Wel-failure

[ISASO]

In 1965, the poverty rate was 14%.

Starting with Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' and now with spending at $4 billion per day, guess what?

The poverty rate today is 14.3%.

How many trillions of dollars has been spent over the last 45 years to fix this problem and all we accomplished was to make the problem .3% worse?

[1979Shocker]

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 14.3% in 2009.

Who was president during that time?

[RoyalShock]

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 14.3% in 2009.

Who was president during that time?

Serious question: Wasn't there an increase in the poverty line which accounted for some of that?

Also, between those two dates we had 9/11, Afghan and Iraq wars, dot-com bubble burst and the most recent financial crisis.

I also seem to recall a balanced budget for at least one year in the 90s. Could that have actually helped lower the poverty level? And whether or not it was Bush as president from 2000-2008, we can see how out-of-control government spending that only got worse under Obama, has hurt everyone.

Any way you slice it, government involvement and spending doesn't help. Responsible government, on the other hand, looks as though it just might. Imagine that!

It sure seems to me, '79, that you are trying to take comments directed at long-term liberal policies and transform it into a Bush/Obama discussion. It looks pretty transparent to me.

[1979Shocker]

It sure seems to me, '79, that you are trying to take comments directed at long-term liberal policies and transform it into a Bush/Obama discussion. It looks pretty transparent to me.

I wasn't really trying to. I think that's when a lot of the things started happening. We had the 2 wars (not paid for), the tax cuts (not paid for), then the economic started to tank, etc.

Even though the seed was probably already planted, if I had to point to one event that started us on our current decline, if would be 9/11/2001.

Here's a graph showing what we'd have if not for the 2 wars and other things.

[RoyalShock]

I will simply never look at tax cuts as a revenue problem. The real problem is a lack of accompanying spending cuts.

Shame on Bush and the GOP for thinking they could cut taxes and increase spending during a war and not have us pay an economic price.

Maybe it's just me, but the idea that we could go spend the kind of money we did fighting in the Middle East and defiantly say we aren't going to let what happened affect our way of life, was arrogant and foolish.

The country's response? Yeahhhhh! Now let's vote in a guy who will spend even more and screw current and future generations to the max!!!! (Not that McCain offered a tremendous alternative, sans healthcare.)

This country lost sight of what is the American "way of life": liberty. Instead, it focused on security and economic prosperity and in my opinions, missed the mark. Now I'd say all of the above are in jeopardy.

Keynesian economics . . . for the loss!

[WuDrWu]

I will simply never look at tax cuts as a revenue problem. The real problem is a lack of accompanying spending cuts.

I seriously want to blow something up when I hear "tax cuts are the major drivers of the debt". That's the new liberal talking points.

I hope that there will continue to be a growing irritation with the out of control spending (not tax cuts) by whomever voted for it.

Sick of it....sick of it.....sick of it.

[Maggie]

It sure seems to me, '79, that you are trying to take comments directed at long-term liberal policies and transform it into a Bush/Obama discussion. It looks pretty transparent to me.

I wasn't really trying to.

No, I suppose not - just a normal reaction. Like when the doc hits my knee with some modified hammer – the lower half of my leg jerks skyward. Hey, the sun follows the moon, chili cheese dogs could be the path to the end of conflict, etc. I wasn’t trying to either. :roll:

[Kung Wu]

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 14.3% in 2009.

Who was president during that time?

I think you mean:

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 13.2% in 2008.

Who was president during that time?

I think you forgot that Bush _inherited_ a recession from Clinton's reign during the dot-com bust and passed on a 13.2% poverty level to Obama (not 14.3% you insinuated).

So through two recessions over 8 years Bush's poverty figures jumped from 1.9%. Obama, like Bush, inherited a recession but has hit 1.1% in only three years with all indications that the problem is accelerating not decelerating.

[Maggie]

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 14.3% in 2009.

Who was president during that time?

I think you mean:

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 13.2% in 2008.

Who was president during that time?

I think you forgot that Bush _inherited_ a recession from Clinton's reign during the dot-com bust and passed on a 13.2% poverty level to Obama (not 14.3% you insinuated).

So through two recessions over 8 years Bush's poverty figures jumped from 1.9%. Obama, like Bush, inherited a recession but has hit 1.1% in only three years with all indications that the problem is accelerating not decelerating.

Kung Wu, please stop. Please.

[SB Shock]

Problem with this graph is it doesn't account for what Obama has done which has ultimately driven this crisis. Lets also recall that the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.

The left can continue to blame bush, but the fact is the Liberals had control of the White House, the Senate and the House and this is what they did with the budgets. They could have pulled the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but chose not to and now we are involved in a 3rd war which (which is probably illegal).

[Kung Wu]

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 14.3% in 2009.

Who was president during that time?

I think you mean:

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 13.2% in 2008.

Who was president during that time?

I think you forgot that Bush _inherited_ a recession from Clinton's reign during the dot-com bust and passed on a 13.2% poverty level to Obama (not 14.3% you insinuated).

So through two recessions over 8 years Bush's poverty figures jumped from 1.9%. Obama, like Bush, inherited a recession but has hit 1.1% in only three years with all indications that the problem is accelerating not decelerating.

Kung Wu, please stop. Please.

I cannot.

[shockall]

IMHO, this economic mess dates back to the mid-90's when the progressives silently pushed for the new "global economy", and pushed a bunch of free trade agreements on us. What difference would there be today if a lot of the manufacturing that went overseas was still here in the USA? Moving the amount of middle class manufacturing jobs to China & Mexico placed a lot of people on the unemployment line these days. We won't prosper until we figure out how to get all these people a job back.

[1979Shocker]

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 14.3% in 2009.

Who was president during that time?

I think you mean:

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 13.2% in 2008.

Who was president during that time?

I think you forgot that Bush _inherited_ a recession from Clinton's reign during the dot-com bust and passed on a 13.2% poverty level to Obama (not 14.3% you insinuated).

So through two recessions over 8 years Bush's poverty figures jumped from 1.9%. Obama, like Bush, inherited a recession but has hit 1.1% in only three years with all indications that the problem is accelerating not decelerating.

The National Bureau of Economic Research has it starting in March 2001.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/

[SB Shock]

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 14.3% in 2009.

Who was president during that time?

I think you mean:

The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 13.2% in 2008.

Who was president during that time?

I think you forgot that Bush _inherited_ a recession from Clinton's reign during the dot-com bust and passed on a 13.2% poverty level to Obama (not 14.3% you insinuated).

So through two recessions over 8 years Bush's poverty figures jumped from 1.9%. Obama, like Bush, inherited a recession but has hit 1.1% in only three years with all indications that the problem is accelerating not decelerating.

The National Bureau of Economic Research has it starting in March 2001.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/

The data may say it started in 2001, but the ground work was being set earlier.

[vancedave56]

Adam and Eve...end of discussion. :roll: