give each one of them 200K/yr jobs, a beach house at Mailibu, and a brand new BMW.  These folks work so hard, only buy what they need, and are still in poverty.  They need our help!

You might want to have that chip on your shoulder surgically removed...and then go to church somewhere.

It is very telling that every year Clinton was President (except for 1992 and 1993) the poverty level declined, and every year Bush has been vacationing in Crawford it has risen.

The following is copied from your link.

The percentage of Americans living in poverty rose for a third straight year in 2003. The Census Bureau defines poverty based on income and family size. Blacks and Hispanics are about twice as likely as whites to live in poverty.
Year Poverty rate (%)
2003 12.5
2002 12.1
2001 11.7
2001 11.3
1999 11.9
1998 12.7
1997 13.3
1996 13.7
1995 13.8
1994 14.5
1993 15.1
1992 14.8
1991 14.2
1990 13.5
1989 12.8
1988 13.0
1987 13.4
1986 13.6
1985 14.0
1984 14.4
1983 15.2
1982 15.0
1981 14.0
1980 13.0
1979 11.7
1978 11.4
1977 11.6
1976 11.8
1975 12.3
1974 11.2
1973 11.1
1972 11.9
1971 12.5
1970 12.6
1969 12.1
1968 12.8
1967 14.2
1966 14.7
1965 17.3
1964 19.0
1963 19.5
1962 21.0
1961 21.9
1960 22.2
1959 22.4

Average poverty rate under Clinton: 13.3%
Average poverty rate under Bush: 12.1%

Not bad for an evil Republican.

Get some tort reform going and maybe the health insurance issues will improve.

RLTW

Don't believe that data though....

BK

And anyone with common sense can figure out that Bush's numbers benefit from the lower numbers he inherited from Clinton vs. the higher numbers Clinton was saddled with from Bush Sr.

it matters where you start off (as Tusuyan mentions - Anyone with common sense knows that when making comparisons you adjust for baseline).

I guess your skill at computing averages is surprising - Not bad for a Bush supporter.  OTH, your misuse of them is not surprising.

There I was, fancying myself as a mathematical genius. And you had to come along and burst my bubble.

Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but forecasting trends involves making estimations about the future based on extrapolations of past data. Anyone with common sense knows that using past data can be sketchy, because data cannot be expected to accurately forecast that which has not yet occured.

The rates could rise or fall. But for now Bush still has the better average. Like I said before, not bad for an evil Republican.

RLTW

Yes, forecasting trends involves extrapolating based on past data.  And when making comparisons a key step is to

(*) adjust for where they started (and ther important factors).

Forecasting trends is difficult (especially stocks -otherwise some statistician/econometrician would be the king of Wall Street (World ?)).  But, with the right data and methods one can do a reasonable job.  

Of course the rates could rise or fall (besides measurement precision - WTF else can they do) but saying NobleBush(tm) has the better average is quite pointless [see (*)].  Sounds like another victory for W - chalk that up as another mission accomplished.  Congrats !!!!

Which is true.  We already are running deficits and can't pay for existing programs (like Medicare, which will go bankrupt).  So unless you are willing to pay 70 or 80% income tax like the Europeans, we probably can't afford to give free health care to everyone.

What does matter is that under W's [mis]leadership, the economy sucks, the poverty rate is rising, education is faltering, science is being hampered, and the USA is now seen as a less than desirable friend. Other countries are wondering the same thing I am, 'How did that bufoon ever get to be called president and leader of the greatest nation on earth?'

Who's next, AAAAH-NOLD?

I shudder at the thought.

-- Modified on 8/29/2004 9:33:24 AM

I see a hell of a lot of people coming to the US for medical treatment, but don't exactly see people pouring into Canada for medical treatments.

That's the problem with so many liberal ideas, the only solution is for everyone to be equally miserable!!