[macvillage.net]

Well, just after Bush got done telling us how the economy is improving and more people have access to medical attention thanks to his reforms:

[quote]Nearly 45 million people lacked health insurance, or 15.6 percent of the population. That was up from 43.5 million in 2002, or 15.2 percent, but was a smaller increase than in the two previous years. /quote]

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

But it's been good for most of the Bush years...

It was the third straight annual increase for both categories.

Which means pretty much as soon as he got into office, it started going downhill. Despite him saying it improved.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebu...ap1520367.html

Guess there's going to be some revisions to the speaches.

[Troll]

You don't get it do you? Strong leaders are consistent. They don't flip-flop. Bush is a strong leader so he has to keep saying that the economy is up, poverty is down, access to healthcare is up. Otherwise, we'd think he was a weak flip-flopper. Better to be consistently wrong than change your mind.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Troll:
You don't get it do you? Strong leaders are consistent. They don't flip-flop. Bush is a strong leader so he has to keep saying that the economy is up, poverty is down, access to healthcare is up. Otherwise, we'd think he was a weak flip-flopper. Better to be consistently wrong than change your mind.

"Show me a man who's never changed his mind and I'll show you a man who's never learned from experience" - Anonymous

(p.s. I know you were being sacastic)

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Troll:
You don't get it do you? Strong leaders are consistent. They don't flip-flop. Bush is a strong leader so he has to keep saying that the economy is up, poverty is down, access to healthcare is up. Otherwise, we'd think he was a weak flip-flopper. Better to be consistently wrong than change your mind.

And there were WMD in Iraq.

[spacefreak]

Noticed this in the coverage

Census Bureau analyst Dan Weinberg said the results were typical of a post-recession period.

"The bottom line is this: More people in America have health coverage today than at any time in our nation's history and I think that's a fact worth noting, but we can always do more," he said.

However, I actually read the 77-page report instead of basing my opinion on someone else's assesment.

From the actual survey:

Median incomes of non-Hispanic white households, black households, and Asian households remained unchanged. Hispanic households experienced a decline in median income of 2.6%

The poverty rate for people 18 to 64 year olds remained unchanged at 10.8%, although the number in poverty rose to 19.4 million, up from 18.9 million.

Poverty rates for the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West all were unchanged.

Married-couple families showed no change in either their poverty rate of their numbers in poverty. In contrast, the poverty rates and numbers increased for both female households with no husband present and male households with no wife present.

The number of people with health insurance coverage increased by 1.0 million.

The percentage and number of people covered by government health insurance programs increased from 25.7 percent and 73.6 million to 26.6 percent and 76.8 million.

The proportion of children who were without health insurance did not change, remaining at 11.4 percent.

Is this good news? No, but it's not nearly as bad as the Dems would have you believe, and it is actually quite solid when you consider that we just climbed out of a recession (which the libs don't want to remind you of).

Much like the unemployment rate, most of these rates are lower than when Clinton the savior ran for re-election. Of course, the Democrat strategy for regaining power is to hide the rates and focus on the numbers. Why say 5.5% unemployment (which is lower than Bill's rate and what many economists consider full-employment) when you can scare the population by saying "millions are unemployed"?

With regards to the poor and uninsured, I'd say this is a bland report. No real changes either way. If only the Senate would address Bush's health initiatives and try to lower the cost of health insurance so more businesses could offer it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:


And there were WMD in Iraq.

Which Clinton believed too.. and a whole lot of other people as well. But funny, you never see you yahoos making fun of them.

[Spliffdaddy]

The number of people living in "poverty" will naturally increase along with the population growth. After all, "poverty" is simply a percentage of folks with incomes that reflect the bottom 10% or so of the population.

Small wonder we haven't been able to make a dent in the number of folks living in poverty. After trillions of dollars in handouts - their numbers have only increased. lol. It's mathematically impossible to reduce the number of folks living in "poverty".

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Which Clinton believed too.. and a whole lot of other people as well. But funny, you never see you yahoos making fun of them.

Clinton believed it 6 years ago...

but a lot changed in 6 years.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Clinton believed it 6 years ago...

but a lot changed in 6 years.

Clinton believed it when Bush believed it as well. He even backed up Bush's assertions when Bush made them. That wasn't 6 years ago.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Much like the unemployment rate, most of these rates are lower than when Clinton the savior ran for re-election. Of course, the Democrat strategy for regaining power is to hide the rates and focus on the numbers. Why say 5.5% unemployment (which is lower than Bill's rate and what many economists consider full-employment) when you can scare the population by saying "millions are unemployed"?

The enmployment rate in 1996 reached a low of 5.3%, but I think what people notice are the trends. It's true that the rate is trending lower in 2004, but the rate in 1996 was at a six year low and it continued to drop. Personally I'm also starting to lose faith in the value of the unemployment figure, because it fails to account for underemployment.

But I agree with you that much of the rhetoric Kerry is using is rather overblown, the jobs picture has improved in 2004.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by itai195:
The enmployment rate in 1996 reached a low of 5.3%, but I think what people notice are the trends. It's true that the rate is trending lower in 2004, but the rate in 1996 was at a six year low and it continued to drop. Personally I'm also starting to lose faith in the value of the unemployment figure, because it fails to account for underemployment.

But I agree with you that much of the rhetoric Kerry is using is rather overblown, the jobs picture has improved in 2004.

Don't forget that they don't count people whose unemployment benefits have expired as unemployed.

Underemployment is another problem. People being employed in low paying jobs they're overqualified for in order to get by. The loss of economic security and status that goes along with that cannot help Bush.

Then there are some suggesting the possibility of stagflation (here, here, and here). Keep in mind that rampant stagflation is what killed Carter. He might have lost if there were no stagflation, but it's certainly why he is regarded as such a bad Pres.

BlackGriffen

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The number of people living in "poverty" will naturally increase along with the population growth. After all, "poverty" is simply a percentage of folks with incomes that reflect the bottom 10% or so of the population.

Small wonder we haven't been able to make a dent in the number of folks living in poverty. After trillions of dollars in handouts - their numbers have only increased. lol. It's mathematically impossible to reduce the number of folks living in "poverty".

Too true ma' brother, too true.