It's somewhat interesting...

Though everyone seems hell-bent on disbelieving guest974 on the basis that he hasn't shared his sources, Azizi (whose sources nobody questioned) shared statistics that: 1. more or less confirmed the direction of Guest974's assertion -- that the poverty levels are down over those of the '90s, and 2. obfuscate the issue by bringing in a red herring -- how many have health insurance.

The health insurance issue is a useful tool to use as a rhetorical weapon, but as a statistic it not specific enough to use as a "poverty gauge". There are too many reasons, other than poverty, that folks don't have health insurance that is statistically counted. In fact, I have seen statistics made to look as though folks like me are not covered by health insurance because, 1. I am not covered by an employer, and 2. I am not covered by a traditional policy -- I have a high deductable medical savings account.

Poverty in the US is also statistically interesting. For instance, when it was politically advantageous for government to implement more gov't programs to deal with hunger, the US changed it's definition of "hunger" to include anyone who feared they might at one time become hungry. When that happened, magically the US suddenly had as many going "hungry" as the third world.

I'm with GuestG on this one, at least -- the government continues to grow -- Republican or Democrat -- because we have collectively bought into such a mind-set that accepts that we always need our gov't to do something more -- we judge our elected official on the basis of what they've "done" (read: what new programs they've implememted -- how much money they've spent, or promise to spend on us).

I think there is a HUGE unrepresented middle who strongly believes that government is big enough -- it just needs to be executed better. We don't need one more program -- the programs in place are sufficient if they were just run better.

And I think that that wished for, but unfulfilled middle helps explain why the left and the right are so vehemently tugging toward their ends. I think that if the right could be assured that the left didn't want to grow more and more and more gov't (just throw more money at problems).......and the left could be convinced that the right doesn't want to UNDO any current programs, we might finally get to the useful process of electing officials -- not for promises of new spending, but for promises (and fulfillment) of making the system, as is, work better -- not for their "good intentions", but for their good stewardship -- for ideas that prove workable.