QandO
Questions and Observations| « A Vietnam Atrocity | Main | Liveblogging the Convention » |
|
August 31, 2004 Judging George Reader MK-Ultra writes: Judge a man by results. On that score what is Bush for? Probably this was due to the recession that started in April of 2001, then the 911 attacks. Oddly enough, people lose jobs in recessions. Apparently, the recession is over, and we've created many new jobs over the last sevral months. Indeed, the Household Survey indicates we are creating millions of more new jobs than the establishment survey counts. Not that it is anything other than passingly relevant, since presidents don't create jobs. At most, they can convince Congress to sign on to fiscal policy measures that help or hinder job creation. Bush has done the former. Bringing down deficits? Nope, deficits have skyrocketed during his tenure. Yes, that usually happens during recessions. And wars. That aside, though, can we presume that you'd prefer that we slash the size and scope of governments to reduce the deficit? Sorry, I was just being silly. Of course, you probably prefer massive tax increases. Lifting people out of poverty? Nope, more have joined the ranks of those in poverty during his tenure. Actually the poverty rate has remained stable. More people have joined the ranks of poverty, just as more people have joined the ranks of the well off, because there are simply more people. Increasing the number with health insurance? Nope, more people have become uninsured during his tenure. That's tragic, but we do live in a country where the government is the health insurer of last resort. So medical care for the uninsured is available. Moreover, I don't want to live in a country where government is the health insurer of first resort. Reducing the size of government? Nope, the size of government has increased during his tenure. That's an odd argument coming from a member of the politcal spectrum whose primary accomplishments in government have been constant increases in its size. Especially when the sentence immediately prior seems to be arguing for government intervention in the medical sector, which accounts for 14% of GDP. That hardly sounds like a prescription for reducing the size of government. Which makes one doubt the sincerity of the "size of government" argument. Resditributing wealth upward? Bingo. The gap between rich and poor has increased during his tenure. And government reditribution of wealth to solve that problem worked famously in the USSR for years. You all deserve what you get. BTW, how many jobs does a President have to lose before you declare him a failure? One more than Bush has lost? That depends on whether the president implements policies that cost jobs, or whether he can get Congress to sign on to policies that try to prevent job losses. In this case, the president and Congress have implemented a mixture of both classical Keynesian (Deficit Spending) and Supply-Side (tax cuts) policies designed to assist in job creation. Since that is essentially the limit of what a president can do, it's difficult to see what else Mr. Bush could've done. |
The gap between the rich and poor may have grown, but not because of wealth redistribution. The poor have gotten richer, but the rich have gotten richer still. Not one dime was taken from the poor to give to the rich.
But has the gap really increased? In absolute dollars, it may have, but perhaps not in percentages. Say you have two men: one making $10,000 a year and the other making $1,000,000 a year. The first guy gets a $5,000/year raise, and the second guy gets a $10,000/year raise. The gap between them has increased in dollars, but the first man is much better off as a percentage of his starting position than the second man.
Posted by: Steverino at August 31, 2004 09:43 PM
I am sick of the poverty mantra. Exactly where are the straving masses, the ragged, the diseased dying on the streets? Perhaps the millions that enter the US illegally each year haven't heard about this grinding poverty. Is there one poor individual in the US who would swtch places with a poor man in India, Ghana, Albania or Mexico?
If you want to measure the Bush presidency I am proud to state that we do not provide nuclear reactors to North Korea although Kerry would provide them to Iran if elected. Bush has turned tail when some yaboos throw beer cans at our troops as Clinton did. I am unaware of Bush pardoning terrorists or drug dealers, butn then perhaps this only demonstrates he lacks the compassion of a Clinton.
I am no Bush fan. But Kerry makes Clinton look like St. Francis.
Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson at August 31, 2004 09:53 PM
Just a thought, wouldn't a better measure of poverty be the median amount of time at or below the poverty level. The year I graduated college, I would have qualified based on annual income, but that is only because I worked for 6 months that year. To my knowledge, the census does not make those distinctions.
Posted by: Curt Mitchell at August 31, 2004 11:09 PM
Estimates are that 9-11 was a direct and indirect trillion dollar hit to our economy. How fast can a country recover from that.Bush has done a fantastic job given what he had to start with.
Posted by: EddieP at August 31, 2004 11:09 PM
"Is there one poor individual in the US who would swtch places with a poor man in India, Ghana, Albania or Mexico?"
Perhaps a better question would be: "Is there one poor individual in the US who would switch places with an with a person of average income in India, Ghana, Albania, or Mexico?"
Or even better, most of Europe. While there are grindingly poor people in the US, overall poverty here ain't what it used to be. That should at least be acknowledged.
Posted by: Terry at August 31, 2004 11:38 PM
A recent article in the LA times actually depicts the true number of chronically uninsured. The number is around 8.2M as opposed to 45M. Nothing to brag about, but a great deal easier to manage. There is also an interesting survey of what "poverty" is considered at Heritage.org. Lets just say American "poverty" is better than the middle class of nearly every European nation. There is also a good analysis of the real "two Americas" Edwards espouses upon so much, which debunks MK-Ultra's myth of redistributing wealth. Sorry MK-Ultra, when faced with an analysis of the numbers rather than just absolute statistics, your arguments look pretty ignorant. I encourage everyone to read these articles, as they are rather enlightening and certainly interesting.
Posted by: Chris at August 31, 2004 11:45 PM
Just a thought, wouldn't a better measure of poverty be the median amount of time at or below the poverty level.
That's a good measure, but even then it's inaccurate. Poverty is measured by income, not net worth, which would be a more accurate measure of wealth.
The result is that someone who's retired, has a $500,000 house and a couple of cars that are all paid off and a 401(k) paying him $15,000 a year would be considered poor. It wouldn't matter that he didn't need much more than 15K a year to live quite well, he'd still be counted as poor.
Posted by: Steverino at September 1, 2004 12:17 AM
As an additional note on the "poverty numbers" published by the Census:
1) Those numbers were for 2003 and don't include the 1+ million jobs (or even more if you use the Household survey) which have been created in 2004.
2) If you actually *read* the Census reports and don't just regurgitate Democratic talking points then you also know that the income levels don't include transfer payments (e.g., welfare), income tax credits, or any other handouts given to lift people above the poverty line. So the numbers in and of themselves are completely useless.
3) The average family living in "poverty" has a TV, a microwave, a car, a roof over their head, and has sufficient food to feed themselves. This is not to say that there aren't truly "poor" people without these things; however, citing some number without actually defining what the Census considers as "poverty" is misleading in the extreme.
It justs goes to show you that MK Ultra received the Talking Points fax from Democratic Party HQ that passes for "analysis" on the Left...
MKUltra is up to his old misleading tricks.
Posted by: Jim B at September 1, 2004 01:41 AM
The government didn't GIVE anything. It took.
The government doesn't generate wealth, it takes ours. What they whine about is the government doesn't 'punish' certain social classes enough for making money by taking more of it.
Talk about helping make sure there are two Americas.
Posted by: looker at September 1, 2004 09:36 AM
The next time I here the redistribution of income to the people who actually earned it I'm going to whack somebody.
Posted by: Jack Tanner at September 1, 2004 11:17 AM