More Fruit of Bush Economics

[Bronco_Beerslug]

12.9 million children living in poverty last year, or 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau.

Those are not good numbers! And these numbers come back to all us that are paying taxes dragging us all down.

--------------------------------------------------
More Poor, Incomes Flat
WASHINGTON, Aug. 26, 2004

CBS/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.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/26/politics/main638642.shtml

[Mile High Shack]

Those are not good numbers! And these numbers come back to all us that are paying taxes dragging us all down.



your talking out of both sides of your mouth now

your complaining about Bush's tax plan, but want more taxes taken out if Kerry is elected?

you can't have it both ways. I know your a Kerry supporter, but don't waffle like him.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

your talking out of both sides of your mouth now

your complaining about Bush's tax plan, but want more taxes taken out if Kerry is elected?

you can't have it both ways. I know your a Kerry supporter, but don't waffle like him.
Where did you get that? Kerry has an economic plan, what is Bush's?
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

[Mile High Shack]

Where did you get that? Kerry has an economic plan, what is Bush's?
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

not more about all the spending he plans to do, but only increase taxes to those making more than 200K

whatever...what a "sound" plan.

don't quote me the 10 economists who endorse Kerry...I'm sure you could find 10 economists that think Bush has a solid plan.

Kerry's sole plan is to raise taxes...plain and simple and be more sensitive.

people aren't voting for him, just against Bush.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

not more about all the spending he plans to do, but only increase taxes to those making more than 200K

whatever...what a "sound" plan.

don't quote me the 10 economists who endorse Kerry...I'm sure you could find 10 economists that think Bush has a solid plan.

Kerry's sole plan is to raise taxes...plain and simple and be more sensitive.

people aren't voting for him, just against Bush.
If you actually read his plan you would know it's a great deal more than you posted. I've looked for those 10 economists that support Bush economics but couldn't find them. Do you know where they are?

[Mile High Shack]

If you actually read his plan you would know it's a great deal more than you posted. I've looked for those 10 economists that support Bush economics but couldn't find them. Do you know where they are?


no, I'm saying there probably could be if people asked them to talk about it.

It's not hard for the liberal college professor types to come out and endorse Kerry...the anti-Bush sentiment is so strong right now you could get a lot of people endorsing Kerry based on the fact he's not Bush.

sure Kerry's plan is more than I posted, but that is the basics of it, right?

raise takes on those making over 200K and then suddenly the debt shrinks and jobs are created by this plan....right!

and I'm sorry if I don't believe that he won't raise taxes all around.

[watermock]

Go right ahead.

People in Ivory Towers don't really see things in the blood and guts menu.

It's more like the low carb menu.

You people have a very limited idea of reality. I am not even going to waste my time, someone else should make my argument for me.

I am sure that all will work itself out.

[Rohirrim]

no, I'm saying there probably could be if people asked them to talk about it.

It's not hard for the liberal college professor types to come out and endorse Kerry...the anti-Bush sentiment is so strong right now you could get a lot of people endorsing Kerry based on the fact he's not Bush.

sure Kerry's plan is more than I posted, but that is the basics of it, right?

raise takes on those making over 200K and then suddenly the debt shrinks and jobs are created by this plan....right!

and I'm sorry if I don't believe that he won't raise taxes all around.

Then there's Paul O'Neil, who was Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, and previously the president of Alcoa Aluminum (and who took that dying company and turned it into a powerhouse). He disagreed with Bush's ridiculous tax cuts - and got fired for it. So did Alan Greenspan, at the time. Though he later changed his tune and got Bush's renomination for the Fed slot.

Hell, even Warren Buffet said that Bush's plan was great for him, and lousy for the country.

[Mile High Shack]

Then there's Paul O'Neil, who was Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, and previously the president of Alcoa Aluminum (and who took that dying company and turned it into a powerhouse). He disagreed with Bush's ridiculous tax cuts - and got fired for it. So did Alan Greenspan, at the time. Though he later changed his tune and got Bush's renomination for the Fed slot.

if you think Greenspan will cow down to Bush, your crazy.........Greenspan is one thing, non-partisan for sure.

I don't like him, but he speaks his mind.

[Rohirrim]

if you think Greenspan will cow down to Bush, your crazy.........Greenspan is one thing, non-partisan for sure.

I don't like him, but he speaks his mind.

I'm going by what I read in O'Neill's book, "The Price of Loyalty." In the book, O'Neil says Greenspan agreed with him right down the line, even going so far as to publicly recommend that Bush install "triggers" to shut down the tax cuts if the economy went south. When Bush ignored the "triggers" advice and canned O'Neil, Greenspan got on board with the administration.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

no, I'm saying there probably could be if people asked them to talk about it.

It's not hard for the liberal college professor types to come out and endorse Kerry...the anti-Bush sentiment is so strong right now you could get a lot of people endorsing Kerry based on the fact he's not Bush.

sure Kerry's plan is more than I posted, but that is the basics of it, right?

raise takes on those making over 200K and then suddenly the debt shrinks and jobs are created by this plan....right!

and I'm sorry if I don't believe that he won't raise taxes all around.
Shack,
He plans on cutting spending that has gotten out of control with this admin.
If he raised taxes all-around someone would assassinate him. I'll hold him to the same level I hold Bush. If he gets elected and doesn't do what he said he will do, I'll be right here calling for his head too.
I'm concerned about my children's economic future and their children's future.
I'm convinced Bush has no sound economic plan thus my postings here.

[Mile High Shack]

Kerry doesn't plan on cutting spending

he plans on raising spending in a lot of areas as well.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Kerry doesn't plan on cutting spending

he plans on raising spending in a lot of areas as well.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/budget.pdf

[Rohirrim]

Kerry doesn't plan on cutting spending

he plans on raising spending in a lot of areas as well.

By redirecting Bush's 1.6 trillion dollar tax cuts and giving the middle class more of the cut than the wealthy. The core of Bush's policy is just revamped "trickle down" which we already saw under Reagan. Unfortunately, if the wealthy don't trust the economy, they bank the money, rather than invest it. The most recent numbers I saw on that was a Denver Post report that 300 billion had been pulled out of the economy and placed in low risk bonds and mutual funds since Bush gave out the tax cuts to the rich. Giving half that cut to the middle class will put that money back into the economy, because the middle class will consume while the rich save in a down economy.

I don't know about you, but my health insurance went up 25% last year, and I just got the notice that it's going up 30% next year. Combined with my employers contribution, Kaiser gets $7000 per year from me. And it takes me four days to get them on the phone. It's a national disaster. The GOP wants to blame the costs on trial lawyers (at least that's what their trial lawyers tell them - those that defend the HMOs and pharmaceuticals). Actual stats say that litigation costs are around 2% of health cost increases. The biggest chunk is pharmaceutical costs. Meanwhile, Bush receives massive amounts of money from those companies, refuses to allow volume bargaining on drug costs, and wants to stop Americans from buying cheaper drugs elsewhere.

All energy costs are rising with the concurrent rise in prices across the board on shipped goods. Wages and jobs are stagnant. The American people need help. Now. They're not going to get it from Bush. Period.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...I'm sure you could find 10 economists that think Bush has a solid plan.

Really?

I'd be really impressed if you could do that. (And they have to be Nobel Prize winners like the economists who are endorsing Kerry.)

In the mean time, stay tuned for "Nobel Prize Winners for Truth" (coming to a convention not near you.)

[Raider Bill]

Kerry's economic deficit
Larry Kudlow (archive)


July 15, 2004 | Print | Send


If it's not bad enough that rapid economic recovery has neutered Sen. Kerry's principal domestic criticism of President Bush, now comes even worse news for the Democratic campaign: The budget deficit is starting to substantially shrink.

The latest budget numbers show a $19.1 billion surplus for June, $3 billion higher than the $16 billion Wall Street expectation. It seems that a flood of new tax collections, spurred by fatter employment payrolls and corporate profits, is rapidly reducing the federal budget gap. Tax receipts from businesses rose an astonishing 38 percent over the past 12 months, and personal income-tax collections increased almost 9 percent. What's happening? Could it be that stronger economic growth from lower tax rates is producing more tax receipts? I believe it's called supply-side economics.

Just as the 1.5 million new jobs created since last August has terminated talk of a jobless recovery, the chatter over widening budget deficits will end. The fiscal-year 2004 budget deficit now looks to come in around $435 billion, less than 4 percent of GDP. This would be almost $100 billion below early year estimates from the Office of Management and Budget and about $50 billion less than Congressional Budget Office forecasts. The administration is also getting its arms around federal spending. Fiscal year to date, domestic discretionary program spending has slowed to 2.7 percent from 6.8 percent a year ago.

As the tax-cut-led recovery continues, deficits will rapidly wane over the coming years.

Former Clinton economic officials Robert Rubin, Gene Sperling and Bowman Cutter -- all now advising Kerry -- continue to obsess over the alleged economic consequences of budget deficits. But there is virtually no evidence that the budget gap (two-thirds of which emanated from the Clinton recession) has had any negative effect on U.S. recovery prospects. In fact, even with the fastest economic growth in 20 years, long-term Treasury rates remain at 4.5 percent, the cheapest money in over 40 years.

All this is why Kerry's proposal to raise tax rates on upper-income individuals, small businesses, and key investment categories like capital gains and dividends is so completely out of touch. The Kerry tax hikes will blunt the good news on growth and deficits, exactly the reverse of what the pessimistic Kerryites are predicting.

Like the modern Democratic Party, the Kerryites neither understand nor acknowledge the tax-incentive model of economic growth that simply restates an old truism: Individuals produce and invest more if it is more profitable after-tax to do so.

Ironically, by placing his $900 billion government-funded health-care plan at the center of his economic policy, Kerry has dropped any pretense of deficit reduction. He may take great pains to position himself as a Clinton-type moderate Democrat, but his policies are pure tax-and-spend liberal.

Oddly, when they dare to discuss the economic picture, one that clearly validates Bush's pro-growth policies, the Kerryites talk about a middle-class "squeeze." This is counter-factual. After-tax incomes adjusted for inflation have jumped 4.3 percent over the first five months of this election year, compared with the same period a year ago. That's why retail spending over the first six months of 2004 has increased 7.7 percent compared with the year-ago period. The middle class wouldn't be spending quite so rapidly if they were squeezed in the way the Kerry complainers allege.

Factual fallacy is at the heart of the Kerry campaign. In another blatant example, Kerry charges that health costs are spiraling out of control. While there is no question that the nation's health system needs more consumer choice and private-sector competition, with less third-party payments, health costs are dropping. According to the Commerce Department, the weighted average of medical-benefit costs has slowed to only 0.6 percent in the 12-month period through May. It is possible that some of the progress on this front has resulted from the tax-free, pro-competition, health savings accounts included in last year's health reform bill, which was sponsored by President Bush.

Here are some more data that ride counter to claims being made by the Kerry campaign: The percentage of children without health insurance fell from 13.9 percent in 1997 to 10.1 percent in 2003, according to the Centers for Disease Control. During the same period, the percent of all children without health insurance for a year or more dropped to 5.3 percent from 8.4 percent. And the percent of "near poo" with public health-care coverage expanded to 47.2 percent in 2003 from 22.9 percent in 1998.

In other words, the Kerry campaign's dark picture of American economic and social life is simply untrue. And in the areas where future improvements are necessary -- including the Social Security system -- a big-spending, overarching government-regulatory scheme is not the answer. What is? Greater individual responsibility and personal choice in the context of our free-enterprise market system. It's what will make this thriving nation even more prosperous.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL

Who are you going to believe?

Those ten economists/Nobel Prize winners who endorse Kerry or your lyin' eyes?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Manufacturing jobs sink further..........

Manufacturing adds to proof economy is cooling
By Christopher Swann in Washington
Published: August 25 2004 20:53 | Last updated: August 25 2004 20:53
Figures showing lacklustre growth in manufacturing orders and a slowdown in new home sales on Wednesday added to evidence that the US economy is continuing to cool.


Durable goods orders initially appeared strong, rising by 1.7 per cent over July. But the figure was flattered by bumper purchases of civilian aircrafts, which doubled over the month, and outside the notoriously volatile aircraft sector orders rose by just 0.1 per cent.

“It is important to recognise that today's report is not as strong as the headline suggests since orders were not anywhere close to being balanced across sectors,” said Geoffrey Soms, an analyst at Economy.com, the consultancy. “The recovery of the overall US economy had lost a bit of steam in the middle of this year.”

The new home sales figures also continued the recent trend of disappointing economic releases. Sales fell to an annualised 1.13m homes in July down from 1.21m in June and the slowest pace of growth so far this year.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5555b9e0-f6d0-11d8-a879-00000e2511c8.html

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Kerry's economic deficit
Larry Kudlow (archive)


.
A right-leaning Kudlow story and no links to credible sources for numbers?

----------------------------------------
"Under George Bush (news - web sites)'s watch America's families are falling further behind." Some 4.3m Americans had fallen into poverty and 5.2m had lost health insurance during Mr Bush's presidency, Mr Kerry said, and the median family income had fallen by $1,511.

Mr Kerry proposes spending $650bn over the next decade to extend health insurance to lower- and middle-income families. The core of his plan would provide "reinsurance" for private health plans, with the federal government picking up the tab for 75 per cent of medical bills exceeding $50,000.

By removing these large bills from the insurance pool, analysts estimate that the scheme would drive down health premiums by as much as 10 per cent. Mr Kerry also plans to raise the income level under which people are eligible for benefits under Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance.

The Bush administration also plans to cut the number of people without insurance by offering a tax credit. But a recent independent study of the plans by Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University in Georgia estimated that the Bush plan would cut the number of uninsured by just 1.8m, while Mr Kerry's plan would extend coverage to an additional 26.7m.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...fe600000e2511c8

[Raider Bill]

LOL

Who are you going to believe?

Those ten economists/Nobel Prize winners who endorse Kerry or your lyin' eyes?



Do you honestly believe the Nobel Selection Comittee has no political agenda?

Please, the 10 economists mentioned are good little socialists from Berkley and the like.


Kudlow unlike any of these leftist blowhards has worked in the "real world" as an economist for several large investment houses.

Nobel laurate? Big friggin deal, go make some dough in the real world then get back to me. College Profs exist in the fantasy land of academia. It really doesn't impress me that much.

[watermock]

So he is going to take 650 billion to redisribute the wealth right?

I allready addressed the tuba player from Stanford.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

12.9 million children living in poverty last year, or 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau.

Those are not good numbers! And these numbers come back to all us that are paying taxes dragging us all down.

No wonder the Smirking Sociopath wants his good puppy press to stay focused on the Smear Boat Rats for Bush.

If the media ever decided to take a break from the smear vets and Scott Peterson then Deserter Boy's goose would be cooked.

Do you honestly believe the Nobel Selection Comittee has no political agenda?

Please, the 10 economists mentioned are good little socialists from Berkley and the like.

Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

OMG, that's got be the funniest thing I've ever heard on here!

And here I thought I was just making a joke about that forthcoming new group called "Nobel Prize Winners for Truth."

LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Speaking of the "fruit" of BushCo economics, I just heard on the radio that Texas leads the nation in the percentage of people without health insurance.

25% of Texans are not covered.

25%!

How could anyone in his right mind want to give these crooks another four years?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"President Bush went out touting his economic record in Ohio last week. Now this is a state that lost 225,000 jobs since Bush took office. You know, if Bush wants to tout his record, he should do it somewhere where the Bush economy has actually created jobs, like India, or Thailand, or China."

--Jay Leno

"President Bush said he was 'troubled' by gay people getting married in San Francisco. He said on important issues like this the people should make the decision, not! judges. Unless of course we're choosing a President, then he prefers judges."

--Jay Leno

"This week, both John Kerry and Wesley Clark are making campaign appearance with the guys who saved their lives in Vietnam. Meanwhile President Bush is campaigning with a guy that once took a math test for him."

--Conan O'Brien

[kappys]

I thought Bush's plan was to lower the poverty line so these types of negative figures wouldn't come out. Looks like someone dropped the ball.

And weren't manufacturing jobs supposed to rise dramatically with the advent of the manufactured Big Mac? Whatever happened to these well thought out economic plans?

[Mile High Shack]

Speaking of the "fruit" of BushCo economics, I just heard on the radio that Texas leads the nation in the percentage of people without health insurance.

25% of Texans are not covered.

25%!

How could anyone in his right mind want to give these crooks another four years?

I would suggest to you Texas has a lot of illegal immigrants which make up the majority of that...the other could be farmers, farmers don't get cheap health care plans.

[Raider Bill]

LABF, you believe the Nobel Prize isn't political?

How humorous.


The same orginization gave it's highest honor to a walking cluster**** like Jimmy Carter, obstensibly to tweak Bush.

They also awarded that twit Gorbachev with the peace prize for "his work in ending the cold war". That is eqivalent to awarding your alarm clock for causing the Sun to rise in the morning.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I would suggest to you Texas has a lot of illegal immigrants which make up the majority of that...the other could be farmers, farmers don't get cheap health care plans.

:spamattac

(Trying MHS's technique.)

Wow!

Winning arguments is easy when you're a republican.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, you believe the Nobel Prize isn't political? How humorous.

What's humorous is how the dirt weed you are apparently smoking is affecting your judgement.

The same orginization gave it's highest honor to a walking cluster**** like Jimmy Carter, obstensibly to tweak Bush

Carter deserved the award for the tremendous amount of work (manual and otherwise) he's done to advance human rights causes throughout the world. (I know--something that means nothing to the average repuke.)

What has Poppy ever done to deserve a Nobel Prize?

(Covertly selling stinger missles to Iran doesn't count.)

[Cito Pelon]

Kerry's economic deficit
Larry Kudlow (archive)


July 15, 2004 | Print | Send


If it's not bad enough that rapid economic recovery has neutered Sen. Kerry's principal domestic criticism of President Bush, now comes even worse news for the Democratic campaign: The budget deficit is starting to substantially shrink.


Tell me how doubling a millionaires wealth every year creates more jobs. Give me the details.

[Raider Bill]

Tell me how doubling a millionaires wealth every year creates more jobs. Give me the details.


Who's wealth has doubled this year? Give me details.

[Raider Bill]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_howells.jpg

[Raider Bill]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_ketchup_lies.jpg

[Raider Bill]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_57positions.jpg

[kappys]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_57positions.jpg

That one is absolutely the best I've seen. Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Anyone with a two-digit IQ can't fail to notice the absurdity of those bush sheep who harp on and on about Kerry's "millionaire" status while these same sheep want to "re"-elect two other millionaires (more specifically, two draft-dodging millionaires) and their wives.

These guys' feeble attempts at effective criticism/satire are so pathetic you almost want to feel sorry for them.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Joe Scarbar-ho admits that "the economy is slowing down."

Joey sez the real numbers are gonna be worse than the already-scaled-back phony recent predictions.

He also says that the war in Iraq is "increasingly unpopular." Wow.

Joey almost seems mystifed that Smirk might be slightly ahead or at least dead even with all of this bad news that he's finally admitted to.

Joey's not that good of an actor. He knows why Smirk is even. He knows how the right-wing slime machine works (he's a HUGE part of it.)

It seems Joey is genuinely surprised that the slime machine in which he himself is a cog is actually working overtime in a time of war, bad economy, and an unpopular resident who lost the popular vote.

Even Joey the pied piper himself has trouble believing how stupid and gulliable the residents of "Scarbarough Country" are.

[BroncoInferno]

I love how the simplistic thinking conservatives just throw out, "Well Kerry is richer than anybody!" It's not being rich that's the problem, it's expecting tax breaks for being rich, and having the current president provide you with those breaks.

[Rock Chalk]

Manufacturing jobs sink further..........

Manufacturing adds to proof economy is cooling
By Christopher Swann in Washington
Published: August 25 2004 20:53 | Last updated: August 25 2004 20:53
Figures showing lacklustre growth in manufacturing orders and a slowdown in new home sales on Wednesday added to evidence that the US economy is continuing to cool.


Durable goods orders initially appeared strong, rising by 1.7 per cent over July. But the figure was flattered by bumper purchases of civilian aircrafts, which doubled over the month, and outside the notoriously volatile aircraft sector orders rose by just 0.1 per cent.

“It is important to recognise that today's report is not as strong as the headline suggests since orders were not anywhere close to being balanced across sectors,” said Geoffrey Soms, an analyst at Economy.com, the consultancy. “The recovery of the overall US economy had lost a bit of steam in the middle of this year.”

The new home sales figures also continued the recent trend of disappointing economic releases. Sales fell to an annualised 1.13m homes in July down from 1.21m in June and the slowest pace of growth so far this year.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5555b9e0-f6d0-11d8-a879-00000e2511c8.html

Dude how many times do we have to tell you those manufacturing jobs are gone, going and NEVER coming back? This is NOT bush's fault. This is Clinton's fault for agreeing to the free trade crap he did. In order to sell things, American companies have to have cheaper labor so that people in other countries can afford their products. See, not everyone is rich like us. While the "poverty" line is this country is low, no one in this country is poor. Go to other countries and see their poverty and you will understand that OUR poor are still richer than most people in the world.

And if a given economy in Ohio didnt prepare for the loss of one part of their industry, that's their fault. Any state that puts all its eggs in one basket or a good majority of them anyway, deserves what it gets. For an economy to be sustainable and stable, it must be diverse and cannot rely on any one industry to keep it afloat. The northern states prospered for a hundred years on manufacturing jobs and now that they dont have them they are bitching and complaining instead of going out there and fixing the problem.

The South suffered a similar fate after the Civil war when they had based their economy on slave labor. When that was taken away from them they suffered. Guess what, they rebounded by diversifying and now the South is the 2nd largest economy in the world (behind the US as a whole).

Get over the manufacturing job loss. Those jobs are gone. Time to buck up and start diversifying the economies of those states that are suffering like Ohio and Michigan and Illinois and the New England states.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I love how the simplistic thinking conservatives just throw out, "Well Kerry is richer than anybody!" It's not being rich that's the problem, it's expecting tax breaks for being rich, and having the current president provide you with those breaks.

:thumbsup:

And the wingnuts can't produce any real evidence that Kerry is worth more than Bush or GoFyourself.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is NOT bush's fault. This is Clinton's fault for agreeing to the free trade crap he did.

Talk about pure, unadulterated BS unsupported by fact.

Clinton's policies created record job growth (not to mention welfare reform.)

Dim Son's policies have reversed all these accomplishments (just like Deserter Boy turned a $5 trillion surplus into a $5 trillion deficit.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wake up call

About two weeks ago the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a study that confirmed everything we have been saying for the last few years: Bush's tax cuts were disproportionately skewed to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, and therefore shifted more of the burden to middle-income taxpayers.

Now, new numbers from the US Census Bureau show us that while Bush's fat cat friends were getting tax breaks from the federal government, the nation's poor were struggling even more than before.

http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=38226218

There were 1.3 million more people living in poverty in 2003 than in 2002.
Sadly, children make up most of the rise - with 17.6 percent living in poverty in 2003, compared to 16.7 percent in 2002.
1.5 million more people were uninsured in 2003 than were in 2002.
And for Hispanics, median income fell 2.6 percent last year.
The number of African Americans living in poverty has increased by 300,000 since 2002.
Under President Bush, African American income has declined at nearly three times the rate of whites.

This is the first time in more than ten years that the number of people living in poverty has increased for three straight years and the second year in a row that the average income has not risen.

Bush had his chance to do right by the American people. He had a choice between proposing an agenda that would help the everyday American or one that would ensure that the 'have mores' keep getting more. He made his choice. Now there are more American families falling below the poverty line every year, more families that can't meet the cost of living and more children who can't get the healthcare they need.

The reports from both the US Census Bureau and the Congressional Budget Office force us all to realize a very harsh truth: Bush's policies are not just wrong or misguided, they are dangerous. Bush policies are hurting Americans in a very real way - and we're about to reach a breaking point.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Dude how many times do we have to tell you those manufacturing jobs are gone, going and NEVER coming back? This is NOT bush's fault. This is Clinton's fault for agreeing to the free trade crap he did.

Get over the manufacturing job loss. Those jobs are gone. Time to buck up and start diversifying the economies of those states that are suffering like Ohio and Michigan and Illinois and the New England states.

Diversifying to what? All surveys show almost all the jobs being created are low-paying and without benefits. Every state but 2 last I looked are in big financial trouble. And tell me how you diversify a person who has worked at the same job, profession for 20, 30 years to a job that pays 1/2 of what he used to make and no more health and pension benefits.

[watermock]

First off, the lowest 30 percent DON'T EVEN PAY TAXES.

If they bothered to even file, they would of gotten 300 dollars they never even paid in.

There are credits for children, there are credits all over the damn place.

You people are insane.

If you want to talk about Job Creation, it isn't something your even remotely qualified to address.

Here is how it works:

Companies want to make money. Have I lost you yet? They can't make money based in the USA for 3 reasons. Now here is the quiz.

Can you even tell me those 3 reasons?

[Raider Bill]

This is NOT bush's fault. This is Clinton's fault for agreeing to the free trade crap he did.

Talk about pure, unadulterated BS unsupported by fact.

Clinton's policies created record job growth (not to mention welfare reform.)




Here's some fact from Factcheck.org Bubba did in fact loose manufacturing jobs, they peaked back in 98 and have gone down every year since


"But -- as a look at the chart below will show -- US manufacturing employment was in decline for nearly three years before Bush became President. It actually declined by 544,000 between the peak reached in March, 1998 and when Clinton left office, even as the economy added nearly 7.8 million jobs in all categories during the climax of a roaring economic boom that ended a few weeks after Bush was sworn in. In fact, 238,000 of those manufacturing jobs were lost in Clinton's last six month alone, showing that the decline was well-established even before Bush had spent a day in office."

http://www.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Manufacturing%20Jobs,%201993-2004.gif

Manufacturing Payroll Jobs Peaked in March, 1998

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=234

[errand]

Tell me how doubling a millionaires wealth every year creates more jobs. Give me the details.


So tell us Cito Pelon, how many poor people do you see hiring these days (or ANY day for that matter)?

Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank started The Home Depot with one Atlanta store, they had a philosophy of stack it high and watch it fly, even going as far as putting empty boxes on their top shelves to give the impression that they had tons of inventory to meet the big job size demands of their customers.

As their business grew so did their profits and so did the tax breaks....and now they are the world's largest home improvement store.....and they are also the employers of thousands of workers too. See, as their business grew and the tax cuts enabled them to invest more money into growing their business instead of supporting junkies and drunks on welfare, they were able to hire people to work in their stores

I know a few store managers (no, they didn't all start out as managers...most worked their way up the ladder) who retired over the last few years as millionaires because they (Bernie and Arthur) gave their employees a sense of ownership, and as Bernie and Arthur's income increased so did the incomes of those who produced and took stock in the company. Now keep in mind they did not start the Home Depot to make their managers rich....but the richer they got, the richer their managers got as the opening of new stores in new markets paved the way for promotions and opportunity for all the employees they hired.

I started out with a van and me....I now employ 2 part-time people getting about 25-30 hours weekly and 3 fulltime employees (not including myself and my wife) getting 40 hours a week, they also are provided with the vehicles they need to accomplish their jobs and I pay for all their fuel and maintenance.....

....and as my income has risen so has theirs, not neccessarily in $$ per hour, but the part-timers were averaging about 15-18 hours a week and had to use their own vehicles at first.....and while some will argue differently, that vehicle they drive is part of their compensation for the work they do. So it's pretty plain to see, that the more money I make, the more my employees make.....

....and while they will never make as much as I do working for me, that's not my concern because again as I stated, I didn't start this business to make them rich, I started it to make me rich. And I'll make no apologies for the amount of money my business earns and pays me.

Keep in mind I assume all risks as the owner of this company. You can always tell those that have never owned a business by the way they wonder aloud how the government can give business owners tax breaks. They never seem to think about what owning a business is about and how an employee's compensation goes beyond the hourly wage they earn.

[] I have to provide worker's comp. insurance for them.....

[] I have to match their FICA and taxes withheld dollar for dollar......I provide the insurance on the vehicles they drive......

[] I furnish them with the shirts that have the company logo on them to give them a professional look.....

[] I pay for all the fuel they use.....

[] I pay for all the maintenance and repairs on the vehicles they drive and take home with them.....

[] I pay for the cell phones they use (to contact them during the day)....

[] I have to pay for the licenses and fees the city, state, and federal gov't. need to operate my business....

[] I have to pay into the federal unemployment "insurance" (why not call it what it is - another TAX) despite never having laid anyone off.

So forgive me if the government finally decides to give ME a break and allow me a deduction here or there that the private person doesn't get to claim.....

[Cito Pelon]

Dude how many times do we have to tell you those manufacturing jobs are gone, going and NEVER coming back? This is NOT bush's fault. This is Clinton's fault for agreeing to the free trade crap he did. In order to sell things, American companies have to have cheaper labor so that people in other countries can afford their products. See, not everyone is rich like us. While the "poverty" line is this country is low, no one in this country is poor. Go to other countries and see their poverty and you will understand that OUR poor are still richer than most people in the world.

Good points. The current economic climate is for INVESTORS. That was obvious as soon as Free Trade came around. But most people are not investors. They depend on wages and interest on savings accounts to improve their quality-of-life.

The USA can become a third-world country 20 years from now if we're not careful. The current Fed economic policies will result in that, if we're not careful. The mark of a third-world country is too-many rich and powerful, a large underclass and a midle-class that is dependent on those rich and powerful for economic sustenance. America did not get to this point with that formula. The formula was a huge, powerful middle-class that dictated policy to a weakened rich and powerful, and enabled lower-classes to become middle-class. That's still the best policy.

[watermock]

Good points. The current economic climate is for INVESTORS. That was obvious as soon as Free Trade came around. But most people are not investors. They depend on wages and interest on savings accounts to improve their quality-of-life. It isn't even coherent.

The USA can become a third-world country 20 years from now if we're not careful.

Idiot and total assumption.


The current Fed economic policies will result in that, if we're not careful. The mark of a third-world country is too-many rich and powerful, a large underclass and a midle-class that is dependent on those rich and powerful for economic sustenance. America did not get to this point with that formula. The formula was a huge, powerful middle-class that dictated policy to a weakened rich and powerful, and enabled lower-classes to become middle-class. That's still the best policy.


The current Fed economic policied will result ti what, that.

This is pathetic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here's some fact from Factcheck.org Bubba did in fact loose manufacturing jobs, they peaked back in 98 and have gone down every year since

I was talking about overall job creation. Nice try.

[mosca]

Dim Son's policies have reversed all these accomplishments (just like Deserter Boy turned a $5 trillion surplus into a $5 trillion deficit.)

notice that the $5 trillion was a projected estimate over ten years. we never actually had a surplus of anything close to that amount. another instance of people living in the past and not wanting to face the current reality.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

notice that the $5 trillion was a projected estimate over ten years. we never actually had a surplus of anything close to that amount.

That's the usual wingnut argument. I guess Rush Limbaugh repeated it often enough that ditto monkeys take it as fact nowadays.

[Blueflame]

notice that the $5 trillion was a projected estimate over ten years. we never actually had a surplus of anything close to that amount. another instance of people living in the past and not wanting to face the current reality.

History would suggest that we won't enjoy a surplus... "projected" or otherwise... with a Bush in office.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

History would suggest that we won't enjoy a surplus... "projected" or otherwise... with a Bush in office.

History and the CBO.

'98 1.722 Trillion in, 1.653 out. Surplus=69 Billion

'99 1.828 Trillion in, 1.701 out. Surplus=127 Billion

'00 2.025 Trillion in, 1.788 out. Surplus=237 Billion

'01 1.991 Trillion in, 1.864 out. Surplus=127 Billion

The first Bush Budget:

'02 1,853 Trillion in, 2,011 out. Deficit=158 Billion

Source: Congressional Budget Office

[watermock]

It was a projeted surplus you dimwits.

[watermock]

'98 1.722 Trillion in, 1.653 out. Surplus=69 Billion

Well gee wiz. That didn't happen did it!

That was Clintons last quarter, the rest was simply projections you idiot. In fact this own statment is a ****ing PROJECTION.

It was all a projection for Hillary Clinton.

the budjet surplus never existed, it was created to increase spending.

You people are idiots.

[Mile High Shack]

who cares if we have a surplus or not

surplus means

THE GOVERNMENT TOOK TOO MUCH OF MY DA#$#N MONEY!!!!

[bendog]

NAFTA's a pox on both parties. And JFKlight isn't really lighting a fire under the issue of whether or not we can expect our trading partners to develop markets for the stuff we do without guaranteeing the rights of people to own private property and engage in collective bargaining.