How are the poor doing under Bush?

[Pangloss]

Generally speaking I'm loathe to quote Bill O'Reilly, because he does tend to be a partisan, especially when it comes to the President. But he does make an effort to be objective, and most of the time that comes through pretty well. His biggest flaw really is that he's a populist, and forgets sometimes that we do have laws for a reason. (chuckle)

 

Anyway, he made a point this week that I thought was interesting and perhaps worthy of further discussion.

 

In 1996 (mid-Clinton) the budget allocated $191 billion specifically for poverty-related entitlements.

 

In 2006 the projected budget will allocate a record $368 billion specifically for povery-related entitlements. (That's about twice what we have spent in Iraq since 2003, and about the same as what we spent on the military at the end of the Clinton administration.)

 

In 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7%.

 

In 2004, the povery rate was 12.7%.

 

Now, mind you, these statistics come from Bill O'Reilly and his "crack research staff" (to steal one of David Letterman's favorite lines). I don't know if these numbers are accurate, or where they come from. Sources were not cited in the show, nor in the online version of the story, which may be found here:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169347,00.html

 

So if anybody has a problem with the numbers I'll be happy to try and dig deeper and see if they're bunk. But if they're true then I think it underscores the discussion we've been having in this country about whether or not the poor are being neglected. As I mentioned in another thread the other day, George Will's column this week claimed that we've spend $6.6 trillion fighting poverty since 1964.

 

It's almost as if we're doing anything BUT ignore poverty.

 

Thoughts?

[budullewraagh]

why do you compare bush to others in order to defend him? these figures only show that we still have work to do. it's easy to extrapolate that neither president has been successful.

 

our goal should be to eliminate poverty, not "do better" than the previous president.

[Mokele]

True, but if each successive president does better than the one before, eventually it will be eliminated. After all, things like poverty can't be solved overnight.

 

Well, OK, they *can*, but asteroid impacts that eliminate all vertebrate life aren't exactly the best way of solving the problem.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

why do you compare bush to others in order to defend him? these figures only show that we still have work to do. it's easy to extrapolate that neither president has been successful.

 

our goal should be to eliminate poverty' date=' not "do better" than the previous president.[/quote']

 

 

Well, to answer the first question, I believe it's valid and historically consistent to compare administrations. It is a simple "apples and apples" reality check, and the merits of such analysis are manifest.

 

As for whether the figures show that we still have work to do, I find it astonishing that anybody could look at a figure like $368 billion and find it an inadequate amount of taxpayer money to spend on anything. But I know you well enough to know that that's your honest point of view and I respect you for sharing it.

[Pangloss]

True' date=' but if each successive president does better than the one before, eventually it will be eliminated. After all, things like poverty can't be solved overnight.

 

Well, OK, they *can*, but asteroid impacts that eliminate all vertebrate life aren't exactly the best way of solving the problem.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

 

At risk of belaboring the point and sounding like I'm badgering you (which is not my intent at all), it seems to me that these numbers suggest that spending more doesn't equate to "doing better".

 

How much money does it cost to explain to people that the way out of poverty is three-fold:

 

1) Graduate high school, and college if you can.

2) Get the best job you can and try to work your way into a better one (rinse, repeat).

3) Don't get pregnant before you're 20.

 

There... cost me half a cent's worth of oil to post that.

[john5746]

At risk of belaboring the point and sounding like I'm badgering you (which is not my intent at all)' date=' it seems to me that these numbers suggest that spending more doesn't equate to "doing better".

 

How much money does it cost to explain to people that the way out of poverty is three-fold:

 

1) Graduate high school, and college if you can.

2) Get the best job you can and try to work your way into a better one (rinse, repeat).

3) Don't get pregnant before you're 20.

 

There... cost me half a cent's worth of oil to post that. [/quote']

 

I think the gap between wealthy and poor is widening, but actual poverty is shrinking.

 

Poverty in America

 

Bottom line is that America cannot afford to keep throwing money to people so they can buy TV's and XBox's. Anyone who has been in a poor neighborhood can attest, one thing you will notice are very large people. They are not starving. We are spending our childrens' money at alarming rates. Eventually, Asia will pull their investments out of here and then we will have real poverty.

 

One key I think is single mothers. I don't know how to fix it, but it must be fixed to get out of the hole. Because making a poor single parent work means a child left alone. And giving them more money for each child creates more children!

 

One radical approach I like is to give a vasectomy to any man who has a child that he isn't supporting(dead-beat dad). This would reduce prision populations and fatherless children.

[Pangloss]

Yowsa, that's some set of stats in that article.

 

# Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

# Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

# Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

# Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

 

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

 

All taken from the Census Bureau, it says.

 

Man, those poor people. We clearly aren't throwing enough money at this problem.

[john5746]

It's sad that in the 60's a democrat President asked the American people to rely on themselves to better their country, not ask from it. You won't here an American President say that today. Bush alludes to it with entrepreneurs, but that still looks like a savior will come in and make it all better. It isn't just the poor that lack motivation. Most people will work less if they see no benefit in it.

 

Sounds like they have plenty of work to do down on the Gulf Coast. It will be interesting to see who ends up doing it.

[CPL.Luke]

When it comes down to cars I think you need to take into account the fact that in most occupations not having a car means that you don't have a job :/ also considering that a car realy does mean freedom for most people, the car is going to be the first thing they buy with there money after food and shelter. AFter taht the other things listed only cost a a few hundred dollars tops, and for that matter a car only costs a few thousand. Over the course of a year most people could afford all the things listed.

 

I think the thing those statistics don't show is that in the event of a late pay check or something of that sort, they could lose their house :/ (probably an exagerration, but you could still end up eating ramen noodles for a week)

[john5746]

I think the thing those statistics don't show is that in the event of a late pay check or something of that sort' date=' they could lose their house :/ (probably an exagerration, but you could still end up eating ramen noodles for a week)[/quote']

 

Loosing the house isn't an exaggeration. Many people are buying houses via only-interest and other options that stretch their limits. Not sure if the poor have these options or not. Quite a few middle class and even wealthy are a housing market crash or layoff from losing big time.

 

Many people living paycheck to paycheck could remedy that situation. Save a dollar here and there. Pretty soon, you have saved at least one paycheck for a rainy day, or a flood.

 

Most people can better themselves and their situation. Poor people many times have poor ways and should be educated on saving and probably need to be forced into it. I mean if the kids are fat, wearing Nike shoes and playing video games, I think a few dollars of the welfare check can go towards savings.

[Pangloss]

I'm not real sympathetic to someone who loses a house over a single lost paycheck when the house in question is full of modern electronics for entertainment and convenience. They should have thought about that before whipping out the Visa at Best Buy. We've all had to eat Mac & Cheese at some point in our lives. You eat it and you move on.

 

The sad thing is that the "poverty line" is so politically spun that we now have no idea how many Americans SERIOUSLY need our help, but we have an EXACT FIGURE on the number of households with two televisions, overweight children, and parents who can't seem to keep their jobs!

[bascule]

But conversely, many who were salaried with benefits are now working part time. While more may be employed, they're at Wal-Mart style "rape our employees out of benefits by replacing one salaried employee with two part time employees" jobs...

[Pangloss]

Did you actually read this thread, Bascule, or just pop in to drop an ideological epithet and run away? Because what you just said is exactly the opposite of what the statistics posted above indicate.

 

I have no doubt that there are people out there who need our help. But straw man arguments like that do not constitute a debate. A couple of guys standing on a streetcorner is not an "indication of a homeless problem in America".

[budullewraagh]

here's an interesting thought to ponder: to keep up with inflation, minimum wage should be $20/hour.

[bascule]

Did you actually read this thread, Bascule, or just pop in to drop an ideological epithet and run away? Because what you just said is exactly the opposite of what the statistics posted above indicate.

 

Well, you're somewhat correct, looking at the statistics...

 

This is from December 2003...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/16/national/main588815.shtml

 

A falling unemployment rate may be spurring President Bush's prospects for reelection, but it is masking millions of Americans who do not have full time jobs, a newspaper reports.

 

The Los Angeles Times reports that while the nation's unemployment rate of 5.9 percent is relatively low, it fails to include the 4.9 million people who want full-time positions but are working part-time jobs. The figure also omits 1.5 million people who have stopped looking for work.

 

Taken together, the total number of jobless reaches 15.1 million — or 9.7 percent, up from 9.4 percent a year ago, the Times reports.

 

The number is unlikely to fall very fast, very soon. While forecasters believe things are falling into place to produce the strongest economic growth in two decades, analysts believe there will be much less improvement in unemployment as businesses concentrate on boosting productivity so they can expand output without hiring new workers.

 

So how have things changed since then?

 

http://stat.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01092004.pdf

 

The BLS reported in November 2003 that the total unemployed was at 5.9% and the total unemployed plus total part time at 9.9%

 

Compare to now:

 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

 

The BLS reported in August 2005 that the total unemployed was at 4.9% and the total unemployed plus total part time was at 8.9%

 

So yes, the number of part time employees has remained the same even as the number of unemployed has decreased, so we can safely assume that for roughly every unemployed person who got a part time job there was a person with a part time job who received a full time one (including myself, yay!)

 

Still, that's a far cry from the 6.7% (for unemployed/part time) it was at in December 2000...

http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/pub/empsit_dec2000.htm

[Pangloss]

So your point is... what... that the picture is more mixed than the Census statistics suggest? I have no problem with that. Nobody is suggesting that two televisions and two cars equates to the same standard of living as anybody else. The point of the Census statistics is that it's misleading to say that every such person is "living below the poverty line".

 

By all means, point out the weaknesses in the current economy. But you realize that every time you do that, every time you focus on those kinds of small-percentage problem areas, you're admitting that the vast majority of it is not only successful, but growing and even thriving. I didn't realize you were such a Bush fanboy! ;->

 

But sure, IMO that's a reasonable answer to the question of this thread, just as Bud's posts were.

[bascule]

But you realize that every time you do that, every time you focus on those kinds of small-percentage problem areas, you're admitting that the vast majority of it is not only successful, but growing and even thriving. I didn't realize you were such a Bush fanboy! ;->

 

Well, the thing to remember is that 2.2% is still 6 million people who are worse off than they were 4 years ago... so there's the answer to your question.

[Pangloss]

Now that's an interesting way to put it.

 

Why do you think those statistics are more important than the other ones we discussed earlier in the thread?

[ecoli]

What people don't realize is that throwing money at people isn't going to stop them from being poor. Giving people welfare checks without earning them is just teaching them to be lazy. We need to create jobs, make people who were accepting welfare checks to take jobs. Menial jobs, if they have to.

 

We could get rid of all the illegal immigrants, and then all the unemployed would have jobs. (not saying it would work perfectly, but the numbers of unemployed and illegal immigrants are amazingly similiar).

[bascule]

Why do you think those statistics are more important than the other ones we discussed earlier in the thread?

 

The bottom line is that we're 6 million full time jobs away from recovering to pre-9/11 employment utilization rates... while the unemployment levels are close, the number of people working part time jobs has skyrocketed. I mean, yes, we can be happy these people can have jobs, but since we don't have universal healthcare it means these people aren't getting health insurance benefits...

[jutntog1]

Only from title.... DUHH POORLY

[Pangloss]

The bottom line is that we're 6 million full time jobs away from recovering to pre-9/11 employment utilization rates... while the unemployment levels are close, the number of people working part time jobs has skyrocketed. I mean, yes, we can be happy these people can have jobs, but since we don't have universal healthcare it means these people aren't getting health insurance benefits...

 

But as was pointed out in the Census Bureau statistics:

- They are getting health care

- They are making enough to meet basic family needs

- They can buy entertainment appliances and other luxuries

 

So why do you feel that the unemployment and part-time employment numbers of a tiny percentage of the population are more important than the above information?

 

Put another way, if there are people starving out there, I can understand why they need my help. If their problem is not that they're starving, but rather than they aren't "keeping up with the Jonses", then I don't understand why money needs to be removed from my pocket at the point of a gun just to buy the "poor" a BMW instead of a 5-year-old Ford.

 

Be honest: Is it the poor that concern you, or the fact that some people in this country earn more than others? Are you really concerned about employment, or the fact that jobs are earned rather than taken from one group at the point of a gun and handed to another?

[Pangloss]

Let's try this question another way:

 

Since we know for a fact that spending money on the problem hasn't worked, because this country has spent more money on the poor and on entitlements in general in one year than Iraq will cost us in ten, and "poverty" (defined as people who own older cars and own homes that aren't quite as nice as others) still exists, what exactly should be done about this problem?

 

Some further evidence that spending is out of hand and solving nothing exists in the budget, reported by the Congressional Budget Office:

 

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

 

Year      Mandatory             Discretionary 
         % GDP   $B            % GDP   $B   
1964        6.1   39             12.3   79    (67% of spending) 
1968        6.9   60             13.6  118 
1972        8.6  101             10.9  123 
1976       10.9  190             10.1  176 
1980       10.7  291             10.1  276    (49% of spending)   
1984       10.5  406              9.9  379 
1988       10.1  505              9.3  464 
1992       11.5  716              8.6  534 
1996       11.2  859              6.9  532 
2000       10.6 1030              6.3  615 
2004       11.6 1346              7.7  895    (40% of spending) 

 

In absolute terms, entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, any kind of "welfare") have grown by 3451%, or 12.5% per year, while discretionary spending (everything else, including Defense has grown 1133%, or 8.4% per year.

 

Those figures don't include the interest on the debt. Hint, hint.

[budullewraagh]

you can count out medicare

[Skye]

I don't see how the Iraq War is a relevent metric for welfare spending.