Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Poverty spending info needed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 01:47 PM
Original message
Poverty spending info needed
Got this from a freepster...who refuses to reveal their source of this info, btw!

"Bush has done more for poverty in the past 5 years than Bubba did during his eight.

Prove me wrong. The numbers don't lie!

In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton was called the first black president by some.

However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yup, he has done more for "poverty" all right
Poverty A Growth Industry During The Bush Years

It's not like President Bush really needed more bad news. What with Hurricane Katrina, his sagging job approval ratings, and more people siding with Cindy Sheehan than with him, he must feel like he's living under a dark cloud. That cloud just grew a bit darker as the Census Bureau released a report (160pg PDF) which showed, for the fourth year in a row, poverty has grown in the US.

Overall, there were 37 million Americans living in poverty in 2004 (2004 poverty thresholds provided here). This was an increase in 1.1 million people from 2003. Poverty rose in all ethnic groups save one Asian-Americans where poverty dropped two percentage points from 2003 to 2004. The poverty rate among the elderly dropped also from 2003. But that was the extent of the good news. Poverty rates were unchanged for blacks (24.7 percent) and Hispanics (21.9 percent) from 2003. The main increase was for non-Hispanic whites which experienced an increase to 8.6 percent, up from 8.2 percent in 2003.

When the government began measuring poverty, back in 1959, over 39 million people (or a little over 22 percent of the population) were living in poverty. From that point, until 2000, the overall poverty has generally decreased year to year. Two significant exceptions, before the current streak, were five years between 1979 and 1983 (from 11.4 to 15.2 percent) and four years between 1990 and 1993 (from 12.8 to 15.1 percent). Charles Nelson, an assistant division head with the Census Bureau, noted the increase in poverty rates came at a time the economy was reportedly doing well last year, adding an additional 2.2 million jobs. Nelson speculated the disconnect between more jobs and increased poverty might be due to employers not immediately filling jobs created by a more robust economy:

"I guess what happened last year was kind of similar to what happened in the early 1990s where you had a recession that was officially over and then you had several years after that of rising poverty. These numbers do reflect changes between 2003 and 2004. They don't reflect any improvements in the economy in 2005." ;sid=05/08/31/05003652
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's one with a better link
Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row
More Also Lack Health Coverage

By Ceci Connolly and Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page A01

The number of Americans living in poverty or lacking health insurance rose for the third straight year in 2003, the Census Bureau announced yesterday, reflecting a job market that failed to match otherwise strong economic growth.

Overall, the median household income remained stagnant at $43,318, while the national poverty rate rose to 12.5 percent -- 35.9 million people -- last year, from 12.1 percent in 2002. Hit hardest were women, who for the first time since 1999 saw their earnings decline, and children. By the end of 2003, 12.9 million children lived in poverty.

i found these with google
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You guys are wonderful! Thx!!!!
KNocking them down a peg, one at a time!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No Prob
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. chimpy loves poor ppl, that's why he created so many of them EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
harlinchi Donating Member (954 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. I heard recently that the number of Blacks in poverty increased during...
...each year of Bush's terms of office. This snip shows an increase from 2002 through 2003. /

...The poverty rate of of African Americans remained nearly twice the national rate, with 24.4 percent of blacks living below the poverty line in 2003, slightly higher from 24.1 percent a year earlier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. tell your freep friend not to listen to

From mediamatters:

"O'Reilly cherry-picked census numbers to falsely suggest Bush is better on poverty than Clinton

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly compared the poverty rate in 1996 with the poverty rate in 2004 to falsely suggest that President Bush has done more to reduce poverty in the United States than President Clinton . . .

While O'Reilly is correct that the poverty rate in 1996 was higher than in 2004, he took those numbers out of context to mask a far more significant fact: The poverty rate declined every year of the Clinton presidency and has increased every year under the Bush presidency. Put another way, the poverty rate was higher now than it was when Clinton left office. During the Clinton presidency, the poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to a low of 11.3 percent in 2000; it has risen every year that Bush has been in office, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004."


The point being that there were fewer poor that needed "shoring-up" ..... BECAUSE of bush's failed economy, there are more poor requiring the resources to keep themselves and their families alive. And with the unemployment rate up, there are more people out of work. Social Security and disability programs - are these related to more injured/deceased soldiers? Leaving behind their families, etc?

Also - ran across an interesting link -

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): Policy and Legislative Issues
Authors: Christine Scott, Domestic Social Policy Division

Tax year 2001 data show a total for the EITC of $33.4 billion and 19.6 million recipients, yielding an average tax credit of $1,703. Most of the EITC (87.0 percent) was received as a refund to low income workers. Legislation was introduced in the 108th Congress (2003) related to three policy issues for the EITC: the marriage penalty; family size adjustment; and compliance. In addition legislation was introduced to expand the credit, create a public awareness program, or replace the credit. The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-311) created a more uniform definition of a child for tax purposes, and altered the earned income credit to permit taxpayers to include combat pay as income for calculating the credit.

*****The maximum amount of income you can earn and still get the credit has increased in 2004. You may be able to take the credit if:

You have more than one qualifying child and you earned less than $34,458
($35,458 if married filing jointly),
You have one qualifying child and you earned less than $30,338 ($31,338 if married filing jointly), or
You do not have a qualifying child and you earned less than $11,490 ($12,490 if married filing jointly).

New: Nontaxable combat pay election. You can now elect to have your nontaxable combat pay included in earned income for the earned income credit.

Combat pay, Nontaxable. If you were a member of the U.S. Armed Forces who served in a combat zone, certain pay is excluded from your income. See Combat Zone Exclusion in Pub. 3. You can elect to include this pay in your earned income when figuring the EIC. The amount of your nontaxable combat pay should be shown in Form(s) W-2, box 14, with code Q.**

((Not sure exactly how this factors in, but thinking there must be some kind of link between the war and this .....))

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. This also brings to mind when * was Governor of TX
And he ignored the shanty towns of the Hispanic poor. I can't remember what those shanty towns are called (I know it isn't barrios). Anyway, I do remember every time these poor within his own state were brought to his attention, he chose to ignore the horrible living conditions and poverty in his own state. I seem to remember something also about his policy for education somehow being purposely changed to make it even more difficult for these people in extreme poverty to have an education for their children or themselves.

Hope someone can help me fill in my "senior moment" gaps here :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. info & chart re: Bush and Poverty in US
Edited on Mon Sep-19-05 03:24 PM by Whoa_Nelly
While the GDP recovered from the recession early in Bush's term, poverty has since worsened under Bush according to the Census Bureau. The juxtaposition of increasing GDP and increasing poverty might be explained as a concentration of wealth in fewer hands. The percent of the population below the poverty level increased in each of Bush's first four years, while it decreased for each of the prior seven years to a 26-year low. At 12.7% in 2004, it is still lower than at any time during the Reagan and Bush I administrations.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. mroe relevant articles
Community Development Funding Cuts Under The New Bush Budget


Pick your poison


". . .Beneath the incomprehensive numbersa $2.57 trillion budget, a $427 billion deficit, a $419 billion military budgetthe federal budget is a moment of truth. It reveals what we value, what kind of nation we are and what we seek to build. In this regard, the Bush budget is a stunning disservice to the nation. It offends common decency even as it cuts investment in our future. It reveals an administration that is fundamentally out of step with the needs of the American people.

In a global economy, it is vital that our children get the best education in the world. But the Bush budget breaks his promise to fund reforms of our schools, coming up $9 billion short. He would throw kids out of Head Start, child care, literacy programs, after-school programs and leave college priced out of reach to more and more working families. One in three schools is forced to use trailers as classrooms, but the president would cut money for school construction and maintenance. He would slash federal support for vocational education. His budget forfeits the effort to provide Americas children with even the basics of a good education.

Americas health care system is broken. Forty-five million people lack health insurance; millions more are one illness away from bankruptcy. Yet the presidents budget would cut Medicaid, the safety net of health care programs, hurting the most vulnerable in our countryseniors in nursing homes, poor children, those most in need of catastrophic care. His health savings accounts will aid the wealthy and healthy, but make it more expensive for most Americans to afford the insurance they need, while giving businesses the excuse to eliminate coverage.

Poverty is rising, with one in five children now living in poverty. Hunger and malnutrition is up; affordable housing is scarce. Yet the presidents budget will cut food stamps for some 300,000 recipients, eliminate child care for thousands of poor working mothers and slash support for affordable housing.




. . .By 2006, funding for most domestic discretionary programs outside homeland security would be cut below the 2004 funding levels for those programs adjusted for inflation (i.e., below the Office of Management and Budget baseline). Moreover, the cuts would grow over time. By 2009, the Administrations budget would set funding for these programs $49 billion below the OMB baseline, a 12 percent cut in funding. By contrast, defense and homeland security programs would be funded above the OMB baseline in all years from 2005 to 2009.<1>

. . .Analysis of the OMB document shows:

The proposed cuts would affect nearly every part of government including environmental programs, education and job training, veterans programs, health, and transportation. Under the federal budget, all government programs are placed into one of 19 categories, known as budget functions. Examples of budget functions include national defense, energy, education, veterans benefits and services, agriculture, transportation, and health.<4> Overall discretionary funding would be cut after 2005 in every category except three: defense, international affairs, and general science, space and technology.<5>
The cuts grow deeper each year in almost every budget function. Cuts in energy programs would grow from 17 percent in 2006 to 27 percent in 2009; cuts in environmental and natural resources programs would grow from 13 percent in 2006 to 20 percent in 2009; and cuts in employment and job training would grow from 3 percent in 2006 (the Administration proposes to increase funding modestly in 2005 as compared with baseline levels) to 7 percent in 2009. (These figures represent cuts compared with baseline levels that is, they represent the percentage by which funding for each of these program categories would be set below the 2004 level, adjusted for inflation.) These cuts would result in reductions in government services.
Many programs touted as Administration priorities that would receive increased funding in 2005 would face reduced funding after 2005. For example, the Presidents budget highlights the increased funding it would provide for special education (i.e., for resources provided to states for education and other services for children with disabilities).<6> Special education funding would indeed be increased in 2005. But funding in 2006 for the special education account would be $310 million below the 2005 level. By 2009, special education funding would fall $530 million below the funding provided in 2004, adjusted for inflation.


By Robert Greenstein, James Horney, and Isaac Shapiro


The Priorities of the Budget

The budget makes very substantial cuts in domestic spending at the same time that it calls for large additional tax cuts. If the Department of Defense, homeland security, and international affairs are funded at the levels the President proposes, then by 2010, funding for the remaining annually appropriated programs so called domestic discretionary programs would have to be cut about $66 billion, or 16 percent, below the 2005 levels, adjusted for inflation. These cuts hit programs in areas such as education, veterans health care, and environmental protection of importance to large numbers of Americans.




. . .The Presidents budget calls for significant cuts in a number of programs that provide key supports and services to low- and middle-income Americans at the same time that it proposes more tax cuts that would go overwhelmingly to the most well-off Americans. The budget also proposes cuts in funding for many other important activities of the federal government.

The budget proposes the cuts in programs for low-income Americans despite the fact that the number of Americans living in poverty went up for the third straight year in 2003, the share of total income that goes to the bottom two-fifths of households has fallen to one of its lowest levels since the end of World War II, and the number of people lacking health insurance rose in 2003 to the highest level on record. Sizeable reductions in programs for low-income families would exacerbate these trends.

. . .For instance, the budget proposes to cut Medicaid by $45 billion over the next 10 years. . .

. . .The budget also proposes cuts in mandatory spending for programs such as food stamps. Food stamp benefits would be cut by $1.1 billion over 10 years by terminating approximately 300,000 people from the program. The budget freezes child care funding for five years; the budget acknowledges this will cause the termination of assistance for 300,000 low-income children by 2009.

The budget also calls for substantial cuts in domestic programs funded through annual appropriations (so-called discretionary programs). Overall, the budget proposes a 4.9 percent, or $18 billion, real (after inflation) cut in funding in 2006 for domestic discretionary programs that is, programs not related to the Department of Defense, international affairs, or homeland security.<2>


Just for fun.... go to this site and read the first couple of para's


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Thanks so much - the rethug got facts from O'Reilly's Talking Points
She or he finally fessed up. All the info you all provided was really helpful. Thx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jeanette in FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
12. I heard it on Rush today
As I was reading your post, I remembered I heard Rush say this word for word. LOL. And I see that others say O'Reilly said the same thing. So I guess that is their talking points for the day. I'm sure if anyone listens to Sean they will hear the same thing again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 22nd 2017, 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC