The poverty rate has greatly increased since President Bush took office. Currently the rate is at 12.6 percent. When President Clinton left office, the poverty rate was at 11.8 down from 15.1 in 1993. If Clinton helped, why can't Bush do the same.
2006-10-04 15:43:07 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Increased poverty is the plan. How else are the wealth and powerful going make more? It has to come from somewhere.
Increased poverty also reduces wages as people become willing to work for less - not so much 'willing' as need to in order to survive. This saves employers even more money. Then they get to cut benefits and healthcare, saving even more. And, of course, the government does nothing to help offset the blow to working families.
It is really incredible that those who will be hurt the most by Bush's policies are also his staunchest supporters. Rove, et al., has convinced them to destroy their children’s futures, and to fight anyone who tries to stop it from happening.
The last 60-70 years was the first time in history working families could send their children to college and see them get professional careers and improve the economic quality of their lives. That time is coming to and end. Soon, we will be back to a world where only the wealthy, and often undeserving like Bush, will have those opportunities.
2006-10-04 16:17:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Our country has done a great job of almost completely eliminating the true poverty, only to find people redefining it to include more people. As the standard of living in this country continues to increase, people will adjust their definition of "poverty."
I personally know a family who has 4 TVs, Satellite, several DVD players & more than enough to eat (the whole family is overweight.)
They are considered "poor" because they can't afford nice clothes, nice cars (they have old cars & hand-me-downs) & other things this modern society now considers necessity.
I think it is not right to use the same word, "poverty", to discribe the family living in a mobile home, buying clothes at garage sales, & eating simple food, like beans & rice, or Spaggetti & meat sauce. This type of family would be considered well-to-do in many places in Mexico! I prefer the phrase "disadvantaged." They need help, but we shouldn't try to act like they are on the same level with those dying of starvation in Africa!
2006-10-05 01:22:26 · answer #2 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The plan, as it stands, it to lower middle class and lower wages to the point that Americans can no longer survive in this country. Then all social programs will be cut (including school funding). Things will get progressively worse until Americans start crossing the border to Canada looking for job opportunities. Slavery will be re-implemented in the US. So you'll have 2 classes of people in the US. The upper class aristocracy and the slave class.
2006-10-05 03:27:25 · answer #3 · answered by Licky Licky 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush couldn't care less about the poor in this country. He's happy as long as his rich cronies keep getting tax breaks so that they can become even richer.
Bush isn't even a joke anymore, he's dangerous. And it absolutely boggles my mind that 30-40% of the people in this country still follow him blindly simply because he is a Christian Republican. They pay no attention to his illegal activities, or his complete disregard for the constitution and people of the country he was sworn to protect.
2006-10-04 22:54:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately it is to kill them all off in War. And to send them to Iraq. How unfortunate that the only dream he had given them is to think that they will get an education, to better themselves, and all they have to do is pay with their life. Yes, he has found a way to eliminated the lower class. He is eliminating them, unlike Clinton who tried to raise them.
I am so glad I am Canadian.
2006-10-05 18:13:36 · answer #5 · answered by JustLynn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are truely a fool, I've seen some of you comments on here and now you wouldn't have the backbone if you couldn't hide behind your key board.
2006-10-05 19:16:57 · answer #6 · answered by thomasnotdoubting2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
gw could care less! His plans are to subjecate as many people as possible to poverty as (he believes) they are easier to control. As long as the REAL axis of evil, a.k.a. the bush Reich are making million$ off his little 'war' (what a joke that is) the poor in America can 'eat twinkies'.
2006-10-04 22:47:33 · answer #7 · answered by Kevin O 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋
He has plans to RAISE the poverty rate because he is not very good at math!
2006-10-04 22:52:13 · answer #8 · answered by smiley0_1_1999 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Clinton did not have to deal with the stock market and the economy crash that following 9-11. I know we like to blame Bush for it, but the fact is after 9-11 the economy crapped the bed. My theory is that Bush went to War to help the economy. the presidency has littled power and getting people who live in shacks and do not work by choice or move to a town were the is work, are hard to help.
Also, the poverty rate in the U.S. is rich in 80% of the world.
BP
2006-10-04 22:47:23 · answer #9 · answered by billyandgaby 7 · 1⤊ 8⤋
Bush's plan is to kill or let die much of the polulation. No more poverty.
2006-10-04 22:52:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋