4
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 11:56 am
In rebuttal to all the unlinked leftwing wacko posted pieces:

Heritage Foundation 2004
THE MYTH OF WIDESPREAD AMERICAN POVERTY


City Journal 2004
THE MYTH OF THE WORKING POOR


And because the previous two pieces are three years old, from the Census Bureau providing the most up to date information available:
HISTORIC POVERTY TABLES
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 12:41 pm
All those "myths" on poverty is contradicted in so many ways, it's pitiful. The conservatives would have us believe there is no poverty in the US. The issue is simply that under Bush, poverty has increased.

How does the United States measure poverty?

The United States determines the official poverty rate using poverty thresholds that are issued each year by the Census Bureau. The thresholds represent the annual amount of cash income minimally required to support families of various sizes.

The methodology for calculating the thresholds was established in the mid-1960s and has not changed in the intervening years. The thresholds are updated annually to account for inflation.[1]

A family is counted as poor if its pretax money income is below its poverty threshold. Money income does not include noncash benefits such as public housing, Medicaid, employer-provided health insurance and food stamps[2].

A sampling of the poverty thresholds for 2004 is included in the table below. A complete list can be found on the Census Bureau's website (www.census.gov).

2004 Poverty Thresholds, Selected Family Types
Single Individual
Under 65 years
$ 9,827

65 years & older
$ 9,060

Single Parent
One child
$ 13,020

Two children
$ 15,219

Two Adults
No children
$ 12,649

One child
$ 15,205

Two children
$ 19,157

Three children
$ 22,543


SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Report P60, n. 229, p. 45.

Poverty guidelines are a simplified version of poverty thresholds and are issued by the Department of Health and Human Services to determine financial eligibility for certain federal programs. For more information on these guidelines, see the 2005 Federal Poverty Guidelines.

How many people were poor in 2004?

In 2004, 12.7 percent of all persons lived in poverty. In 1993 the poverty rate was 15.1 percent. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000. Poverty has risen in each of the last four years.

How has poverty changed over time?

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. Since then, it has risen each year, to 12.7 percent in 2004.

The figure below shows the poverty rate for all people and for several subgroups.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/image003.gif

As this graph shows, the poverty rate has increased under Bush.

Since the late 1960s, the poverty rate for people over 65 has fallen dramatically. The poverty rate for children has historically been somewhat higher than the overall poverty rate. The poverty rate for people in households headed by single women is significantly higher than the overall poverty rate.



SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Report P60, n. 229, Tables B-1 and B-2, pp. 46-57.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 12:57 pm
I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, engage in exercises of futility, or respond to people who post garbage without posting their links.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 12:58 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
And because the previous two pieces are three years old, from the Census Bureau providing the most up to date information available:
HISTORIC POVERTY TABLES


State by state data
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 12:59 pm
Some people just can't handle the truth.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 01:01 pm
Does your link in any way dispute the US Census bureau figures, Walter? The U.S. Census Bureau show the poverty levels on average to be higher during the Clinton administration than they have been on average during the Bush administration. I doubt anybody will be able to produce any honest numbers more accurate than that.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 01:05 pm
The heritage foundation is hardly unbiased.

The facts are that poverty has been rising among certain groups while not with other groups at a faster rate than before Bush took office. When people don't take home a bigger pay check to keep up with rising living expenses you can't expect anything but poorer people. The trickle down theory has been tried and failed but some people think some people are just too dumb to remember that when history is being repeated.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 01:06 pm
Walter, From your same link, here's the stats on CHILD PROVERTY BY COUNTRY:

Economy Statistics > Child poverty by country
VIEW DATA: Totals
Definition Source Printable version

Bar Graph Map Correlations

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Mexico: 26.2
#2 United States: 22.4
#3 Italy: 20.5
#4 United Kingdom: 19.8
#5 Turkey: 19.7
#6 Ireland: 16.8
#7 Canada: 15.5
#8 Poland: 15.4
#9 Australia: 12.6
#10 Greece: 12.3
#11 Spain: 12.3
#12 Japan: 12.2
#13 Germany: 10.7
#14 Hungary: 10.3
#15 France: 7.9
#16 Netherlands: 7.7
#17 Czech Republic: 5.9
#18 Denmark: 5.1
#19 Luxembourg: 4.5
#20 Belgium: 4.4
#21 Finland: 4.3
#22 Norway: 3.9
#23 Sweden: 2.6
Weighted average: 11.9



DEFINITION: Child poverty" index is defined as the share of the children living in the households with income below 50% of the national median.


SOURCE: UNICEF
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 01:07 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Does your link in any way dispute the US Census bureau figures, Walter?


Question

When you look at it, you'll notice that those data ARE US-Census bureau data. (2004 figures.)

I didn't want to dispute anything, just split it to state level.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 01:18 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The U.S. Census Bureau show the poverty levels on average to be higher during the Clinton administration than they have been on average during the Bush administration. I doubt anybody will be able to produce any honest numbers more accurate than that.


I doubt as well that they are incorrect.

I have, however, some difficulties ti understand your conclusion.

From your quoted source:

http://i16.tinypic.com/4fz7wyb.jpg

Are you suggesting the current administration did better with the increasing poverty rate than the Clinton administration?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 01:19 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Does your link in any way dispute the US Census bureau figures, Walter?


Question

When you look at it, you'll notice that those data ARE US-Census bureau data. (2004 figures.)

I didn't want to dispute anything, just split it to state level.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 01:28 pm
Oh, please, foxfrye, who wants to be poorer than before? I sure don't and I know I am because of higher health care cost, higher gas cost and higher cost in products. My husband works a full 40 hour week plus a side job, I bring in some money, both my kids work and go to school. Yet, we still have it harder than we did before 2001. Thats just a fact, a fact I share with a lot of other voting people.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 01:41 pm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 04:18 pm
Fox had an "economic downturn during the Clinton years" when job opportunities and salaries were keeping up with inflation. All this, while Fox praises the Bush years that shows by most government and university studies that most people working lost buying power, lost their health insurance, and most who once looked for work gave up. 97k new jobs in February is not even keeping up with demand, but Fox and her ilk wants us to believe everybody is just doing dandy.

There's always an exception to any generalities, but to continue their BS about how good our economy is now compared to the Clinton years goes beyond partisan BS.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 04:24 pm
I know Fox has a difficult time with the truth, but here's how the Dow Jones Industrials performed during Bush's tenure compared to the past.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/_dji.png

Can you read "stagnant?"
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 04:25 pm
Actually foxfrye, mine wasn't unsourced.

Real Median Household Income: 1967 to 2005

Quote:
New Census Report: Uninsured Up, Real Income Down For Men and Women, Poverty Unchanged
This morning, the Census Bureau released new figures about health insurance, income, and poverty. It's not a pretty picture.

The number of Americans without health insurance continues to rise at an alarming rate, men and women are earning less money and there are as many people living in poverty as there have ever been. Some key stats:

- In 2005, 46.6 million people were without health insurance coverage, up from 45.3 million people in 2004.

- The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005.

- For full-tim, year round workers, the median earnings of men declined 1.8 percent to $41,386, and the median earnings of women declined 1.3 percent to $31,858.

- In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.

This helps explain why just 32% of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the economy. Just 22% believe the economy is getting better, "the lowest level of public confidence in the direction of the economy seen in five years."


source
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 04:28 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Fox had an "economic downturn during the Clinton years" when job opportunities and salaries were keeping up with inflation. All this, while Fox praises the Bush years that shows by most government and university studies that most people working lost buying power, lost their health insurance, and most who once looked for work gave up. 97k new jobs in February is not even keeping up with demand, but Fox and her ilk wants us to believe everybody is just doing dandy.

There's always an exception to any generalities, but to continue their BS about how good our economy is now compared to the Clinton years goes beyond partisan BS.


Nobody is saying that everyone is doing "just dandy",but some of us are saying that the economy is not as bad as you seem to want it to be.
It seems every time you hear a report on the news about how bad it is,people say that "they are doing fine but they are worried about their neighbor".

Could the economy be better?
Of course,it can always be better then what it is at any given moment.
But,you and a few others want to convince us that we are in the worst economy ever(including the great depression).
The economy is in good shape,and will continue to be unless people like you can scare people into thinking its bad.
If you do that,those people will stop spending money.
If that happens,then manufacturers and retailers report downturns in their income,so they pay less or dont hire more people,who then spend less because they are woried about money,and so it goes.
Its a vicious circle,and makes the claim that its a bad economy a self fullfilling prophecy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 05:46 pm
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Fox had an "economic downturn during the Clinton years" when job opportunities and salaries were keeping up with inflation. All this, while Fox praises the Bush years that shows by most government and university studies that most people working lost buying power, lost their health insurance, and most who once looked for work gave up. 97k new jobs in February is not even keeping up with demand, but Fox and her ilk wants us to believe everybody is just doing dandy.

There's always an exception to any generalities, but to continue their BS about how good our economy is now compared to the Clinton years goes beyond partisan BS.


Nobody is saying that everyone is doing "just dandy",but some of us are saying that the economy is not as bad as you seem to want it to be.
It seems every time you hear a report on the news about how bad it is,people say that "they are doing fine but they are worried about their neighbor".

Could the economy be better?
Of course,it can always be better then what it is at any given moment.
But,you and a few others want to convince us that we are in the worst economy ever(including the great depression).
The economy is in good shape,and will continue to be unless people like you can scare people into thinking its bad.
If you do that,those people will stop spending money.
If that happens,then manufacturers and retailers report downturns in their income,so they pay less or dont hire more people,who then spend less because they are woried about money,and so it goes.
Its a vicious circle,and makes the claim that its a bad economy a self fullfilling prophecy.


And thank you MM for accurately stating what I have been saying all along. Those trying to make this into a terrible economy keep bringing up all sorts of stuff that I haven't said, are oooooooh so very close to calling my a liar and are still cherry picking and dishonestly presenting statements to prove that this is a bad economy. And while they say I have trouble with the truth, they don't post links to what might be quite questionable sources, and they have yet to comment on a single source I have posted.

And they say I have trouble with the truth Laughing Laughing

It really would be a lot funnier if it wasn't so pitiful, you know?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 06:37 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The U.S. Census Bureau show the poverty levels on average to be higher during the Clinton administration than they have been on average during the Bush administration. I doubt anybody will be able to produce any honest numbers more accurate than that.


I doubt as well that they are incorrect.

I have, however, some difficulties ti understand your conclusion.

From your quoted source:

http://i16.tinypic.com/4fz7wyb.jpg

Are you suggesting the current administration did better with the increasing poverty rate than the Clinton administration?


Walter, the lower percentages indicate less poverty. Higher percentages indicate more poverty. On average, the percentages are lower during the Bush yeas. Would you not agree? That the poverty level is up or down from one year or two to the next is virtually meaningless given the broad fluctuations in weather and other uncontrollable circumstances related to the poverty index. Sometimes a high birthrate in a given year can cause a temporary spike in the poverty rate a couple of decades later when unemployed or underemployed kids/college students or whatever are entering the work force. This will distort the numbers while not accurately indicating real poor people. So the only reasonable way is to look at trends over a period of several years.

In every administration the poverty rate tends to be up or down from year to year.

But average the poverty rate for the years of the Clinton administration and average the poverty rate for the years of the Bush administration, and Bush comes out somewhat better. The accusations that people are getting poorer under the Bush economy just doesn't hold up for anybody willing to see what is actually there.

(I also bet Revel and C.I. weren't hollering about a terrible economy when Clinton's poverty rate was over 13% for several years in a row either.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Mar, 2007 07:03 pm
Note to Revel: The link you provided shows the real median income has been steadily rising if you actually read what's there.

On actual median income I refer people to this discussion provided by the Hertitage Foundation:

CALCULATING MEDIAN INCOME
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/24/2024 at 01:21:02