This isn't what I'd planned for this morning's blog. Blew way too much time doing research, and it's not even a chipper blog. However, my curiosity was piqued and I just had to sniff around. Tomorrow's blog will be 100% politic-free!
On average, nearly 40.9 (±0.7) million people were poor in a given month in 1996, representing an average monthly poverty rate of 15.5 (±0.3) percent. By 1999, the number of people who were poor fell to 34.8 (±0.8) million, indicating an average monthly poverty rate of 12.8 (±0.3) percent in that year.
The official poverty rate in 2003 was 12.5 percent, up from 12.1 percent in 2002.
Yes, it's "up" now, but still certainly lower than during previous administrations. :-) (emphasis mine)
It's interesting how little change, relatively, there has been in median household income, considering how many households have become one-income in recent years, a big switch from the two-income heyday of the 70's and 80's...
And certainly the National Debt has increased greatly (to everyone's dismay, I would guess), but there's a lot more to it than one President's spending sprees.
No, I'm certainly not going to vote based on the endorsement of one "fringe" group, so to speak. (Although it does bother me, but so does Kerry's voting record in Congress.) I also look at what are, to me, "key" issues:
* freedom from encroaching medical regulations (Edwards has actually been a main player in eradicating medical freedom and choices during his private practice)
* freedom from government intrusion in home education (which Kerry hasn't taken a stand on, and any comment from any politician that includes subjective terms such as "reasonable" is automatically suspect)
* remaining soverign and distinct from the UN (Kerry's not a big fan of that idea)
* freedom for citizens to live their lives in accordance with the constitution in (to be honest, both candidates fall seriously short on this issue- although Kerry is far more venemous in his patterns)
I don't want a candidate who "couldn't think" for a full 30 minutes after the 9/11 attacks. (Kerry's words)
I don't want a candidate who feels (and votes) that I'm just too ignorant to know what's best for my home and family. Sadly, the Democratic platform takes that stance. I have some wonderful people in my life who are Democrats, and this isn't a party-bashing session by any means. I'm not even a Republican. This is about what the basis is for the form of government and how we each view it. I'm thankful that we live in a country where it's a right, not a priviledge, to have a say in how the government is run. I'd also like to keep it that way.
I know that the Republican party has been accused of being a great hiding spot for the mean and the ignorant, but those are generally by the same folks who insist that we, as a nation, need to submit to the full Supreme Authority of the UN- and in the same breath tout the "soverignty" of Afghanistan as a nation. Are nations Soverign or are they Subjects of the UN? Other nations are soverign, but the US needs to continue to be the UN's class bully- it's ok for the US to use its troops when the UN snaps its collective fingers and shouts "get 'em, Boy!" but not at any other time. Perhaps if the same people who are so angry with Bush for this current situation had not held their tongues and stood firmly behind Clinton during Somalia and the various other "campaigns" he launched, I'd be less cynical.
Whether I'm for or against the war we're in right now is moot. I cannot stop it, but I can vote for the candidate who will do the least amount of damage (both foreign and domestic) in the long run, and while I truly believe that we're in a great big handbasket with either major party right now, I do feel Bush needs to see this through. I feel Kerry would botch any progress that has been made, and he will neuter the US before the UN in a heartbeat if it'll secure his position in any way possible. I feel he will support domestic policy that will only contribute to further dependence on, and inability to get away from, government aid. I haven't heard anything from him as to his plans or details, other than the rhetoric that's been displayed for us to "picture a nation that does not have to wake up to a President Bush"... well, believe it or not, there are worse things...
Kerry's voting and attendance record are beyond dismal, and they do not instill the image of a leader in any sense other than "blueblood aristocracy", which, really guys, I just don't aspire to be "Head Serf" for the Feds.
So, while it may be easy to say this group or that group doesn't hold any clout and its input shouldn't be given any weight, I found it to be just one more item to add to the stumbling, overburdened camel. That's all.
As for the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer", that's going to have to be another blog. More government intervention simply is not, cannot, will not, and doesn't have a hope in hades of ever changing that. I'll expound on that one later, though. Right now, I'm off to try to catch some catapult shots with the boys!
Have a great day!
3 comments:
Of course the Commuist party in America has little clout. Thank goodness. However, when a group endorses a candidate, they do so because they believe that candidate will be the best one to further their interests. They believe that that candidate is to some degree sympathetic with their cause. That's a big red flag for me.
It's an even bigger red flag that populations in certain middle eastern countries favor Kerry. Those folks do not want America to be a strong international force; they feel that Kerry will give them an America more likely to submit to the UN, and to play nice. I don't feel that this is the time to play nice.
I expect the economy to be rough right now. It often is, in a war. This is a wartime economy, and we need to look at it as such.
But the bottom line is this: I won't vote for Kerry because his voting record is too inconsistent, and because I think he back down on the terrorists. I am not happy with everything Bush has done (I'm downright unhappy about some parts), but I'm voting based on national security and I don't think Kerry can do the job well.
The census numbers on poverty have been so twisted and turned inside out by every media outlet that it's terribly hard to get a clear picture. The AP did a story the other day that twisted the facts in the most outrageous way ... I'll have to see if I can find a link for you, Dy.
Hi Dy,
I really enjoy your blog. I found you via TPP (I occaisionally post as RyGirl) and then through you found TWTM and a whole host of other great blogs. :)
Your blog has prompted much thought on my part. I have, for most of my life, been a "limosene liberal" or a "cadillac communist." I live in a town the NY Times recently refered to as "recession proof," and have a bleeding heart. I spent a year of college lobbying against the welfare reform laws and then another year helping those whose lives were affected by the legislation. All this to say that up until 6 months ago I was about as far away from you politically and socially as one could be; "John-John" was my dream ticket. Your blog has made me question so many of the "truths" I held dear.
I can't say I've made a complete turn around, but I am certainly more aware of governmental intrusions. At a party a while back I even argued AGAINST gun control. Not because I am pro gun (I'm not) but because I'm against stupidity and the gun control legislation is just that.
hmmm, I think I am running out of room, I may have to continue in another comment
Yikes, I am a bit absent minded (as well as long winded!). This is Ryan (RyGirl from TPP).
Anyway, I have a question about your comment on two-income households. You said:
It's interesting how little change, relatively, there has been in median household income, considering how many households have become one-income in recent years, a big switch from the two-income heyday of the 70's and 80's...
I wonder, where do you get the information that many households have become 1 income? I thought the problem was MORE two-income households. I thought the economy and the rise in the cost of living created the "dual income trap."
Granted, my ignorance on this subject is great. I didn't even know two-income families back in the 80s!
Thanks for this blog and for exposing me to an entirely different way of thinking. I truly appreciate it.
Ryan
Post a Comment