Guess it's all how you spin it. The article said:

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent -- were living in poverty last year. That's down from 12.6 percent in 2005.

But in 2000 the last year of Clinton being in office, the number of Americans living in poverty was 11.3%. So under Bush even with 12.3% living in poverty down from 12.6%, it's still an entire percentage point HIGHER than it was under Clinton.

Bush does not recognize any Americans exist in this country unless their last name ends in "Inc."

If the article is supposed to suggest that Bush does anything for the poor, I'd have to laugh. Three tenths of a percentage point could probably be attributed more to statistical error or hardworking immigrants than it could to any of Bush's policies. Name one policy pushed by Bush specifically aimed at reducing poverty.

For a family of four with two children, for example, the poverty level in 2006 was $20,444.

Many economist and politicians would agree that this is a laughingly low threshold.

I Love How This Administration Loves To Report What Is Up Is Down And What Is Down Is Up !

"Oh The Death Rate Is Down In Iraq" , Though It Is More Than Double Than What It Was Last Year! WTFO ?!

The Kings Of Spin !!

-Sarge

Not everyone is unhappy with the Bush economy --

Halliburton has been the "fastest growing contractor." Under the Bush administration, federal spending to Halliburton "increased over 600% between 2000 and 2005." The Government Accountability Office recently found that the government has wasted at least $2.7 billion to Halliburton on "overpriced contracts or undocumented costs." At the end of 2005, Cheney's stock options were valued at more than $8 million, a 3,281 percent gain from 2004.

Dumb Dems still LYING about the economy. I love the fact the story cites FACTS "The nation's poverty rate was 12.3 percent in 2006, down from 12.6 percent a year before, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Median household income increased slightly, to $48,200."

Unfortunately, Dumb Dem Chuck "I am a moron" Rangel LIES and says provery is "higher" when it clearly is NOT. These Dems just like and love to preach negative news even when the facts prove otherwise. It's just pathetic.

I grew up poor and a lot of people are poor NOT because of economic policies - it can be cultural attitudes. When I was growing up poor in an all-black Section 8 government housing complex, I was accused of "trying to be white" because I had straight A's in school. I knew tons of people bragging about not working and waiting for their state and government handout checks at the first of the month. Gang members had greater respect than hard working students. How do you blame attitudes like that on the Bush Administration or any administration? It's these attitudes that cause poverty and not necessarily economic policies.

...Three tenths of a percentage point could probably be attributed more to statistical error or hardworking [paid under the table illegal] immigrants than it could to any of Bush's policies....

Utah, check out the income gap numbers. Also, About 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3%, were living in poverty last year. That's down from 12.6% in 2005. But the fraction of Americans living below the poverty line isn't statistically different from the 2002 level despite several years of economic growth.

Bush has nothing to crow about.

Speaking of the economy, I go to a meeting at lunch with the market doing ok (down but ok) and I come back to find a 280 point drop? I guess all of these investors are worried the fed isn't going to bail them through a rate drop again.

JOe: swish! (Thanks, Ness)

WTF Monte?

Taxman, the fed already issued a temporary bailout by pumping 17 Billion more dollars into the economy. When people have no money to spend or can't get any more credit, just create more credit out of thin air to temporarily solve the problem. Unfortunately when someone with their act together is in charge and allows irresponsible consumers and investors to face the consequences of their actions, the results will be that much more severe.

I know Joe, the feds are injecting the market with cash and lowering rates to boot, must be nice to receive government handouts with no strings attached. Of course the rich bitch about entitlement programs for the poor but when they are losing in the market they will gladly put their palms out and take all they can grab.

No Chris, I am safe. I saw this coming a few months ago.

Taxman-

Agreed. In my opinion America could have benefited from the minor recession that seemed to be looming because it would make both consumers and investors think twice before taking stupid risks in the housing and credit markets. Instead the fed steps in and postpones the inevitable, and we will just be hit that much harder later on.

Instead the fed steps in and postpones the inevitable, and we will just be hit that much harder later on.

Exactly. I would rather take my licks now then to take a huge beating later on.

in 2005 the real estate market was BOOMING. Bernanke and his "tough love" will reverse this stat in no time at all.

... Name one policy pushed by Bush specifically aimed at reducing poverty.

Posted by JOE at 2007-08-28 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

ummmm...well, there was that time..no, no....ummm...ummmm....wait. Ummmmm...

Dumb Dems still LYING about the economy. I love the fact the story cites FACTS "The nation's poverty rate was 12.3 percent in 2006, down from 12.6 percent a year before, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Median household income increased slightly, to $48,200."

Unfortunately, Dumb Dem Chuck "I am a moron" Rangel LIES and says provery is "higher" when it clearly is NOT. These Dems just like and love to preach negative news even when the facts prove otherwise. It's just pathetic.


Posted by utastaff at 2007-08-28 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Still higher than it was under Clinton.

Suck it up.

Pump a couple of trillion of borrowed money into the economy? Sounds like Bush is channelling FDR, only Franklin got better results than .3%.

But it is nice to see "conservatives" embrace pinko liberal activities.
Now how does the 20% weaker dollar affect that great increase in living?

For a family of four with two children, for example, the poverty level in 2006 was $20,444.

Posted by taxman

To keep it all in prespective, that is $9.83 per hour for one person for one year. That means that there are a lot of people not even working.

Send all the illegals home and put the poor people to work!!! What's so hard to understand????

Does anyone doubt that if the headlines had read "poverty rate increases by .3%" and the exact sources and data were cited that the lefties would be all over it like a chicken on a June bug? The first thirty posts would be variations of "Bush's fault".

I dare any of you lefties to deny this.

Meanwhile the prices of commodities has gone up substiantially.... effectivly pushing more people into "poverty".

"WTF Monte?

Posted by taxman at 2007-08-28 05:43 PM"

I was saying that Joe's post was right on. I thanked Ness because he was the first person I ever saw use "swish" in this way. I do that as sort of an inside joke whenever I borrow the "swish" post.

"swish" = NBN (Nothin' But Net!)

Be Well.

Povrty rate decreases?

Sure it did!

"Love is Hate
War is Peace
No means Yes
and we're all Free"

And work will set you free.

Be Well.

Yeah, UTA, Rep representation will solve the problems of persistant poverty.

Actually, UTA, gang violence in Los Angeles has decreased quite a bit. Fewer murders by a substantial number.

This is just another administration repo. change the way the numbers are taken to make it look better when in fact they have got worse.

This is just another administration repo. change the way the numbers are taken to make it look better when in fact they have got worse.

Posted by moneywar

The only thing that has gotten worse is the dems opinion of the USA.

Stock market hit all-time high-Bush economy sucks
Less people at poverty level-Bush economy sucks
Deficit decreases by half-Bush economy sucks
Clinton leaves us big surplus (on paper only-Bush economy sucks
I think the only time you are happy is when you bitch about Bush.
I'm not real happy with the guy either but for different reasons.

ah yes everything is right with the world.


some good economic news and taxman in the first post says.....well no thats not what that means and soon after my left coast bud...chris says......well since it was this point in 01 and its this and this now.....that still means that bush sucks.....


YAWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNN.....
.......AAAAAHHH he said yawning again........same ole ..same ole......

oh yeah........and when you are talking about dems and the economy, they do have one thing......

the economy will be sizzling over night if they are elected....yes they do have that power......but it will only be in the media and on the blogs because again......

with this economy and a dem in the white house.
well........lets just say that this weeks parade would be sat afternoon.

Do you really believe a single statistic that comes out of the Shrub government? All federal data releases are vetted through the political office. There is no pure science or math ever released in this administration. Have you shopped lately? Do you really believe the (annual) CPU is below 3%? Energy costs doubled since 2001. Do you believe food costs or any other consumer good hasn't risen to absorb that increase?

One example -- The Public Buildings Service (the real estate arm of the federal). Most regional office reported ALL major construction jobs were on budget and on time. Anyone who works in construction knows that is an impossibility (just like 9 out of 9 battleground states went opposite the exit polls data in the 2004 election; but that's another story). How do they do it? The benchmark dates are changed by the project managers (!) when the project gets into trouble; and design-build allows the building to be "de-scoped" (i.e. replace the materials with a cheaper grade) when the budget is exceeded.

How can poverty drop when ever major city is reporting an increase in homelessness and mortgage default? Please.....

CPI!

Do you really believe the (annual) CPU is below 3%?

I agree with you but that has been a lie perpetrated by DC for many years before GWB. Realistic inflation has always been way higher than that figure.

How can poverty drop when ever major city is reporting an increase in homelessness and mortgage default? Please.....

through 2006 I don't think mortgage default has much to do with poverty rates. Keep in mind that everybody has an agenda with regard to numbers. that would include how cities calculate their statistics also.

Stock market hit all-time high-Bush economy sucks

Have you been paying attention to the market? It is Bush and the Republican congress that allowed predatory lenders to take advantage of the poor and now we are going to pay the price. You say the economy is good but because of the mortgage crisis our economy is most likely going to take it in the chin over the next couple of years.

Less people at poverty level-Bush economy sucks

But the fraction of Americans living below the poverty line isn't statistically different from the 2002 level despite several years of economic growth.

Deficit decreases by half-Bush economy sucks

Link please

Sniper sez:

"Stock market hit all-time high"

Bush claims "economy is strong and getting stronger", but still has to take out National Charge Card every month to pay rent.

"Clinton leaves us big surplus (on paper only)"

Bush, getting to use the same "paper" as Clinton, inherits projected surplus and begins a war & cuts taxes, winding up with the largest deficits known to man since the dawn of time, and leaving us with a big debt (not on paper only).

"Deficit decreases by half"

From the largest in history to the 5th largest in history. Gee, if only he had screwed up more, and had even bigger deficits, he could have decreased the deficit by two-thirds!

"I think the only time you are happy is when you bitch about Bush."

Clinton took the Bush 41 deficits and delivered true surplus budgets to his successor. Bush 43 took those monies, slashed taxes on the wealthiest, and will leave us with debt as far as the eye can see. What do you think: is the bitching over this economic route justified or not?

"Clinton took the Bush 41 deficits and delivered true surplus budgets to his successor. Bush 43 took those monies, slashed taxes on the wealthiest, and will leave us with debt as far as the eye can see. What do you think: is the bitching over this economic route justified or not?"

That And A Never Ending War That Is Costing 12 Billion Dollars A Month And Counting !!

Who The Fuck Is Going To Pay For It ? Where The Fuck Is The Money Coming From ?

No One Of These Politicians That Are Running Has Even Mentioned It GOP or DEM, Though The GOP Will Get Fucked Like Bush 41 Did With "Read My Lips, No New Taxes"

If Rudy Wins He'll have Hell To Pay With The Promised Tax Cuts.

This On Top Of The Cost Of All The Replacement Equipment From The Wear And Tear From It's Constant Non-Stop Use In The Hot Sandy Desert In Iraq !!

It Will Be A Couple Of Trillion To Pay

-Sarge

"delivered true surplus budgets"

and there is some severe doubt as to the real story behind this statement as I have read through the years......

the bush economy...the greatest story NEVER told....

I would tend to believe you leftys a little more if you would just a couple of times talk about economic success instead of.......all the nonsense..

I mean when numbers are good all you can say is....well they were this and this under clinton./

okay....well if you start with 50 and say its a good indicator of anything economic.....and a number goes up to 75 and thats bad....okay I get it...
but when it comes back to 60.....isnt that good? isnt that on the road to recovery and hasnt something right been done and hopefully we can get back to that 50?
or is your partisan hackery just too damned strong to admit anything of the sort.......

Link please

Posted by taxman

US deficit is shrinking, for now
With the robust economy, tax revenues are pouring in. But rising costs lie ahead.
By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the February 21, 2007 edition

Despite the ongoing costs of US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outlook for the federal budget has grown substantially brighter.

Tax revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist calculates.

Already, the federal deficit is shrinking toward about half the size that it has averaged since 1970, when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product.

The shift reflects a strong economy, with higher incomes and corporate profits generating a bigger flow of tax revenue. In turn, the Treasury's progress could help the economy by buoying investor confidence in the nation's fiscal position.

I would tend to believe you leftys a little more if you would just a couple of times talk about economic success instead of.......all the nonsense.

BL2, I am not going to lie, the economy is great if you are in the top 10% of wealth in this country. It isn't so great for the poor and it really sucks for the middle class - to put it in layman's terms.

but that sure smacks of class war talk that we get from danni and some others......

when has the economy not been better for the top ten per cent?

will that ever change.....and should it, for that matter....

And it really really really sucks if you are lower middle to upper lower income (is that even a category?).

Sorry no indicators to give you just "personal observation" (I keep a real close eye on my own finances)

BL2

No the top 10% should be doing better, but when the top 10% start doing phenomnaly better thats when you start hearing talk about class war.

When you hear about a CEO making 50k an hour maybe you think oh hey theres a guy that works hard, but your average wage slave thinks "fuck that corporate fuck" to say that the wage slave is wrong is a one sided view point. The wage slave has a point and to say work harder is akin to "let them eat cake" why don't you ask Marie how that worked for her.

The CEO of a large co gets slammed but you all want to give the entertainers (sports and movie) mega bucks for their entertainment. Why should some 7 foot giant or some 300lb giant be paid many millions per year so you can sit back on your fat asses, drink beer and yell at the TV about how great YOUR sports team is doing?

Here's a question...

Is the $amount under which you are considered to be living in poverty pegged to the rate of inflation?

If so, then these numbers may be positive, but they aren't saying much.

If not, then more people fall into poverty each year, even though their income hasn't fallen below that magic number, right?

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.


Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.


Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.


The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)


Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.


Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.


Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.


Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

1. "Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes."

if you have a mortgage, you don't own your home. you're a minority shareholder. if you're lucky, over time you own an increasingly bigger percentage of it, but that doesn't start to really happen until many years after the purchase, when mortgage payments start to be more about getting your equity back rather than paying off the interest to the bank.

2. "Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars."

How tf are you supposed to live in this country without an automobile unless you live in a city with decent public transport?

3. "Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions."

Most poor people i know got their tv's from a friend or family member as a hand-me-down when the other person upgraded. And when was the last time you even saw a b&w tv?

4. "Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception."

See my response to 3 above. I'll give you the inappropriateness of cable or satellite, though many get illegal boxes and arent' paying per month for their television.

5. "Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher."

Microwaves can go for $50 -$100 dollars alot of the time. Many get them as gifts. Ever move into a place that already had a dishwasher installed?

Those statistics don't debunk the fact that people are poor.

a "household" is a misleading collective term. a household can't own anything. people do. divide all those statistics by the number of people making up those households and the numbers will be far more sobering.

Sniper, your statement made it sound like Bush cut the deficit by 50% all by himself. My apologies if I misunderstood.

Today the Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty in America. Let's take a quick glance at the people who are classified as "poor" in this country, thanks to an article by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Why do they figure the poverty level on income anyway? I could be a millionair and be consider poor in the governments eyes because I don't have an income.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning

And Butlers don't fergit the Butlers!

Be Well.

Sniper, your statement made it sound like Bush cut the deficit by 50% all by himself. My apologies if I misunderstood.

Posted by taxman

I'm sure that you realize there is a big difference in the national debt and the anual deficit. I don't think either one does us any good, and I have always said Bush spends our money like a drunken salor. I guess all politicians do. They just choose to spend it on different things.

What was that poverty level? $21,000ish? If that is all a household can make, wait let me change that. If that is all a person can make in a year, your a dumbass. Seriously, you must be really stupid or lazy. I'm 24 years out of college for 2 years, and my fiancee and I as a household make 4x this! Dumb dumb dumb, stop sugar coating and stop making excuses. Want to drop out? Ok, but here's where you will be at! Good luck with that dumbass!

I could be a millionair

Doubt it

So up Lap and kerrin57 I guess you think that inorder to count as really poor you should live in a mud hut with no running water, and wash your clothes and dishes in the sewer drain at the center of town?

I'm not sure what you want, I have been in some of these houses and seen the microwave ovens and tv's that the census counts. (Does it count as two color Tv's if the working one sits on top of the old busted one?)

Sure the poor in the country are alot better off than the poor in some other countries, however that does not change the fact that they are struggling. Besides if we are the richest country in the world shouldn't that carry over to our poor also?

Sniper, its not so much about what they are spending it on (though that is another conversation that is well tread apon here) but where the money is coming from. I have a sincere and honest question... granted, I'm going to constrain your choices, but which do you prefer, that our politicians tax us today and spend our money, as has historically been the case, or that they borrow and force our children and grandchildren to pay in the future for what we do today?

Tao,


could be a millionair

Doubt it


Actually, what Lapup said is true.

My dad retired a few years ago and is a millionaire. He works part-time now, out of boredom. However, the first 3 years of his retirement he didn't work at all. His income had him statistically below the poverty line, yet in reality he's extremely wealthy.

All of that said, the point you raise is salient.

"I'm 24 years out of college for 2 years, and my fiancee and I as a household make 4x this!"

I'm a bit more than 24, and out of college for slightly more than 2 years and I make 2 times what you and your fiancee do together. Does that somehow make me better than you, or indicate that you are stupid and lazy because 2 of you can't even earn as much as I do?

Not exactly on topic, but related...

Top executives at major U.S. businesses last year made as much money in one day of work on the job as the average worker made over the entire year, according to a report released on Wednesday.

Chief executive officers from the nation's biggest businesses averaged nearly $11 million in total compensation, according to the 14th annual CEO compensation survey released jointly by the Institute for Policy Studies based in Washington and United for a Fair Economy, a national organization based in Boston.

At the same time, workers at the bottom rung of the U.S. economy received the first federal minimum wage increase in a decade. But the new wage of $5.85 an hour, after being adjusted for inflation, stands 7 percent below where the minimum wage stood a decade ago.

"CEO pay, over that same decade, has increased by roughly 45 percent," the study found.

On average, CEOs at major American corporations saw $1.3 million in pension gains last year. By contrast, 58.5 percent of American households led by a 45- to 54-year old even had a retirement account in 2004, the most recent year these figures were available.

According to the report, between 2001 and 2004, retirement accounts of these average households gained only $3,775 in value a year.

The top 386 CEOs in the study took in perks, such as housing allowances and travel benefits, worth on average $438,342 in 2006. It would take a minimum wage worker 36 years to earn the equivalent of what CEOs averaged in just perks alone.

SANANTONIOROGUE,

What I am saying is that I'm young, and able to do decent. We could throw in where we live too, because if it were in a bigger city sure we would make alot more. Like you said you are quite a bit older.....my salary grows every year.
It's sad that you make that much and can't figure out that 20K is really f*&^ing easy to make you dumbass. It means if you make only 20K a year you're a dumbass. How many times to I have to say a dumbass?

'It's sad that you make that much and can't figure out that 20K is really f*&^ing easy to make you dumbass.
How many times to I have to say a dumbass?"

Oh to be so young and so naive, and so sure I know it all again. You don't have to say "dumbass" any more young'un. You've provided us all with the perfect definition.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

I have to like this attitude, why doesn't everyone else.

Kerrin believes that we should force the poor to be TV-less, car-less, homeless and anything with some modern convience.

Well, I wonder how the economy would really look like if these 40 million were not given the credit to get those things?

I wonder what the economy would look like if these 40 million were unable to drive to their minimum wage work?

People like Kerrin and the total ignorance of the overall look of the poor makes the republican party supporter clearly out FOR the class war going on.

And those houses they own, the equity is added to their wage which decreases the amount of people who are actually earning below the poverty line.

"shouldn't that carry over to our poor also?"

Only if the able bodied work at least a 30-40 hr week...at that point we need to reward them with the EIC. Then the money allotted for the poor would provide a better quality of life for the truly disabled.



"There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home."

Money...your ignorance is shown by the specious arguments that I would take things away from "the poor". I am all for a very generous EIC to reward work, free education for the "poor" ,and their health care is already cheaper than mine so that is covered.

"Unfortunately, Dumb Dem Chuck "I am a moron" Rangel LIES and says provery is "higher" when it clearly is NOT

UsaStaff"

Let me explain something in language you can understand, son:

See, them thar charts that them thar peeple made said da poveertie rate was 11 peercent when ol' Bill Clinton left his offeece. That thar rate of poveerty went up since ol W took his offeeece and is now hieer than it were befour W cum along.

Reeeeel wages went doun. That thar meens Amerukins ain't makin' as much as they dun made in 2000 when you take inflashun into accownt.

(but, you have to be able to recnize 'up' and 'down' and read reel beeeeg numbers like '2000' and '2007' on a chart to understand them thar fax - let aloan click that thar link Taxman posted to see fer yerself)