Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

But, you Republicans have never been overly worried about that 80% of American citizens anyways, have ya?

Data show one in eight Americans in poverty By Joanne Morrison
33 minutes ago

In the world's biggest economy, one in eight Americans and almost one in four blacks lived in poverty last year, the U.S. Census Bureau said on Tuesday, both ratios virtually unchanged from 2004.

The survey also showed 15.9 percent of the population, or 46.6 million, had no health insurance, up from 15.6 percent in 2004 and an increase for a fifth consecutive year, even as the economy grew at a 3.2 percent clip.

It was the first year since President George W. Bush took office in 2001 that the poverty rate did not increase. As in past years, the figures showed poverty especially concentrated among blacks and Hispanics.

In all, some 37 million Americans, or 12.6 percent, lived below the poverty line, defined as having an annual income around $10,000 for an individual or $20,000 for a family of four. The total showed a decrease of 90,000 from the 2004 figure, which Census Bureau officials said was "statistically insignificant."

The last time poverty declined was in 2000, the final year of Bill Clinton's presidency, when it fell to 11.3 percent.

The stagnant poverty picture drew attention from Democrats and others who said not enough is being done to help the nation's poor.

"Far too many American families who work hard and play by the rules still wind up living in poverty," said Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record) of California, the top Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee.

Around a quarter of blacks and 21.8 percent of Hispanics were living in poverty. Among whites, the rate edged down to 8.3 percent from 8.7 percent in 2004.

"Among African Americans the problem correlates primarily to the inner-city and single mothers," said Michael Tanner of CATO Institute, a free-market think tank in Washington. He noted that blacks also suffer disproportionately from poor education and lower quality jobs.

Black median income, at $30,858, was only 61 percent of the median for whites.

Some 17.6 percent of children under 18 and one in five of those under 6 were in poverty, higher than for any other age group.

Still, real median household income rose by 1.1 percent to $46,326 from $45,817 -- its first increase since 1999. This was taken as a positive move by Republicans and administration officials.

"While we still have challenges ahead, our ability to bounce back is a testament to the strong work ethic of the American people, the resiliency of our economy, and pro-growth economic policies, including tax relief," said Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman.

The figures contained wide regional variations, ranging from a median household income of $61,672 in New Jersey to $32,938 for Mississippi.

Major cities with the highest proportions of poor people included Cleveland with 32.4 percent and Detroit with 31.4 percent under the poverty line.

Forbes is about as credible as Noam Chomsky when it comes to the state of the U.S. economy.

Dubya, of course, is too busy reading Camus and other many other authors to solve the problem with poverty.

As you can see, corporations are making out like bandits under the Bush regime.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As you can see, corporations are making out like bandits under the Bush regime.

Yes -- and a proper Republican reply is that they wanted to have regular Americans share the profits by letting them invest their Social Security accounts in the stock market. But the Democrats successfully defended the status quo, forcing the average American to stay behind.

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As you can see, corporations are making out like bandits under the Bush regime.

Yes -- and a proper Republican reply is that they wanted to have regular Americans share the profits by letting them invest their Social Security accounts in the stock market. But the Democrats successfully defended the status quo, forcing the average American to stay behind.

"letting them invest their Social Security accounts in the stock market."
hardly so, the "plan' was to do the investing for them, as if the government was capable of also being an investment counselor????? Not with my money.

hardly so, the "plan' was to do the investing for them, as if the government was capable of also being an investment counselor????? Not with my money.

Imagine 200-odd million accounts, and the amount of manpower it would take to handle them; yet another way to funnel money into Big Business by the Republicans.

dyslexia wrote:

hardly so, the "plan' was to do the investing for them, as if the government was capable of also being an investment counselor????? Not with my money.

Not so. The plan was to create something similar to 401k accounts, where you could deposit part of your payroll taxes in. As in a 401k account, you could choose which assets to put into this fund. Indeed, if you didn't like the whole idea in the first place, you were free to continue paying your payroll tax into the Social Security fund. To be sure, you were also free to pay an investment advisor to handle your money for you if you wanted to -- but only if. The system itself was explicitly designed not to do your investing for you. It didn't force you to partly manage your own retirement money, but it allowed you to. If you're happy with the current manager of your Social Security fund, you're welcome to leave it there. Accordingly, your objection, "not with my money", doesn't apply.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Imagine 200-odd million accounts, and the amount of manpower it would take to handle them; yet another way to funnel money into Big Business by the Republicans.

This is the 21st century; computers do most of the account-handling these days. For what it's worth, I have invested my savings in a stock portfolio. To manage it, e-trade charges me 25 Euros per quarter, plus 0.25% of whatever I'm buying or selling. Those fees are utterly harmless; it's a fraction of what I pay in ATM fees, an expense few people ever complain about. Moreover, economies of scale arising from 200 million accounts could make account handling fees even cheaper.

I agree the current Republican administration is too corrupt and incompetent to be trusted with reforming anything. But that's an argument for electing a less corrupt Congress to manage the privatization. It is not an argument for continuing to lock people into low-profit investments.

Of course, you realize that Social Security isn't an investment;

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Of course, you realize that Social Security isn't an investment;

I agree it isn't an investment. It's the fallout of a cynical FDR ploy. He handed out vote-winning candy to the first generation of recipients (who were voters at the time) at the expense of future generations (who weren't). The reasonable thing to do would be to privatize it, finance current recipients with national debt, and pay down the national debt. But that requires leadership that is (1) conservative or libertarian enough to support privatization, and (2) grown-up enough to get it right. Unfortunately, G.W. Bush is sorely lacking on point #2.

I don't trust corporations to act in the best interests of the American public, even less than I trust the gov't to do so; they have never shown any particular interest in doing so, why would they start now?