I'm not complaining about "poor" still existing in the "richest country in the world", there will always be rich and poor. My beef is that WORKERS at the bottom end of the income scales are sliding further and further behind. A true "healty economy" is one where EVERYONE who works gets ahead, not JUST the rich. By getting ahead I mean they can put some $$ aside for kid's college or upgrade their home or car once in a lifetime. The charts below show the facts under GW BuSh, the % of people living below poverty has been rising. In fact the % of people living below poverty rose under both GW and BuSh Sr, while the % had fallen under Reagan and Clinton. Additionally, the rate of inflation has consistently outpaced the average wage increases for ALL workers. This means if the rich are "getting richer" relative to inflation, the poor are "getting poorer faster" relative to inflation. How can you say that "the economy is great" when over half the workers are falling behind?? It is intellectually dishonest. If you think that "A president’s job is to facilitate economic policies that foster economic growth and opportunities for anyone willing to work", then GW has been failing the average Joe, and especially those at the bottom of the income scale miserably.
Let’s not forget that while the U.S. may be the richest nation, it remains that the amount of consumer debt is at or near an all-time high. You can’t blame consumer debt on the president when it’s overwhelmingly a product of personal decision making. Americans love to spend money, often to their own peril as evidenced by a large number of people that file for bankruptcy protection. While some file for bankruptcy protection due to job loss, illness or other reason not within their control, the vast majority of bankruptcies are due to irresponsible financial decisions.
As a free-market economy, wages are determined by market forces. Thus, it’s unrealistic to expect everyone to make the kind of money that will enable them live above the poverty line, particularly when the vast majority of those living at or below the poverty line are uneducated and are unskilled workers, and often do not empower themselves to move beyond poverty. This is why I said a president’s job does not encompass literally lifting people out of poverty since presidents can’t dictate personal decisions.
Accordingly, when you say a “healthy economy” is one where EVERYONE that works should be able to “get ahead” and everyone should have sufficient income at the end of the day to put away for college, it sounds like you want a utopian society where regardless of personal decisions everyone “gets ahead.” I disagree with your view that a “healthy economy” means that everyone willing to work must be able to buy a new car and be able to pay for a college education. These things are well within reach of everyone living in the U.S as long as they are willing to take personal responsibility for one’s decisions and future. Granted, there are those that need encouragement and support and I’m all for rational government programs that provide tools to help individuals lift themselves out of poverty—One such program being federal student aid. But don’t expect a president alone to be able to eliminate poverty—nor should a president necessarily be blamed for a higher poverty rates than in previous years.
The graph showing U.S. poverty stats looks like a typical cyclical graph. Should the democrats be elected in 2008 and should the number of individuals living at the poverty level decrease, undoubtedly they will claim it’s because of democrat economic policies. In reality, however, there are many factors associated with the poverty rate, which may or may not have anything to do with a particular president or political party’s economic policies.
Moreover, not one economic expert has claimed President Bush’s economic policies, including his tax cuts, are reckless and, therefore, he, and he alone, deserves full blame for the apparent upswing in the poverty rate. To the contrary, the President’s tax cuts have spurred strong economic growth as exemplified by near historic low unemployment rate and strong corporate revenues. Further, today it was reported that government revenue was at an all-time high for April. So, I think it can be said that President Bush has done his part to encourage economic growth and prosperity.
However, please feel free to be specific about those things you believe the President has done or not done that have directly contributed to a higher poverty rate.
You can't measure "wealth" by measuring the advancements of technology over the last 30 years that has given us $199 27" TVs or $60 microwaves or $299 computers. And you can't measure the health of the economy by looking at how well the rich are doing and ignoring how well the poor are doing. FYI, the number of people in the US living under the poverty level has been increasing since GW took office.
