When George Bush, Sr. was president, the wage earning gap grew. The poor remained poor, more middle class wage earners became poor, and yet, those who attained wealth, or riches, continued to increase their wealth, possibly at the expense of lower wage earners.
Under George W. Bush, we see the same policies, and in Florida, under Jeb Bush's leadership, Florida's working poor grew in number.
Is there a trend here? Perhaps, but it has not yet been studied, although it should be. The policies under these "leaders" aren't exactly conservative ones, but they do seem to divide the economic spectrum, favoring wealthy Americans, while stifling opportunity for other Americans.
Click here to read the article about Florida. Click here to read the article on the entire U.S. Here's a snippet:
An increase in Florida's poverty rate and a decrease in the state's median income mirrors what happened on a national level, according to 2002 figures released Friday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The state's poverty rate from 2001 to 2002 increased 0.8 percentage points to 12.6 percent. That means more than 2-million of Florida's 16.7-million residents live in poverty.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
John, the cumulative weight of these posts would lead some to believe you are ill-inclined toward the Bush family. Is there something we should know?
2 - John Mudd
Anyone can assume what they wish to. I simply wanted to point out the fact that job creation and wage inflation appear to be no or of little concern to George W. Bush, that they were of no or little concern to his father, when president, and that they also seem to be of little or no concern to Gov. Jeb Bush. Of course, when you have several million in blind trusts laying around, you really don't have much to worry about, yourself.
I also wanted to point out that George W. Bush will sacrifice honesty to attain a goal, not unlike his predecessors, however, President W. did campaign on the assumption that Gore was an extension of Bill Clinton's dishonesty and that he would be honest and compassionate. Honesty doesn't lie about uranium, and compassion doesn't turn a blind eye to 9-million unemployed Americans. The tax cuts weren't designed to increase corporate earnings, although, low corporate earnings are why corporations refused to spend investment capital on new employees. Tax cuts benfitted working Americans, true, and that's all fine and good, but the supply-side effect was lacking because the rate cut was too low.
I'm sorely disappointed by the Bush brothers, both who I voted for.
Their actions and policies have made me have made me consider switching to the Democratic side, which I wouldn't toally count out at this point. It's either that or I'll just have to go and pull a Teddy Roosevelt, which I wouldn't totally rule out, either.
We have a Taft-Hoover Republican in the White House. Both the Republican party and our nation can do better than that, and we deserve better, too.
3 - debbie
Let me see if I understand this, you are saying that you are a Republican and you are considering voting for Hillary?
Oh, yeah, right... you must be from the People's Republic of ________.
4 - John Mudd
Actually, I posed the question:
Why not vote for Hillary?
It was in another post than this, though.
Well, why not?
Tell me, please.
Tell everyone why they shouldn't and why they should vote for a liberal oligarchic Republican who is out of touch with the needs of his fellow Americans?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I should also point out that Bill Clinton carried many Republican votes in 1996, even though die-hard insider Republicans asked the same question that you just asked me. Did they vote for Dole when you asked them that?
Just as it isn't wise to follow someone when they jump off a bridge, nor is it wise to follow a leader simply because they have an (R) or (D) next to their name, lest you find yourself drowning in the sea without anything to save you, except for, of course, your ideology.
5 - debbie
"Just as it isn't wise to follow someone when they jump off a bridge, nor is it wise to follow a leader simply because they have an (R) or (D) next to their name..."
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I don't care what party is involved if I believe in the candidate.
"Why not vote for Hillary?"
She is a socialist, her beliefs are socialist. For that reason alone I would never vote for her. I do not believe that Socialism is the answer, all that does is create more power for the person in charge and we all know what absolute power does to us "mere human beings". I don't understand how making the people more reliant on the government is being compassionate or helping them in the long run. All it does is create lifelong dependancy which in turn creates more power for the people in charge.
As for turning a blind eye to the Americans out of work, that is why he went ahead with the tax cut, so that people would have the extra money in their pockets, so that they could spend it (for whatever they needed or wanted) which will in turn create more jobs. If the demand for products goes up then more jobs are created to meet the demand. The economy was on it's way down before Bush was even elected, then when the terrorist hits took place things really dropped... I don't know that everything can be blamed on Bush. I for one am very happy about my tax cut, I am spending mine on things that I need to get and travel within the US. If anybody disagrees with the tax cut, sign it and donate it back to the government. Nobody is keeping you from doing that but it does not help to create jobs if you do that. When you say that the tax cuts were not designed to increase corporate earnings I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying. If people spend the tax refund checks to purchase things, doesn't this help the businesses? If demand goes up doesn't this increase job opportunities?
The uranium "lie" I'm still debating with myself over. When I listened to the speech (or read transcripts) I see that he said Africa not Niger. Africa is a lot bigger than Niger. Is there evidence that contadicts this statement as it stands with "Africa"? I'm waiting to see what evidence is shown to show that this is a lie. But I have to be honest with you, when people "chant" over and over that Bush lied about the WMD and then throw in the chant about the "lie" on uranium. I'm less inclined to belive the lie theory. Just because we haven't found WMD in Iraq is not proof that they never existed, it is only proof that we haven't located them yet. They still might not exist, but we have not proven that at this time. But in order to lie about something you have to have knowledge beynd doubt that the opposite is true. How could Bush have "knowledge" about the WMD in Iraq? He can have theories, he could have bits and pieces of evidence and then draw the wrong conclusions, but that would not be a lie. A lie is only when you knowingly tell an opposite, not when you make a mistake.
There are some policies that Bush is wanting to pass that I don't agree with. The "National Health Care" is one of them. I don't think that the government should undertake anything that can be done more efficiently and cheaper by private companies. Whenever the government takes on something it ends up costing us millions more and it is much less efficient than if private enterprise had done it.
I don't want to see the government grow any larger. (I do understand why it has grown under Bush, 9-11 changed a lot of things for the US, I can't fault him for fulfilling the promise he made to protect the US from all enemies foreign and domestic).
I agree with Bush on some things and disagree with him on others. I don't know who I will vote for in 2004, I still need to research some of the candidates. But I really want to see some evidence that Bush knew that what he was saying was a "LIE" before I believe that. The WMD is a moot issue, there is no way that Bush could have known whether there were weapons there or not. So to call that a lie is just political trash talk. If you lump the two together then it just makes the one claim a lot less credible.
6 - John Mudd
That's interesting. Well what do you think about Administration officials leaking the name of a covert agent to the media just because they didn't like her husband's views? Don't you think that's rather Nixonian? Do you think it should be investigated to see if perhaps Rove, Cheney or Bush jeopardized the cover agent's life and national security by doing so?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh, and you forgot two answer my other two questions:
(1) Why not Wesley Clark?; and
(2) Why not Howard Dean?
By the way, Reagan pointed out Nixons flaws and didn't jump on his bandwagon. Why are Republicans sticking with President George W. Bush when his tactics are similar?
Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about sex under oath. How is President George W. Bush's lying or his Administration's, which he stands by, lying any different?
If the Republican party sticks by this guy it's showing that it really is desparate to maintain the Whie House and that it has no backbone.
Where there's smoke, there's fire, and somebody has got to be lying for this thing to keep surfacing in the media, especially when it surfaces from a conservative columnist (i.e., Robert Novak).
For someone who campaigned on a platform of honesty and compassion, stating their opponents twists the truth, I expect the truth, by God, and I expect compassion, not dirty tricks to destroy someone for disagreeing with you, and if I don't get it, the hypocrite can get out of the kitchen, of the Whie House in this case, because he obviously couldn't handle the heat of the truth.
Bottom line?
Republicans often pick mediocre leaders and candidates to fill the highest office in the land.
In the 20th Century we had two who were obviously fit for the job: Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.
Neither of them followed the party's base. One of them rallied against it for the people, while the other created it's newfound ideology, after rallying against it.
Perhaps it's time for the party to find itself, again, as it is divided over the leadership of President George W. Bush, who is obviously NOT a conservative, nor is he compassionate or completely honest with the American people.
If I were going to vote for a moderate, I would rather vote for Arnold than I would for George W. Bush. At least with Arnold I know what I'm getting.
7 - debbie
"Oh, and you forgot two answer my other two questions:"
I didn't see them.
"(1) Why not Wesley Clark?; "
I don't know enough about him and I can't get a handle on his policies yet, I'm not sure he knows exactly what he wants. (I'm not sure that I like that, but he is just entering the race. I would think that he would have worked out some of this stuff before he made a decision to enter the race)
"(2) Why not Howard Dean?"
He is just "way to far to the left for me". He is about where I would think of James Carville to be.
"How is President George W. Bush's lying or his Administration's, which he stands by, lying any different?"
IF there is evidence to show that BUSH lied or that BUSH knew someone in his administration was lying, then there isn't any difference and he should be thrown out of the office. I expect the truth and nothing but the truth out of every president. If they can't answer due to security reasons then say that, but don't lie to me.
By all means I think that an investigation should be completed to find out who leaked the name of CIA covert agent. That person should be arrested and made to stand trial for the crime.
8 - John Mudd
I have asked the questions you didn't see in other posts that were critical of the Bush Administration.
I'm glad we do agree on some things, and I appreciate you sharing your views.
They're such wonderful things, whether they mirror mine or not.
Cheers. =)