True Numbers on Bush's Budgets and Military Funding
Topic: Politics
I was going through the numbers at the White House webpage. To change the year, simply go to the location bar and change the fy2007 portion to match the year of your concern (it'll work fine to the Bush Admin).

While we all know that Bush spends a lot on the military and his calls for cutting the "pork barrel" projects are a bit hypocritical, I wanted to demonstrate so with the budget numbers. To the best of my knowledge, these totals are all "actual" and not projected budget numbers. Feel free to correct me if I've made an error.

Perhaps the most alarming thing I found was when including the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental bills, total military spending accounted for anywhere between 54% to almost 63% of our total "discretionary" budget. Since 2002 (Bush's first budget), it has not accounted for less than 1/5 of our total budget... in 2003 and 2004, it was over one quarter of it, 2005 was just under that mark.

Another thing that bothered me was just the typicals. Not including emergency funding supplementals (ie just using the as passed budgets), the annual increase of our military spending was no less than half of our discretionary spending increase (ranging between 50% to 97%, averaging 69%).

Finally, the percentage of our military spending (not including supplementals) with respect to our discretionary spending has steadily increased from 47% in 2001 to 52.5% in 2006. So we now pass budgets that have over half of our discretionary spending go to the military. In 2006, our military spending increased by nearly 50% compared to 2001. That 50% totals an over $140 billion increase. That's $140 billion of spending in a year. Imagine if that went into our infrastructure and not getting lost in the military industrial complex.

So I'm going to run for Senate soon... working on platform
Topic: Politics

I think it's pretty clear that there are few options that the American people want... and I want to run on those platforms to win.

1) My "Marriage to Divorce Refund Obligation" Constitutional Amendment. Due to the high divorce rate in the US, there are literally billions wasted on wedding gifts every year for couples who are doomed to divorce. So I want to set up a constitutional amendment that makes it required that divorcing couples have to refund money for gifts received, back to the senders. Currently, my plan is to have the first ten years be equal to the original price of the item, adjusted for inflation. After that, the rate will be pro-rated for the next ten years. If a couple manages to stay together for 20 years, they don't need to refund anything if they divorce afterwards.

2) Non-invasive pap and colonoscopy / prostate exam. I figure, I can run on a platform that will give $1 billion to the first company that creates a 100% reliable non-invasive pap and colonoscopy. This ensures me about 20% of the vote, across all spectrums of political ideology... except Libertarians who will believe it's up to the free market to develop these non-invasive procedures.

3) Invent the variable speed limit. Spend $10 billion to develop a computer system that can eliminate traffic jams (except directly near accidents where passage is impossible), by using computer generated models to determine the proper speed cars should be going in order to reduce volume at any specific part of a highway. This would save gasoline, reduce emissions and in general make everyone except for Hummer H1, H2 and H3 drivers happy.

4) To appease Hummer drivers, I will propose giving them penile implants. This will work on two levels. From the obvious joy of no longer having a dimpled chad, they won't feel the necessity for driving a military vehicle to work, so not only will they stop driving Hummers, they will probably need to get a new, more efficient (just about anything is more efficient than a Hummer) vehicle.

5) Clean Air Act of 2008. In order to help conserve the environment, the government will require that people (who are determined to be full of "hot air") will need to surround the areas of their "preaching" with plants, bushes and possibly trees (for people like Limbaugh) in order to quickly transform the wasted oxygen excreted into the environment as hot air, full of carbon dioxide (and hazardous dihydrogen monoxide), back into oxygen.

6) When elected, I will call for the complete withdrawal of Iraqis from Iraq. They will be put into Texas, where the death penalty is liberally used for justice. Seeing that the death penalty has been shown to deter crime, that will stop all the violence.

Any other ideas? Personally I think option 2 may be enough to get me elected.

The Official 2006 Mid-Term Prediction
Topic: Politics

It's coming down the wire. And the picture is unclear in some ways, even blurrier in others.

First off, GW Bush is spending American taxpayer money is an assault on the Breadbasket of America, to plead and beg the base to come out and vote... other the Dems will end all tax cuts and cancel Christmas. I just feel this smacks of desperation. Granted... what else is Bush going to do? Form a decent plan of action in Iraq. Excuse me while I try to stop laughing. Regardless, Bush is campaigning in odd places. People speak about how Kerry's gaff made people not want him around. Oddly enough, the President of the United States is so unpopular, the party he belongs to doesn't want him around extremely close races in Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia. The three of which have been very close the past couple of weeks, though Corker seems to have pulled it off, already. So with Bush playing in the Red Zone, you've got to think that the GOP fears not only energizing the Liberal base with a visit from him, but they feel his presence is necessary in strong GOP land just to get them out to vote!

Websites are all around. Only the most stubborn  seem to think the Republicans can keep both houses.

"If you've read this blog for long, you know that I decreed that the GOP would keep both the House and the Senate. I have never retracted those edicts during these past six months - even when they appeared to be complete fantasy." (From above link)

They cite that a number of races are too close to really call out a verdict on the races, so the Republicans are still alive. This could be true... however, pollsters like Zogby are less interested that the Dems are winning these tight races as much as the fact that the leads have grown.

"While some Democratic leads have increased steadily heading down the stretch, other Democratic challengers have done far better." (From above link)

But with Republicans rebounders like Simmons in the House or Burns in Montana, it is really hard to say which way the wave is going. The trend could be still a large wave of marginal victories for the Dems, or a small wave of decent victories.

More liberal sites like Electoral-Vote.com seem quite pleased with the polling to suggest a significant takeover of power in the House (241 seats for the Democrats) and an absolute tossup for the Senate. However, no site that I've seen seems to think the Senate isn't a tossup. Everyone admits that it's a 3 of 4 need for the Democrats with Montana, Virginia, Missouri and Tennessee. Winning only two will give control of the Senate to trigger happy Cheney. I hope he lays off the alcohol and prescription drug mixes while casting tie breaking votes.

And what is lost in all this? The fact that a bare minority of House races are polled at all. The vast majority of them are deemed non-competitive. This is where the surprise may come. The disapproval of Bush is clear and certain, ranging from 34 to 41 percent depending on which polls you read. Congress approval rating is even more dismal, ranging from 25 to 31 percent. Here is the kicker, both Congress and the President are GOP. So you have less in 1 in 3 approving of the Republican Congress. Less than 2 in 5 approving of Bush in the White House. Honestly, other than a strong view that the election will be fixed, I have no clue why people think the Republicans are going to be anywhere near safe.

The only bright spot would appear to be the whole tightening of the Republican v Democrat generic poll which shows a once double digit Democrat lead turning into only a single digit Democrat lead. This would probably be from Bush's and Cheney's use of Taxpayer money to stump and get his message on the air about how the Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq or that the Democrats want to raise taxes on all Middle Class hardworkers to pay for their blowjobs by gay, drug abusing Pentecostal Evangelists. How significant is this? I don't think very. The people who'd be swayed this way are being swayed from voting Democrat, probably not being swayed to vote Republican.

Just as in 2004, it really is hard to tell where tomorrow will take us, especially in light of the whole will the Electronic Machines work in fucking Cleveland this time?! My gut says big win for the Democrats... I think in 2004 I was hopeful for Kerry, but it wasn't until numbers were leaked on Election Day did I think he had it, though I thought it impossible for Kerry to lose (America apparently was unable to contemplate what giving Bush 2 more years would do to this country). The polls seem to show the Dems taking control of at least one House, but maybe both. The margins for the House is in the air, but it is known whomever has the Senate will barely have it.

Tuesday will be a slow day and it won't be until late evening when we know where we stand. I wish I could say 250 seats in the House. It is logical, seeing Bush is campaigning in areas where campaigning shouldn't be needed. Races that are close weren't supposed to be close. I'd gladly take a smaller majority with 220 to 230 seats. And taking the Senate would be swell, but it's just too close to call. Anyone predicting the Senate is a liar or a fool or works for Diebold.

My final predictions-
What I hope:
Dems 250 seats in the House
Dems 50 Repubs 49 Too Close 1

What I should think:
Dems 225 to 230 seats
Dems 48 to 49 Repubs 51 to 52

  

President Bush said WHAT?!!?
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Politics
In a speech in Alabama, President Bush made some comments that showed just how out of touch he is with the common man.

We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)

White House.gov cite You'll note the inclusion of "(Laugher.)" in the quote at the White House website. That is generous seeing about one or two people briefly chuckled over the very inappropriate remark. You can watch the remark at the link to judge for yourself. One can't make satire up like this. It just shows what a terrible Stateman our leader is.

A view at an alternate universe - Iraq and Kerry
Topic: Politics
My multi-universe viewer probe captured some typical cross sections of an alternate universe where everything is the same except Kerry won the election. Here are some quotes:

Rush Limbaugh: Since Kerry was elected, we've seen an accelerated rate of our troops dying not only in Iraq, but Afghanistan as well.

Sean Hannity: This has been the deadliest summer since the war in Iraq has started. Under Bush the summers had half the deaths we've seen in Kerry's flailing campaign in Iraq.

Matt Drudge: JOHN F. KERRY SHOT IN RIGHT ARM IN VIETNAM, NOT LEFT AS HE CLAIMED!!!

WorldnetDaily Editorial: Clearly, the Iraqi's inability to get together to even name an oil ministry leader is a sign of how woeful Kerry's leadership has been in Iraq...

Newsmax: AUTOSPY RESULTS PROVE KERRY KILLED SCHIAVO!

Wall Street Journal: The Iraq Parliament has asked for an extension to get their Constitution written. This is a clear sign that they no longer respect the reasonable boundaries set by the Bush Administration because they don't fear Kerry will act decisively.

Tomorrow: The liberal press asks in Universe B-495A why Justice Stevens hasn't resigned because of cancer.

Richard thought this at 4:52 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The Right Wing Media Spins the Economy
Topic: Politics
The National Review seems to think the economy is booming now.

"Last Friday’s Treasury budget tells us that, in addition to a dramatic increase in tax receipts across the board (Art Laffer, time to collect your Nobel Prize), individual income-tax receipts have been exploding."

Exploding? That seems to be a bit much. But look... they have a chart... a bar chart!

KABOOM!

But it gets better. Why is income exploding?

"The tax-payment turnaround began with the Bush tax cuts of 2003."

Wait a second! What happened to the tax cuts in 2001 and 2002? But even with such a close eye on it, it's hard to argue with a two bar , bar chart. I mean... it clearly shows income "exploding" in the first eight months this fiscal year than last fiscal year... and especially such great citing of where they got their info from... "Treasury Department." That's a cite you can build a house on!

So I headed on over to the Treasury Department's website and found a page that has the Monthly Treasury Statement You see, what's great about this page is that you can download oodles of info, like the income the US has received monthly. But what else is there? Is it only income you ask? Of course not silly. They also list the monthly costs of government as well. And that leads me to my chart because one must ask, if receipts are "exploding" does that mean the deficit spending is decreasing? Is our children learning?!

As you can tell, I resisted the urge of the bar chart and used a line graph because they are the best at determining linear trends... hence the term "line". ;^)

One line is for income, the other expense (each for the first eight months of each fiscal year). If you take notice, you'll understand why the NRO article doesn't mention the tax cuts of 2001 and 2002. They apparently had no effect on the economy. But oddly enough, the income is going up... though still below Clinton levels and we apparently are well in the red in spending. So, what was this about the economy rocking? Being in the red two hundred billion dollars in the first eight months... not a good thing.

What of Sun Hudson?
Topic: Politics
Hudson said her son just needed time to grow and to be weaned off of the ventilator he was on since birth. She described the final moments of her baby's life.

"He opened his eyes while he was in my arms, before they took him off the ventilator. He smiled. He moved his tongue, actually his whole body. And I feel like they took him off too soon," she told KPRC-TV in Houston.

Last week on Tuesday, three days before Bush headed for some R&R at Crawford to take some rest from his thundering tour to sell Social Security change to America, a mother held her dying child in her arms, a child who was taken off the respirator prematurely, a decision that doomed the five month infant to die, a choice that was nothing short of a post-birth abortion. But that choice wasn’t of the mother. Nor was it of the father. Nor was it of the family of the child. It was the decision of the hospital. You may ask, how in the world could the hospital possibly have the authority to give a five month old baby the death sentence without the approval of the parents? Who would allow a hospital such unfettered discretion of power, in the face of a baby’s loving parents?

"This is murder. I am not sugar coating. It's murder," Hudson said.

It would be the same man who would fly five days later from Crawford, Texas, in a show of mighty bravado, to Washington DC to sign legislation . In 1999, George Walker Bush, Governor of Texas signed into law:

If the patient or the person responsible for the health
care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining
treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review
process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall
be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer
under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs
incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The
physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide
life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written
decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).

(166.046e)
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm

This law, signed by George Walker Bush, the same man who said: “Today, I signed into law a bill that will allow federal courts to hear a claim by or on behalf of Terri Schiavo for violation of her rights relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3224354a12,00.html

What of that infant’s life? An infant who had the cherished love of a mother. An infant that had a home. Alas, there was no Exodus 2:24 for Wanda Hudson, nor her infant son Sun Hudson. The woman who was suffering from the law George Bush passed as Governor. The woman who suffered from the legislation George W Bush passed as Governor of Texas. A woman who suffered from the act of a post-birth abortion that was signed and, without his voice to oppose it, delivered by George W Bush.

In Texas, a judge okay’d the death of an infant son. Where was the outrage to save him?

http://www.nbc30.com/health/4286333/detail.html

Who will be liable for Social Security shortfall?
Mood:  quizzical
Topic: Politics
On March 9, President George W. Bush spoke in Franklin County. One issue he brought up was Social Security. [To quote Bush:] “I have put the issue on the table because I believe the president must confront problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations.”

Being 28 years old, the Social Security issue, especially any long-term changes to it, directly affects me and others my age. Bush attempts to sell private accounts as the solution to the problem of a Social Security shortfall. This “solution” does not address the problem; it only shifts the burden.

The generally accepted cost of initializing the private accounts typically ranges from $1 trillion to $2 trillion during the next 10 years. The Bush administration has admitted it would need to borrow this money.

I ask: Borrow from whom? Who gets to pay back this debt? It certainly couldn’t be the current generation because they need to borrow the money to pay for this plan. If it is not the current generation, then it must be the future generations that are liable for this debt — the same future generations that the plan is designed to help.

So even if the private plans work as well as the Bush administration proclaims, it won’t solve the financial issues. It only transfers the Social Security liability for future generations into more debt. So I would appreciate it if Bush would stop acting as if giving my generation an additional $1 trillion to $2 trillion loan liability was some sort of favor.

Published in the West Side Leader (3/17/05)

Bush and real fuzzy math
Topic: Politics
Of Bush's $2.57 trillion budget in 2006:

63% is mandatory spending
- 42% is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
- 13% is other entitlements
- 8% Interest on the debt

The remaining 37% is the Discretionary spending
- 17% Defense (which Bush wants to increase spending by 5%)
- 19% Domestic which covers everything else (which Bush wants to decrease by just under 2%)

Now please, oh please, will someone explain to me how this equation can work. I'm an engineer, not an economist, so perhaps I'm being too rational with the numbers.

Defense Spending = D
Domestic Spending = DS
Mandatory Spending = M
Cash Inflow (tax income) = C

Bush is suggesting that this equation works:

C ('05) - D ('05) - DS ('05) - M < C ('06) - D('05)*105% - DS('05)*98% - M - Unspecified increase to M

The unspecificed increase to M is with regards to solely just the increase in interest payments as the debt increases. Now lets make this a little more simplified. Defense spending and Domesitc spending are about the same, so lets say that D = DS

C ('05) - 2*D ('05) - M < C ('06) - 2*D('05)*102% - M - Unspecified increase to M

Simplfy more

C ('05) - 2*D ('05) - M < C ('06) - 2.04*D('05) - M - Unspecified increase to M

Now some of you have noticed one thing. I haven't included the war cost which is atleast $1 billion a week or $54 billion a year for Iraq alone, or approximately 10% of the defense budget.

C ('05) - 2*D ('05) - M < C ('06) - 2.14*D('05) - M - Unspecified increase to M

So, ignoring any other fiascos, Bush wants us to believe that in order for the debt to drop from the level it was in 2005, income from taxation will increase over 2.5% this year. This increase in national revenue would just cover the changes Bush wants to make, ie increase spending in military, Iraq War, cut a few billion in Domestic Area. That would, of course, ignore any additional costs related to the increasing deficit, the Medicare bubble spending that was noticed, and any social security reform.

And finally, alot of the "pork" Bush wants to cut is going to be very very hard to sell to the Senate. They rely on that "pork" (known as economic development money if its local) to keep their own jobs.

Soldiers make a victims pyramid in Sri Lanka
Topic: Politics
American soldier personnel sent from Diego Garcia went to Sri Lanka to record damage and offer help. In the process a number of soldiers formed a pyramid of dead tsunami victims and posed in front of it. One soldier stood atop the pile with a large smile while planting a US flag pole at the top.

The Secretary of Defense responded by saying, "Boys will be boys. I'm disappointed this happened. We will get to the bottom of this. No I won't resign!"

The President supported the Secretary of Defense by saying he was a "pretty nice" guy. "He is a qualified man and I want him in my administration. I apologize to the people those soldiers may have offended." The President pledged $15 million in aid to the victims of this "horrible" disaster. The President and Congress awarded more than $7 billion to the less than 5500 people killed and injured in the 9/11 attacks. The tsunami has taken the lives of well over 20,000 in a spiralling death toll, and has displaced nearly one million people from their homes. Priorities I guess.



NOTE: The soldier pyramid is satire, the money pledged and spent for the tsunami and 9/11 is true.

Debunking GW Bush's Election Propaganda
Topic: Politics
A cute attempt to make Bush's first term look better than Clinton's first term

Claim 1: 97,000 manufacturing jobs were created between January and August in 2004, while only 25,000 manufacturing jobs were created between January and August 1996.

I'll tell you what is true! During that same time period in 1996, the "Employment level" increased by 2,047,000 new jobs compared to 1,115,000 in the same period in 2004. Of course, they want to suggest a sluggish job performance under Clinton. The numbers don't lie, but the Bush Campaign does. And of course, the whole, loss of millions of manufacturing jobs during the rest of the Bush presidency could be mentioned here as well.

Claim 2: Income Growth. They claim income has increased by $1444 during Bush... though don't say when the time period is. They claim in 1996 that Clinton is was only $1256 which relates to a 13% higher increase after inflation.

Well, in 1996, "average weekly earnings" of all private "production workers" increased by 5%. From August 2003 to August 2004, the increase was only 3%.

Claim 3: Unemployment rate of Hispanics is lower in 2004 than it was in 1996. Also, African American unemployment is lower now as well.

This is true, but it is very misleading. In January 1996, unemployment rate for Hispanics was 9.4%. At the end of the year it was lowered by 20% to 7.4%! Bush wants to brag that the rate is only 6.9% today. This is true, but when he took office, it was 5.8%! So I don't understand how Bush can claim to be the reason for lower Hispanic unemployment, when it is higher today than when he took office. In August 2003, the rate was 7.8%, so for the year, it did drop 14%, but not as much as it did under Clinton. Odd to be bragging about such a thing!

For African American unemployment? In August 1996, it was 10.6%. In August 2004, it was 10.4%. Oh wow! What an improvement. When Bush took office in 2001, it was 8.2%! That's an increase of 27% unemployment for Bush. While from the beginning of Clinton's first term to August 1996, Clinton saw a decline of 25% in the unemployment level for African Americans. This is supposed to be the Official Website of Bush's campaign. Why the hell are they misleading everyone there?


Claim 4: National debt was 48.5% of GDP in 1996, while its "only" 37.5 in 2004.

Interesting attempt at hiding a word there. National debt, someone will think annual deficit spending. Besides, the national debt only decreased during Clinton's presidency, so how can Bush take credit for that? Lets look at numbers that actually count for something.
In 1996, the deficit spending by the Clinton Administration was 1.2% of the GDP. In 2003, the deficit spending by the Bush Administration was 3.4%! It will be worse in 2004. For Bush to claim some sort of good economy because the debt with relation to the GDP is better seems completely screwy. He didn't lower the debt!

Claim 5: Same number of people with health insurance in 1996 and 2004.

Well, what is Bush saying? That he hasn't made it better?

Claim 6: Home Ownership is higher now that it was in 1996.

I can't disagree with that statistic. It is probably true. Problem is this. Bush wants people to think that the extra $300 to $500 a year us common folk got back from his tax cuts helped as a down payment for a home. Speak about a guy out of touch with reality.

Simply put, the rate of home ownership is up because the mortgage rates were the lowest they've been in many decades!

All employment statistics were taken from tables generated at The Bureau of Labor Statistics website, and all spending statistics were taken from The Congressional Budget Office.

"Liberal" Media Ignoring Casualties of War
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Politics
This is becoming very disturbing. According to CNN:

September 6 Attacks led to 12 American Soldier deaths
September 7 Attacks led to 4 American Soldier Deaths
September 8 Attacks led to 4 American Soldier Deaths
September 12 Attacks led to 5 American Soldier Deaths
September 13 Attacks led to 8 American Soldier Deaths

In a period of one week, that's 33 American soldiers killed in Iraq. Why the hell is this not in the news? Sure, the numerological 1000 was a little newsworthy, but its almost like American soldiers are barely dying. You hear about the bombing in Baghdad that killed 47 civilians, but no one is reporting, atleast not outloud, that 33 American soldiers died because of enemy attacks between 9/6 and 9/13.

This is so wrong!

Man who saved Thurlow in Vietnam says there was gunfire
Topic: Politics
Vietnam Vet who pulled Lt. Thurlow out of the water says there was gunfire that day

Oddly enough, another person who was actually there during the actions in question has said that Kerry didn't lie. Though Robert E. Lambert isn't a supporter of John Kerry, being critical of Kerry's anti-war stance and having served only 4 months, Lambert spoke honestly and in detail about the events that happened where John Kerry won a Bronze Star.

"Lambert, now 64, was a crew member on swift boat PCF-51 that day. The boat was commanded by Navy Lt. Larry Thurlow, a now-retired officer who questions why Kerry was awarded a Bronze star for bravery and a third Purple Heart for the March 13 incident.

"He and another officer now say we weren't under fire at that time," Lambert said Wednesday afternoon. "Well, I sure was under the impression we were."

Lambert's Bronze Star medal citation for the incident praises his courage under fire in the aftermath of a mine explosion that rocked another swift boat on that day 35 years ago.

"Anytime you are blown out of the water like that, they always follow that up with small arms fire," he said."

Regarding who wrote the report:
Nor does he have much time for the debate over who wrote the medal citations. Thurlow says his citation for a Bronze Star, which states the boats were being fired upon, was based on an initial report written by Kerry.

Lambert doesn't know who wrote the documents.

"They took what everybody said after they got in, piled it altogether and shipped it off and somebody wrote that, either at the division level, squadron level or commander of naval forces, Vietnam level," Lambert said. "They decided what kind of medal was going to be put on it.

"Mine was for pulling Lt. Thurlow out of the river while we were under fire," he said.

The number of people coming out and saying Kerry is speaking the truth continues to climb. Equally, the connections between Bush's Campaign continue to increase, including the resignation of two members of his campaign and a detailed NY Times look at the Swiftboat Vets and Bush's Campaign.

Bush Amazes World, Breaks Clinton's Trend!
Topic: Politics
The US Census Bureau and Poverty

Bush needs to get his due whenever it is due. This is no exception. During the terrible Clinton years, Clinton was to take the rising poverty rate (in this case, people living below 50 percent of poverty rate) of 6.2% of all Americans in 1993 to 4.5% by 2000, a decrease of over 25%. That evil Clinton also lowered the actual number of people that were below 50% of the poverty level by over 3,000,000!

This huge monsterous momentum, of lowering the population in poverty, faced Bush square in the face. Citing the need for rich people to get money back from taxes they hadn't even paid yet, Bush moved hard to create economic policies to reverse the heavy and harsh momentum known as getting rid of poverty. And it has worked! In merely 2 years, Bush has been able to reverse the tide and increase poverty in America. Over 1.5 million people, half of what Clinton removed from that poverty, are now back into that level of poverty.

Now that is awesome results!