Home / Our Short War On Poverty

Our Short War On Poverty

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

E.J. Dionne Jr. writes in the Post:

As soon as President Bush announced his first spending package for reconstructing New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, the Republican Study Committee and other conservatives switched the subject from poverty reduction to how Katrina reconstruction plans might increase the deficit that their own tax-cutting policies helped create.

Unwilling to freeze any of the tax cuts, these conservatives proposed cutting other spending to offset Katrina costs. The headlines focused on the seemingly easy calls on pork-barrel spending. But some of their biggest cuts were in health care programs, including Medicaid, and other spending for the poor.

  • Thus, the budget Congress is now considering would cut spending by $35 billion and cut taxes by $70 billion. Excuse me, but doesn’t this increase the deficit by a net of $35 billion?
  • The Clinton economy…cut the number of poor people by 7.7 million between 1993 and 2000. Between 2001 and 2004, on the other hand, the number of those in poverty rose by 4.1 million. (my emphasis)
  • The percentage of Americans getting private job-based health insurance fell from 63.6% in 2000 to 59.8% in 2004.
  • The proportion insured under government programs — Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program — rose from 10.6% in 2000 to 12.9% in 2004.

As more and more Americans become dependent on government healthcare, the compassionate boys of Washington slash healthcare benefits or increase enrollment eligibilities. Taxes are cut simultaneously and more no- bid government contracts are grasously rewarded to close friends or esteemed former colleagues. Meanwhile the Bush administration has its eye on three time proven objectives: expansion of the state sector of the economy, transfer of resources from poor to the rich, and a more "activist" foreign policy. Some things never change.

For more on compassionate conservatism click here, here, here, and here.



Powered by

About Igor Volsky

  • Justin Berry

    I think that Ive got this one figured out. First thing we do is Nationalize health care, to pay for this we end welfare except in the most dire circumstances. This would alleviate the dependence on the Government for everything by the downtrodden. With the vacuum created without the buying power of the welfare system inflation would naturally fall allowing people to make it on minimum wage. As for the no-bid contracts Halliburton pays a hell of alot more than minimum wage and no other contractor has the resources or expertise that they bring to a project. that is why they were in Iraq. If anyone has evidence to refute that statement I would be interested in hearing it.

  • C_Pig

    Heres an idea, maybe the bottom feeding parasites in society should pay for their own healthcare. I work and pay for mine. That BS about taking money from the poor and giving to the rich is plain moronic. People in poverty are there because of one of two reasons. They’re either extrememly unlucky or they have a combination of laziness and stupidity. For most it is the latter.

    The poor are lucky they have foolhardy liberals like you who use the highly armed government to wrestle my money away in taxes. If I catch some poor fool redistributing some wealth in my garage he’ll meet the barrel of a shotgun. If you think I owe your poor, lazy ass some money come try and take it from me.

    The poor will always be there as long as there is any form of competition in life, because they are the losers.

  • volt


    here is an idea – take an economics course. maybe do some reading. and when making a point, i recommend a fact here or there to support your beliefs. finally, if your desire is to convince someone of your point or to take part in a debate, you should try using more precise language.

    take your halliburton sentence as an example. what are the no-bid projects that only halliburton can perform? halliburton is an extremely large company that does many things so I can’t believe you would state that no one can do anything done by halliburton. while i am highly speculative that there is anything halliburton can do that another company cannot also do, since you are making the point shouldn’t you provide the supporting evidence? on its face, your belief that only halliburton has some expertise seems flawed since they are mostly providing services not product in Iraq and New Orleans. also, why would anyone care if a contract was no-bid if there was only one company who could provide the service or product? and what does the no-bid part of the contract have to do with paying their employees above minimum wage?

    justin, you do have one thing going for you in that you are not c-pig whose name is certainly appropriate.

    C-pig, here’s an idea, get a heart and some facts. Please provide supporting facts for your two reasons people find themselves in poverty? Or did you deduce your sophisticated analysis from self observation? What percent is stupidity vs. laziness? Your last line seems a contradiction of the rest of your post since you see no way out for the poor. If there is no way out and you don’t want to help them, what do you propose doing? Shoot the poor? this is contrary to most conservative philosophy who believe that everyone is capable of getting ahead with effort. Also are you suggesting that the government has no right to tax you and that you can take the law into your own hands?

    Finally, I presume by your post that you make a living doing physical labor of some sort and wonder what you will do should you become injured or grow too old to perform your duties?