The AP reported today:
The nation's poverty rate dropped last year, the first significant decline since President Bush took office.It is nteresting that the AP didn't mention that the current poverty rates under this president are way below what they were during the Clinton years.
The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent — were living in poverty last year. That's down from 12.6 percent in 2005.
Odd, isn't it?
Official government figures have the poverty rate at 12.8 in 1968 and 12.6 in 2005.
Here is a look at the Historical US Poverty Rate:
Also... To give you a better idea of how things are today, according to US Census Bureau Figures the poverty rate during the Bush years is much lower than during the Clinton years!
And, that was before today's numbers were released!
RedState today also posted an article from The Heritage Foundation about the poor in America. Here are a few points from that article about America's poor:
• 43% of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.Is it any wonder then why that "two America's" line isn't sticking?
• 80% of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36% of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6% of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
UPDATE: By the way, the US is also breaking manufacturing performance records under George W. Bush.
Uh, Oh.
ReplyDelete1. Bush
2. Clinton
3. Graphs w/ factual data.
Standing by for the lunatics to arrive!
Folks, if you actually look at the poverty rate data you will see that the Clinton administration started with a much higher rate than did the Bush II administration but then took it way down to 11+%.
ReplyDeleteThen the Bush II administration then allowed the rate to climb back up so that it is now significantly above where Clinton left it.
So the big question is which president lowered the rate the most and of course you will note that Clinton lowered the rate significantly while Bush II has allowed it to rise significantly above Clinton's last and lowest year.
You guys are so eager to bash Clinton that you have lost your ability to think straight!
I fear for my country if your thinking skills are typical of our nation's citizenry.
The new headline should read "America's ability to think critically contiunes to plunge in the post Clinton years!"
Kerm
leftists like kerm can't even read a chart correctly.
ReplyDeleteThe chart clearly shows a peak in 1994, two years after clinton took over from Bush I- not to mention that it is a Higher peak than the one during Bush I. Yes, the economy takes it down a fair bit towards the end of his presidency, but then it rises again right before the election due to the clinton recession, and then rises further after 9-11.
All one has to do is look at the chart.
It's worse than I had at first thought.
ReplyDeleteFirst you resort to gross avergaes over the entire presidency to try to make your point and then when foiled you resort to looking at local trends in the data.
The indisputable truth is that poverty came down significantly during the Clinton years and it has gone up from the Clinton low point during the Bush II years. That's what the data says no matter whether it is being interpreted by a progressive or a conservative.
Forget the fact that presidents have little, if anything, to do with the economy -- here are the relevant poverty rates, starting the year of inauguration:
ReplyDeleteClinton
1993 -- 15.1
1994 -- 14.5
1995 -- 13.8
1996 -- 13.7
1997 -- 13.3
1998 -- 12.7
1999 -- 11.9
2000 -- 11.3
Bush
2001 -- 11.7
2002 -- 12.1
2003 -- 12.5
2004 -- 12.7
2005 -- 12.6
2006 -- 12.3
Like I said, I don't really think presidents have a lot to do with the economy. But good god, man, your stats/reasoning are laughable.
Damn! It's already started.
ReplyDeleteI need to get home, make some popcorn, and get situated before meatmush gets off the schoolbus.
I guess it's not good enough that the poverty rate on average over Bush's term has been lower than it was during Clinton's.
ReplyDeleteBush would also have to display an equal downward trend in poverty rate in order to satisfy the great anonymous ones of the world.
Thing is, like unemployement, unless someone arbitrarily changes the already arbitrary level of income that is termed "poverty", there comes a point where, unless significant changes have been made to economic policy, you simply won't see any further significant reduction.
In the best of times, unemployment reaches about 4-5%. Lowest poverty level in US history is 11.1%. . .we're within 1.2% of that now. . .and that's a pretty damn good thing.
I can't believe y'all are complaining and fussing over semantics.
No! No! I,m concerned about the lack of straight thinking that would motivate a claim that poverty rates under Bush II have plummeted when they have actaully gone up. It's this kind of carelessness with the TRUTH that has gotten our country into the pickle it's in. Has anybody noticed that the good old USA can't seem to solve the tuff problems these days. Guess what? I am thinking that our inability to think straight and spin everything has got a lot to do with it. If I were a relgious person I would say something like "Lord help us!".
ReplyDeleteWell Mr. Anonymous, I suppose the next step is to contact the AP.
ReplyDeleteI'm concerned about the lack of straight thinking that would motivate a claim that poverty rates under Bush II have plummeted when they have actaully gone up.
It's the AP that made the claim, this 'blog just quoted it. They can't get their info straight on Iraq, or anything else. . I suppose it's no surprise they can't get it straight on this either.
And for the record, it's just as inaccurate to say poverty has gone up under Bush II. After all, the average poverty rate during his administration has been well below the average poverty rate during Clinton's, and is currently on a downward trend.
It is most accurate to say, that since Bush II took office, the low poverty rates reached at the end of Clinton's 2nd term have been maintained, having neither risen or fallen by more than 1.4%.
Yashmak, now were talking sense! I agree! But what you have observed was not even close to what was previously claimed and summarily passed on with out critical review. So my concern for my nation's future remains.
ReplyDeleteKerm OKA Anonymous