For The Record
I see that you have not corrected your errors despite the ample evidence that contradicts your claims. It is always wise to correct ones own errors as it is how a person can most benefit despite having made an error in the first place. Every person makes errors. It's part of life. Correcting ones own errors is an integral and critical component of honest character development.
Conversely, to willingly neglect correcting ones own errors compounds the error into a bigger loss and bigger problem. To treat ones own self with such disrespect is irrational and dishonest. It is serves no other means than self-destructiveness. It's to live a contradiction.
The above two paragraphs is precisely why I encouraged you in posts 1006 and 1010 to post the article yourself and take the initiative to correct your errors. That's why I encouraged you. I didn't tell the reason why I encouraged you, but I did tell you that it would be good for your credibility in the eyes of others. Frankly, IMO, you definitely should have corrected your own errors and reaped the rewards rather than chose self-abuse. Tis a truly a shame you passed up the opportunity.
* * *
Zon: The New York Times articles can be posted in their entirety on FreeRepublic without violating The New York Times copyright. But you already know that because everyday there's a half dozen or more full New York Times Articles Posted on FreeRepublic -- usually with internal links placed in one or more of the side bar categories for easy access and to attract attention to the NYT articles. 1010
I think you are lying again (not surprising). I have seen several comments pulled for supposedly violating that restriction. Is there a moderator that can verify this one way or another?
Your opinion that I lied has zero credibility. You've known all along that if you were sincerely worried about violating the NYT copyright you could have posted just the quote.
I see that you have finally posted the quote in your post 1015. Yet you still stand by your false claims since you didn't correct your errors despite the fact that the quote contradicts your claims.
Six complete articles posted on FreeRepublic -- all of them linked internally from the side bar. Ten hours from I now I could probably pull six more NYT article links off the side bar.
Bush and G.O.P. to Push for Medicare Drug Benefit (Socialists What rights will you give up
Iraq Said to Try to Buy Antidote Against Nerve Gas
Stung by Losses, Party Buzzes About Its Leader (Terry McAuliffe)
Where Winning Breeds Criticism
The Saudis' Brand of Islam and Its Place in History
A job for the De Facto Democrats
Plus three more complete articles posted on FreeRepublic:
Immigrants Facing Strict New Controls on Cash Sent Home
Lawmakers Move Toward Compromise Curbing Worker Rights in New Department
Stung by Losses, Party Buzzes About Its Leader
* * *
Technogeeb: Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement. 942
Robert Reich admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level??? Hmmm...
Technogeeb: If "falsifying poverty level" numbers were really a crime capable of being prosecuted, then show me a conviction. There is more than enough evidence (and even a "confession" by Robert Reich in the New York Times that the Clinton administration did that specifically) 973
More than enough evidence??? Hmmm...
Why have you shown no evidence??? Hmmm...
Claiming there's an article in The New York Times that backs up your claim is not evidence. It's a second claim -- a claim on top of a claim. Hmmm...
Technogeeb: I've already mentioned statements by Clinton administration officials (and where those statements can be found) admitting to manipulation of the numbers for political purposes. What more evidence do you need that the "poverty level" is subject to manipulation by the bureaucracy? 986
You keep saying things like "there is more than enough evidence" and "what more evidence do you need" -- yet you haven't posted a 'lick' of evidence to support your claim. Hmmm...
If there's supposedly an abundance of evidence available how come you haven't posted any of it??? Hmmm...
What more evidence does a person need??? Hmmm...
More than zero. Hmmm...
With that one May 21, 2001 New York Times article being your only claim of evidence you assert that that's more than enough evidence to prove that "the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration" and further assert that it's more than enough evidence for the reader to base his or her decision on??? Hmmm....
Technogeeb: Until you can show me a picture of Robert Reich in prison (or indeed, suffering any punishment whatsoever) for committing the "crime" to which he confessed (May 26, 2001, New York Times) 974
You want Robert Reich imprisoned or to suffer punishment for committing the "crime"??? Hmmm...
Why is crime in quotes??? Hmmm..
Wouldn't it be an inversion of justice -- an injustice -- to imprison a person that didn't commit a crime??? Hmmm...
Robert Reich went on the record with The New York Times and confessed that he committed a crime -- a federal crime??? Hmmm...
Is the NYT the laughing stock of failed credibility that doesn't warrant the government arresting Robert Reich for the crime he openly confessed to and put on record at the NYT??? Hmmm...
Could it be that Robert Reich never confessed to the NYT that he committed a crime??? Hmmm...
* * *
Technogeeb: Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement. 942
Technogeeb: Until you can show me a picture of Robert Reich in prison (or indeed, suffering any punishment whatsoever) for committing the "crime" to which he confessed (May 26, 2001, New York Times) 974
Pertinent section from May 26, 2001 New York Times article:
"Since 1995 the bureau has been developing a new measure, one pegged more closely to the actual cost of getting by. A progress report is due in July, but building the new income and expenditure procedures and testing them take time, Census Bureau officials say. A final proposal is not likely to reach the White House for approval in President Bush's current term.
"Not that he minds. His predecessor didn't. ''Whenever the question of the poverty data came up informally,'' said Robert B. Reich, who was President Bill Clinton's first secretary of labor, ''the consensus was not to change the standard for fear the poverty rate would look worse'' -- although the present poverty figures, as Mr. Reich put it, ''are almost meaningless.''
The Clinton Administration did adjust the poverty level numbers/guidelines.
Robert Reich did not confess to committing a crime.
The Clinton administration reached an informal consensus to not change the standard (methodology). Yet the Census Bureau since 1995 has been developing a new measure that's more closely pegged to the actual cost of getting by. Apparently, or obviously the Census Bureau doesn't act on informal consensus. As the below table shows, the Clinton administration did in fact adjust the poverty level numbers/guidelines.
Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Level
Guidelines for the Eight Years Bill Clinton was President
| Year | First Person |
Each Additional Person |
(Four-Person Family) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20001/ | 8,350 | 2,900 | ( 17,050) |
| 19991/ | 8,240 | 2,820 | ( 16,700) |
| 1998 | 8,050 | 2,800 | ( 16,450) |
| 1997 | 7,890 | 2,720 | ( 16,050) |
| 1996 | 7,740 | 2,620 | ( 15,600) |
| 1995 | 7,470 | 2,560 | ( 15,150) |
| 1994 | 7,360 | 2,480 | ( 14,800) |
| 1993 | 6,970 | 2,460 | ( 14,350) |
| 1. Note that 1999 and 2000 poverty guidelines figures should NOT be used in connection with determining poverty population figures from 2000 Decennial Census data. Poverty population figures are calculated using the Census Bureau poverty thresholds, not the poverty guidelines. | |||
* * *
Technogeeb: Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement. 942
Technogeeb: Until you can show me a picture of Robert Reich in prison (or indeed, suffering any punishment whatsoever) for committing the "crime" to which he confessed (May 26, 2001, New York Times) 974
As the reader can see Technogeeb is willing, hopeful and would perhaps be gleeful to see an innocent man imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit -- a fraud perpetrated by Technogeeb's wherein he knowingly accuses an innocent man of a crime which he did not commit.
The tables below show that the Clinton administration did adjust the poverty levels.
The Federal Register
Poverty Level Guidelines the Department of Health and Human Services put on the Federal Register for Seven of Eight Years Bill Clinton was President
Size of family unit ----------- Poverty level guideline for 1994 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1........................................................... $7,360 2........................................................... 9,840 3........................................................... 12,320 4........................................................... 14,800 5........................................................... 17,280 6........................................................... 19,760 7........................................................... 22,240 8........................................................... 24,720 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval
Size of family unit ----------- Poverty level guideline for 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1............................................................ $7,470 2............................................................ 10,030 3............................................................ 12,590 4............................................................ 15,150 5............................................................ 17,710 6............................................................ 20,270 7............................................................ 22,830 8............................................................ 25,390 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval
Size of family unit ----------- Poverty level guideline for 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1............................................................ $7,740 2............................................................ 10,360 3............................................................ 12,980 4............................................................ 15,600 5............................................................ 18,220 6............................................................ 20,840 7............................................................ 23,460 8............................................................ 26,080
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval
Size of family unit ----------- Poverty level guideline for 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1............................................................ $7,890 2............................................................ 10,610 3............................................................ 13,330 4............................................................ 16,050 5............................................................ 18,770 6............................................................ 21,490 7............................................................ 24,210 8............................................................ 26,930 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval
Size of family unit ----------- Poverty level guideline for 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.......................................................... $8,050 2.......................................................... 10,850 3.......................................................... 13,650 4.......................................................... 16,450 5.......................................................... 19,250 6.......................................................... 22,050 7.......................................................... 24,850 8.......................................................... 27,650 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval
Size of family unit ----------- Poverty level guideline for 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1....................................................... $8,240
2....................................................... 11,060
3....................................................... 13,880
4....................................................... 16,700
5....................................................... 19,520
6....................................................... 22,340
7....................................................... 25,160
8....................................................... 27,980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIS Document Retrieval
Size of family unit ----------- Poverty level guideline for 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1........................................................... $ 8,350 2........................................................... 11,250 3........................................................... 14,150 4........................................................... 17,050 5........................................................... 19,950 6........................................................... 22,850 7........................................................... 25,750 8........................................................... 28,650 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
waisgate