|
|
COMMENTS:
Sadly, there is a definite and inarguable answer to this: The ranks of the poor have increased in the past four years.
Dramatically.
CNN reported on August 31, 2004: *The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.
It was the third straight annual increase for both categories.*
OOPS!
I just read that last paragraph!
Touche', Stewie ... touche'!
What has the population increased by? Those figures mean nothing out of context.
It seems to me that there are more poor under GWB. I honestly don't know, though. I think we must look at Clinton a bit, too: He signed the welfare "reform" legislation (can't remember what misleading moniker they gave it) that kicked everyone off welfare after two years. That little piece of sellout nonsense has done a lot of damage.
Many single moms with children were kicked off welfare and forced into the limited safety net of churches and other private agencies. And these agencies are now overwhelmed with folks needing assistance.
A single mom with a low end job can't even afford child care. It's pretty disgusting.
So, Stewie, the answer to your question is, for me at least, that the current perceived increase in poor is probably real, but cannot be laid at the door of GWB alone (satisfying though it might be). Mr. Clinton played a role as well.
And, some of the answer to your question depends on how we operationalize "poor." Is it simply an income level, or shouldn't we include healthcare, life insurance, access to post-secondary education, et al, as part of the "poverty" equation? If we include all of these factors, I think any rational person would be forced to concluded that we are definitely worse off since that fella George ascended to the Presidency.
|
|
