The Bush Record: More Poverty, More Uninsured
Filed Under: Economy, Health Care
By on Aug 29th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
The Bush Record: More Poverty, More Uninsured
President Bush says “the foundation of our economy is solid, and it’s strong.” That’s true, for some: corporate profits have now climbed to their highest share of GDP since the 1960’s.
But new Census Bureau data show the real state of the current economy. The Bush record on combating poverty and insuring more Americans is an undisputed failure.
Poverty, All Races (Millions)
Number of Uninsured (Millions)
More on the new census data HERE.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Wonder who the trolls are going to blame for this one. Not… the people supposed to be running the show? *shock horror*
August 29th, 2006 at 1:34 pmHeckuva job Buhsie.
The economy is great.
These aren’t the droids your looking for.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:35 pmWell obviously these numbers are the work of Americans thathave a lack of perspective in our national dialogue today — the perspective of history, you see the republicans are all rich and their companies are making money. Why would the poor or uninsured whine about someone’s good fortune. That’s UnAmerican and helps the terrorists./sarcasm
August 29th, 2006 at 1:39 pmBefore the unevolved trolls come with their grunting and their blaming everyone else
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Please, I urge everyone to look at that national debt for the USA. Feel free to click the links and read it too.
Would YOU want these buffoons to hold your wallet while you go to the bathroom?!
August 29th, 2006 at 1:40 pmdamn, american is looking great!!!!
August 29th, 2006 at 1:42 pmYa, Bush made it clear that unless you have a multi million dollar estate, he doesn’t give a f**k about your or your family.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:42 pmthis proofs, once again, that bill clinton’s policies have ruined america and that george bush is saving america. as the numbers show, bill clinton left us with 31.6 million poor people–but, as you can also see–george bush only added 15% to the number.
therefore, george bush is six to seven times more compassionate towards the poor than was bill clinton. the score is really 85% bill clinton, and a mere 15% to george bush….
thank you for your time and your votes.
i remain your humblest servant,
karl rove
August 29th, 2006 at 1:43 pmShut up, Jason.
Shut up, Roger.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:44 pmWonder who the trolls are going to blame for this one. Not… the people supposed to be running the show? *shock horror*
Comment by Go Back To Sleep America
Heck, I’ll even help the trolls out here. when painted into a corner, with no logical or well documented rebuttal. then…
August 29th, 2006 at 1:45 pmBLAME CLINTON
BLAME CLINTON
BLAME CLINTON
oh, and…
BLAME CLINTON
(you’re welcome m.a. and JMH)
dammmit, #7 karl rover beat me to it
August 29th, 2006 at 1:46 pmAnd remember that the uninsured are only one illness or accident from joining the “poverty” category. One bad infection, one auto accident and you can’t pay the bills, even with a job.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:53 pmTragedy abounds aroud this Bush . Iraq and here at home the examples are too numerous of a failed presidency built on hypes , lies , imcompetence , ignorence, reliaance on religious myths and select preferential treatments . It is sickening and pityfull to watch this clown laugh at us . I grieve for our country.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:55 pmThe islamic left is to blame!!!
August 29th, 2006 at 1:56 pmThe numbers aren’t good for Bush, but your graph doesn’t reflect the true magnitude of the change. The vertical axis should start at zero, not some arbitrary value.
Just saying….
August 29th, 2006 at 2:00 pm#4 - here’s a link to the census bureau’s estimate of US population
August 29th, 2006 at 2:03 pmhttp://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
do the quick math and each and every American, man woman and child now owes
$28,414.89
Quick, get our your credit card and make a payment.
See, that trickledown voodo economics really works !!!! ( for the greedy corporations )
August 29th, 2006 at 2:04 pmAlso of note:
http://nationalpriorities.org/ index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
Wheeee! Watch that (borrowed) money fly!!! It’s making me dizzy, seeing how many schools, hospitals and poverty improving things could have been paid for…. Wheeeeeeee! All aboard! Remember to line your childrens wallets with IOU notes. And their children!
August 29th, 2006 at 2:04 pmSALUTE to the mayor of Salt Lake City! The folks in Utah are under mass hypnosis supporting the Bush cabal. I guess they do not realize that the supposed MORAL folks in office are some of the most IMMORAL repugnant folks ever in Washington.
Can we get smart for one moment and stop beleiving that fighting in Iraq is helping anyone other than terrorist recruiters and the defense industry.
Lets build a strong defense at home, protect our own intrest, tell big oil to f**k off and let freedom truly ring in this great land. If we lived by the real tennants of Christanity, Muslims would not hate us. The crazies would still hate us but we have thousands of WMD’s so we could just dare them look at us wrong. Crush them if they do. We are looking stupid in Iraq, we pretend we want democracy for the mid-east but when Palistine elects Hamas we moan and groan because we do not like them. The French must be moaning and graoning that they ever helped us establish a democracy here. ‘Course all we can do is belittle them for not playing our game.
America first means getting rid of the idiots in Washington and electing real leaders who have our intrest at heart and not hteir own. I do not want someone who is “one of the guys” as my president. The president needs to be more than “one of the guys”! That idiot pretending to be a Texan…Cheney too.
Texas Juice
August 29th, 2006 at 2:05 pmSince no trolls have shown up to defend their fearless leader, here goes.
But Clinton, blah blah blah. 9/11 blah blah. Freedom on the march, cut and run, stay the course, rinse and repeat.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:06 pmBut Clinton, blah blah blah. 9/11 blah blah. Freedom on the march, cut and run, stay the course, rinse and repeat.
But Clinton, blah blah blah. 9/11 blah blah. Freedom on the march, cut and run, stay the course, rinse and repeat.
#17 - Made me dizzy an sick, in that order, just watching it fly by!
August 29th, 2006 at 2:07 pmHey. At least we’re free.
Freedom Isn’t FreeFREEDOM COALITIONusafreedomcorpsOperation Iraqi FreedomNew Freedom Commission on Mental HealthFreedom AgendaThey hate our freedomsfreedom is on the marchExpand freedom in all the worldforce of human freedomexpansion of freedomwhen freedom came under attackFreedom Will Find a WayGod has implanted the desire for freedomcrusade for freedom across the globeGeorge W. Bush Freedom Heroes CardsOperation FreedomFreedomFriesFreedom is God’s giftFreedom at War With Fearfreedom doctrineBush’s Freedom Fuel InitiativeBush’s Freedom to Manage plan there ought to be limits to freedomMedal of FreedomIt’s about freedom. The New Freedom InitiativeVets for FreedomDemand freedomFreedom was attacked and freedom will be defended. Champions of FreedomFire of Freedom
August 29th, 2006 at 2:11 pmall’s they need is longer bootstraps and more muscular arms
August 29th, 2006 at 2:11 pmAt least Bush admits how hard it is “for you to put food on your family.”
August 29th, 2006 at 2:11 pmInteresting, but can we please have population-adjusted figures?
August 29th, 2006 at 2:16 pmAre you guys and gals hoping that we somehow get rid of poverty? New flash, a free market society will ALWAYS have poverty no matter what you do (outside of reverting to socialism). Hell, the federal reserve actually thinks to many people are employed and rich right now!!! From finance courses in college I remember one of the famous inflation measures for the Federal reserve. They usually believe that anything under 5.5% unemployment is a sign that inflation will rise. The Federal reserve actually looks at todays picture and sees to many people employed making too much money.
Either way, the “War on poverty” is laughable as it is simply part of a free market system. The only way to get rid of poverty is to revert to socialism. Of course that has some horrible problems as well.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:16 pmThe Right does not care about poverty and the uninsured. They think this is a waste of time by whiny bleeding heart types. They think people should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get a life.
They do not see that letting the quality of life for Americans erode will eventually have a negative impact on them.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:17 pmSigh.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:18 pmThe poverty numbers are meaningless as anyone who has actually read the definitions knows.
Think through this just for a moment, please?
What are the major ways in which the USA tries to alleviate poverty amongst those working? Anyone? Bueller?
They are the EITC, food stamps, housing vouchers and Medicaid.
Yes? All with me so far?
That there are some number of people in poverty, and the US Government taxes the richer people in order to aid those poor people. Yes?
Good, now, what does that number of people below the Federal Poverty Level actually show?
It shows the number of people who need help. It does not take any account at all of the help that those people receive. Correct. It does not include the EITC, Medicaid, food stamps or housing vouchers.
We could triple teh EITC (not a bad idea actually), give every poor person vouchers for a McMansion, stuff them so full of food stamps that they’re eating caviar for breakfast and insist that Medicaid means Mayo Clinic standards of care.
And do you know what? There would still be 37 million poor people by this method of measurement.
When you have looked up and digested the proper poverty figures, those calculated after the influence of the tax and benefit systems, that is, what is the level of poverty that we have not alleviated, then it might be worth having a serious discussion.
As usual, Roger is peddling myths, false dichotomies, straw men, and half-truths. Give it up, Roger. People see right through it.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:19 pmOnly quibble with numbers is that showing number of poor doesn’t adjust for population growth. But with the GDP growth rates we’ve been having, the number of poor should itself be falling; it’s not.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:22 pmLove you’re post’s RUCerious, the one about all of us owing $28,000+ I think I responded to before, well, no matter will coment again so when the troll’s and roaches show up they have something more to read…..I will send my $28,000+ check when all this administration is behind bars for war crimes and crimes against the american public and right after all their properties are seized for their waramonging here and over there…….Blessings, pass them on to all…..Peace, demand it for the children of the world.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:22 pma free market society will ALWAYS have poverty
You’re making shit up, Roger. That’s totally innaccurate. Even Walmart knows there is infinite wealth.
Why do you write shit that you think is correct to make silly points?
August 29th, 2006 at 2:23 pmcnmne
this is standard chart-making procedure. it is a matter of relevance and ‘tidiness’.
if not, it would look like this:
________________________________________
__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_______________________________________________
when the standard way to show it is:
____
______
_________
____________
arguably, this shows the magnitude better because it focuses on the change…
August 29th, 2006 at 2:24 pmtim, but the point is you have to BE POOR to qualify. So we don’t have to know if you get no name coffee or starbuck’s coffee - you’re still poor and your chances of getting out of poverty even with assistance is pretty poor.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:25 pmyes, what tim said at #27… great…
/tim, can we still blame something on clinton though?/
thanks,
karl
August 29th, 2006 at 2:25 pmTim:
I understand your point but I think you are wrong to dismiss the significance of these numbers. A economy that is performing well would be increasing incomes and lifting people out of poverty. If someone manages to nudge ahead of the poverty line due to government assistance, that’’s a good thing. But it doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem. And it doesn’t mean that the number of people in poverty prior to getting government assistance is irrelevant.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:28 pmthe point of the article was not that we have poverty but that it has increased under the Bush administration. This is a very simple concept that shouldn’t be that difficult to understand.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:28 pm————————————————————————
2005 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States
and the District of Columbia
————————————————————————
Poverty
Persons in family unit guideline
————————————————————————
1…………………………………………………. $9,570
2…………………………………………………. 12,830
3…………………………………………………. 16,090
4…………………………………………………. 19,350
5…………………………………………………. 22,610
6…………………………………………………. 25,870
7…………………………………………………. 29,130
8…………………………………………………. 32,390
————————————————————
For family units with more than 8 persons, add $3,260 for each
additional person.
Tim given $3 gas, high AC and heat costs, etc can you see why if you earn the above being poor means STARVING TO DEATH despite working?
August 29th, 2006 at 2:28 pmI addition to Roger we have Tim Worstall (SIGH) trying to sell his own line of bullshit.
HI Timmy! (SIGH)
“What are the major ways in which the USA tries to alleviate poverty”…. “food stamps, housing vouchers and Medicaid.” Which have all been cut by BUSH.
Yes? All with me so far? (SIGH)
“the US Government taxes the richer people in order to aid those poor people. Yes?”
No, Sorry Timmy that was Robin Hood. (SIGH)
Here is Timmy’s plan - “give every poor person vouchers for a McMansion, stuff them so full of food stamps that they’re eating caviar for breakfast and insist that Medicaid means Mayo Clinic standards of care.”
GEE WIZ TIMMY, what a great idea. You lying prick.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:33 pmThere will always be poverty in a free market, so to those effected;go out and get a better job?, a better education?, and work harder????????
August 29th, 2006 at 2:33 pmRefer to 38 above, so let’s say just you: $400 per month rathole apartment, 10 gallons a week to get to work (wouldn’t want to be shiftless and lazy), $100 a month utilities, $200 a month in food. Now we haven’t included bandaids, movies, car repairs/oil/air for tires, glasses, cold and flu meds, allergy meds, Christmas gifts, birthday presents, or anything “real not poor people” do. Just the straightforward above already uses up all the income that a single person made in a year to be called “poor”.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:35 pmThe poor in america live better lives then most of the world already. Just like the other post. We can have a real arguement when you show me the numbers of the poor that actually need help. Currently, we are handing them out food stamps, housing, and SUV’s. We always will because there will always be “poor” in this free market society.
Oops, wrong blog. America is EVIL!!!! Death to Bush!!! Socialism is the way!!!!!! We don’t spend enough at the Federal level!!!!!!! Religon is EVIL!!!!!!! Everyone is a victum!!!!
There, now I fit in!
August 29th, 2006 at 2:35 pmWhy can’t we have a public works program to rebuild our infrastructure, places like the Gulf Coast and other disaster areas? This would help folks by putting them to work. Hire only legal Americans and tell women and men on assistance we are providing day-care, your asses are going to dig ditches and tunnels, pave roads and build damns. Working for money, what a concept, lets rebuild America and help Americans in the process.
Tariff the crap out of imports so they are too expensive to buy, make Toyota, honda and Nissan pay obscene tariffs for every viechle they build in America, keep the tax breaks for GM amd Ford and tell them here’s your chance, get off your butts and build some good cars or we let the imports rule! Buy Chrysler back from Daimler and make it ‘merican once again. We can be an even greater country if we grow some (figurative) balls, stop electing rich kids to office, they are ruining this country and try new, radical ideas. The same old stuff is not getting us anywhere.
The trans America corridor thing is another way to destroy America’s industry (seaportds) and put our livelihood in the hands of a foreign (Mexico) country. AFL-CIO where are you??? As a Texan I do not want that crap cutting through my state taking jobs from Americans so cheap, Mexican labor can receive goods at their ports and distribute them throughout N. America.
BTW, screw Iraq asnd help ordinary Mexicans take their country back from the eleites there so we can stop playing host to millions of illegals. If they could make it there they would not be coming here! Forget Bagdad, lets take over Mexico City! That where a huge problem for the US starts.
Sorry for rambling but there is soooo much to cover.
Texasjuice
August 29th, 2006 at 2:37 pmHere is Timmy’s plan - “give every poor person vouchers for a McMansion, stuff them so full of food stamps that they’re eating caviar for breakfast and insist that Medicaid means Mayo Clinic standards of care.â€
And Tim Medicaid gives 12 visits a year and you still need to pay a $3 copayment at the time of service. It pays for old substandard meds that barely work so you stay sicker LONGER, requiring you to be out of work, using multiple doctor visits till there are all gone in 3 months, and you get fired.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:37 pmTim you are just another Right winger who thinks poor people are getting a free ride and life is just peachy for them. They look like life is good for them on paper, you ever actually spend time working with poor people?
August 29th, 2006 at 2:40 pmA economy that is performing well would be increasing incomes and lifting people out of poverty….
Comment by Judd — August 29, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
ahh… i remember those days… blame clinton!
August 29th, 2006 at 2:41 pmThe poor in america live better lives then most of the world already.
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 29, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
Keep lowering the bar for your guy Bush, Roger. Pathetic. We’re better than Saddam! Our standard of living is better than Haiti! Blah, blah, blah. And by the way, the poor in the rest of the developed world live much better than in the U.S.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:41 pmWe live in perverted version of a free-market society. Its been abused and pillaged.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:41 pmThe poor in america live better lives then most of the world already. Just like the other post. We can have a real arguement when you show me the numbers of the poor that actually need help. Currently, we are handing them out food stamps, housing, and SUV’s. We always will because there will always be “poor†in this free market society.
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 29, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
(1) The poor in america live better lives…compared to who, Somalis?
August 29th, 2006 at 2:43 pm(2)When you show me the numbers that need help…ah, stupid refer to the numbers on the graph above
(3)We are handing out…SUVs…Really SUVs, well lets all get poor then and get our free SUV
Sorry charts ‘r us,
It’s not a matter of “tidyness”, it’s a misleading graphic. Your “better” graphic shows the change as (roughly) a doubling, which is not even close to the actual case.
As long as we progressives claim to respect science more than the right wing, we might as well walk the walk.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:43 pmFrankly, one needn’t be an economist to realize that if the housing market continues to slow, consumer confidence is going to weaken. Further, there are indications in a number of regions that housing prices may actually be dropping…a situation that will not only slow consumer confidence; it may well lead to a surge in foreclosures and bankruptcies and set into motion a scandal similar to the Savings & Loan debacle witnessed during the late 1980’s.
Read the full article here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
August 29th, 2006 at 2:47 pmFree market my ass. Some of you obviously not been hearing about the various huge scandals and corruption/fraud that’s been going on.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:50 pmHey Mighty Aphrodity, could you pleas reach over and slap roger_roger
August 29th, 2006 at 2:54 pm#61 Free market my ass
Funny, this is exactly what I said to Roger on another thread.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:00 pm#55 - are they paid to do this? If so, I’d like to volunteer. Get paid to be shot down in flames and made a mockery of, while covering my ears and going “la la la!” and exposing my psyche to delayed trauma syndrome. Hey, I can be a capitalist whore too! Where do I sign up? I need the money, I got a debt to pay…
August 29th, 2006 at 3:06 pmI am in wholehearted agreement that things are going in the wrong direction, but using the absolute number of uninsured and the absolute number of people in poverty to make your argument isn’t the most effective method. While it does make a good graphic to throw out in an attempt to bolster the argument in a simple fashion, any righty with a lick of sense would find it easy to logically refute.
Why not take some time and put together a sound argument which can be strongly defended instead of relying on these simplistic numbers. It would be a very beneficial tool for any reality based thinker to use when a Republican parrots “the foundation of our economy is solid, and it’s strong†talking point.
Help us out to make our case, Think Progress!
August 29th, 2006 at 3:08 pm[…] Insurance anyone?  Overall job look anyone? […]
August 29th, 2006 at 3:08 pmPardon my paranoia, but has anyone checked to be sure the methodology used to compute the poverty rate remains the same this year as last?
Perhaps the rate didn’t go up because they are now legally allowed to exclude illegal immigrants or somesuch.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:09 pmOregon, Uh what kind of data were you expecting from Census data. By definition it reflects absolute numbers of individuals, it’s census data.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:14 pm#55 - are they paid to do this?
Comment by Go Back To Sleep America — August 29, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
Well, the thought had crossed my mind….
August 29th, 2006 at 3:17 pmPardon my paranoia, but has anyone checked to be sure the methodology used to compute the poverty rate remains the same this year as last?
Comment by TonyT — August 29, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
Certainly a lot of this kind of thing goes on. The unemployment rate is obviously seriously cooked, for example.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:18 pmSharon Cox
August 29th, 2006 at 3:35 pmThanks for the note! I have four in my family, so I’m over 6 figures in debt.
A Bush apologist’s brief list of lowered expectations:
We are good because we kill and torture less people than Hussein.
Non-white people should not be allowed to immigrate into the US because a person’s worth is determined by their skin color only.
The displaced by Katrina should be thankful they are better off than the displaced by Hurricane Mitch in Honduras.
We should all be happy the standard of living in the US is higher than in Third World countries.
Your job was outsourced and offshored? We’ll downsize your espouse too. Way too many people are employed as it is.
The poor will always be poor. There is nothing we can do except letting them eat cake. They will get used to it. Just watch.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:37 pmIs this what they call compassionate conservatism?
August 29th, 2006 at 3:40 pmThe islamic left is to blame!!!
Comment by God is a Nihilist
==
I wonder where people get such a convoluted view of history?
Saddam was a puppet, Osama is a stick figure. Both at one point were financed by the United States.
Nothing much has changed in empire building over the decades…the only thing that has changed is that people have forgotten or ignored the facts.
http://www.antiwar.com/ orig/ oneill.php?articleid=9615
August 29th, 2006 at 3:53 pmDuplicitous Western support for Islamist movements has a long and dishonorable history. In the early and middle 20th century, both British and U.S. intelligence supported the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the group from which so many of today’s radical Islamic sects – including Hamas and even al-Qaeda – have sprung. Indeed, in the 1920s, the British, then the colonial rulers of Egypt, helped to set up the Muslim Brotherhood as a means of keeping Egyptian nationalism and anti-colonialism in check. The immediate precursor to the Muslim Brotherhood was an organization called the Society of Propaganda and Guidance, which was funded and backed by British colonialists. In return, the Society provided Islamist backing to British rule in Egypt. It published a journal called The Lighthouse, which attacked Egyptian nationalists – who wanted British forces out of Egypt – as “atheists and infidels.” Under British patronage, the Society set up the Institute of Propaganda and Guidance, which brought Islamists from across the Muslim world to Egypt so they could be trained in political agitation, and then take such anti-anti-colonialism back to their own homelands
==
And it continues, stupidly, today.
Bones, my point is that is a little bit deceiving to use the absolute numbers to make the argument. If numbers show there were 100 times more fatal car accidents in Florida as opposed to Kansas that would not mean that Florida drivers were that much worse than drivers in Kansas. You could make that argument but you wouldn’t have to go down that train of thought very far before you looked foolish. Absolute raw data is not, by itself, a good way to make an argument. I was just asking for Think Progress to provide a little more defensible argument than was originally presented. Get below the surface of the census data and draw conclusions that stand up to debate. I believe the evidence is in the report to back up the headline of the post, “The Bush Record: More Poverty, More Uninsured”. I just think the choice to use the absolute numbers does not bolster their argument very well.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:57 pmOregonian - point well taken. If shown in proper context, it would look just as bad. Or worse. Or worster?
August 29th, 2006 at 4:09 pmTwo points/questions:
1. Again, those graphs aren’t based on a zero Y axis, so they exaggerate the relative poverty numbers. The bar heights make it look like poverty numbers have more than doubled since 200, which certainly isn’t the case.
2. These both use raw numbers, not a percentage of population. How has the population grown? Could these numbers simply because there are more people in the US, and those coming into the US tend to be at the lower end of the income scale?
August 29th, 2006 at 4:18 pmRUCerious, I do believe that it is “worster” than we probably really know. And the American people in my neck of the woods have an uncomfortable knot in their gut, too. They are just not quite sure why it’s there. That’s why I think it’s important to have solid arguments based on conclusions drawn from facts that are as indisputable as possible. People are nervous and they can’t quite put their finger on it and it is up to us to open their eyes as to how their best interests have not been served by this administration. They really don’t know how truly screwed they have been by the policies of this group in power. When the blinders are finally taken off these people they are going to be pissed off about what has been done to them. We have make our points at every opportunity.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:21 pmThe numbers are bad and they don’t lie - but I think that these graphs are visually deceptive.
If you look at both - it appears at a glance that there are more than twice as many uninsured people and people below the poverty line in 2005 as there were in 2000… this visual deception is because of an unnecessarily truncated Y axis.
If we are to be taken serious we can not exaggerate and deceive as the Republicans do… people should be able to disagree with us but none should distrust us.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:36 pmmy point is that is a little bit deceiving to use the absolute numbers to make the argument.
Comment by The Oregonian — August 29, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
I agree… comparing percentages with non-truncated would be a much more honest way to represent the data.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:41 pmJudd, I think we have consensus, fix the damn graph…
August 29th, 2006 at 4:41 pmSuperChrist, you’re right. I think that’s why I’m so anal about stuff like the graph question. It just kind of “feels like” a Republican sleight of hand, though I don’t think it was intentional on the part of Think Progress.
The facts back us up on this poverty/healthcare issue so we need to be trustworthy. There’s enough good ammunition available for us without relying on what some might perceive as “smoke and mirrors”.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:42 pmOops!
#80 is supposed to read comparing percentages with non-truncated Y axes would be a more honest way to represent the data.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:45 pmI agree with the conclusion, but I hate the abuse of statistics. Graphs should always have a 0 base.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:50 pm74. I guess I should’ve said I was being sarcastic, so you didnt have to write all that.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:52 pm#85. That was a very good post, even if it was in response to sarcasm unrecognized!
August 29th, 2006 at 4:57 pmOregonian - thanks for the agreement.
I typed my comments without reading any posts… so I apologize for mostly parroting your comments on number 65 & 75.
I am glad to see that I am not alone in thinking that we should be as intellectually honest as we can be.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:57 pmJudd, I think we have consensus, fix the damn graph…
Comment by RUCerious — August 29, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
Why? You want the coordinate axis to begin in zero so the top of the columns and its differences arent enhanced? You read the graphic as it is. Believe in numbers not in images. I think the graph is OK.
August 29th, 2006 at 5:28 pm[…] “The Bush record on combating poverty and insuring more Americans is an undisputed failure.” Think Progress Get Hot Breaking News in Your Email: […]
August 29th, 2006 at 5:37 pmW,
the king with the fecal touch.
August 29th, 2006 at 5:45 pmThe like of thinking in this thread is on the verge of insanity at times. One group wants to let the disadvantaged fend for themselves because they were born into poverty, let America’s infrastructure collapse and let the rich keep every dollar they milk from society, the other wants to balance taxation so each gives according to their means, foster an opportunity for the impoverished to leave poverty and create programs that would put America back on track to being the most prosperous and respected nation on Earth.
There was a very rich man who won the presidency in 1932 who achieved just this. In creating projects like the REA. CCC, TVA, etc. and programs like Social Security and FDIC, he pulled the nation out of its financial nadir into a world power in 7 years. Each of these innovations was artfully and astutely designed to be self-financing.
He was a Democrat and that is what draws, G W Bush, the wizard of failures, ire. W sees no difference between destroying a business and destroying a nation. He seems to excell at both.
The Bush administration is on a direct path to destroying all that our grandparents (or great grandparents) achieved in the 1930s as well as the accomplishments of our parents (or grandparents) in the period from 1940 to 1970. This administration actually wants to set this nation back 80 years, out of pure spite and greed.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:00 pmWhy? You want the coordinate axis to begin in zero so the top of the columns and its differences arent enhanced? You read the graphic as it is. Believe in numbers not in images. I think the graph is OK.
Comment by Juan C — August 29, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
Juan - Respectfully… graphs are a visual representation of numbers… if you are not going to represent the numbers in their correct proportions why even represent them graphically at all.
Numbers themselves can be deceiving if not looked at critically… take for instance job creation in the first four years of the Bush administration. Georgie Boy continually bragged about creating x number of new jobs, but what he didn’t tell you was that that number was consistently smaller than the number of new workers entering the work force… things were getting worse not better as he would have liked you to have believed.
What TP should do is graph the percentages and/or do an ANOVA to see if these two categories are actually getting worse or if they just seem that way… that would be the intellectually honest thing to do!
August 29th, 2006 at 6:07 pmAmerica is starting to reap what it sowed. It will get a lot worse before it gets better if we the people of the United States of America allow it to. Impeach the chimp people I have been calling for it for the last 3 years. Write your elected officials, join meet-ups, call the elected bozo’s, write newspapers do everything in your power to perp walk these fools out of DC or your children will pay the ultimate price for your lack of action.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:17 pmCheers
The comments have been very good. I especially like the comments of Tim and Roger-Roger. Their comments reflect the simplistic, sound-bite quality of Republican talking points. They also reflect the small minds of those with biased views of the world that are not based on fact.
First: We lack a fact based view of the poverty problem. Tim was right. The statistics do not take into account the impact of welfare, medicare and other programs. It should. However, the recent trend has been to shrink these programs in terms of actual value provided by each recipient. They may not enjoy the result under current circumstances. Similarly, it is important to recognize the impact of such transfer payments in good times when Democrats take a more enlightened view. The statistics should also define actual poverty. The current standard came about by accident several decades ago. It does not reflect current reality in terms of family living costs. It also does not recognize the impact of geographical differences. There should also be analysis as to how we compare to other nations.
Second: We need to set ultimate goals for controlling poverty and income distribution. Lets face it, Tim and Roger-Roger see the poor as deserving of their fate. Indeed, they would probably believe that the United States population should have the same type of poverty seen in most third world countries. I think that the United States became great because of the real opportunity for people to better themselves. I believe that a great nation actually does want see the standard of living higher than that of impoverished third world nations/
This has never been a question of socialism versus capitalism. Neither the United States or any other nation has a pure system. It is about balance. We will not see such balance until complete and accurate metrics are developed. Nor will we see a rational and effective system evolve until a set national policy or goal is recognized. (Yes it will vary from administration to administration.) However, the current discussion is based upon a comparison of a baby coddling welfare system with welfare cheats driving government provided SUV’s versus a cruel and heartless capitlalist system. The truth lies somewhere in between. (Although closer to the heartless capitalist system than it was under Democrats or if Gore/Kerry had won.) We cannot have an appropriate balance between a welfare safety net, economic incentives and personal accountablity until such time as appropriate measurements are set into place to measure reality and to the impact of social policy.
August 29th, 2006 at 6:39 pmRe charts-They should be presented two ways one, like they are but, more important as a percentage of whatever the base is. Total population, wage earners, etc. I spent a long time in corporate life and without lieing made data look anyway I wanted it to. Bar graphs, Pie charts, etc. I am with the othaers, don’t drop down to the rethug level. Next on poverty income should include before and after government assistance. Keep up the great work TP.
August 29th, 2006 at 7:12 pmAmericans are growing more pessimistic about the economy, according to a story slated for the front page of Wednesday’s New York Times.
“Americans are more pessimistic than they have been all year about the state of the economy, according to a new report that reflects a widespread view that a period of brisk growth is coming to an end,” writes Jeremy W. Peters for the Times.
August 29th, 2006 at 8:39 pmBush is Reagan all over again. Here is some historical perspective on the failure of trickle down theory and tax cuts for the rich.
August 29th, 2006 at 8:46 pmWhat TP should do is graph the percentages and/or do an ANOVA to see if these two categories are actually getting worse or if they just seem that way… that would be the intellectually honest thing to do!
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — August 29, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
Percentages. I agree with that. It is easier to infer from percentages than from blunt dimensional numbers. But, respectfully, (you dont have to say that, GW. I read your posts) I dont understand what is the fuss about the columns. If the columns start from 0 then the differences between column values will be lessened. But anyway, if the numbers are correct, the difference from year to year is still the difference, no matter how steep or flat the top of the columns would look. (If thats what I understand to be the problem, otherwise, I apologize)
August 29th, 2006 at 8:53 pmJuan - if one number is 90% of another number its graphical area should be 90% of the other numbers graphical area as well. Making a graph that shows it to be less than 50% is deceptive.
If you are just going to rely strictly on the numbers to make your point you should place them in a table not a graph… if you want to make a graph it should be representative of the true relationship between the numbers.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:08 pmOk,
August 29th, 2006 at 9:29 pmEveryone in this thread is wrong. I don’t like bush, hese a terrible president and a complete idiot. But we do live in a free market that isn’t corrupted to the point of facism. We also aren’t doing enough to help the poor. Everyone on this thread is eiter to far to the right or left. (its actually sort of funny for people like me who have it right).
[…] Link to the charts. […]
August 29th, 2006 at 9:35 pmIn continuation of my last post I realized I didn’t rip as much on the democrats as the republicans and I just want to let everyone know I hate you both because you are both wrong in your own way.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:38 pmBob? What makes you so special? Give me your genious plan on economics and helping the poor?
August 29th, 2006 at 10:13 pmEveryone on this thread is eiter to far to the right or left. (its actually sort of funny for people like me who have it right).
Bob, I must say your humility is admirable.
In continuation of my last post I realized I didn’t rip as much on the democrats as the republicans and I just want to let everyone know I hate you both because you are both wrong in your own way.
We love you, too.
Okay Bob. I think it’s past your bedtime.
August 29th, 2006 at 10:14 pmGood Night!
[…] Blogsphere: Under Bush […]
August 30th, 2006 at 1:14 am# 94. “Lets face it, Tim and Roger-Roger see the poor as deserving of their fate. Indeed, they would probably believe that the United States population should have the same type of poverty seen in most third world countries.”
Please don’t project onto me views that I don’t hold. Yes, no doubt I am some eeeevil right winger (although I consider myself to be a classical liberal) but I most certainly don’t think that the poor “deserve” their fate, nor would I like to see either the levels of absolute or relative poverty of, say, India, replicated in the US. In fact, in a piece published on Monday at TCS Daily (see, proof positive that I must be an eeeevil right winger) I say, “If you accept (as I do) that we need to provide for those incapable or unlucky enough to do so for themselves” (apologies, I quote from memory). I also in the comment above state that tripling the EITC might be a good idea.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:52 amThose aren’t the statements of someone suggesting that there should be no help now are they?
My beef is with the specific way in which these statistics are calculated. For example, over the past two decades federal poverty aid has moved from cash payments (welfare, and this started long before Clinton’s welfare reforms) to payments in kind (Medicaid, housing vouchers, food stamps) and through the tax system (EITC). The cash welfare payments are included when calculating the above poverty numbers. The other four types of aid are not.
So while the aid to the poor has, over the decades, been rising, the actual poverty numbers have been moving the other way, simply and purely because of the way in which they are calculated.
Is there poverty in hte US? Of course. Should we help to alleviate it? Sure. But can we start from the point of looking at how much poverty there is after we’ve tried to help? Only then can we work out how much more help we need to give?
We could, for example, use the OECD definition of poverty. Less than 60% of median income when adjusted for the influence of the tax and benefit system, suitably adjusted for household size. That’sthe way all the European countries calculate it, after all.
[…] Two charts, based on census data released today, that track the number of people living in poverty and the number of people without health insurance during each year of the Bush presidency. read more | digg story […]
August 30th, 2006 at 3:38 am[…] Still more good news over at Think Progress. […]
August 30th, 2006 at 4:54 am[…] Having a hard time muddling through the voluminous census data on the economy and household income that came out yesterday? Think Progress boils it down to two simple graphs: […]
August 30th, 2006 at 9:26 amhey #42
i got my food stamps (i grow weary of caviar, but who am i to complain?) and my housing, but wheres my suv? u got a contact number for that, or are you merely full of shit?
August 30th, 2006 at 10:33 amThis thread has been hijacked by a discussion of the data, but not the conclusion. Since the supporters of the Administration cannot argue the conclusion of the data, they attack the data itself. FACT: NO (none, nada, zip) presentation of data is ‘complete’ without a lengthy description of methodology, omissions, exclusions, sources, etc. But a 93-page report on the data is not possible here… nor necessary. Every day you make decisions based on less information that is presented here in these charts. Interpreting data presented in any form (even with a 30-page exposition) requires the reader to make inferences and deductions and to assimilate the data as it is presented. Starting the graph at 0 is not necessary unless you can only interpret the information by visual recognition of the bars WITHOUT noting what they represent, but if you are doing that you are not capable of understanding the information in ANY graph (et. al.) anyway. The information relayed by visual means is dependent on YOUR understaning of the figures used to create that graph.
If you want ALL the available information that built these graphs, GO TO THE SOURCE YOURSELF.
You will note, if you check, that this is the standard “troll derailment” argument when a graph or similar data is presented: attack the data, ignore the conclusion. And it seems to work.
The CONCLUSION, which is what SHOULD be the topic of discussion here, is that the Bush administration has increased the general poverty level of America and increased the amount of uninsured Americans. One could discuss the how’s and why’s of that, and tangent into the corporate welfare and corporate entitlement state that America has become. Or, one can argue to infinity that any presentation of data is a flawed presentation. So, if the graph starts at “0″, then what? Well, how about the middle and upper classes? They are not represented, and in order to have a “complete” and “accurate” (subjective terms) graph of poverty, it needs to show the ‘above poverty’ lines to offer perspective. Then how about comparing corporate wealth to personal wealth? Is this just liquid assets, or does it involve investments? Does it take into account untaxable income? Etc. to bloody infinity, people. You can ALWAYS argue that the data is incomplete and thus inaccurate.
The current regime ruling America (and anyone note Bush’s recent comment that (I paraphrase) most Americans may want out of Iraq, but he ‘ain’t gonna do it ‘cuz he’s the Czar… I mean ‘president’.’ He likes the thought of being a “democratically elected dictator who has no need or desire to follow the will of the people”, and has become more and more brazen about that attitude.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:28 pmBravo, just a thought. I’ve wasted far too much time over the last number of hours trying to point the same thing out on digg. I think I officially hate digg.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:21 pmI apologize for the last paragraph of my post 112: I started a thought and did not address it. My bad.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:39 pmi believe what we need to be looking at the real picture of why folks rather be poor and stay on welfare than work. let’s say a single mother with one kid is making $7/hr. that would be $1120/mo. BEFORE taxes. which would be $13,440/yr. BEFORE taxes. now a family of two brings in on the welfare scale $12,820/yr. TAX FREE. now let’s not forget with that welfare check you get section 8 housing, a program for heating your house/cooling, help with fixing up the house if you can not to afford, food stamps(tax free), medicaid, free schooling, a vehicle if needed, plus many other little incentives that would free up their pockets for their $12,820/yr. tax free income. so are the poor on welfare really poor? or is it they rather live in ‘comfort’ and watch their neighbor live in poor when busting their butt and pay taxes. so it looks to me the ones that are not on welfare are having it worse off than the ones that are on welfare. so why not jump on board. remember the lady with the kid does not get any tax free incentives or free incentives when doing for herself instead of the ones on welfare getting a free ride. i know of folks who have been on for 10+ yrs for that very reason. and then wonder why the tax paying citizens can’t stand a welfare recipient. and the very ones that are illegal get the same benefits and probably more. this system is not fair and needs to be revamped in my opinion.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:06 pmThere is no substitute for inherited wealth: 97% of the richest 99% were born already wealthy; of the remaining 3%, none were born in poverty.
Solution? Realistically, there would be a LOT more opportunity loose in our nation, if we imposed 100% estate tax on everything beyond $5 million, and I could argue that lower would be better. That move alone would alleviate the deadwood boards and management in our corporations; and if coupled with some further moves toward merit-based rewards, we might overcome the inbred mediocrity which has bequeathed us Bungle - er, Bush - as our selected leader.
August 30th, 2006 at 7:12 pm[…] Think Progress » The Bush Record: More Poverty, More Uninsured (tags: Poverty ClassWarfare Economics Bush) […]
August 30th, 2006 at 7:25 pmIt is long overdue that Progressives address what we really have in the way of health care in the US.
This country is collecting tax dollars from most everyone including the uninsured, underinsured and the uninsurable and using those tax dollars to assign greater value to some lives than to others.
I can make no case that what we as a nation are doing is moral.
I am in the Medicare system and cannot make a case that my life should be assigned a greater value than the life of a six year old, a thirty year old or anyone else. I challenge anyone in the Medicare system to make a case that it is moral for grandparents to have a greater assigned value than their children and/or grandchildren.
Yes, challenging what we have is long overdue.
All it takes is a bit of backbone.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:29 pmWell its obvious that I’m not the most popular person on this blog. (oh well). See, heres my idea. We need it in moderation. We’ve seen what happens if a government tries to hard to make everyone equal (comunism) and we’ve seen what happens if it becomes to republican (theocracy or aristocracy) so what we need to do is find a sweet spot in the middle. When this country was first started, there wasn’t nearly this far of a gap between the republicans and democrats ( this is after the whigg party) And so when it came to disagreements, they would either be forced to comprimise, or england would jump on the weakness to try to take us back. But now that we’ve no need for compromise, we simply aren’t doing it, and that doesn’t work so well. So what I always hopes happen is that the white house is split down the middle so that the republicans and democrats are too busy hurting each other to hurt the country. At this point, no body is ever going to change there mind. If one of the parties some how found scientific indisputable evidence that the other was wrong, the other would just deny it. People have adopted their stand on politics as their identity, instead of using what they actually believe to pick their politics. They’re unwilling to have an open mind to the other party on anything, you have to either be 100% for them or against them. I on the other hand along with many others (unfortunatley not enough) won’t look at the label and then the idea, they will look at an issue, and decide whether or not they agree with it regardless if it is republican or democrat. So thats my view, I’m interested in seeing what people say in retaliation. Who knows, if I find it logical I might change my opinion.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:07 pmClinton didn’t do well either (he was president through Jan 2001)
August 30th, 2006 at 9:42 pmHere’s how one person I know thought: he showed me his latest new cell phone, and bragged that a few years ago he had to pay more money for his minutes. Now he gets more minutes and pays less. “That’s the American way,” he boasted, tapping the phone. “American competitiveness.” He pointed to his new computer–”See! Computers are cheaper now! THAT’S your answer to the economy!”
I pointed out that the phone wasn’t made in America, and that when he needed help he used a call center in India where few or no Americans had jobs, and that his lower computer prices were the result of outsourcing labor and outsourcing environmental damage to China and Malaysia.
He grunted, put his phone away, and changed the subject. He also believes that anyone who doesn’t want a job at the local Wal-Mart (here in rural Nowhere, Illinois) for $9.00 an hour (”and they get health care after six months!”) “can just go work somewhere else.”
Some people are really dense. I mean, this guy is a rock-solid Republican who thinks he’s a true patriot–but he deals strictly in the black market because he doesn’t want to pay taxes. His philosophy is “I take care of my buddies, and my buddies take care of me,” which sounds distinctly tribal, corrupt, and dare I say it? non-Western.
August 31st, 2006 at 8:22 amThe Leviathan school of thought is working.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:12 amCreate 2 classes of people, the rich and powerful and the rest, the poor and powerless who are expendible if they dissent.
Just wait until Timmy wakes up one morning to find that he no longer has any health insurance. Corporations are getting out of the health insurance benefits business at record clip. That’s what the census data really shows if you look at all of it.
Having the best high paying job is no insulation from poverty anymore. One illness & you can be instantly ruined financially for life.
What part of rising uninsured does Timmy not understand?
See Bush has a nice one-two punch going here. Drop health insurance & block research into cures for disease. Translation just roll into the ditch & die after expending yourself in a low paying sweat shop as outsourcing increases.
Why should God bless America when she behaves like this? Have these phony right wing religious fanatics ever bothered to read the beatitudes. Guess the cherry picking is not limited to warmongering & intelligence data manipulation.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:48 am[…] read more | digg story […]
August 31st, 2006 at 3:54 pm[…] Two charts, based on census data released today, that track the number of people living in poverty and the number of people without health insurance during each year of the Bush presidency. read more | digg story Digg this […]
September 8th, 2006 at 3:01 am[…] Two charts, based on census data released today, that track the number of people living in poverty and the number of people without health insurance during each year of the Bush presidency. read more | digg story […]
September 18th, 2006 at 11:43 amthis graph shows exactly what you need to know in simple form.
October 30th, 2006 at 5:53 amIt is not the responsibility of the government to insure the people. We aren’t communists. If people want to receive good health care then they need to work hard and earn it like the rest of us.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:12 am