a more credentials and skills in fairly recession proof industries in addition to the white collar profession I had. Meaning I have plan A,B and C for the worst of the worst in the economy.

I suggest the rest of you do the same and very quickly.

I posted a link that said black median income had risen by 33%, not that black poverty had fallen by 33% in the Clinton years. Black poverty fell by 22%.

Not bad for eight years. And this is how you thank em.

You're amazingly self-destructive.

Anyway, all your link did was confirm what I said, that blacks did extremely well under Clinton and lost almost all of it under Bush.

There were reasons for this fiscal policy and industry alignment which I have already explained. Whites lost big under Bush too so don't feel so special.

I suppose the 1.5 million poor Africans getting HIV medication as a direct result of his efforts and fundraising are as worthless as the 17,000 dollar median income rise and poverty reductions for black Americans right.

Yes, Sir/Madame, you just keep running them intellectual circles around me.