Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you understand that unwanted pregnancy runs rampant in poor communities, right? It's no wonder the poverty rate was increasing, like breeds like. And if you notice, the poverty rate was pretty consistent during the Bush years, even when the economy took a turn. So maybe you should blame Obama for that.
Sorry but Bushs "record" being the worse is an outright lie.. He created 10,200,000 new jobs during periods of two recessions that he inherited from Clinton. The record 52 months of job growth under Bush was only stopped by Democrats taking over Congress and creating disastrous policies. Coincidence that job growth ceased right after Democrats took over? I think not..
Bush isnt to blame either for poverty. His tax cuts began supporting the poor by giving the poor tax "refunds" that they never paid into it. Maybe yes, he is to blame for perpetuating poverty by supporting the poor, but thats exactly the same policies pushed forward by Obama. 1/3rd of the "Stimulus" was in the form of food stamps.. Yes, perpetuating poverty is the outcome of supporting the poor..
something I'd like to know, and I know I'm a little off topic, but since Reagan cutting taxes from 70% on the top 1% does anyone know of a link that shows how much lost revenue we've had getting added on to our national debt?? If 3% means 700 billion (todays dollars) over 10 years, how much was 70% down to 36% over 30 years?? What if we went back to Eisenhower and his 90% rates??
I'm betting that a majority of our national debt has been tribute money to the rich in the hope that they'll take pity on us and create jobs.
something I'd like to know, and I know I'm a little off topic, but since Reagan cutting taxes from 70% on the top 1% does anyone know of a link that shows how much lost revenue we've had getting added on to our national debt?? If 3% means 700 billion (todays dollars) over 10 years, how much was 70% down to 36% over 30 years?? What if we went back to Eisenhower and his 90% rates??
I'm betting that a majority of our national debt has been tribute money to the rich in the hope that they'll take pity on us and create jobs.
You need to do a little research. EVERY time taxes are decreased, revenues have gone UP under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush.
Increased spending is what has caused the debt to go up.
Bush isnt to blame either for poverty. His tax cuts began supporting the poor by giving the poor tax "refunds" that they never paid into it. Maybe yes, he is to blame for perpetuating poverty by supporting the poor, but thats exactly the same policies pushed forward by Obama. 1/3rd of the "Stimulus" was in the form of food stamps.. Yes, perpetuating poverty is the outcome of supporting the poor..
Perpetuation of poverty is caused by those who have control of resources setting prices as high as possible (and saying the market dictates it) thus trapping the poor in an endless cycle where saving money is virtually impossible. Rent, food, transportation, health expenses, etc. All are set at the highest value possible, where those at the bottom are likely to be unable to afford them.
If you want people to help themselves give them situations in which savings are likely. Simply cutting all government programs will not decrease poverty like you fantasize.
[SIZE=3]"The impact of the tax cuts on economic growth is a matter of debate among economists. We're not voicing a view on whether the tax cuts should have been enacted; that, too, is a separate discussion. But it is clear they did not "increase revenues." [/SIZE]
Just curious, because it doesn't seem to be working right now, and if we extend them it will cost the Government $700,000,000,000 in revenue, which will make pay off the deficit that much harder.
Perpetuation of poverty is caused by those who have control of resources setting prices as high as possible (and saying the market dictates it) thus trapping the poor in an endless cycle where saving money is virtually impossible. Rent, food, transportation, health expenses, etc. All are set at the highest value possible, where those at the bottom are likely to be unable to afford them.
If you want people to help themselves give them situations in which savings are likely. Simply cutting all government programs will not decrease poverty like you fantasize.
Have you ever studied supply and demand? Economics is not a conspiracy theory.
Nobody said to cut all entitlements. But have you ever checked out the size of HHS expenditures? Something is wrong if HHS expenditures rival military spending.
Look at 2000-2005. See that blue line going down?? Thats the Bush tax cut years right????? Inflation adjusted, revenue went down. Even by 2007 just before the crash revenue barely recovered.....lots of lost money there.
Oh look if you look back to 81-83 same thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Economics is not a conspiracy theory.
