# bush's fault again



## Dark Geared God (Sep 11, 2010)

Press) -- 
The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.
Census figures for 2009 _ the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat's presidency _ are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings.
It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase _ from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent _ would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.
"The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there," Obama said Friday at a White House news conference. He stressed his commitment to helping the poor achieve middle-class status and said, "If we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then everybody is swept up into that virtuous cycle."Interviews with six demographers who closely track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures are likely to show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.
Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980 when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent during the energy crisis.
Among the 18-64 working-age population, the demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government's role in social welfare programs from education to health care.
Demographers also are confident the report will show:
_Child poverty increased from 19 percent to more than 20 percent.
_Blacks and Latinos were disproportionately hit, based on their higher rates of unemployment.
_Metropolitan areas that posted the largest gains in poverty included Modesto, Calif.; Detroit; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
"My guess is that politically these figures will be greeted with alarm and dismay but they won't constitute a clarion call to action," said William Galston, a domestic policy aide for President Bill Clinton. "I hope the parties don't blame each other for the desperate circumstances of desperate people. That would be wrong in my opinion. But that's not to say it won't happen."
Lawrence M. Mead, a New York University political science professor who is a conservative and wrote "The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America," argued that the figures will have a minimal impact in November.
"Poverty is not as big an issue right now as middle-class unemployment. That's a lot more salient politically right now," he said.
But if Thursday's report is as troubling as expected, Republicans in the midst of an increasingly strong drive to win control of the House, if not the Senate, would get one more argument to make against Democrats in the campaign homestretch.
The GOP says voters should fire Democrats because Obama's economic fixes are hindering the sluggish economic recovery. Rightly or wrongly, Republicans could cite a higher poverty rate as evidence.
Democrats almost certainly will argue that they shouldn't be blamed. They're likely to counter that the economic woes _ and the poverty increase _ began under President George W. Bush with the near-collapse of the financial industry in late 2008.
Although that's true, it's far from certain that the Democratic explanation will sway voters who already are trending heavily toward the GOP in polls as worrisome economic news piles up.
Hispanics and blacks _ traditionally solid Democratic constituencies _ could be inclined to stay home in November if, as expected, the Census Bureau reports that many more of them were poor last year.
Beyond this fall, the findings could put pressure on Obama to expand government safety net programs ahead of his likely 2012 re-election bid even as Republicans criticize him about federal spending and annual deficits. Those are areas of concern for independent voters whose support is critical in elections.
Experts say a jump in the poverty rate could mean that the liberal viewpoint _ social constraints prevent the poor from working _ will gain steam over the conservative position that the poor have opportunities to work but choose not to because they get too much help.
"The Great Recession will surely push the poverty rate for working-age people to a nearly 50-year peak," said Elise Gould, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. She said that means "it's time for a renewed attack on poverty."
To Douglas Besharov, a University of Maryland public policy professor, the big question is whether there's anything more to do to help these families.
The 2009 forecasts are largely based on historical data and the unemployment rate, which climbed to 10.1 percent last October to post a record one-year gain.
The projections partly rely on a methodology by Rebecca Blank, a former poverty expert who now oversees the census. She estimated last year that poverty would hit about 14.8 percent if unemployment reached 10 percent. "As long as unemployment is higher, poverty will be higher," she said in an interview then.
A formula by Richard Bavier, a former analyst with the White House Office of Management and Budget who has had high rates of accuracy over the last decade, predicts poverty will reach 15 percent.
That would put the rate at the highest level since 1993. The all-time high was 22.4 percent in 1959, the first year the government began tracking poverty. It dropped to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973 after Johnson's war on poverty but has since fluctuated in the 12-14 percent range.
In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.
Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty.
___I know it is bush's fault still


----------



## irish_2003 (Sep 11, 2010)

i cannot lie......the only place i get my news from if the FOXNews Channel......it's fair and balanced and doesn't spew lies and garbage like MSNBC.......i've said for years that we need to get back to our conservative ways....stop with all the fucking programs to help the poor....they need to start helping themselves....no more safety nets...no more entitlements.....no more apology tours to other countries for being America.....no more "date night" news updates with our taxpayer money......

Ryan/Pawlenty or Palin 2012!!!


----------



## cavtrooper96 (Sep 11, 2010)

I agree 100% Irish Hooah!


----------



## Dark Geared God (Sep 11, 2010)




----------



## vortrit (Sep 11, 2010)

The Situation said:


>



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Arnold (Sep 11, 2010)

irish_2003 said:


> i cannot lie......the only place i get my news from if the FOXNews Channel......*it's fair and balanced and doesn't spew lies and garbage* like MSNBC......



please tell me you're kidding?


----------



## Dark Geared God (Sep 11, 2010)

Prince said:


> please tell me you're kidding?


----------



## LAM (Sep 11, 2010)

irish_2003 said:


> Ryan/Pawlenty or Palin 2012!!!



either one guarantees a Democratic victory, none of them could raise enough campaign funds...


----------



## Mudge (Sep 11, 2010)

Palin isn't going anywhere.


----------



## cavtrooper96 (Sep 12, 2010)

Mudge said:


> Palin isn't going anywhere.



I agree. She is way to polarizing. I read her book and like her but too many people hate her for too many different reasons. Especially the media.


----------



## irish_2003 (Sep 12, 2010)

LAM said:


> either one guarantees a Democratic victory, none of them could raise enough campaign funds...



none have honestly committed to running yet either......that's the one problem the GOP is having, there is no clear cut leader right now that is stepping out in from (other than we know Mitt Romney is running again.....and he has enough of his own money to run with or without campaign donations).....the 2012 elections will simply come down to most dems who voted for Obama, will just say fuck it and won't vote next time.....really votes don't matter anyway......the electoral college screws that up


----------



## Krys (Sep 12, 2010)

irish_2003 said:


> i cannot lie......the only place i get my news from if the FOXNews Channel......it's fair and balanced and doesn't spew lies and garbage like MSNBC.......i've said for years that we need to get back to our conservative ways....stop with all the fucking programs to help the poor....they need to start helping themselves....no more safety nets...no more entitlements.....no more apology tours to other countries for being America.....no more "date night" news updates with our taxpayer money......
> 
> Ryan/Pawlenty or Palin 2012!!!



nicely put bro


----------



## Glycomann (Sep 12, 2010)

There are 2 bands of criminals that run this country.  Their names start with D and R.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 12, 2010)

irish_2003 said:


> i cannot lie......the only place i get my news from if the FOXNews Channel......it's fair and balanced and doesn't spew lies and garbage like MSNBC.......i've said for years that we need to get back to our conservative ways....stop with all the fucking programs to help the poor....they need to start helping themselves....no more safety nets...no more entitlements.....no more apology tours to other countries for being America.....no more "date night" news updates with our taxpayer money......
> 
> Ryan/Pawlenty or Palin 2012!!!



Bahahahahaha!


----------



## Krys (Sep 12, 2010)

I blame most of this great country's  problems on that idiot. How could he get elected again let alone the first time. I know that asshole cheated in FL, his approval rate was like 29% how the fuck can you run a country when 71% of the population hates you? He only did things that would benefit his greedy ass cock sucking fagget mother fucker 

i hate you Bush


----------



## MDR (Sep 12, 2010)

irish_2003 said:


> i cannot lie......the only place i get my news from if the FOXNews Channel......it's fair and balanced and doesn't spew lies and garbage like MSNBC.......i've said for years that we need to get back to our conservative ways....stop with all the fucking programs to help the poor....they need to start helping themselves....no more safety nets...no more entitlements.....no more apology tours to other countries for being America.....no more "date night" news updates with our taxpayer money......
> 
> Ryan/Pawlenty or Palin 2012!!!


----------



## LAM (Sep 12, 2010)

Mudge said:


> Palin isn't going anywhere.



Palin only strength is in her supporters among the voters...she does not have the support of the majority of the mainstream GOP incumbents today.  her career in politics is over.  she has no political power in anyway therefore no reason for anyone in the electoral college to vote for her.  Palin would ever make it out of the primaries to begin with.  During debate is when her general lack of knowledge on any and all subjects is painfully obvious.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 12, 2010)

LAM said:


> Palin only strength is in her supporters among the voters...she does not have the support of the majority of the mainstream GOP incumbents today.  her career in politics is over.  she has no political power in anyway therefore no reason for anyone in the electoral college to vote for her.  Palin would ever make it out of the primaries to begin with.  During debate is when her general lack of knowledge on any and all subjects is painfully obvious.



This is Palin's only strength. Sadly, it was almost enough to get her to the whitehouse.


----------



## irish_2003 (Sep 12, 2010)

here's some food for thought......even though with ex pres GW Bush we were headed way down the wrong road, i honestly think with the poor decisions the current admin has made that we'd actually be better off if GW would have been allowed to run a 3rd time and win.....granted we'd still be screwed, but not 3x worse off like we are now.......and yes, i'm serious about this comment......we'd still be very very bad, but not nearly as bad as we are with Obama


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 12, 2010)

irish_2003 said:


> the only place i get my news from if the FOXNews Channel......it's fair and balanced and doesn't spew lies and garbage like MSNBC.......i



Not true at all.


----------



## min0 lee (Sep 12, 2010)

Glycomann said:


> There are 2 bands of criminals that run this country.  Their names start with D and R.



*D*imaggio Robert?


----------



## Zaphod (Sep 12, 2010)

Glycomann said:


> There are 2 bands of criminals that run this country.  Their names start with D and R.



So true and both sides honestly think you're talking about somebody else.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Sep 12, 2010)

Mudge said:


> Palin isn't going anywhere.


 she banking too much loot
__


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 13, 2010)

Krys said:


> I blame most of this great country's  problems on that idiot. How could he get elected again let alone the first time. I know that asshole cheated in FL, his approval rate was like 29% how the fuck can you run a country when 71% of the population hates you? He only did things that would benefit his greedy ass cock sucking fagget mother fucker
> 
> i hate you Bush


----------



## Arnold (Sep 13, 2010)

Krys said:


> I blame most of this great country's  problems on that idiot. How could he get elected again let alone the first time. I know that asshole cheated in FL, his approval rate was like 29% how the fuck can you run a country when 71% of the population hates you? He only did things that would benefit his greedy ass cock sucking fagget mother fucker
> 
> i hate you Bush



lol


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 13, 2010)

LAM said:


> Palin only strength is in her supporters among the voters...she does not have the support of the majority of the mainstream GOP incumbents today.  her career in politics is over.  she has no political power in anyway therefore no reason for anyone in the electoral college to vote for her.  Palin would ever make it out of the primaries to begin with.  During debate is when her general lack of knowledge on any and all subjects is painfully obvious.



No political power? Have you seen the money she brings in? The crowds?

I agree that she is ill prepared for the job, but I definitely think she could win the primary... ensuring Obama four more years to fuck the country up even more.


----------



## LAM (Sep 13, 2010)

busyLivin said:


> No political power? Have you seen the money she brings in? The crowds?
> 
> I agree that she is ill prepared for the job, but I definitely think she could win the primary... ensuring Obama four more years to fuck the country up even more.



crowds don't equal political power.  Palin is an ex-governor that quit, she has no senior GOP leaders in the House or Senate that back her.  Look how John McCain feels about her ability as a "world leader" now...the rest of the GOP is no different


----------



## LAM (Sep 13, 2010)

Glycomann said:


> There are 2 bands of criminals that run this country.  Their names start with D and R.



the Democrats and Republics have no power.  the lobbyists and corporations pull the strings in the White House, it doesn't matter if a Dem or Repub is POTUS the big corporations will always come out on top.  Until we get the lobbyists out of politics in our county the middle class is pretty much fucked.  One thing is for sure, further deregulation of our markets will keep adding fuel to the fire.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 13, 2010)

LAM said:


> crowds don't equal political power.  Palin is an ex-governor that quit, she has no senior GOP leaders in the House or Senate that back her.  Look how John McCain feels about her ability as a "world leader" now...the rest of the GOP is no different



While that's all true, crowds equal votes.  If she runs (which she obviously will), I don't doubt that the Republicans electorate will nominate her.

I'd still vote for her against Obama (easy choice), but I'd rather see Romney or Gingrich go up against him.


----------



## DOMS (Sep 13, 2010)

busyLivin said:


> I'd still vote for her against Obama (easy choice), but I'd rather see Romney or Gingrich go up against him.



I'd vote for Hitler if he ran against Obama.


----------



## LAM (Sep 13, 2010)

busyLivin said:


> While that's all true, crowds equal votes.  If she runs (which she obviously will), I don't doubt that the Republicans electorate will nominate her.
> 
> I'd still vote for her against Obama (easy choice), but I'd rather see Romney or Gingrich go up against him.



Electoral votes wins presidential elections the popular vote is meaningless.  Look at "all" the electoral votes that McCain got..you seriously think Palin would fare better? lol at Palin winning the electoral votes from WA, OR, IL, MI, OH, PA, FLA or CA, not in this lifetime.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 13, 2010)

LAM said:


> Electoral votes wins presidential elections the popular vote is meaningless.  Look at "all" the electoral votes that McCain got..you seriously think Palin would fare better? lol at Palin winning the electoral votes from WA, OR, IL, MI, OH, PA, FLA or CA, not in this lifetime.



I'm talking about party nomination.  I think Palin can be nominated, but I don't think she'd stand a chance of winning the general election.


----------



## LAM (Sep 13, 2010)

Palin has a lot of "support" on tv....people showing up to see her speak and sign books, etc. doesn't transfer to senior GOP leaders giving a thumbs up for a presidential nomination that doesn't even hold a current office.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 13, 2010)

LAM said:


> Palin has a lot of "support" on tv....people showing up to see her speak and sign books, etc. doesn't transfer to senior GOP leaders giving a thumbs up for a presidential nomination that doesn't even hold a current office.



She's going to run...i think we can all agree on that.  Now if she gets the votes to be the nominee, I don't see how the Republican establishment can do anything to stop it.  What are you suggesting they would do?  Deny republicans the candidate they chose?  Wouldn't happen...
.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 13, 2010)

LAM said:


> Palin has a lot of "support" on tv....people showing up to see her speak and sign books, etc. doesn't transfer to senior GOP leaders giving a thumbs up for a presidential nomination that doesn't even hold a current office.



and "support on tv"  is the what got Obama elected.  He was a nobody before he ran for President.


----------



## KelJu (Sep 13, 2010)

busyLivin said:


> and "support on tv"  is the what got Obama elected.  He was a nobody before he ran for President.



TV support was a by-product of his popularity gained through underground and grass roots organizations. At the time, he was cool, because he wasn't a Washington insider. He wasn't some old rich white guy in the pockets of lobbyist. He was young and fresh. I am of coarse speaking only of the atmosphere at the time and not my personal beliefs.

He got my vote damn near on the premise alone that Obama/Biden was the only alternative to McCain/Palin.


----------



## busyLivin (Sep 13, 2010)

KelJu said:


> At the time, he was cool, because he wasn't a Washington insider



How is a senator not a Washington insider?



KelJu said:


> He wasn't some old rich white guy in the pockets of lobbyist



No, he was in the pocket of Unions, and he paid  (or should I say "stimulated") them back graciously


----------



## LAM (Sep 13, 2010)

busyLivin said:


> and "support on tv"  is the what got Obama elected.  He was a nobody before he ran for President.



you are missing the point about political power...Palin has nobody on the GOP that can do anything for the Democrats in any of their key states, thus they get no electoral votes in them.

getting voters to the polls has nothing at all to do with the electoral college and the process of actually "obtaining" electoral votes.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Sep 14, 2010)

The Situation said:


> Press) --
> The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.



Has little/nothing to do with the President - it's about the structure of the US economy not about the cyclical aspect.

Meaning, the core foundation of the US economy is the cause.


----------

