Bushonomics and Poverty

cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census … index.html

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.

[quote=“mofangongren”]

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.[/quote]

Poor bastards.

BroonAlms

hey, here’s a news report too

detnews.com/2004/editorial/0 … 255537.htm

Bush fails to get deserved credit for tax cut benefits

Despite reporting distortions, a congressional report shows the rich pay proportionately more in taxes while
all income earners do better

Really aoi145, how can you be so dashed naive?

The people feeding us this bally tripe are same people who told us that Saddam had WMD, who told us that the world is a “safer place” without Saddam, who have spent $377 billion to secure non exsistant WMD.

How can anybody believe these lying toerags anymore? Their credibility is like Saddam’s WMD, - non exsistant.

MFGR

Would you like to make an attempt at explaining what Bushonomics means and why it caused the poverty rate to increase?

Or are the two completely unrelated?

You’d be surprised at the number of Americans below the poverty line who miraculously have money for a DVD player and movie rentals, or who prefer to use their food stamps for Haagen Dazs and Cheetos.

Bushonomics is an attempt to keep poor people from eating ice cream and renting DVDs. It’s the same as Reagonomics, a return to the Middle Ages and a feudal society.

Richardm,

Clearly then, Bushonomics, and Reaganomics for that matter, failed in their goals… given the amount ice cream gobbling couch potatos there are in the US.

[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]Richardm,

Clearly then, Bushonomics, and Reaganomics for that matter, failed in their goals… given the amount ice cream gobbling couch potatos there are in the US.[/quote]
Thanks to the struggles of the working class.

[quote=“Marx”]The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE.
[/quote]

[quote=“Marx”]The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE.
[/quote]

Marx wrote a lot of stuff, mostly shite.

Agreed. But he has a point about the ice cream. If you don’t cause a fuss, you don’t get any.

Agreed. But he has a point about the ice cream. If you don’t cause a fuss, you don’t get any.[/quote]

No he doesn’t have a point.

Imagine a greedy ice cream company. Does it make a big profit by selling a small amount of ice cream to draft dodgers from Yale? Or does it make more by selling truckloads of the sloppy shit to buffoonish adhocumentary film geeks from Flint?

Damn rights. These people have it better than the majority of the people in the developing world who make less than US$ 2 a day. Why should we waste money on them if they have a roof over their head, two meals a day, and a bottle of

Ice cream is the opiate of the masses!

[quote=“Chewycorns”]

Damn rights. These people have it better than the majority of the people in the developing world who make less than US$ 2 a day. Why should we waste money on them if they have a roof over their head, two meals a day, and a bottle of

Just finished reading P.J. O’Rourke’s Eat the Rich. Very funny writer and he gets the basic economics right. Preferrable to Marx.

I’ve never seen anybody ever buy anything with food stamps. Therefore I don’t believe in them.

Gosh, who would have believed the media (objective and fair and balanced) would once again take to discussing higher poverty rates and homelessness just like they did under Reagan and now Bush? What a coincidence that this should come out right during the Republican National Convention. Gee I am shocked.

Also, I saw this in the public school system too. The figures on “poverty” are often highly suspect. Is someone who lives at home working two years at some fastfood job or 711 before heading off to college really in “poverty?” According to the statistics they are. Also, for those who are in “poverty” income figures are used only. The food stamps, free medical care, free child care, etc. etc. are NOT included as “income” in the final tally.

Given that most Americans own a tv, car, air conditioner, microwave, VCR, etc. etc. these poverty stastics are certainly incredible.

[quote=“wooster”]Really aoi145, how can you be so dashed naive?

The people feeding us this bally tripe are same people who told us that Saddam had WMD, who told us that the world is a “safer place” without Saddam, who have spent $377 billion to secure non exsistant WMD.

How can anybody believe these lying toerags anymore? Their credibility is like Saddam’s WMD, - non exsistant.[/quote]

really, whoever the hell you are, it seems you are too lazy to even read the article. please, just try the first sentence - it’s not hard, and i assure you there aren’t any misspellings in it

But of course, anything ‘not anti-bush’ is a fabrication of the right. hell the last time i checked 47% of america believes that too!

How did we go from 137 billion to 337 billion in one short week? I refer to the figure that is posted on the sign in New York City, which naturally fails to include the costs of the no fly zones before the war on Iraq, the freeing up of a whole aircraft carrier group and fails to mention that we had numerous troops throughout the Persian Gulf that are now in Iraq.