BS: Facts about Bush just facts

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 10:41 AM

Aha! You procede on false premises my friend. I do blame Reagan and Bush I,II for crazy spending on domestic programs.

As far as the war on terror, I think defense from foreign sources is an apropriate use of tax dollars. I do have problems with the war on drugs though.

What do you say we legalize pot?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 10:21 AM

Or for that matter "The War On Drugs", or "The War On Terrorism" etc., etc.

You'd think by now that the U.S. public would have wised up by now to these bogus political "Wars On [blank]" that soak up billions of dollars & are declared on a regular basis in the absence of an actual domestic or foreign policy simply to keep the voters off balance.

"And play them for the fools they are
Make their steps up for them
A clock that's shaken hard enough
It cannot stay in rhythm."
       -Pat Sky

Which is not to say that "The Greatest Country In The World"[sic] shouldn't be able to insure a decent standard of living/healthcare/education/etc. for its citizens- at which tasks its currently failing miserably.

God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 10:15 AM

well oh my rare lambs of mercy sakes, oh gosh almighty...

I did not know that Reagan, Bush and Bush v 1.5 (the all time deficit spenders) were liberals.

Oh what unspeakable treachery.

but on the other hand perhaps it is you who got it backwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 09:18 AM

I love this quote from poster 'Peace': "Bastard deserves to be bashed, IMO"

Trillions of dollars later and we still haven't won the war on poverty. Let's keep throwing good money after bad. Sweet!

You guys are picking up on the unified budget. The reason for the 'surpluses' is revenue from SS. And yes, like every other major entitlement it is unfunded. Our true debt is in the twenties of trillions of dollars if you include our unfunded programs. Thanks liberals.....

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Peace
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 01:02 AM

Ain't THAT the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 12:43 AM

Here's a quote from David Copperfield (the novel by Dickens not the magician) that says it all about the economy:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery."

Everything else is commentary.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 09:07 PM

Speaking oif circles, somehow they always look different from the other end of the diameter....from a friend:

"When the shoe is on the other foot ... or something like that:
All of these quotes were made when Clinton committed
troops to Bosnia. No U.S. soldiers were killed during
the conflict.


"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to
happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15,
maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American
servicemen that may come home in body bags why their
son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . is once again releasing
American military might on a foreign country with an
ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet
to tell the Congress how much this operation will
cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed
forces about how long they will be away from home.
These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery.
Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the
world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be
certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal
and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the
beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the
diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History
teaches us that it is often easier to make war than
peace. This administration is just learning that
lesson right now. The President began this mission
with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered
questions. A month later, these questions are still
unanswered. There are no clarified rules of
engagement. There is no timetable. There is no
legitimate definition of victory. There is no
contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear
funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our
over-extended military. There is no explanation
defining what vital national interests are at stake
There was no strategic plan for war when the President
started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for
the President to explain to us what the exit strategy
is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)"

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 08:46 PM

Ain't stats wonderful???

All we need is enough statastcians and maybe we can somehow convince the American people that Katrina never happened???

Yeah, Seems a couple folks here have used government stats, without the staistical interpretation and those make Buish look, ahhh, not too good...

But then we hot the usual cut-n-pasteres who drag these op-ed-statsticans/magicans up who make verything that Bush has ever done was successfull and wonderful...

Who to believe... the Census Bureau or that GAO... or a op-edster???

And, BTW, speakin' of which, pdq, heck with Confusis, Bobert says that one winged duck flies in circles... Kinda reminds me of the last 5 years... I don't see the United States moving forward but flyin' in circles...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Peace
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 08:40 PM

"Racism and classism are not due to George Bush in the rest of the world are they?"

Absolutely not. However, a measure of a leader is the amount he or she changes those problems to make life better for all his or her citizens. Bush just ain't done too good a job. IN FACT, he's made things worse. Bastard deserves to be bashed, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,Guest 974
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 06:29 PM

The reason I posted the info on Ireland is that I think it is important to see the problems other countries are having.I think it is especially important to see what their situation is compared to ours because some of them continually Bash the US.This info comes from a site that is supposed to be the best site for UK Stats.
   Home   
    Indicators & Graphs   

Summary
Summary
Reports
Reports
Income analysis
Income analysis
Links
Links
What is New
What is New
Contact NPI
Contact NPI




Key Facts

Income

The most commonly used threshold of low income is 60% of median income. In 2003/04, before deducting housing costs, this equated to ££200 per week for a couple with no children, £122 for a single person, £291 for a couple with two children and £214 for a lone parent with two children

In 2003/04, 12 million people in Great Britain were living in households below this income threshold. This represents a drop of 2 million since 1996/97. It is, however, still much higher than in the early 1980s.

The proportion of children and pensioners who live in low income households has been falling. In contrast, the proportion for working-age adults without dependent children has remained broadly unchanged. A third of all people in low income households are now working-age adults without dependent children (3.7 million people).

Disabled adults are twice as likely to live in low income households as non-disabled adults, and the gap has grown over the last decade.

The level of Income Support for both pensioners and families with two or more children has gone up much faster than average earnings in recent years, but that for working-age adults without children has fallen considerably behind.

Half of all people in social housing are on low incomes compared to one in six of those in other housing tenures.

Inner London is deeply divided: it has by far the highest proportion of people on a low income but also the highest proportion of people on a high income.

Around half of the people on low incomes live in the most deprived fifth of areas. The other half live outside of these areas.

Child poverty

The number of children living in low income households was 3½ million in 2003/04. This represents a drop of ¾ million since 1996/97.

Children are one and a half times more likely to live in a low income household as adults.

A half of all lone parents are in low income, two-and-a-half times the rate for couples with children.

Almost 2 million children live in workless households.

The Government's short term target for child poverty is to reduce the numbers by a quarter in the period 1998/99 to 2004. Achieving this will require a fall of 400,000 in the year 2004/05 (data to be published in April 2005).

Work

In 2005, there were 2.3 million people who wanted to be in paid work but were not. This compares with 3.4 million a decade previously. This rate of reduction is much less than the rate of reduction in ILO unemployment because the numbers who are 'economically inactive but would like work' have reduced at a much slower rate than unemployment.

One in five adults with a work-limiting disability are not working but want to. This compares with one in fifteen of those with no work-limiting disability. At all levels of qualification, the proportion of people with a work-limiting disability who lack but want paid work is much greater than for those without a work-limiting disability.

Around ½ million young adults aged 16 to 24 were unemployed in 2005 (around 10%). Numbers have reduced by a quarter over the last decade but young adult unemployment rates are now three times as high as those for older workers.

Two-fifths of those getting work are out-of-work again within six months. More than a quarter of temporary employees would like a permanent job.

People without qualifications are three times less likely to receive job-related training compared with those with some qualifications.

Low pay

5½ million adults aged 22 to retirement were paid less than £6.50 per hour in 2004. Two thirds of these were women and a half were part-time workers.

Almost a third of all employees aged 25 to retirement earning less than £6.50 per hour work in the public sector.

The lower a person's qualifications, the more likely they are to be low paid. For example, more than half of those with no qualifications earn less than £6.50 per hour.

15% of workers earning less than £6.50 an hour belong to a trade union compared with 40% of those earning £9 to £21 an hour.

Around 14% of working-age households are now in receipt of tax credits. In total, more than three times as many people are now in receipt of tax credits as were in receipt of Family Credit a decade ago.

Education

11-year-olds: The proportions failing to achieve level 4 or above at key stage 2 in English and Maths have fallen substantially in recent years but children in schools with relatively high numbers on free school meals continue to do much worse than other schools.

16-year olds: In 2003/04, 12% of pupils obtained less than 5 GCSEs and 6% got no grades at all, both figures being unchanged since 1998/99.

Most 17-year-olds with 5 or more good GCSEs go on to achieve further qualifications, but most 17-year-olds without such qualifications still lack NVQ2 or equivalent at age 25

One in four 19-year-olds still fail to achieve a basic level of qualification (NVQ2 or above).

10,000 pupils were permanently excluded from school in 2003/04. This represents a fall of a fifth since the peak in 1996/97.

Health

(Note: most of the statistics below relate to the year 2003, the latest year for which official data currently exists).

Scotland has by far the highest proportion of premature deaths for both men and women.

Adults in the poorest fifth of the income distribution are twice as likely to be at risk of developing a mental illness as those on average incomes.

Almost half of adults aged 45-64 in the poorest fifth of the population have a limiting longstanding illness or disability, twice the rate for those on average incomes.

Children from manual social backgrounds are 1½ times more likely to die as infants than children from non-manual social backgrounds.

Babies from manual social backgrounds are 1¼ times more likely to be of low birthweight than those from non-manual social backgrounds.

Teenage motherhood is seven times as common amongst those from manual social backgrounds as for those from professional backgrounds.

5-year-olds in Wales and Scotland have, on average, twice as many missing, decayed or filled teeth as 5-year-olds in the West Midlands and South East.

Crime

Both burglaries and violent crimes have halved over the last decade.

Households with no household insurance are around three times as likely to be burgled as those with insurance. Half of those on low income do not have any household insurance compared with a fifth for households on average incomes.

Housing

5% of people live in overcrowded conditions. Overcrowding is four times as prevalent in social rented housing as in owner-occupation

190,000 households were accepted by their local authority as homeless in 2004. This compares to 160,000 in 1997. It is households without dependent children where the numbers have been rising.

Although poorer households remain more likely to lack central heating, the proportion who do so is now actually less than that for households on average incomes in 1999/00.

The number of mortgage holders in serious arrears is at its lowest level for fifteen years.

Ethnic minorities

More than half of children in Pakistani and Bangladeshi households - and a half of the children in Black households - are in low income households.

People of African, Bangladeshi, Caribbean and Pakistani descent are all twice as likely as White people to be out of work but wanting work.

Although the rate of permanent exclusions for Black Caribbean pupils has halved in recent years, they are still three times more likely to be excluded as White pupils.

Black young adults are seven times as likely as white young adults to be in prison.

Black adults are twice as likely not to have a bank or building society account as the population as a whole.

Older people

The proportion of pensioners in low income has fallen from 27% in 1994/95 to 20% in 2003/04. All of the fall has been among single pensioners rather than pensioner couples. Pensioners are now less likely to live in low income households than non-pensioners.

In 2002/03, around two-fifths of pensioner households entitled to Council Tax Benefit were not claiming it, and a third of those entitled to Pension Credit were not claiming it

The proportion of people aged 75 and over who receive support from social services to help them live at home has almost halved over the last decade. County councils and unitary authorities support far fewer households than either urban or Welsh authorities.

Racism and classism are not due to George Bush in the rest of the world are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 04:59 PM

You're right about that, Peace.

He is a horse's ass but the Premier of B.C. kisses everybody's ass.

The well-being of every citizen should be equated by every politician and every member of the voting public because that is the only legitimate measure of successful government.

Anybody can cut taxes. Thats the easy way out and requires no creative problem-solving.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Peace
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 04:38 PM

PS Oil is now somewhere near $70 a barrel.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Peace
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 04:37 PM

We have had a Premiere in Alberta for what seems like forever--the same one.

In the eraly 1990s he gutted education, helath care and social services. In the intervening years he has made Alberta debt free. Many folks think of him as the 'savior' of Alberta's economy. I think he's a horse's ass.

In 1990, oil was selling at $17.50 per barrell. He predicated the debt payment on that. Oil has done nothing but go up ever since. Hell, that alone solved Alberta's debt. I have no idea how to factor in the cost in human misery, but it seems that people like him don't care about that.

Don't know what this has to do with Bush or Clinton, but I don't think y'all have had a President worth a damn for decades. And that includes the 20 watt bulb who's in the office now.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 04:30 PM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Harry Browne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's still the economy, stupid!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com


Now that Bill Clinton is no longer our president, does this mean we've heard the last of the Clinton myths about the economy? Probably not.

I'm talking about those great legends, told and retold by the Clintonites and the press, of the wondrous savior who rescued the U.S. economy from depression, enacted a courageous budget plan, brought down interest rates, ended the deficits, and put us on the road to paying off the federal debt.

According to the legends, whatever you think of Clinton personally, you must agree that his reign was good for the economy.

But the legends are as fictitious as the one about George Washington and the cherry tree. And if the press and public continue to recirculate the legends, they will make it more likely that the Bush administration will pursue the wrong economic policies.

Rising/falling interest rates
Take interest rates, for example. The legend says Clinton's tax increase ended the budget deficits, bringing to an end 12 years of high interest rates. But it doesn't happen to be true.

When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, the interest rate on short-term Treasury bills was 11.4 percent. By the end of his presidency in 1988, the rate was down to 6.7 percent. It continued downward to 3.4 percent in 1992, when George I lost the presidency.

As soon as Bill Clinton sewed up the election, interest rates started moving upward -- and they never returned to the low levels Clinton inherited. In fact, the average Treasury bill rate in 2000 was 5.8 percent -- two thirds higher than when Clinton was elected.

Despite the legend, Bill Clinton didn't bring down interest rates. If he had any influence on them at all (which he probably didn't), he pushed them upward.

The legendary surpluses
Then there's the federal budget.

The good news: The politicians say we have big budget surpluses.

The bad news: They're lying.

The first surplus supposedly occurred in 1999, but the federal debt actually rose that year by $127 billion. They tell us we had a surplus of $87 billion in 2000, but the debt went up by $23 billion. And this year the surplus is supposed to be $68 billion, but the government estimates the debt will increase by $82 billion. How can the debt rise when you're running a surplus? Anyone with a family budget knows it is a deficit, not a surplus, that causes debt to increase.

Every year the politicians take money from the Social Security trust fund (you know, the fund in the lock box), and issue new government bonds to replace the money. The politicians count the money they take as revenue, making possible a budget "surplus" -- even as they go deeper in debt. So the surpluses are just another myth, and the U.S. government is still the world's largest deadbeat.

A debt-free America?
And that brings us to the most outrageous myth of all. In his farewell address Thursday evening, Mr. Clinton once again said, "we're on a path to pay off the entire debt by the end of the decade."

The current federal debt is $5.7 trillion. To pay it off by 2010 would require an average surplus of over $600 billion a year for the next nine years. Since there isn't a current surplus of even 98 cents, and since the politicians absolutely will not reduce government spending, such surpluses would require raising every American's taxes by one third. How likely is that?

One other myth should be noted: Bill Clinton and the Republicans argue over who's responsible for the reform that supposedly "ended welfare as we know it." But did you know that federal welfare spending has continued to rise every year -- and is now 33 percent higher than in 1993? That's some reform.

They tell us there are fewer people on welfare now, but they don't explain why that costs us so much more. Lets hope they don't get everyone off welfare -- as that might increase welfare spending to $1 trillion a year or more.

Are you better off?
Returning to the Clintonian saga, if he hasn't brought down interest rates, and if there are no budget surpluses, why is the economy doing so well?

Maybe it isn't.

For the first 70 years of the 20th century, the yearly economic growth rate -- averaging in good times, depressions, and wars -- was 3.5 percent. From 1947 through 1970, the growth rate was even better -- averaging 3.9 percent a year. Then the big-government Great Society programs and regulations kicked in -- and economic growth has been anemic ever since.

For the first seven years of the Clinton administration (the only figures available now), the growth rate was only 3.0 percent. But Mr. Clinton claims we have the greatest economic growth in American history.

If you're so much better off now than you were eight years ago, why was it necessary for Mr. Clinton to spend 45 minutes at the Democratic convention trying to convince you of that idea? He went on and on with statistics and anecdotes. But if you were significantly better off, you'd know it without him telling you so.

If a Libertarian had completed only one term as president, you'd know the difference without prodding. His farewell address would take a mere two minutes. He'd have to say only, "Do you remember when the government was so large that you had to pay income tax? Remember when Social Security was eating up your retirement funds, and they wouldn't let you out of it? Remember when the drug war was tearing up your city? I rest my case. I'm going home now and watch TV."

But since Mr. Clinton never even considered improving the economy by making you free and unleashing the productive talents of the American people, we've had to settle for a basket of Clintonian myths.

And they aren't likely to go away, I'm afraid -- even with Bill Clinton out of the White House. By maintaining the legend of Savior Bill, the Democrats and the press can make George Bush seem a failure by comparison -- and keep the pressure on him to emulate the Clinton economic policies.

Where's the opposition?
Unfortunately, we don't have a major opposition party in America. The Republicans don't debunk the fanciful tales about the "booming" economy, about interest rates, about the fictitious surpluses, or about welfare reform -- because they are co-conspirators in maintaining these illusions. They play the same games, and so they jumped on Bill Clinton only for doing things they hadn't gotten around to yet.

Thus the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton for lying about having sex "with that woman," but not for lying about the economy -- which is a lot more important to you. The Republicans didn't try to impeach him when he stood behind Janet Reno as she took responsibility for incinerating 85 men, women, and children at Waco -- or when he bombed innocent people in the Sudan and Afghanistan to divert attention from his legal problems -- or when he confiscated millions of acres of Western lands "without due process of law," in violation of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

The Republicans aren't interested in debunking legends because they have some fantastic stories in their own repertoire -- including some incredible myths about Reaganomics and Republicans standing for smaller government. But we'll leave those for another time.

Suffice to say that, while Bill Clinton is perhaps the most engaging and talented liar ever to occupy the White House, he doesn't have that field all to himself.

And if we let the lies go unchallenged, we are setting ourselves up to have the chains of taxation and regulation made ever tighter around us in the name of fictitious economic achievements.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 04:00 PM

Let's take the name "Bush" out of the equation, just for a minute.

FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the only years between 1962 and 2004 in which the federal government DID NOT spend more than was taken in were 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

FACT: According to the same source, revenue derived from personal income taxes have fallen every year since 2000, and for 2004 was approximately what it was in 1997. Revenue from corporate income taxes in 2004 was, with the exception of 2000, greater than any year since 1962.

FACT: According to a report released by the Census Bureau in August, 2005, an average of 12.4% of Americans were living in poverty during 2002 to 2004. (That would be about 1/8the the population.)

FACT: The same source reported that in 2003, 44,961,000 Americans were without insurance. In 2004, that number climbed to 45,820,000. (If the population of the US is 280 million, that about 16.3%.)

FACT: The same census report states Median household income was
$44,389 in 2004, unchanged from 2003 in real terms. Median household income was also unchanged in real terms between 2002 and 2003. Compared with 1967, the first year for which household income statistics are available, real median household income was up 30 percent.

Real median household income was unchanged between 2003 and 2004 for all race groups...and for households with Hispanic householders (who can be any race).

FACT: According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the inflation rates for the five years beginning in 2000 have been 3.4, 2.8, 1.6, 2.3 and 2.7 percent.

FACT: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the annual unemployment rates for the years 1995 to 2004 have been 6.1, 5.6, 5.4, 4.9, 4.5, 4.2, 4.0, 4.7, 5.8, 6.0, and 5.5 percent.

NOW, talk from these facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 03:40 PM

That should read "can't afford afford the astronomical cost of the premiums."

And don't say something like "Then why don't they get a job where health care is covered?" That would really indicate the fogginess of the view from the top of the ivory tower.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 03:27 PM

You have health insurance, "There are 43,000,000 people in this country who have no health insurance at all.' . . . Why are you not in the group that DOESN'T have it?

Because, GUEST at 18 Sep 05 - 08:48 AM, I am retired, not necessarily by my own choice, but my wife works at the Seattle Public Library, and since, technically, she is a city employee, she—and her spouse, which is me—are covered by the City of Seattle employee group health insurance. I'm damned lucky this is the case because otherwise I would never be able to afford to pay health insurance premiums.

Of the 43,000,000 people in this benighted country who do not have health insurance, the vast majority of them are working, but their employers don't offer a health insurance program, and on what they're getting paid, they can afford the astronomical cost of the premiums.

I swear, some of you "compassionate (!) conservatives" really live in an ivory tower.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 02:50 PM

"...and I'm no better than the other guy."

Oh, I've met the other guy. You're way better than him.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 02:20 PM

And what has this to do with the issue of poverty in the United States of America?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,Guest974
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 01:44 PM

This column is from the Green Party Web Site.
23 Feb 05 Statistics on Poverty
Colm Ó Caomhánaigh
Thursday 24 February 2005

119. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the opinion of the charity Barnardos that 66,000 children here currently live in consistent poverty. [6076/05]

121. Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way in which he intends to respond to the findings of the recent EU-SILC survey, which shows that children, women and older persons have a greater risk of poverty than their counterparts in other European Union countries. [6070/05]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mr. Brennan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 79, 84, 104, 119, 121 and 125 together.

The results from the 2003 EU Survey of Income and Living Conditions, EU-SILC, released last month by the Central Statistics Office, CSO, are a valuable addition to the research already undertaken into income, living standards and the extent of poverty in Ireland. The new survey identifies groups at risk of poverty including families with children, especially lone parents and large families on low incomes, those with disabilities, the long-term unemployed and the elderly, especially those living alone.

Considerable progress has been and is being made in alleviating poverty. This progress, however, is masked by the fact that incomes generally have been increasing substantially as a result of the high levels of both economic and employment growth achieved in recent years.

Despite major increases in social welfare payments and improvements in public services generally, those who are not in employment, such as the elderly, or only in a position to secure low paid or part-time employment, such as many lone parents, have not been able to share fully in the fruits of the increasing prosperity.

A key target of Government policy under the national anti-poverty strategy has been to reduce to below 2%, or eliminate fully, consistent poverty, which measures deprivation of goods and services considered essential in today's Ireland. Significant progress has been made with levels of consistent poverty being reduced from 15.1% in 1994 to 5.2% in 2001, and in the case of children from 15.3% in 1997 to 6.5% in 2001.

A somewhat different methodology and approach was adopted for the EU-SILC survey which resulted in higher percentages for those experiencing consistent poverty, reversing the trend of recent years. Both the CSO, and the Economic and Social Research Institute, which conducted the earlier surveys, have assured me that the outcomes of both surveys are not comparable. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude from them whether the rates for consistent poverty went up or down or remained unchanged.

There is certainly no reason to believe that there has been a worsening in poverty levels in recent years. Between 2001 and 2005, spending on social welfare has increased from €7.8 billion to €12.2 billion. During the same period the lowest social welfare rates have increased by 40% while the consumer price index has increased by just over 13%. As a result of Budget 2005, welfare payments have increased by three times the expected rate of inflation. The real improvement resulting from these developments is commented on in the EU- SILC report.

The EU-SILC survey shows, as in previous surveys, the groups who are most vulnerable to poverty. The main route out of this vulnerability for those in the working age groups, especially in households with children, is employment.

A major ongoing priority will be to remove the obstacles to employment for those groups and work to provide the incentives and supports they need to obtain employment such as education, training, help with job search, and child care.

In relation to income support, serious consideration is now being given to the introduction of a second tier of supports - in addition to the child benefit and other support entitlements - aimed specifically at addressing those children most at risk. Linked to this particularly are the vulnerable circumstances of many lone parents, who are mostly women. The existing support systems will be scrutinised over the coming months and changes considered that more adequately reflect the needs of this group in a 21st century Ireland. My Department is also involved in efforts to develop a strategy to eliminate obstacles to employment for lone parents.

Among those no longer able to work, especially the elderly, we need to give priority to identifying and providing support for those who are most vulnerable, especially those living alone.

The National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion, NAP-inclusion, provides a clear strategic basis for making progress in all these areas in a coherent, planned way.

Progress on the implementation of the plan was reported in the First Annual Report of the Office for Social Inclusion, OSI, which I launched last December. A report to the European Commission evaluating the implementation of the plan will be prepared by OSI for submission in June 2005 and publication shortly afterwards. These reviews and evaluations, together with the ongoing annual survey results from EU-SILC, will help to inform the development of the next NAP-inclusion, which is due to commence in 2006 and will apply up to 2009.

Tell a friend

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Green Party: 16/17 Suffolk Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
Green Party / Comhaontas Glas 2004

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:52 PM

Bobert, you need to adjust your autopilot.

Remember, Confucius say:

         "Duck who fly upside down quack up."

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:41 PM

John:

In general, I try to steer clear of calling a kettle black with the pot at my back. No glory in that, and I'm no better than the other guy. But it's been my impression that just as 'W' ain't no conservative by any definition of the word I know, Clinton was no candy store liberal and he and his retinue had a 'sense of place' about the US in the world that I find missing here. And Clinton was fiscally much more responsible, from what I am aware of.

So I see that all that is happening here is a 'stirring of the pot' without an advance of the plot, in the end we will have the same problems, further disasters, and less wherewithall with which to deal with 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:27 PM

Yeah, I get your drift.

You're not reading the thread to which you are responding. Furthermore, in the thread that you are not reading, but are responding to, you are merely chucking cliche'd mudballs ("bushite", caught with pants down, etc) at people whom you percieve (without having read what they wrote) as disagreeing with your preconcieved notions.

Close?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,H
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:24 PM

"Get my drift here?"

No, but quack, quack anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:23 PM

I agree with most of your post, robomatic. I would just add that it is as it ever was. I grew up around exactly the same doom and gloom rhetoric about rising national debt. It's just that, at that time, a Democrat House and Senate held the purse strings and so it was they who were bringing on our demise and it was the Republican rabble who was in the role of Chicken Little.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:19 PM

Hey, I have never said that Clinton balanced much of anything except two womenz... And didn't do that to well... I'll I'm doing is pointin' to the facts that pdq has presented right here on this thread and made some interesting observations about the debt that the gfederal governemnts carried under Clinto compared to the debt under Bush...

As fir pdq being a Bushite? Well,. if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...l

Get my drift here???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:18 PM

I have noticed two points in common from the Bush administration's responses to 911 and New Orleans.

1) Failure of government entities to respond accurately and appropriately to real warning signs from people paid by the government to notice and alert authority to just such warning signs. In the case of 911 it was FBI and in the case of New Orleans it was FEMA. In both cases 'underlings' sent messages up the chain of command and the top level officials ignored them.

2) The government response in both cases after the disaster was to increase the bureaucracy, obscure the chain of failure, and spend huge amounts of money without increasing taxes. Therefore our children and our grandchildren are going to be paying this money back.

In the real world, when you borrow money you are ostensibly going to increase the value of something or the production of something, so you can pay the money back and hopefully increase your own income. What I see here is a total abandonment of this principle, which means our children and grandchildren will have to sell off some of their country in order to make the debt good. It will probably mean a greater overall proportion of Americans in poverty.

I think the causes and cures of social irresponsibility are arguable and have their roots in many administrations and because of many of our preconceived notions and wishes. But the fiscal irresponsibility of our elected leaders is on a scale that beggars the imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,H
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 12:14 PM

The diatribe from Bobert indicates his pants are down all the time.

In order to nice, however, I am going to believe he has dyslexia and not entertain any other potential problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 11:58 AM

Bobert,

The issue of Clinton "balancing the budget" was not brought up by pdq. Not having been brought up by pdq, neither was it brought up for the sake of "pulling his (political) pants back up".

The chart offered by pdq proves (quite elegantly) the point he was making -- that the National debt still went up during the Clinton years. He said nothing else. Maybe it is admirable that the Gingrich House came closer to balancing the budget than the Wright House -- but that is not the point that pdq was making, so you'll have to forgive him that he chose not to make that point in addition to the discussion in which we were already engaged.

Oh, and did pdq mention having voted for Bush? If he did, I missed that. oh.......that's right......."Bushite" is a catch-all for anyone with whom you disagree.......kinda like calling someone a "doodyhead".

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,H
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 11:57 AM

How can Clinton really be blamed? He did nothing but party - remember the extra tents on the White House lawn to handle oveflow crowds. Your tax dollars at work.

Nothing you said makes think a stake has "been driven through the heart of that personal responsibility crap".

I was taught 'PS' by my parents and the New Orleans disaster is a perfect example of that. The ones who depended on the Government for their existance were the ones left behind. (mainly to wait for their Government dole on the 1st of the month.)

While the ones who accepted "personal responsibility" were able to leave on their own and have, as of now, received zip from Uncle Sammie.
Okay, okay, come on back with your excuses regarding the 1st of the month gang.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 11:50 AM

The title of this thread includes the word 'fact'.

It seems like a good opportunity to discuss 'facts' and leave out some of the oft-repeated rhetoric.

Barry Finn said "Fact is after having a record surplus when Clinton left office after 8 yrs we're broke now in near half the time..."

Since he brought up the subject, it is fair to respond to it. I said:

"FACT: Every year Clinton was president the federal government spent more than it took in. Deficit spending. The first year Clinton is responsible for is 1994 when he ran a 281 Billion dollar deficit. In 2001, under the last budget that Clinton signed, he ran a 133 Billion dollar deficit. Not one year in the Clinton presidency did the US see a reduction in the national debt, which, by definition, will occur if there is a surplus."

I have listened to discussions including expert economists and they agree: the "Clinton surplus is a myth". Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 11:33 AM

Well, pdq, wasn't it yer handy little chart that showed that in the last 4 years of the Clinton administration the debt increased by 1/2 a trillion dollars as compared to over 2 1/2 trillion dollars over Bush's first 4 years...

Its kind mind boggling that you would ingnore this "fact"... Unless the chart from the governemnt is, ahhhh, wrong...

I do find it interestiong that evry time the Bush camp gets caught with their pants down that it's Clinton's fault... I think this horse has been dead long enough for you Bush apologists to try another tack... It's really beginning to weasken yer arguments since it is such a juvinile and worn out tactic... You all may not see it that way but if you were to take a look at it from our perpsective, you'd be downright embarrassed...

BTW, one nice thing about you Bushite's getting caught with yer pants down is that it's purdy much driven a stake thru the heart of that "personal responsibility" crap that Rove had you all chanting like drunk parrots...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 11:12 AM

Roll on, John!!

Again, during every year Clinton was president, the US government spent more money than it took in.

The only way that can call that a 'surplus' is if you redefine the word 'surplus'. "It depends on what the meaning of 'surplus' is". "It depends on what the meaning of 'budget' is". It depends on what the meaning of 'spending' is"...

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 10:59 AM

John H., I am outraged by anyone lying under oath, whether it be the President of the United States, Oliver North, or you.

I will say this about the Clinton thing, though: how many married men would stand up next to their wives and admit to gettting a bj? I am not disturbed by his lying in that circumstance; as a minister said to me, "That's human nature." There are times, however, when you must tell the truth, and being under oath is one of them -- or invoke your rights under the Fifth Amendment.

For whatever it's worth, I do not consider myself a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian, or any other label. I consider myself a thinking American, and I'm disgusted with the namecalling here and elsewhere by both sides.

I've learned one thing, in my sixty years of living, and it's this: there is ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION more than one cause, and there is NEVER a simple and easy solution.

As they say in the computer world: Good, Fast, Cheap -- chose two of three.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 09:49 AM

pdq is right. The debt has grown every year. The only point that pdq was answering was the constantly made point that mistakenly gives Clinton credit for "balancing the budget" -- a term that, anywhere but in Washington, would mean that the government spent no more than it took in. That's just a flat-out political device created (one would assume) to purposely confuse the issue...

When it is to political advantage, any poliician who dares suggest that perhaps because $$ is tight, that we shouldn't grow at as fast a rate as projected, is accused of slashing the budget (...and killing our children, our poor, etc). In reality, in a "budget cut" more would be still be spent because more is always spent.

The only thing that a balanced budget meant (in Clintonian terms) was that they didn't get called for slashing the *arbitrary* budget. Had it been a Republican administration, rather than being praised for "balancing the budget", it would have been excoriatiated for "slashing the budget and killing people". Clinton, being a Democrat, was said to have "balanced the budget". But the "budget" was(is) nothing more than an arbitrarily set rate of government growth of spending.

"Thank you Don Firth...ok, ok...he was impeached for lying. But WHY wa his private life/sexual conduct anybody's buisness but theirs????"

It was about lying under oath. But if one were to concede that it was actually about sex, in retrospect, are you equally outraged at Anita Hill's (unsubstantiated) accusations against Clarence Thomas to try to keep him from being confirmed?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 09:39 AM

"t was back in 2000 that Mr. Bush, in a debate with Al Gore, bragged about his gubernatorial prowess "on the front line of catastrophic situations," specifically citing a Texas flood, and paid the Clinton administration a rare compliment for putting a professional as effective as James Lee Witt in charge of FEMA. Exactly why Mr. Bush would staff that same agency months later with political hacks is one of many questions that must be answered by the independent investigation he and the Congressional majority are trying every which way to avoid. With or without a 9/11-style commission, the answers will come out. There are too many Americans who are angry and too many reporters who are on the case. (NBC and CNN are both opening full-time bureaus in New Orleans.) You know the world has changed when the widely despised news media have a far higher approval rating (77 percent) than the president (46 percent), as measured last week in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

Like his father before him, Mr. Bush has squandered the huge store of political capital he won in a war. His Thursday-night invocation of "armies of compassion" will prove as worthless as the "thousand points of light" that the first President Bush bestowed upon the poor from on high in New Orleans (at the Superdome, during the 1988 G.O.P. convention). It will be up to other Republicans in Washington to cut through the empty words and image-mongering to demand effective action from Mr. Bush on the Gulf Coast and in Iraq, if only because their own political lives are at stake. It's up to Democrats, though they show scant signs of realizing it, to step into the vacuum and propose an alternative to a fiscally disastrous conservatism that prizes pork over compassion. "


Frank Rich, NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 09:17 AM

Well, Hubby, somewhere 'round this construction site called home there is a box labeled "Bob's Box" and in it are hundreds of articles I've cut out of variuos places.. This particular fact is found in an op=ed column from the Post whcih occured last winetr sometime... Actually it was written by a Bushite who was trying to debunk an argument that health crisis were the source of most of the bankruptcies in the US and in his/her righteous indignation provided the numbers that showed that medical crisis were *actually* only the seconf leading cause...

But eventually I'll find "Bob's Box" and will, be more than happy to give yuou the name of one of your Bushite buds...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 08:48 AM

You have health insurance, "There are 43,000,000 people in this country who have no health insurance at all".

Why are you not in the group that DOESN'T have it?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 02:30 AM

Susu's Hubby, you don't live in the real world, do you!?

"ya'll talk about wanting the government to take care of you when you get the sniffles."

Sniffles indeed. Five years ago I wound up in the hospital with a severely broken left femur. The surgery alone cost $24,000. And I had to stay in the hospital for close to four weeks while I recuperated and had physical therapy. What the hospital stay and the PT cost, I'm not sure. Other than being told what the surgery cost, I never saw a bill. I'm covered by my wife's group insurance at the Seattle Public Library. Thank God for that!

There are 43,000,000 people in this country who have no health insurance at all.

But what the hell! Let 'em lay there and bleed!

This is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have a national health care service. "Shining city on a hill?" I think not!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 01:47 AM

Susu's Hubby -

Good government does not take care of you when you have the sniffles but it does educate you as to how to prevent them. National healthcare does not preclude personal responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 01:16 AM

Let's hear it for Ignorance! Rah, rah, rah!

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 01:13 AM

"The lack of nationalized health care in the US is a major factor in the high number of bankruptcies in the US..."


Come on Bobert....since you were demanding sources at the top of the thread....please show us where you found this gem.


It's funny....ya'll talk about wanting the government to take care of you when you get the sniffles.

But remember, according to all of you, this is the same government that drags its heels when there is something that NEEDS to be done.

Can we all say "inconsistent"?



Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 11:36 PM

The lack of nationalized health care in the US is a major factor in the high number of bankruptcies in the US...

Yeah, may not be perfect, but, hey, the US is the last industrialized nation that doesn't think it's workers deserve it...

Hmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 11:21 PM

Guest974 -

Have you ever lived in a country with socialized medicine?

Why are you so afraid of it?

I think its great that when you are truly sick or injured, it doesn't put you in the 'poor house'. If I had to pay for all the medical care and drugs that I needed in the last five years, I would be homeless. Luckily, the govt. paid for my medical expenses and I am back to work and living a healthy life.

I am truly grateful for a compassionate government system that doesn't let the pharmaceutical companies gouge us when we are in the most need. I am also grateful for the doctors and nurses who truly believe in healing the sick and aren't consumed by their love of money.

I gladly pay taxes that help pay for the medical care of all citizens. I am expecially grateful that my tax dollars are not used to create war and death and destruction. Its really just a matter of priorities and its obvious that your priority is not the health of your nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 11:14 PM

Conservatives and the GOP wasted 8 years and untold millions of dollars    Clinton bashing for a blowjob and now they are upset because we detest the shrub and his posse for what they have done to our country?

BTW, socialised medicine is better than no medical coverage at all. Hillary was right all along on that.


Kat

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:33 PM

Thank you Don Firth...ok, ok...he was impeached for lying. But WHY wa his private life/sexual conduct anybody's buisness but theirs????

FDR did it, Eishenhower did it, JFK did it...and probably others as well...

Doh...WHAT do alpha males do best????
And why is it any of MY buisness?

Incometence running my country is.

See Pat Robertson's latest? (Katrina was Ellen Degeneres fault)
Seen Michael Moore's letters to the President?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:32 PM

Well, I reckon this is a wonderfull segway into the "agree to disagree"... I'm gettin' a little sick of hearing this little Karl Rove concocted reply...

Every time that the Bushites are pushed into a hopeless corner where there is no escape we here this same mantra...

As far as I can see it's a lottta bull... When yer wrong, ya' say, "Hey, I'm wrong" and you quit whatever dumbass policy that ain't workin' fir ya... But no, now its full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes...

See, agree to disaggree ain't workin' fir me as long as dumbass stuff is being done...

And there's plenty of dumbass stuff being done by the Bush adminsitartion and I have figgured out exactly why... They don't want any second opinions... You can bet that if Bush himself was diagnosed with some strange ailment and given 6 months to live by Doctor A, he's be on the phone to Doctor B in a heartbeat...

But the trivaial stuff, like attacking Iraq or killin' off Social Security??? Heck with a seconf opinion!!!???!!!???...

Like, that's what the historians will say about him (should the US survive these guys)... Yeah, they will say that the man had no interset in anyone elses opinions...

So now the US taxpayers are going to be asked to pay $200B to rebuild New Orleans so we can come back and do it again in three years???

Like where are the discussions beeing taken place???

(Corporate boardrooms, Bobert, that's where...)

Yeah, but who is going to get richer as a result of Katrina???

(The rich?)

Danged right and I'll go out on a limb with yet another prediction here if I haven't allready made it... Should the Bush adminsitration give the American taxpayers the "bum's rush" on rebuilding New Orleans, that when all is said and done it will be a model gentrified city with Trent Jones golf courses and a a population of predominently white folks in their 40's and 50's with SUV's in every driveway and guess what???

I will have paid fir it... This is what I have been trying to tell folks about the new push to resdistribute income to white people who support the Republican Party...

I'll even guarentee that this will be the modle if sainer minds don't get into the conversation about what to do with N.O...

And how can they...

Officespeak, you know...

(But isn't that how we got into Iraq, Bobert???)

Yeah, that's exactly how we got into Iraq...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:08 PM

I will not concede the point Rapaire and Bobert, but do not choose to press it either. We agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:53 PM

Plus, pdq...

Don't take the Wes Ginny Slide rule and yer figure's to realize that under the last 4 years of Clinton the debt went up a little less than a trillion dollars but under Bush's first 4 years it wnet up over 5 times that at about 2.7 trillion./..

Ya' gotta be carefull when you throw them facts out... These haven't helped Bush one darned bit...

Like,I'd invite anyone to take a hard look at those numbers in pdq's post and tell nme that the current guys are fiscally responsible people...

If it were on a baord of directors of a major company, I'd fire the current CEO and rehire the last one... Numbers don't lie...

Thanks fir the link, pdq...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:50 PM

The United States financed much of World War II with bonds. Ditto for World War I. IF the US is at war (and no such thing has been declared since 1941), why not finance it with bonds? Ditto for the Gulf Coast restoration. Government bonds are, after all, tax-free....

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:35 PM

Yeah, Eb, that 'bout sums it up... This ain't 'bout liberals 'er conswervatives... It's about radicals v. liberals and conservatives...

That's about ti... The radical are makin' a break to the finish line to crush Thomas Jefferson's little expeiement and they are doing it with the support of millions of folks who have been totally brainwashed to support them in their sprint... Problem is, by the time the brainwashed folks figgure it out it will be too late for them... Yeah, these folks think it's aboput things like abortion and gay marriage and flag burning.... Haha...

Ain't 'bout none of that... It's *ALL* about corporations controling the entire deal... GUEST might ddo well to study how Hitler came to power in making an alliance with the industrialists one one hand while barinwashing the brownshirt vigilantes on the other...

And history does repeat itself and given the number of former Nazi's and sypathizers that the Republican Party courted and brought into the party after WWII it's no wonder that what we are seeing gtodat closely resembles Germany in the mid to late 30's...

No, the Bushite's will sqeal, "Unfair!!! We're sick of you danged liberals callin' us Nazis!!! but I'm really not callin' any of them Nazis, per say. I'm just pointing out that the corportists and the Bush folks are using folks very much the way that the "industerialists" and Hitler used folks...

Hey, this ain't ancient history... A little Googlin' around will verify what I have described in Germany in the 30's...

(But, Bobert, why is this happening?)

Well, first of all, there's a difference bewteen a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy...

The Republican Party has hated the New Deal forever and entranched members of the party have passed down to their kids their hatred for the New Deal and it has become the biggest target out there fir thesze entrenced folks...

They don't like it because, yes, it does redistribute income based on labor rather than capital... You work hard and creat wealth or infastructure and you should enjoy the benefits and profits from that labor, right? No, capiatlist don't think that way... They think that because they have capital that they deserve all the wealth...

So Ebbie is exactly correct... We are definately moving more toward a feudal system where the lords (those with the capital) can work the serfs (loborers) into the ground... Why do you think that labor is so against the Bush administartion??? Why do you think that Bush wants private accounts??? Why do you think that the preditory lenders, i.e. credit card companies, got expempted for the new bankrupcty laws??? Why is it that the Lords are so willing to lend money to the serfs??? Why is it that the lords spend so much time brainwashing the serfs into thinking that they neeed this ot that and then be willing to lend them the money to have these trappings???

Well, I'll tell you why? First of all, rember what I have said about the New Deal??? Sopcial Security is the Republicans bulls eye... The Republican president who takes it out will be the Hall of Famer... Goldwater tried... Reagan really tried... Heck, even Dewey tried before it was even enacted... No, the Repubs hate Social Security... That absolutely hate it...

So, with all this debt that have piled on the average serf, there's no way that kids in their 30's and 40's will ver be able to retire... Heck of a fight but I will have to hand it to the Repubs... Thay di waht they had to do... Yeah they have used abortions and gay marriage and a bunch of other smokescreen non issues to keep Southwern Man on the team long enough to just about pull it off...

Now, TO WIT:

The current adminstration, though led by a really lightweight, is the one that has the greatest chance fir success... They are bankrupting the federal governemnt which is one component of the scheme since they can now throw up their arms and say, "Sorry, folks, but entiotlements are going to have to go... We got wars to fight and cities to rebuild..."

So, my hats off the industrialist/corporatist/capitalists... The end game is in sight for them... They have fought for 70 years to get a stake in the heart of the New Deal and thast goal is at hand...

Problem is that, in their greed, they have overlo0oked one small point... Yes, history does repeat itself... That is the point...

Like I said, fir you Bushites who aren't part of the super rich, you might just spend a few minutes Googlin' 'round Germany, oh, 'round 1938 before coming back with yer usual Karl Rove written-for-Fox opinions...

Ebbie is exactly right and many of you are fools for defending folks who indeed have you in their sights when they've used you up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:34 PM

Yes, PDQ, and I think it's shameful. But we are not talking about the same thing. The national debt is not the same thing as the budget deficits or surpluses. One is what we owe, the other is how much we over or under spend the amount we budget.

They are related, true. But from the CBO figures it would appear that Republican-led administrations do a worse job than Democrats about staying within the budget.

(And thank you for using a site that has no ax to grind one way or the other.)

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:03 PM

Rapaire,

The US National Debt has gone up every year since 1969. No surplus in recent times. Here are the numbers:


Prior Fiscal Years -

09/30/2004       $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003       $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002       $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001       $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000       $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999       $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998       $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997       $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996       $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995       $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994       $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993       $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992       $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991       $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990       $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989       $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988       $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987       $2,350,276,890,953.00

                      From This Site

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Azizi
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:57 PM

I mean it's kinda hard for Black folks who are dark skinned to get red faced.

But then again you were just trying to make a joke, right?

Okay. It was kinda weak, but I'll let you slide.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Azizi
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:52 PM

So GUEST 17 Sep 05 - 08:21 PM

Are there no Black liberals?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:52 PM

Ebbie, well put! We do agree on something, possibly more than we think but lets' not get too cozy here.

My point; I have been saying for years that we are approaching the position of serf. Granted, serfs' had the ability to rise one over the other but only to a certain point. Serf, think about it people.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:41 PM

In my opinion- and I have no problem signing my name to it, unlike some vociferous, venomous - What? Oh, I know- varlets - this country is well on its way to becoming a - for lack of a better word - feudal system- and on a much greater scale than of a few hundred years ago. We - the serfs, the peasants - have no power because the 'lords of our manor' have nothing, short of revolution,
to fear of us,

We have barely a clue as to what they plan for us, what machinations they formulate. That is not our function. Ours is but to serve, to offer them our labor, whether physical or mental, to pay them the money that they have assessed us, and when needed, to fight their wars for them and to lay down our lives for them.

And be assured- in the previous feudal incarnation too there were plenty of people who were loyal to their masters, as they are now.

Elva Bontrager

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:21 PM

Why are the 'Lefties' so sensitive?
A really nice comeback, Mr. Rapaire.

Question:
How can you pick a liberal(s) out of a crowd?
Answer:
They turn redfaced when confronted with something positive
and backed up with fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:06 PM

PDQ, please look at the figures here.

Especially the "Totals" column.

Note that negative triple digits did not start until the first term of Ronald Reagan. During the Clinton presidency, those triple digits decreased until they were actually positive figures -- a surplus. The negative triple digits begin again in about 2002, during the budgets of George W. Bush.

As you will note, the source is the Congressional Budget Office, which is not known to be biased in any particular direction.

And GUEST of the last post -- eat my shorts. I have done all of those things you whine about people not doing, as have many of those who post to the Mudcat. Check out those who are veterans, such as Deckman, Big Mick, mg, Art Brooks, and myself, to name but five in the US. Other countries can supply veterans as well -- Wolfgang, Shanghaiceltic, Wilfred Schaum, and others. Why, some of the 'Catters are, even now!, on active duty with the US and other militaries. As I said, eat my shorts.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,Guest974
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 07:59 PM

By the way if you look at the numbers I posted regarding poverty midway through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration you will see that the number I quoted for Clinton was 13.7 % below the poverty line and Bush at 12.1 may be wrong and is supposed to be 12.7. I may have actually written this down wrong or the number is based on Fy 2005.
I will verify that number but the point is that it is lower than the Clinton administration and the amount spent by the Bush administration is substatntially higher.
Another thing I don't understand about all the people doing all the bashing.
I never see anyone saying things like were reported today about the US Coast Guard saving 6500 people in the first week of the disaster.
Most of these by the way were done by helicopter. I wonder how the hell they did that when according to the bashers nothing was done right for the first week or so.
I cannot for the life of me understand why in the world anyone would bother to live in this country since nothing is done right at all.
I'll tell you why.The Government is responsible truly for only one thing and one thing only and that is to provide the opportunity to all who live here to better their lives.
There was a Black Genteleman on Fox the other day.Wednesday as a matter of fact. He was a writer for the Chicago Tribune I believe.He said himself that yes there is more to do but it used to be that 60% of all Blacks lived below the poverty line and it is now at 25%.

I do believe that more neeeds to be done especially about health care and trying to somehow bring those out of poverty that wish to be.This will take funds and a program that makes some sense. Money in of itself will not solve the poverty problem and I have yet to hear anyone give a real answer on the health care problem.
I sure do not want to have socialized medicine. It Sucks! big time

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 07:18 PM

First of all,I would like to know who appointed you as the official arbiter,solicitor general and Cheif Justice of determing what the truth is and who is telling the truth.
Many people have called President Bush a Neocon and even a Nazi.You know what?
I think as a matter of fact if anyone is a Neo anything it is you.
The Neocon/Nazi label says that there is only one way and no other opinion can possibly be true and the Neocon/Nazi will determine what exactly way is.
Personally I see it as the pot calling the kettle black.
Who in the world ever determined that the Washington Post is any more of an authority than the Fox News channel?
Another point is that you and your buddies at the Washington Post which by the way I have never seen or heard of them asking someone with a different opinion to come on their media outlet for a honest debate.
By the way the Fox News Channel and Mr Orielly who you so blantly accuse of being involved in some right wing conspiracy to bury the truth actually always asks for persons with opposing views to come on his program.
If you actually watched you might find some information you do not otherwise see or hear.I have personally witnessed many exchanges between Mr. Orielly and others of all sides have open and honest debates.
I do not always agree with the man but I do listen.I sure as hell will not listen to those that denegrate this country and want to turn it into some kind of Socialist country.
If I wanted that,I would go live elsewhere where no one has ever died for my freedom to have an opinion and where the Government does everything and I have no say in it at all.
I think it is about as arrogant as a person can possibly be to think that only their opinion can possibly be right.
By the way ,are you a US citizen? Have you actually served this country or another democracy? Many have served to make sure that you have the right and the opportunity to say whatever you wish but there is no opportunity to shove it down everyone elses throat and say no one is right but yourself and your fellow believers.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 05:53 PM

What, those aren't facts? Say it ain't so. Well, I'll label them opinions then. Thread creep.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 05:51 PM

John--

You're right--Bush is no conservative.

He's also no Republican. Party of Lincoln--not likely. Conservation a la Teddy Roosevelt--does not compute. Even Ike--no land war overseas--he blew that one too.

Oh wait--he could be a Republican--but only with Harding as his model--the same sterling quality of appointees, and intellectual brilliance himself.

Actually, as I've said before--I'd say he's a radical reactionary, with neo-Wilsonian delusions.

Yup, he's an all-around great guy. No wonder we're so unified and the world loves us so.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 04:40 PM

GUEST G:

First of all, no one qwho breathes air in the United States and spends any money excapes paying taxes... Taxes are hidden in cost of goods... taxes are levied on produicts... Taxes are levied on some services... Taxes are levied on phones, internet use, cable tv, etc... And all of these taxes are paid by everyone, irregarless of income... And, BTW, these taxes are horribly regressive and effect those of limited income much more than those of higher incomes...

As fir the dollars in... Why sure there are more actual tax dollars coming in but because of the tax cuts the increased actual tax dollars are not keeping up with expeditures... This ain't real complictaed, here... If this is yer familee, you'll probably end up in a bankruptcy court...

John Harly:

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we really need to have an open discussion about policies that will not only deal wioth the basics buty go well beyond the basics and find creative ways of ending this cruel cycle... It is like a cancer in our country and this discssion is well overdue...

Andas for rebuilding New Orleans???? Why???? I think wwe need to have a real disxcussion about the smartness of rebuilding New Orleans... Einstien said that repeating a behavior expecting different results is the defination of insanity... No, before we go craeting a big mess, why not step back and give New Orleans some serious thinking??? Especially rebuilding it as a population center...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 02:56 PM

Is this another source with "facts"?


You see, GUEST,Guest 974, this story, of course, will be received by our left leaning friends as spin by Rove or Cheney or anybody else in the administration that's trying to take the "heat" off of Bush.

The only thing is that it appears in one of the most leftward biased newspapers in America.



Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 01:35 PM

Well then, Kat, (as if it were not obvious to the mudcat family) you are a gem in a pile of gravel.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 01:30 PM

I said I would sell New Orleans municipal bonds with an unprecedented ad campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 01:18 PM

JOhn, you said 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 and many others whom I know have never judged a politician by what programs they've started or money they've brought it. I vote for the ones whom I think will be fair and protect the freedoms which are important to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 01:06 PM

The $200 Billion that president Bush has offered to rebuild New Orleans, if actually spent, will be added to the US National Debt. Same technique of buying friends with somebody else's money that we have seen used by every president from Franklin D. Roosevelt on.

If the money is spent over a five or ten year period, no economic damage will occur. If people want to tackle 'deficit spending' as a concept, they will have to start with 'entitlement programs' and other wasteful items.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:42 PM

We still need answers as to where the funds for Bush's $200 billion project are going to come from. So far, only John Hardly has been honest enough to state what he would do--wouldn't do the project.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: pdq
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:25 PM

The myth of a "Clinton budget surplus" is one of the most successful PR con jobs in US history. It was just brought up by Barry Finn and has been repeated so often that many no longer question it. Fits perfectly with Don Firth's admonition about propaganda minister Goebbels.

FACT: Every year Clinton was president the federal government spent more than it took in. Deficit spending. The first year Clinton is responsible for is 1994 when he ran a 281 Billion dollar deficit. In 2001, under the last budget that Clinton signed, he ran a 133 Billion dollar deficit. Not one year in the Clinton presidency did the US see a reduction in the national debt, which, by definition, will occur if there is a surplus.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 11:04 AM

This is a fact...
the oldest trick in the political playbook.

Here is how it works.

At the start/FIRST DAY of Clinton's term one takes the number/statistic regarding poverty, education etc. of their choice.

Then you take the the corresponding numbers at the START/first day of the GWB term.

VOILA ! my goodness look at all the good GWB has done




this is an opinion...
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushques.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:32 AM

You are all now voicing opinion and not fact.

I very carefully chose what I posted because it seemed to come from sources that were either those of the US government itself or from another country.

There were far, far more sources, but I rejected them because they were various causes or "think tanks" of one sort or another. (I also rejected those in pdf, mostly because I didn't want to be bothered with opening and closing Adobe Acrobat Reader -- if you'd like a detailed search, done on my own time, I'll PM you my billable and it ain't cheap.) You might try a search with the terms (including the quotation marks) "poverty in US" or "US economic indicators" or similar things.

What I find interesting is that while unemployment is, overall, down, so are average wages and benefits while borrowing AT ALL LEVELS is up, up, up.

If you want to worry a bit, check out the real estate bubble. Check how many people have 'interest only' mortgages. Check out the load of debt each person in the US is carrying -- personal debt, I'll leave the federal debt out of this -- and compare it to the level of savings. Do this for the last five or ten years, and then do the same thing for the late 1920s as best you can.

Compare the numbers of students who graduated from college last year in math, engineering, chemistry, physics, computer science, and biology with the number of those who graduated in those areas in China and India.

The problem in the US isn't a lack of will or innate ability. The problem in the US is a refusal to think -- because education has consistently refused, for at least three decades, to teach students how to do so.

And very soon now all of these chickens will be coming home to roost....

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:04 AM

Sell New Orleans Municipal Bonds with the same push that the Red Cross advertises for $.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Alice
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:00 AM

******How is that.......5% of the population pay well over half of the taxes collected while the bottom 50% pay 0%.******

Because the bottom is struggling to keep a roof overhead and pay the heating and grocery bill and have money to take the bus while the top has reaped the cream of education and opportunity and/or inheritance to own multiple mansions, fleets of cars and can eat filet mignon every day if they want to. Many of the wealthy who have risen from poverty have no complaint about paying more taxes, because they know with the means they have it is important to support education, infrastructure and security in our country in a way that they could not when they were poor. It is interesting that people who are anti-government, anti-taxes don't see that the government is us, that we should be collectively creating and maintaining our country to the best of our ability to contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,G
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:34 AM

John Hardly - as you are probably, the New Orleans "pocket of poverty" which equates more to the size of a suitecase, is not limited to that city. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Tampa and others are just as bad. The Great Society has failed.

Bobert, can't blame WJC but we also can't give GWB the credit. This has been festering for decades with the last 4 decades contributing the most.

And, Bobert, rescending the Bush tax cuts WILL NOT ensure a pay as you go. Too many don't pay now. The tax cuts were across the board for all but I will agree to one thing. The rich did benefit more as they were paying the lions share of the taxes to begin with.
How is that.......5% of the population pay well over half of the taxes collected while the bottom 50% pay 0%.
By the way, are you aware that the Feds intake of tax dollars is higher than it was before the tax cuts?

THE PROBLEM IS GOVERNMENT IS BROKEN (not for them, but for us).

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:25 AM

Ron,

RE: $200,000,000

I would be the most unpopular man in America. The federal government did not build New Orleans in the first place. Bush heaped a load of stupidity upon the already inept handling of New Orleans in the first place. He should not have offered to rebuild New Orleans. It is proof that he does not have the mind of a conservative that he even offered. Were he truly a conservative, he would have beleived in New Orleans' capability to rebuild itself upon sound economic principles.

I would not, as president, offer to rebuild any city that I could not likewise offer anywhere else in America -- if San Fransisco or St Louis were destroyed by earthquake, Miami by like hurricane, Indianapolis by a tornado, or Omaha by sheer insipidity -- or, evolution forbid, all of those events happened at once.

The fed is good at doling out $$ to care for temporary needs. Every city was built by every city and history. And every city's reason for existance is tied to its geography, natural resources, etc.

It is such a 21st century American notion of "instant gratification" that thinks that New Orleans can be instantly rebuilt anyway. It flies in the face of history and reason.

Geographically, NO has been living on borrowed time anyway (I was first built above sea level). If some businesses want to go back into that locale and rebuild for sound economic reasons then let them have at it -- sans US fed money.

What Bush has essentially promised is a city that will be raised on the government dole -- forever to remain that way. If there are nt sound economic reasons for rebuilding, then all the US back loans offered in the emotion of the moment will forever go unretired.

But try to say that as an American politician. Americans think that money is the answer to everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:12 AM

You know the poster of this thread fell for the oldest trick in the political playbook.

Here is how it works.

At the start/FIRST DAY of Clinton's term one takes the number/statistic regarding poverty, education etc. of their choice.

Then you take the the corresponding numbers at the START/first day of the GWB term.

VOILA ! my goodness look at all the good GWB has done (roll eyes)


It goes to show you that well intentioned people looking at the statistics are fooled. For that you should be angry at the lie and not a person like myself for pointing out the inner workings of propoganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Tam the man
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:05 AM

there's photo of George bush and he's looking a map of America and he's saying to this man "where's america"

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:52 AM

New Orleans might just be teaching us something new about our care for the poorest among us.

For the longest time, because we all could feel a sense of "there but for the grace of random acts of evolution go I", we have tried to set up programs that cared for the poor without trying to pass any kind of judgement on why they might be poor.

We know that the poor's worth as humanity is no less than ours, but we confuse passing judgement on behavior with passing judgement on worth. Because of that, we don't want to accept that there might be any reason other than luck that some are poor and some are rich.

But New Orleans has at least hinted that we need to revisit those well-meaning notions.

We may have to start to accept that those who are unable to adequately provide for themselves are highly likely to be likewise unable to care for themselves. The days of implemementing more programs to just feed, clothe, and give them an income are going to have to be re-analyzed. We are going to have to look at ways to better care for them that accepts their inability to deal with any circumstance with any degree of self-reliance.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:46 AM

GUEST G,

I'm worn out from governemnt giving so much of my hard earned tax dollars to their corporate bed buddies...

I'd rather see my dough go to the folks who need it...

And I'd like to see CEO's jailed fir off-shore tax sheleters...

And while we are at it, given the enormous demands on the federal governemnt, I'd like to see Bush's tax cuts rescended and for America getting back to something closer to pay-as-you-go...

No, bankrolling the Iraq war, the corporate give-aways and now Katrina it'd be real nice if the current crop of Americans pitch in rather than mortgaging the next crop's with loans from the Chinese and Europeans... This is not a fiscal policy that resembles anything that the Republican Party has ever stood for... Yet, soupposed self-professed "conservatives" don't seem to have any problem with it??? Like what's this all about???

Bobert

p.s. Can you answer this without blaming Bill Clinton... Hey, I din't like him too much either but Bush has had the job long ebough to stand up to the plate all by his own self, without crutch's, without tarining wheels and with out the "Clinton made me do it" laim excuse for policies that have nuthing to do with an administartion which has been outtta power for going on 6 years now...

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:39 AM

OK John--

Where do you think the $200 billion will come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:38 AM

Ah yes, one more thing. Guest G, be sure to check Carol's post of 16 Sept 2005 3:51 PM on the "Outraged" thread, re: sources and the "2000 busses" canard (look it up). Somehow I believe the New Orleans Times-Picayune may know more about the number of busses available than the Washington Times does. However the Washington Times et al. should at least know their mentor Herr Goebbels would be proud of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:38 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:23 AM

One more thing. When the Wall St Journal puts on its masthead "Combating Conservative Media Bias", Bushites will be free to use the source Hubby quoted.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 08:17 AM

Sorry Guest G--

I have attacked Hubby's sources, and stated that if he believes his ABC interviews exonerate Mr. Bush in the eyes of most New Orleans citizens for his unconscionable dilatory first response to the crisis, he is mistaken. Everybody agrees that Bush's recent speech said a lot of the right things about restoring New Orleans.

However, a few points.

1) The proof of the pudding......

2) Bush now claims that there will be no taxes raised to pay for the proposed $200 billion project he cites--that it will all come from cuts in the federal budget. This in addition to the continuing war in Iraq (isn't that about $1 billion per day?), the new Medicare drug program, and of course, the sacrosanct tax cuts ( of which even more are proposed). As Amos has pointed out, this goes LBJ's "guns and butter" dilemma one better. Would you mind enlightening us as to where the $200 billion will in fact come from?   (Of course it will also be done without raising interest rates or alarming our Chinese and other foreign creditors.) I await your response with eager anticipation.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,G
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 07:26 AM

This thread is going down the dumper
Ron, you still attack the poster on a personal basis - why not attack the contents of the post?

And to give a reason why I think this thread is in deep doo doo.......
ready? I am going to agree with Mr. Bobert but will only admit to this one item; in his post @ 10:31 PM last night, he said it "ain't no government anymore" Amen! Just don't get carried away folks and think there is more I agree with.

Am I a Conserative? Pretty much in some respects - very moderate with regard to social issues. My take: It is not the fault of Bush overall, it is the system. One big group in DC who have lost sight of the Constitution and spend all their time (and our money) 'buying votes. Of course, they "buy" the money of special interest groups by returning favors. When did it start? To a small degree, probably 200 years ago. But there were always a group of the good guys to keep it under control. Now, there are still 'good' guys involved but they have lost sight of their reason for being there.
Yes, I voted for Bush. I now have another reason for the knot in my stomach and that is the massive amount of $ going to New Orleans. Some is needed, I grant you, but there are parts of Mississippi that are far more devastated.
This has ben the practice of the politicians for years - throw tons of money at it! And don't try to blame all this on GWB. It is the system, both sides of the aisle, career politicians with many having no concept of what it is to be employed outside the realm of politics.

Now evaluate the following and let have it if you so desire;
I am worn out from the government maintaining such a large percentage of the population. Help when needed is fine and required. But, while should many poor schmucks like myself pay taxes, send kids to college w/o government assistance, give generously to charities, work for charitable organizations only to see where the most corrupt state in the nation is going to be completely bailed out, including those who have lived on the government dole forever (Both white and black).

The lump in the gut grows larger. It got its' start when tens of thousands of us ended losing our retirement accounts due to the Feds watching things like Waco, Microsoft and other noneventful things. All the while, the lack of regulation and watchfulness from Federal agencies allowed the CEOs and their underlings to financilly ruin the very thing they had built with the help of stockholders.


Okay, I am rambling - we must take care of people when disasters happen but I am of the opinion that Enron, Global Crossing and others were equally disasterous to another group that adds up up to hundreds of thousands of US citizens. Why some of you are so hateful towards Bush amazes me. It is the system and until we accept that fact, the fighting goes on between us while the Dems and Repubs, if you can find a delinination, go about the business of "government" as they define it.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Tam the man
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 06:39 AM

he's a dickhead

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 04:14 AM

And that's another tactic of these folks. Whenever Bush is under fire, bring up Clinton.

What Susu's Hubby says about that is true. Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. But he lied about something that had nothing to do with governing the country, endangering the county, or getting the country involved in an illegal war. His sexual peccadilloes were something that should have been kept strictly between the people directly involved. It should never have been brought up in the first place, and it never would have been had it not been that Monica was a blabbermouth, Linda Tripp was an opportunistic gossip and a damned poor friend to Monica, and the Right Wing character assassins were just waiting for something—anything—to use against the Clintons. They were desperate for something because the Whitewater thing had gon south on them. It turned out that rather than cheating people as the Righties claimed, the Cllntons lost $60,000 on what turned out to be a bum real estate deal—they got scammed themselves. Clinton was a damned fool on a couple of counts: he should have kept his fly zipped in the first place, and after the fact, when the Righties started their feeding-frenzy, he should have refused to answer anything about it, saying that his private life—as long as it didn't interfere with his job, which it didn't—was nobody's goddam business!

There's a very simple reason that people like Susu's Hubby keep bringing this up:   It's all they've got!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 01:48 AM

A matter of who or where the sources come from, how's that saying go, believe non of what you hear & only half of what you see. Fact is after having a record surplus when Clinton left office after 8 yrs we're broke now in near half the time, Gov. screw up. I can see that. Who's hiding those pint size WMD? I heard that before. The coastal southern gulf states have been laid to ruin, you can believe that & we were slower to respond than other nations that wouldn't happen in an election, see Alice in FLA, I can't believe that. Poverty is rising, education is declining, see world stats & while you're there check out our infant mortality compared to other nations. Check out how we rate on the enviormental world scale. Check out who carries the bulk of the tax burden in this country. I can smell all of this... & it stinks like shit. It is now law that if your home stands in the way of politcial profit, no say, you're in the way, kiss your ass & your way of life good-bye. Look about you it's here, we are living it.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 01:16 AM

One more thing. If you don't think we could find a hell of lot more New Orleans residents who would be only too happy to put the lion's share of blame on Bush, you're sadly deluded.

So your ABC interviews prove precisely--you guessed it---nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:57 AM

"Combating Liberal Media Bias"? Come on, Hubby. If you want to be taken seriously (maybe that's not your goal), you have to do better than that as a source.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:49 AM

Well, it sure seems time to impeach, convict and remove Bush.


A good possibility (in addition to Katrina and Iraq) is still his incredibly stupid, short-sided and criminally negligent refusal to continue the 2 programs in Russia which were securing nuclear material. As you no doubt recall, he is taking this stance at the bidding of US firms who want to be exempt from workers' compensation, but Russia refuses to let them off the hook.

Then, of course he piously whines about the importance of non-proliferation.

If by some chance you're unfamiliar with this, Hubby, there's a whole thread on it, complete with sources, including (Republican) Senator Domenici.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:43 AM

Here's a source......


This is straight from the transcripts of ABC. How's that for a source or are they too far right for you?

Looks like the facts are being heard afterall.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:29 AM

"We seem to be able to impeach a President for sexual misconduct"

So if this is a thread about facts then let's get the facts straight.

(1st lesson Guest)(Remember what I said about misdirection?)

Sorcha,

Clinton was not impeached for sexual misconduct. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Please stick to the truth. It's so much easier when we're both arguing over the same points.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:17 AM

You don't have to be liberal to criticize Bush--just a thinking being.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:11 AM

We seem to be able to impeach a President for sexual misconduct, but not for incompetence...and if we did impeach him we'd just get a worse one...and yes, most of us are pretty liberal around here. We don't tolerate incompetence or stupidity very well. Where is Harry Truman when we need him?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:10 AM

Try us with a source, Hubby. After all, my usual source in criticizing Bush is the Wall St. Journal. Too far left for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:00 AM

Guest....


Welcome to the zoo. Get used to the attacks by the lefties in this area. They seem to think that they rule the roost. If you don't subscribe to their conspiracy theories or repeat their chants of "save the poor, tax the rich" then you too will be listed as a "Bushie". Oh...and about sources...it won't matter about what source you list. Even if it proves your point beyond a shadow of a doubt, it'll be dismissed as right wing propaganda or the subject will be magically changed to "Bush lied" or "well what about the illegal war?". They are masters at misdirection. Afterall, Clinton was the master at it and he seems to have taught his lemmings very well.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 11:50 PM

A fact about Bush?

World opinion regarding the government of the United States is at an all time low.

Bush is considered a liar and a bully.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 11:47 PM

Don--

Your're right about some of our Bushites. Certainly is interesting how, when asked for sources, they clam up completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 11:46 PM

I'm not in this one either, but a 'fact' I know is that he is just either stoopid or ignorant..maybe both.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 11:31 PM

Rap - Thanks for the link.

U.S. energy imports rose by 37% from 1995-2003!

Thats very scary!

No wonder Cheney is snooping around up here in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 11:18 PM

GUEST,974 started this thread and it's his/her first and only post, at least so far.

I've notice that recently Mudcat seems to have accumulated a considerable number of new people, unregistered GUESTs, some with consistent (I assume) handles, some without. They're main occupation seems to be to act as Bush apologists and defenders, or to spew contempt at liberals, progressives, and anyone else who is not totally enamored of the Bush administration. I've further noticed that I rarely, if ever, see these people's names appear in posts above the line, in the music threads. Some of them do long cut-and-pastes, and it's evident from reading them that most of them come from articles on the Project for a New American Century's web site or from other neo-conservative web sites and e-mail newsletters. Usually they just make assertions and offer no links or other attribution so you can check and/or verify the source. But there are ways of doing it. Pick a more or less unique phrase (sometimes difficult to do) and paste it into google's "advanced search—exact phrase" and lo! often you find the whole article. And where it's from! Cute!

Three of them are GUEST,G, Susu's Hubby (registered), and GUEST,rarelamb.

This is a music site. Why are these people here? It would appear to be solely for political purposes. Do these folks work for Karl Rove?

Just curious.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 11:07 PM

OK Guest 974--

Maybe you don't want to be taken seriously.

But if you do, do as you were instructed early in this thread, and give your sources for your assertions.

We take nothing on faith. (And, in case you were wondering, sorry, Rush Limbaugh does not count as a reputable source.)

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:31 PM

Yeah, Rap, that's what I be sayin'... The average Ameriocan workin' stiff is gettin' stiffed... And ain't even got no health insurance either... Heck, if we were gettin' something fir our money it'd bee one thing but we ain't gettin' jack!!!

Only industriaslized nation to not provide health care and we're payin' thru the nose while the rich buy up out governemnt one election at a time...

Hey, scrwew it, it ain't no governemnt any more... Let friggin' face it... It is the corporation.... Ain't got nuthin to do with government of the people... It ain't... It's the corporate "ruler"ment... And no governin' going on here... Jus a bunch of autocrats shoving anything they want to down the poor and workin' man's throats...

Like I said, gonna step over that line and' Boss Hog won't feel too comfy anywhere but behind his compound walls...

You heard it here first...

I predicted that Iraq would become an urban warfare quagmire and folks said, "Bobert, yer nuts..."

Yeah, I'm puttin' this prediction on the books so fir you Bushites, better start building thick and tall walls 'round yer houses because if this is they way you wanta play it out, look to yer Haitian counterparts... You won't be able to drive yer million dollar buses nowhere but in yer driveways...

Working class catchin' on quick...

Maybe you think that the US of A would be a great palce to start a new Third World country but Johnny Reb don't... And I don't...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:13 PM

Sorry, I forgot that in addition to not having names, anonymous GUESTs rarely have senses of humor.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:08 PM

What the mayors say.

From other sources I am aware of, I found these to be accurate; I invite you to check their accuracy for yourself. (This are not strictly about Bush.)

The Liberal Party in Canada states:

...Let's compare 2003 rates:

Someone with an income of CDN$30,000 in Canada paid 11.9%, or CDN$3559 federal income tax. Someone in the United States, making USD$30,000 ended up paying USD$4310 federal tax, or about 14.4%.

An individual making CDN$60,000 paid CDN$10,028 or about 16.7%. The U.S. amount for USD$60,000 is USD$13,810 or about 23%. That is probably shocking to most Canadians. Please note this comparison does not include State or Provincial taxes -- which could add between 0% to 10%, depending on where you live. It also does not factor in tax deductions, which can vary greatly on an individual basis.

Futhermore, the average Canadian income in $CAD is higher than the average U.S. income in $USD. In 2001, the average family income in Canada was $60,300CAD. In that same year, the US average was $42,228USD (or roughly $57,000CAD at a 1.35 exchange rate). This contradicts another popular myth that the average American makes more money.

Once you start looking at the actual numbers, you find that Canadian tax rates are very much in line with those in the United States, on average. Our economy, trade deficit and federal budgets have been much better for years. (The entire thing is here.)

During 2003, net borrowing and lending grew steadily due to record low interest rates and a growing federal budget deficit. Net borrowing and lending in credit markets reached a new peak of $2,7 trillion in the 1st quarter of 2004 (annualized amount). Average of borrowing and lending in 2003 was roughly more than double the volume of borrowing and lending in 1995, and first two quarters of 2004 has experienced high debt levels. The growth in net borrowing during 2002 and 2003 has been driven by borrowing in the household and government sectors. -- Source (and lots of other valuable economic data) can be found here.

Sorry, but I think that the facts actually make the picture look pretty darned bleak for the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:05 PM

Hello Brother Bobert!

How you be?

Here's another link you might find interesting:

Consumer sentiment plummets in September

And here is an excerpt from that Sept. 16, 2005 Reuter's article which was subtitled "Americans seen nervous about Katrina's economic impact":

"NEW YORK - U.S. consumer sentiment this month plunged to its lowest in over a decade as the fallout from Hurricane Katrina made Americans nervous that the economy may slow down, a report said Friday.

The University of Michigan said its reading on confidence dropped sharply to 76.9 so far this month from 89.1 in August, according to sources who saw the subscription-only report.

That was lower than the reading after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on U.S. cities, but comparable to that seen following Hurricane Andrew in 1992....

Expectations about the future, as measured by the survey, also took a serious hit, swooning to a 13-year low.

"These are abysmal numbers, suggesting a deeply pessimistic consumer in the first half of September," said Christopher Low, chief economist at FTN Financial.

The expectations component retreated to 63.6 from 76.9, while the one for current conditions dived to 97.7 from 108.2."

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:01 PM

Yeah, bottom line is what we are seein' is a slow but sure redristribtution of wealth away from the poor (????, like thay had much to begin with) as well as the middle class (stagnant wages...) upwards to those who started out the ones with the most???

Yeah, that is really the story here...

This ain't 'bout Dems 'er Repubs... It's very much about unbridles greed and access to power... The rich have purchased their "boy" and their "boy" is doing exactly what the rich want him to do... Hey, they aren't concerned about debt either on an individual basis or a governmental bais...

Lioke who's money is being used in Iraq or to rebuild New Orleans??? The rich folks??? Think again... It's the Chinese and the Europeans money and they ain't givin' it as some kinda benevolent gift... No, they are baying tresuar bonds and the US is gonna have to pay them interst on these bonds when they mature... So who's paying for the Bush spending spree??? The poor... The working man... Our kids... Not the rich... Not in the porportion that they could...

Hey, there's only so much money and if the rich corral it all then what happens???

Don't take a Wes Ginny Slide Rule to see the formula fir disaster we got going here... Poor on the fast tract to poorer and the rich on the fast tract to richer...

At some point, as has hppened every time that this equation has gotten too far outta whack, stuff happens that don't read to well in the history book...

Bush is a whore for tyhe corporations and the rich... Everyone else going backwards... When "Southern Man" get's it, this cvountry gonna come to the boilin' point...

Yeah, Boss Hog won't be able to hook up his SUV behind his million dollar bus and just hit the road... Now, he'll hopver behind his compound walls like his counterparts in Haiti...

Maybe this is what Guest envisons for America but I sho nuff don't and I'm sho nuff absolutely sho that Jesus don't either...

So them folks can hide behind their *supposed* Faith but don't mean jack to this real follower of Christ...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:59 PM

What does it matter what either one of them look like?

What do you look like and how is that supposed to affect my opinion of you?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:56 PM

You want facts, just facts and nothing but the facts about George W. Bush? Well, the only absolute, for sure, dyed-in-the-wool, no-doubt-about-it FACT that I know about George W. Bush is that he has big ears and looks like a monkey. It's a fact and no amount of statistics juggling, number crunching or spin doctoring can change it.

On the other hand, the only real FACT I know about Bill Clinton is that he looks like a chipmunk and talks sorta like Mister Ed.

Anything else that can be said about either of them may well be a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:37 PM

Thanks, MiziAzizi, fir the most helpfull link...

Fox TV, et al, will report and say anything they want to say and it gets spread around as fact..

Most recently they reported extensively on doctors being shot at in New Orleans... Yeah, they reported this over and over like fir a couple day but, after the reporting had been debunked as false, did Fox make any effort to correct the impressions they had put in the minds of their followers??? Well, I'll answer that one... Heck no0, they didn't...

Well, fir a station taht is so supportive of the Bush administration and Bush claiming to be a man of Faith, I'd think that they'd make every effort to correct the sin of misinforming people... Lieing is lieing even if you aren't aware that you are lieing *if* you find that you were mistaken...

Jesus tells us to confess and sin no more...

How can a station that is blindly supportive of an adminstration headed by a man who *claims* to be of Faith, when given evidence that they have been lieing to folks, make no confession and sin no more????

I reckon it comes down to "Garbage in, garbage out"... Some folks will continue to accept what ever crap Fox wants to throw their way and never try to balance it with anything else...

Reminds me of the "brown shirts" in the 30's in Germany who ***beleived*** whatever they were told to believe...

The truth, however, will always find the light of day... Sometimes takes years.... Sometimes a couple days...

Thanks fir the link, Mizi...

Bobert

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:27 PM

Also see this Washingtonpost.com article Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row

Here is an excerpt of that article:

Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row
More Also Lack Health Coverage

By Ceci Connolly and Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page A01

The number of Americans living in poverty or lacking health insurance rose for the third straight year in 2003, the Census Bureau announced yesterday, reflecting a job market that failed to match otherwise strong economic growth.

Overall, the median household income remained stagnant at $43,318, while the national poverty rate rose to 12.5 percent -- 35.9 million people -- last year, from 12.1 percent in 2002. Hit hardest were women, who for the first time since 1999 saw their earnings decline, and children. By the end of 2003, 12.9 million children lived in poverty.

As expected, the number of people without health insurance grew last year, to 45 million -- an increase to 15.6 percent from 15.2 percent. White adults, primarily in the South, accounted for most of the increase. The proportion of people receiving health insurance through an employer fell to 60.4 percent, the lowest level in a decade, from 61.3 percent."

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:23 PM

Here's what the US Census Report Press Release; says:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2005, AT 10:10 A.M. EDT

   
Income Stable, Poverty Rate Increases, Percentage of Americans
Without Health Insurance Unchanged

   
Real median household income remained unchanged between 2003 and 2004 at $44,389, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the nation's official poverty rate rose from 12.5 percent in 2003 to 12.7 percent in 2004. The percentage of the nation's population without health insurance coverage remained stable, at 15.7 percent in 2004. The number of people with health insurance increased by 2.0 million to 245.3 million between 2003 and 2004, and the number without such coverage rose by 800,000 to 45.8 million.

    These findings are contained in the Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004 [PDF] report. The report's data were compiled from information collected in the 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS).

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:11 PM

Yeah, Kendall, I sniffin' out some fuzzy math my ownseff... Some stat guy must burned up hald a dozen Wes Ginny Slide Rules on this one...

I will go out on a limb here and say that these stats cab be debunked and while Guest 974 may actaully beilive them becuase he heard them on some right wiong radio staion that when the onion gets peeled, like Iraq an' jsut about anything else that the Bushites have done, beneath it all are lies, damned lies and weapons of mass destruction...

The fact is the poverty has increased every year since Bush has been in office...

Even the census bureau has had to kinda hide stuff since thay won't regionally index cost of lving 'er the poverty rates would be even higher...

I will give credit to the Bushite's fir one thing: they lie better than the other guys...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:10 PM

All i am asking anyone to do is to do what i did. go look for the truth and do not listen to anyone that is not speaking from facts. we are headed down a very bad path that will lead to absolutely nowhere worth going to.
I could tell you the answer to where and how but don't you think it would be a good idea to find it yourself so that you would know how and where to find the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:06 PM

It is all a matter of public record available for all who want to really know the truth.I agree that statistics can lie but these are not statistics and you will not ever hear them from those that don't want the truth to be known for what ever reason.

What is really needed is for people to quit the bashing and try to be objective.There are many problems to be solved but none will be if the only thing people want to do is bash someone.

Neither side neither the far left nor the far right is correct and until everything moves to the middle and people want to seek the real truth the system will stay broken. the only thing that will change is the names of theplayers. If a democrat wins election next time, the far right will be doing the bashing. for what purpose?who the hell knows? there is no real purpose as far as i am concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: kendall
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:00 PM

What is that saying about lies, big lies and statistics? Is that the case here? If what you say is true, it should be known.

Subject: RE: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 08:41 PM

Sources???

Subject: BS: Facts about Bush just facts
From: GUEST,Guest 974
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 08:29 PM

Why is no one saying anything about the real facts regarding President Bush's performance related to poverty?
Here are some concrete facts people should know if they care to really operate from factual information rather than just bashing.

By the mid term of President Clintons presidency there had been 192 Billion Dollars spent on people living below the poverty line.The number of people living below the poverty line was 13.7%.The 192 Billion represented 12.2 % of the total budget.For this president Clinton was called the first Black President.

By mid term of office in the Bush presidency there has been 368 Billion Dollars spent on the same group of people.The number of people iving below the poverty line is 12.1 %.The 368 Billion dollars represented 14.6% of the total budget.For this President Bush is called a racist and is said to have commited genocide.

Why is it that when folks don't agree with those that are doing the Bashing of President Bush they are said to be uninformed?The reality is that those doing the Bashing tend to overlook the real facts.