>"Just hours after a new USDA report showed more Americans are struggling to put food on the table, the House Agriculture Committee voted to cut food stamps by $844 million. The committee's 25 Republicans voted for the cut, while the committee's 20 Democrats voted against it. The report found that 38.2 million Americans, including 13.8 million children, were "food insecure" in 2004, an increase of nearly two million from 2003. "These households, at some time during the year, had difficulty providing food for all their members due to a lack of resources," the USDA said. Some 25 million people receive food stamps monthly." >"What's your favorite part of the school day? Gossiping with friends? Gym class? After school stuff like play rehearsal, sports or hanging out? Well, for one out of every five of your classmates, eating what is possibly their only meal of the day is the highlight. That's right, 20 percent of American children live below the poverty line and are undernourished because food is an unaffordable luxury for their families. We're not talking about Somalia or some other extremely impoverished country -- we're talking about the USofA!" >"WHO IS HUNGRY IN AMERICA? There is a hidden epidemic in the United States. All over this country it is striking Americans of every age group and ethnicity, whether they live in cities or rural areas. And so, despite the diversity of targets, those suffering in this silent epidemic have two things in common: they are poor or low-income, and they are increasingly going without enough food. Although politicians talk about âpoverty in America,â decision-makers avoid specifically mentioning the growing, and often deadly problem of hunger." >"Basic Hunger Facts Food insecurity has been described as: âthe limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or the acquisition of acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.â Given this definition, it is estimated that 1 in 10 households in America goes hungry or is threatened by the possibility of hunger." >"Americaâs Children are Hungry: While studies show that food insecurity and hunger have been tied closely to chronic disease development and impaired psychological and cognitive functioning in children, 13 million children live in US households that must skip meals or eat less due to economic constraints." >"Americaâs Single-Parent Families are Hungry: Nearly 1/3 of single parent families, predominantly headed by single mothers, are food insecure and/or hungry." >"Americaâs Seniors are Hungry: In 2001, 3.4 million elderly Americans lived in poverty; an additional 6.5% were considered near-poverty." Are you in denial?: Food Banks of America
How about after factoring in devaluation vs most of the major world currencies? After 8 years one expects prices to have gone up so it isn't a big deal if houses appreciated and your salary has gone up since you are presumably older and more experienced. Why is it that the threshold for success is set so low? But those Asian currencies are being influenced to remain low vs. the US dollar. If they were not they'd likely appreciate. Does the US have the same leeway of getting its currency to appreciate if it wants it to? Japan's debt was largely the result of trying to bailout its economy in aftermath of the 1990s bust the US is just beginning a similar process now. The Europeans at least get government services like universal health care for their debt, Americans should get something comparable if you are going to compare them.
and you call yourself a trader right???... Unemployment under bush was MUCH lower than Clinton and Reagan years combined.. How does the performance of the U.S. economy really compare with other advanced economies over the eight years of George Bush's presidency? Data published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the International Comparison Program (ICP) (a cooperative venture coordinated by the World Bank) and the U.S. Census Bureau allow a nonpartisan, factual assessment. Here are some of the findings: - Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period. The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's. - Household consumption. The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751. - Health services. The U.S. spends easily the highest amount per capita ($6,657 in 2005) on health, more than double that in Britain. But because of private funding (55% of the total) the burden on the U.S. taxpayer (9.1% of GDP) is kept to similar levels as France and Germany. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 84.7% of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance in 2007, an increase of 3.6 million people over 2006. The uninsured can receive treatment in hospitals at the expense of private insurance holders. While life expectancy is influenced by lifestyles and not just access to health services, the World Bank nevertheless reports that average life expectancy in the U.S. rose to 78 years in 2006 (the same as Germany's), from 77 in 2000. - Income and wealth distribution. The latest World Bank estimates show that the richest 20% of U.S. households had a 45.8% share of total income in 2000, similar to the levels in the U.K. (44.0%) and Israel (44.9%). In 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S. Investment has been buoyant under President Bush. According to the ICP, outlays on additions to the fixed assets (machinery and buildings, etc.) of the U.S. economy amounted to $8,018 per capita in 2005 compared to $4,963 in Germany and $4,937 in the U.K. Higher taxes on the upper-income Americans, as proposed by Mr. Obama, are likely to result in lower saving and investment, less entrepreneurial activity and reduced availability of bank credit. Lower-income Americans would be among the losers. When considering the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S., another factor that should be taken into account is the sharp rise in the number of immigrants. The stock of international migrants (those born in other countries) in the U.S. grew by nearly 10 million from 1995 to 2005, reaching a total of 38.5 million according to the World Bank. The inflow of migrants may have restrained the growth of average income levels in the bottom quintiles. Nevertheless, their earnings still allowed immigrants to remit $42 billion to their families abroad in 2006, double the level in 1995. So the benefits are widely spread among the families of immigrants remaining abroad -- an important U.S. contribution to the reduction of poverty in these countries. - Employment. The U.S. employment rate, measured by the percentage of people of working age (16-65 years) in jobs, has remained high by international standards. The latest OECD figures show a rate of 71.7% in 2006. This was more than five percentage points above the average for the euro area. The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000. - Debt interest payments. The IMF reports that the interest cost of servicing general government debt in the U.S. has averaged 2.0% of GDP annually from 2001-2008, compared with 2.7% in the euro zone. It averaged 3.2% annually when President Clinton was in office. The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been largely absorbed in a relatively small increase in the defense budget (to 4.1% of GDP in 2006 from 3.8% in 1995). A much higher proportion of U.S. income was devoted to the military during World War II and the Korean War. The evidence shows that much of the Democratic Party's criticism of President Bush's economic record is wide of the mark. True, the economic slowdown now affecting most advanced countries will likely result in rising unemployment over the coming months. But thanks to sensible policies pursued by the Bush administration (not always with adequate support from a Democratic-controlled Congress), the U.S. economy is sufficiently flexible to keep unemployment below the 7.7% peak reached in the last postrecession year of 1992. The main risk is that, if elected, Barack Obama will pursue a "social justice" strategy. This would encompass higher taxes on entrepreneurs, savers and investors, more direct government intervention in the economy, and protectionist policies (including revoking existing trade agreements) aimed at safeguarding the jobs of his union backers in "old" industries and public services. If so, the pain is likely to be more widespread and prolonged. BTW: Deficit only matter under a Republican president right???.. The public deficit under every democratas is 100% bigger than george W Bush deficit!.. PERIOD!... Under Roosevelt the Public deficit was about 114% our GDP, under Johnson/nixon/Carter our debt was over 90% our GDP.. American is becoming a 3 world countrie right??? What about Asia< russia, Europe???..
Basic Hunger Facts Food insecurity has been described as: âthe limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or the acquisition of acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.â Given this definition, it is estimated that 1 in 10 households in America goes hungry or is threatened by the possibility of hunger." wtf is that?? 'adequate, safe, and socially acceptable'. Just another one of those subjective terms twisted to sound like there is a crisis, make the stats fit the predisposed conclusion, and make the USDA seem relevent. Being poor in the US is so bad that tens of millions of Mexicans risk their lives to obtain the limited quantities of 'socially accetable' foods.
The report found that 38.2 million Americans, including 13.8 million children, were "food insecure" in 2004, an increase of nearly two million from 2003. "These households, at some time during the year, had difficulty providing food for all their members due to a lack of resources," the USDA said. Some 25 million people receive food stamps monthly." -------------------------------- "Lack of resources". Initiatve is a resource and would include being too lazy to sign up for food stamps, walking to the store, ability to cook etc. I would like to see a survey of how many households of the "food insecure" have a computer with internet. When was the last time anyone saw a kid who looked like they needed something to eat?
Bush has been amazing!! To manage an economy with $100 oil, 100 year old finanical firms failing, housing bubble popping sharply. Yet , unemployment is about the same as during the Clinton years. GDP still growing, exports growing, interest rates low, long bonds bid up. No right minded economist would have predicted a functioning economy under these conditions.
Good post PP, thanks for sharing, you make some excellent points. Although I call myself an Independent, there are no such candidates - it just costs too much to run a competitive campaign. So, my system is simpler: I collect all the data I can, study the candidates' positions on issues, try to get a glimpse into their character, and then vote for the team that has the best chance to foster more individual responsibility, better business climate, lower taxes, strong defense, and, very important, respect for life. It's usually the Republicans
McCain Buy Alert: Lohan Statement: In between DWI arrests, rug munching and not making a hit movie<strike> in years</strike> ever: "Is it a sin to be gay? Should it be a sin to be straight? Or to use birth control? Or to have sex before marriage? Or even to have a child out of wedlock?" the Barack Obama-supporting actress, 22, rails on her MySpace page. "Is our country so divided that the Republicans' best hope is a narrow-minded, media-obsessed homophobe?" Lohan adds that she "would have liked to have remained impartial; however, I am afraid that the 'lipstick on a pig' comments will overshadow the issues. ... vote for Obama!"
The Coming Revolution by Chuck Norris "I believe a revolution is coming to America. Just as Hurricane Ike slammed into my home state of Texas, I am more and more convinced as every year passes that a needed voter revolution is brewing and will arrive imminently at America's shores and ballot boxes. The birth pains for this voter revolution can be seen through the highs and lows of current political polarities. I believe it was felt through the surge of the constitutional community supporting Rep. Ron Paul. I believe it was felt in evangelicals' and conservatives' frustration with our present presidential picks. I believe it is felt in the heightened responses to John McCain's "Hail Mary throw" for vice president in Sarah Palin. And I believe it is felt in Americans' virtually unanimous disapproval rating (roughly 91 percent) for Congress. Of course, America has some good congressmen and senators, such as Ron Paul and members of the "gang of 10" (which has grown to 20), who are hoping that both chambers will vote to "drill here, drill now" and immediately set a course for producing alternative energy. But the fact is those good politicians are few and far between. The majority of them need to be replaced, and the rest of them need our help to do it. A voter revolution would usher in politicians who make sweeping and radical changes, including disposing of the unconstitutional Internal Revenue Service and replacing it with a "fair tax." These are leaders who genuinely commit to the America established by our Founders, drastically cut government waste, immediately stop pork-barrel spending, reject political perks and lobbyists, quit borrowing from other nations (such as China), cease imperialism and nation building, lessen the flow of so much government aid overseas, and bring back production and pride in American commerce, etc. The way I see it, there are three major common-sense steps toward a voter revolution: First, examine your representatives from the top down, and ask yourself: Do they represent the people? Do they stand by the Constitution? Do they reduce big government, taxes and our deficit? Are they working to protect our borders and sovereignty? Will they stand up to governmental status quo and gridlock? Do they have the type of character that can resist the temptations of political power and special interest groups? Second, if your answer is "no" to any of the above, get them out of office. Petition their dismissal; publicize their political problems; and muster community consent in order to vote others in. Call them by name on blogs, and explain to people why they should be ousted; then do it. No more talk. Stay the course, no matter how long it takes. Third, fight to vote in solid, reputable, law-abiding, Constitution-honoring representatives. Half our problem today is that we have been duped to vote into office individuals who have no integrity. A politician's integrity must precede our interests because if leaders are above reproach, then they are more likely to do what they've promised. And if you can't find a more upstanding citizen than you are, then consider running for public office. It's time to get out of the bleachers and onto the battlefield. You know the words of the British orator Edmund Burke, "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." Well, evil has flourished for too long. It's time for the good people to rise up in another voter revolution. Don't be like the 90,000 people who ignored the evacuation orders as Hurricane Ike approached. Don't just sit back and hope it turns out OK. Get involved. Start in your community. Fight for your country and state. And together, we can reawaken our country. It's time we all revive the revolutionary spirit of America's Founders and reinvigorate their legacy. I've experienced a renewed sense of appreciation and commitment to them, and in my new book, "Black Belt Patriotism," I talk about how a spark of their passion can turn into a raging cultural fire: "It doesn't take many people to foster a revolution. Jesus did it with twelve disciples. George Washington did it with his few suffering troops at Valley Forge. And we can do it today. We can set a new direction for America with people like you and me, who through our efforts in our communities and at the ballot box and in our personal lives can make this country everything it should be, everything our nation's Founders wanted it to be. America has fallen asleep at the wheel and it's time for her to wake up before it's too late. It's up to us; and this book is my way of showing where we can start." I heard once that it only took 2 percent of our population to create our nation and that it still would take only 2 percent to change it today. If you don't like what you see in America, then join me by being a part of the new 2 percent. If you're with me, then you know the road ahead will not be easy and the war will not be won easily, but the rewards (I promise you) will be ultimately glorious."
Why don't you just cut through all this bullshit and just say your doctrine is to vote for white Republicans. We know based on your views of minorities that a white republican is all you would pick so why waste space on all this bullshit doctrine when it comes down to just one basic fact.