FOUR MORE YEARS! Of this?

[NeOmega]

I have disagreed with Bush's economic policies at every turn... except his tax rebate.

However, the steel tarriffs, and canadian lumber trade restrictions were stupid, his tax cuts starting at the top and working down were stupid, (I favor trickle up tax cuts), his inability to cut even one program was stupid, (he increased funding to the National Endowment for the Arts even!).

He his a cut tax and spend conservative.... aka a national socialist, aka average American idiot unfit for office who thinks spending is Ok because we haven't quite reached what our lenders tell us is our absolute maximum credit limit.

Bush is hardly economically conservative. He spends money like he is the son of a powerful Oil millionaire. The Hilton sisters probably have a better sense of money than him.


.....AND his very, very expensive war was stupidist of all.

Worst... president... ever.

(except World War Wilson)

[Drake Tungsten]

Long as you don't get caught on camera reading "My Pet Goat" or go on about your Purple Hearts of dubious origins, you're gonna coast all the way to the big house!

That's easier said than done. Ogie is notorious for bragging about the 10 Purple Hearts, 11 Bronze Stars, 5 Silver Stars and three posthumous Medals of Honor he won while in the ****...

[Arrian]

Ogie, you can head up the Department of Agriculture then. In return for my grant of this cushy job, you will not complain when I push for a budget that cuts your agency's funding (a lot). Deal?

-Arrian

[Whoha]

Re: FOUR MORE YEARS! Of this?

Originally posted by GePap

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Census-Poverty.html?hp

Ranks of Poverty and Uninsured Rose in 2003, Census Reports
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:36 a.m. ET

Published: August 26, 2004

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.

It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush.

Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau. That was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1 percent in 2002.

The rise was more dramatic for children. There were 12.9 million living in poverty last year, or 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. That was an increase of about 800,000 from 2002, when 16.7 percent of all children were in poverty.

The Census Bureau's definition of poverty varies by the size of the household. For instance, the threshold for a family of four was $18,810, while for two people it was $12,015.

Nearly 45 million people lacked health insurance, or 15.6 percent of the population. That was up from 43.5 million in 2002, or 15.2 percent, but was a smaller increase than in the two previous years.

Meanwhile, the median household income, when adjusted for inflation, remained basically flat last year at $43,318. Whites, blacks and Asians saw no noticeable change, but income fell 2.6 percent for Hispanics to $32,997. Whites had the highest income at $47,777.

Even before release of the data, some Democrats claimed the Bush administration was trying to play down bad news by releasing the reports about a month earlier than usual. They normally are released separately in late September -- one report on poverty and income, the other on insurance.

Putting out the numbers at the same time and not so close to Election Day ``invite charges of spinning the data for political purposes,'' said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.

Census Director Louis Kincannon -- a Bush appointee -- denied politics played any role in moving up the release date. The move, announced earlier this year, was done to coordinate the numbers with the release of other data.

``There has been no influence or pressure from the (Bush) campaign,'' Kincannon said Wednesday.

Official national poverty estimates, as well as most government data on income and health insurance, come from the bureau's Current Population Survey.

This year the bureau is simultaneously releasing data from the broader American Community Survey, which also includes income and poverty numbers but cannot be statistically compared with the other survey.

The figures were sure to generate attention regardless of when they were released since they typically serve as a report card of sorts for an administration's socio-economic policies.

Partisan debate figures to be more heated now, when the economy and health care are big issues in the tight presidential election race between Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry.

Since job growth was slow until the second half of 2003 and wages were relatively stagnant, it was likely the report would show an increase in the number of people in poverty, said Sheldon Danzinger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan.

William O'Hare, a researcher with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a private children's advocacy group, expected increases in the number of kids in poverty and without health insurance. He called the changes in the way data is being released ``bothersome.''

``It makes me wonder whether this statistical agency is being politicized in some way,'' said O'Hare, who has studied the poverty and health insurance data for over two decades.

so, two years after the recession ended, Bush continues to spread his form of "wealth" around.

Yep, and it won't matter if Kerry is elected it will continue. 4 more years is locked in.

[GePap]

Let me say this on an stand-alone post:

The poverty rate is not simply a function of economic growth or decline-the fact it is fundamentally lower today than 20 years ago is a function of greater social changes AND government programs. Government can keep people out of poverty even during weak growth with some basic assistance. Bush, much like Reagan, has ignored anti-poverty programs and cut funding- one simple example, the feds are holding backs milions slated to go for the section 8 housing voucher program, menaing that perhaps up to 25,000 people in NYC alone might be made homeless. And again, simply "millions", not billions here, so in fact even for what the gov. is a small amount of money can make drastic differences in poverty rates.

[Velociryx]

I thought that'd be four purple hearts, three silver bars, two bronze stars.....and a partridge in a pear treeeeeeeee...................



-=Vel=-

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

THIS IS ABOUT A RISE IN POVERTY. ADD TO THAT THAT ACCORDING TO THE AMDINISTRATION THE RECESSION ENDED IN 2001 AND SINCE 2002 THE ECONOMY "HAS TURNED A CORNER" THANKS TO HIS TAX CUTS.

The economy has 'turned a corner'. Look at GDP growth rates. Poverty numbers are irrelevant.

why in the hell would you use the phrase "turned the corner"?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ogie, you can head up the Department of Agriculture then. In return for my grant of this cushy job, you will not complain when I push for a budget that cuts your agency's funding (a lot). Deal?

-Arrian

Will it get me an in with ADM?

PS. By massive budget cuts I assume that still allows for substantial salary increases for Secretary of Agriculture.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha


why in the hell would you use the phrase "turned the corner"?

Ask Bush. Its his phrase.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by GePap


Ask Bush. Its his phrase.

Its Herbert Hoover's phrase actually(if a bunch of democrat commie sites like cnn are to be believed). Which still doesn't answer why Imran would use it.

[Arrian]

By massive budget cuts I assume that still allows for substantial salary increases for Secretary of Agriculture

Well, sure, I guess I will need to compensate you for the pain and suffering you will experience when firing hordes of useless federal employees.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian


Well, sure, I guess I will need to compensate you for the pain and suffering you will experience when firing hordes of useless federal employees.

-Arrian

Great! Perfect experience! Next stop CEO!

[Japher]

Maybe your studies of economics and law have blinded you to a simple fact- politics is about comparisons.

Comparison to what? Things are worst today than they were in 1999- so what if they are better than they were on 1457? Thats a meaningless statement.

Your the one who wants comparisons. I show you a comparison of post post-recession economies and you just blow it off. Obviously you care not for the facts, and are being very shortsighted on the issue.

[Arrian]

Yep. Of course, we must call it "staff adjustment" not firing. THEN you're using proper CEO-speak.

-Arrian

[Japher]

Yep. Of course, we must call it "staff adjustment" not firing

"Restructuring"