Democratic President

[Akalyte]

Does it make a difference? I've heard that the poor suffer more with republican presidents then with democratic presidents. I dont believe this but my wife's family is "devoutly democratic" and they believe this.

[avemaria40]

Democrats believe that the govn't should be more involved w/taking care of the poor by making sure there is tax funds for it while Republicans tend to believe that your money belongs to you, not the government, and that's why you hear of all the tax cuts, it's to reward hard working citizens. They're not anti-poor, they just believe that it is the business of private charities to do that sort of thing. Correct me if I'm wrong on either of those points

I'm not that well versed in politics to know if it makes a difference, but i do think each side has its good points

[qfnol31]

I'll say now that I think that often the Democratic party takes what is the responsibility of citizens and places that in the hands of the state.

[Lounge Daddy]

well its not that charitable if my money is TAKEN from me and sent to what the government decides is a charitable cause.
(Planned Parenthood is a classic example of OUR money taken and sent to PURE EVIL dressed up as a charity)

gainful emplayment, freemarket - and donation out of choice and faith-based organisations will do much more good than some socialist system

excuse me for thinking that "we the people" can spend local resources on a local level better than the government

[Jaime]

Here is the graph of the poverty line and population underneath that line from 1959-2002

[img]http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty02/pov02fig1.jpg[/img]

If you correspond it to the time periods that were with a Republican administration and a Republican congress, the amount of people living in poverty has risen

[Era Might]

Wow. Look at hot stuff busting out some factual evidence.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Era Might

[Jaime]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 6 2006, 08:57 AM']Wow. Look at hot stuff busting out some factual evidence. 
[right][snapback]847808[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


That infers that I usually don't.

[Era Might]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 10:14 AM']That infers that I usually don't.
[right][snapback]847816[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, not you, but political discussions in general. I think the question is a good one: what, exactly, is the poverty situation when a Republican or a Democrat is in office. The answer needs solid facts, not just theoretical discussions about the differing approaches to poverty.

Then again, it's hard to trust numbers, particularly when they come from Republicans or Democrats trying to defend their own party. You can find a survey to support pretty much anything you want.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Era Might

[Jaime]

Whew!!

You're right about parties just spinning the numbers to meet their own means. But its hard to accuse the US Census of being partisan. That's why I like to use them.

[Matty_boy]

Here's where people get confused. The Democrats like to give money directly to the poor, like welfare. Republicans like to use the money to provide programs to help the poor get back on their feet, like educational programs.

That's why people say republicans don't care about the poor, when really the republicans help the poor in a more effective way.

The act of giving money creates a dependency on whomever gave the money, and thus more voters for the providers. The act of teaching someone to make their own money does not create a dependency, but creates a motivated and productive individual who will be able to do things for themselves, and thus are not dependent on someone else for their daily bread.

[StatingTheObvious]

Doh.
Who sets the 'standard' of what 'poverty' is? Does it mean you can't afford Cable TV and food, or does it mean you can't afford Cable, Internet Access, and food.

As population grows, so does the number of people. A more truthful measure is the % of population that is in poverty, which according to the graph, has generally decreased. Again, it has to be interpreted as what is the poverty standard used. Has the standard changed? Has it been consistent? How has it been adjusted for inflation?

Go to the Census site. You will see the discussion on setting the 'Poverty Threshold' which is a political football.

Interesting note. A married couple is 3 times less likely to be in poverty when compared with any other group. Marired divorced, married seperated, single, and/or co habitators. hmmm.

Also, a family of 4 is the lowest poverty group.

What's up with you goofy Catholics? Is this some kind of conspiracy that by staying married and having kids you avoid poverty and will take over the world? I must talk to Pinky about this.

Edited January 6, 2006 by StatingTheObvious

[Sojourner]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Jan 6 2006, 10:48 AM']Doh.
Who sets the 'standard' of what 'poverty' is?  Does it mean you can't afford Cable TV and food, or does it mean you can't afford Cable, Internet Access, and food.

As population grows, so does the number of people.  A more truthful measure is the % of population that is in poverty, which according to the graph, has generally decreased.  Again, it has to be interpreted as what is the poverty standard used.  Has the standard changed?  Has it been consistent?  How has it been adjusted for inflation?
[right][snapback]847828[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
According to the [url="http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml"]Department of Health and Human Services,[/url] there are two ways of measuring poverty -- the poverty threshold, and the poverty guidelines. The Census Bureau uses the former, while most gov't programs use the latter. It's not hard to find answers to your questions on the gov sites, so since you seem so capable of discerning the obvious I'll leave you to it.

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Jan 6 2006, 09:48 AM']Doh.
Who sets the 'standard' of what 'poverty' is?  Does it mean you can't afford Cable TV and food, or does it mean you can't afford Cable, Internet Access, and food.

As population grows, so does the number of people.  A more truthful measure is the % of population that is in poverty, which according to the graph, has generally decreased.  Again, it has to be interpreted as what is the poverty standard used.  Has the standard changed?  Has it been consistent?  How has it been adjusted for inflation?

Go to the Census site.  You will see the discussion on setting the 'Poverty Threshold' which is a political football.

Interesting note.  A married couple is 3 times less likely to be in poverty when compared with any other group.  Marired divorced, married seperated, single, and/or co habitators.  hmmm.

Also, a family of 4 is the lowest poverty group.

What's up with you goofy Catholics?  Is this some kind of conspiracy that by staying married and having kids you avoid poverty and will take over the world?  I must talk to Pinky about this.
[right][snapback]847828[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is a classic argument to deflect off of the true topic. Stating that the poor "aren't really poor" is just a poorly veiled attempt to divert from the reality of the situation.

The question on the table is are the poor better off under Republican or Democratic presidents? The US Census provides the answer.

[StatingTheObvious]

You're dishonest and biased. Read up on the site and the non-partisan discussion on how to measure poverty. Don't dismiss fact by calling it a 'classic argument to deflect off of the true topic'. Poverty measure has not been measured consistently according to the National Acadamy of Scientists. Not all government subsidies are included in income measurements so there is little measurement of improvement by Government spending. How are housing costs measured and adjusted? Is it based on the average cost of a home which provides more square feet per resident than 20 or 50 years ago? There are also hedonistic (quality) measures that are not addressed. Autos are nicer, safer, and more dependable. TV's have better pictures, can be plasma, LCD, flat tube, color, etc. What value is needed? Has the standards changed?
Try to be honest with yourself and others.

Look up some statistics such as 'unemployment rate', death by malnutrition, illnesses caused by malnutrition, etc., to answer the question. What you provided is not an accurate answer.

Edited January 6, 2006 by StatingTheObvious

[Jaime]

I'm dishonest

I quote the US CENSUS and I'm being dishonest.


That's laughable.

How about responding with facts and not personal opinion?

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 10:26 AM']I'm dishonest

I quote the US CENSUS and I'm being dishonest.
That's laughable. 

How about responding with facts and not personal opinion?
[right][snapback]847847[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You are being dishonest about what the CENSUS means. I did respond with the fact that the measure for 'poverty threshold' has been inconsitent according to the NAS and others and there are a multitude of recommendations. This info is available by going to the website your graph is from and exploring it. I also pointed out the poverty 'rate' has decreased. What's not fact?

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Jan 6 2006, 10:33 AM']You are being dishonest about what the CENSUS  means.  I did respond with the fact that the measure for 'poverty threshold' has been inconsitent according to the NAS and others and there are a multitude of recommendations.  This info is available by going to the website your graph is from and exploring it.  I also pointed out the poverty 'rate' has decreased.  What's not fact?
[right][snapback]847850[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You've provided nothing but assertions.

Back something up

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 6 2006, 10:39 AM']You've provided nothing but assertions. 

Back something up
[right][snapback]847854[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Look at your own chart, [color=red]{pre-edited to save the mods the effort}. [/color]Has or has not the poverty rate decreased? Am I stating a falsehood that the Census site has discussion about the changing measure of poverty.
[color=red]{edited again. Personal attack.}[/color]
Go here, [color=red]{dang. another edit. what a potty mouth[/color]}. [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povmeas/reports.html"]Poverty Measurement[/url]

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Jan 6 2006, 10:44 AM']Look at your own chart, [color=red]{pre-edited to save the mods the effort}.  [/color]Has or has not the poverty rate decreased?  Am I stating a falsehood that the Census site has discussion about the changing measure of poverty.
[color=red]{edited again.  Personal attack.}[/color]
Go here, [color=red]{dang.  another edit.  what a potty mouth[/color]}.  [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povmeas/reports.html"]Poverty Measurement[/url]
[right][snapback]847858[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What is obvious is that you can't read.

The poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent to 12.5 in its last year taken

And while the govt looks at other "proposed" ways to look at poverty. Both democratic and republican administrations would be measured against the same flippin study.

You are trying to convolute the obvious

[qfnol31]

Here's something interesting:

[url="http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-227.pdf#page=6"]http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-227.pdf#page=6[/url]

Is it really fair to say that Republicans are repsonsible for the increase in the percentage of those people below the poverty line?

Even in the graph you posted, hot stuff, there is a sharp increase at the beginning of 2000. I don't think that is enough time for a President to make that big of a difference in the percent of poor people in America.