Wel-failure

[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.

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

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

You are right I missed the first date. The poverty rate of 13.2% reflects the end of 2008, so that date is correct, but Bush was inaugurated in January 2001. Are you arguing that he caused a recession in 3 months time?

[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/

You are right I missed the first date. The poverty rate of 13.2% reflects the end of 2008, so that date is correct, but Bush was inaugurated in January 2001. Are you arguing that he caused a recession in 3 months time?

It was already on a downgrade, but the official start wasn't until that March.

[ISASO]

But Obama was and is the savior, right? The Great Unifier, the Post-Partisan President, "The One", Mr. Transparent, the smartest president ever.

There should have been nothing he inherited that he couldn't fix, if you believed the hype he propogated as a candidate.

When does he start to deliver on the hype bestowed upon us 3 years ago? Stop the blame, start the miracles! Yes we can!

[WuDrWu]

But Obama was and is the savior, right? The Great Unifier, the Post-Partisan President, "The One", Mr. Transparent, the smartest president ever.

There should have been nothing he inherited that he couldn't fix, if you believed the hype he propogated as a candidate.

When does he start to deliver on the hype bestowed upon us 3 years ago? Stop the blame, start the miracles! Yes we can!

My leg is starting to tingle......

[SubGod22]

But Obama was and is the savior, right? The Great Unifier, the Post-Partisan President, "The One", Mr. Transparent, the smartest president ever.

There should have been nothing he inherited that he couldn't fix, if you believed the hype he propogated as a candidate.

When does he start to deliver on the hype bestowed upon us 3 years ago? Stop the blame, start the miracles! Yes we can!

My leg is starting to tingle......

[shocker3]

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.

The problem with the tax cuts is that they weren't paid for. The President and Congress increased spending instead of cutting it. At the time, Dick Cheney said that we didn't need to cut spending. He said that one thing that Reagan taught us is that deficits don't matter.

They do matter. And those unpaid for tax cuts and those 2 wars are creating a huge debt problem that will keep growing into the future.

If you look at that graph, the debt would have actually been going down if it weren't for those 3 things. All the other spending started by Bush and Obama (and all the ever expanding programs started by all the other presidents before them) wouldn't be causing a debt crisis.

What a lot of people forget is that we actually had 3 straight years of annual budget surpluses before the unpaid for tax cuts and unpaid for wars were instituted.

[wu_shizzle]

How do you pay for tax cuts?

[wufan]

How do you pay for tax cuts?

You cut spending.

[wu_shizzle]

How do you pay for tax cuts?

You cut spending.

So why is it when Pelosi, Reed and the like say "unpaid tax cuts" they don't just say spending cuts?

Probably because they know they people love tax cuts and it's they only way to criticize them.

[SB Shock]

Anybody want to explain this to me. I am struggling to see how the Bush tax cuts hurt the U.S. when the tax cuts actually

1. They increased revenue
2. Increase Revenue at a greater rate
3. and actual revenue from Income taxes increased even and were at their highest point under bush.




data taken from

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a

[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.

Maggie ........

[WuDrWu]

Anybody want to explain this to me. I am struggling to see how the Bush tax cuts hurt the U.S. when the tax cuts actually

1. They increased revenue
2. Increase Revenue at a greater rate
3. and actual revenue from Income taxes increased even and were at their highest point under bush.




data taken from

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a

Maybe you haven't seen the memo SB.

A)The rich aren't paying their fair share.
B)Raising taxes always raises revenue.
C)Lowering taxes lowers revenues.
D)Lowering taxes puts a greater burden on those that can afford the burden the least.
E)Lowering taxes makes the rich even bigger bastards than they already are.

[pinstripers]

In the 30's, Roosevelt began the WPA. (don't recall...works projects something-or-other). Basically, it was the beginning of Work-fare. Those people worked on raods, .....using shovels, built ponds and lakes, planted shelter belts in rural areas to control wind erosion, cleaned up road ditches, etc. Most of them were otherwise jobless, owners of failed businesses and so one. They received a payment from the government in exchange for their labor. At some dark moment in time in time, some bleeding heart liberal bastard determined that it was somehow undignified to for those unfortunates to actually work for their weekly check. Then those payments morphed into welfare. No more earning anything. No more benefit to the community. No more work ethic. Just a handout. The beginning of the end of the American way.

[SB Shock]

[1979Shocker]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over