After reading and discussing some of the political threads, it really got me thinking. Some people said they are better off now, with our current president in office. Some people said they are worse off, with our current president.

Well, I would definitely say we (my family) are better off now than we were when Bill Clinton was in office, but, I can also say we are better off then 3 years ago while President Bush was in office. So..............can you "blame" it on the current or past Presidents??? or could you say you are better off because you have gotten pay raises and paid off debt, or gotten smarter about how you spend your money,etc, etc???? Can you also say you are worse off because you don't know how to budget your money??? KWIM???

How do you determine if it is the current administration causing your financial hardships or booms???? or your own poor or proper handling of money???

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Since it's the present administration that's spent hundreds of billions in Iraq, instead of spending it to improve life in the United States, I'd say without a doubt I'm worse off since Bush has been in office. Can you quantify living in fear? I've never been so afraid for this country as since GWB has decided the Constitution is just a bothersome piece of paper and Dick Cheney has decided he doesn't have to be accountable to the AMerican people for anything he does. I think our risk of attacks from terrorists and from other countries is exponentially greater since GWB alienated most of the world.

I guess I would need to know what you mean by better or worse. In what ways?

Financially, probably worse, but that is because our kids are older and have more expensive things they do,so our outgo has risen more than our income. That is something we are in a position to rectify if we were to chose to change jobs or add an income (I'm a SAHM) so I can't blame anyone for our decrease in disposable income. If energy prices come back down again, we could be back to where we were in that regard.

Our health is better than ever.

The weather is great.

I'm very curious to see how this time will be reflected in the greater context of history. There are many bad things in the world, no doubt, but are they any worse than when we were in the midst of the Revolutionary War? The Civil War? WWII? The Great Depression? Vietnam? The Cold War?

The fact that this dilemma is our dilemma makes it seem, to us, like the worst dilemma that ever was, but I am not convinced that history will bear that out. Don't get me wrong. I know things are rough. But time will indeed provide better context for evaluation.

May be just a coincidence but it seems harder to change jobs since 9-11.

I don't blame our POTUS/administration for the financial pitfalls we face ... I do lay full blame on our current Governor's office (at least in this state) for the financial crisis that she has put our state in! Thus far she has made NO effort to get jobs into the state or try to retain the companies that used to call our state home.

No good jobs here = massive problems...high unemployment...major welfare...foreclosures, etc.

I think we have more physical things than we did several years ago, but it has not been without a lot of struggle and "creative accounting" to make those ends meet--and there have been more than a few times where our ends fell three or four days short of meeting at all.

__________________
SPJRNTGADL!

I would say that we have gotten smarter so we are in better shape financially, BUT our paychecks do not go as far as they used to go so in that respect we are worse off than before.

I to blame our state & local government. And that I couldn't blame the President alone I would blame the whole government as an entity. I actually think I am worse here in Ohio than I was in FLorida.

__________________
Laura
Please visit my blog
http://mylifeinlaurasworld.blogspot.com/

I totally agree! I can say we are worse off. Our income has doubled since we have lived here and nothing has gotten any better.

The gas prices are ridiculous, everything is getting more expensive because of it.

I agree with everything truble said. Besides that GWB doesn't even know how to spit out a sentence properly, what is that saying to the future? I think he must have ate alot of Cracker Jacks when he was growing up because those little prizes inside the box would be the only thing to carry him this far.

When I wrote the post, I was referring to financially better or worse off???

I would say we are better off, but......our income has grown, too, and we have very little debt. Which got me thinking....do I "thank" the current administration for that?? Or is that our good sense to thank???

I'm trying to understand the thinking of people who blame the President for their financial situation, and those who applaud him for their financial situation.

Case in point: A friend of mine who's DH makes roughly the same amount of money as my DH, and they have one less child......lives paycheck to paycheck, bad(to put it nicely) financial picture, etc. Blames it all on her DH's paycheck and the gov't. But, what few know is how frivolously they spend money; never uses coupons, wait for sales, or save up to pay cash.....usually all on credit , not to mention all the "non-essentials" (IMO) they buy. So, is that the govt's fault????

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I agree.

We have no debt. Just monthly bills and annual property taxes. We also have kids who need clothes and shoes and camp fees paid and $2.85/meal lunch money at school. They are more expensive now than when a $.28 jar of baby food was all they required for lunch.

Gas has gone up. Our insurance premiums have gone up. Lots has gone up, except my husband's paycheck. I don't blame the government for that. I blame several things, from management to the rising costs faced by his employer as their energy costs have gone up, as have our insurance rates (and they foot the bill for half of our insurance premiums.) Even without giving raises, their overhead costs per employee went up about 10%,and the market won't support them raising prices on their product at this time. I know they are doing what they can to get by.

I don't blame Bush, any more than I blame Gore for the economy tanking when all of those internet businesses he helped start went under, causing the stock market to go south.

Stuff just happens. We just deal with it.

I think that when you spend our tax money like a drunken sailor on leave, it affects the economy as a whole and that affects each of us.

Of course, the president would like to put all members of my profession out of business (trial lawyers), so that doesn't help, either. Mostly, I'm angry that "Mr. Conservative" has dug a debt so deep it will take generations to recover from it.

Fortunately for you, I guess, the Democrats now have control of congress. Do you believe spending will go down as a result?

I do not know who to blame or to thank!!!
gas has triple in the last 10 years.not dh's salary. this past january he received a cost of living raise: 1 penny more an hour!!!wow,amazing!!!
in all we are doing well,we can pay our bills,do things and have the thing we need.not necessarely the things we want.
in alabama,a lot have change,lots of big businneses have moved in,"thyseen Krupp "( ducth company) just chose Mobile county to build its newest plant:ThyssenKrupp has said the mill will mean 29,000 jobs during construction, and 2,700 jobs paying an average of $50,000 to $65,000 annually once the plant is operational in 2010.

Airbus also open a plant right here and other automotive plants ...so there is a economic boom in the area...who would have thought about it 10 years ago?

__________________
By the time you make ends meet, they move the ends

We're making about the same amount of money as we did before Bush took office, and prices have gone up, so we're certainly not doing any better. I'd much prefer a liberal democrat in office to a regressive republican. Bush isn't even regressive, he's evil.

I think we are better off. When Clinton was in office we were flat broke when DH was in the military as an E2 and E3, he made more rank we made more money and in 5 years was able to save $20,000 on an E5 salary with him only working. Then we got poor again when DH got out of the miltary and became a full time student and neither of us worked and we lived off his GI Bill. Then when Bush came into office, the GI Bill payments got higher, DH graduated first with his bachelors degree, then with his masters degree, then got a full time job, then I got a part time job. So now we are making more money than we ever have, 7 years ago were able to buy a larger house 1800 sq feet now we have an inground pool, 2 dogs, 9 cats. But we have less disposable income alot it going for pet food, flea meds, heartworm meds, vets visits for all our animals, DD's pitching lessons. But those are extras that we choose to spend money on, having our pets is a choice. However we are also having to pay over $3000 a year when tax time comes around every year, where we used to get a refund every year a long time ago. I would have to say we are much better off than we used to be.

I'm in no way bashing you, just trying to figure this out. Ok, you say your income is the same as before Bush took office. Is this Bush's fault, tho??? If you are military, I can understand if you say yes, because he has a hand in their payraises, although, over the past few years, they have gotten over a 3% pay raise each year. Is it Bush's lack of bringing decent paying jobs to your area?? Again, just trying to get educated and understand things.

thanks.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Not while Bush has finally decided to start vetoing bills. He doesn't do it for years, now he loves that veto stamp. Democrats might control Congress, but not by enough to override a veto, which means Bush can pretty much keep spending as he pleases. The recent war funding bill is a perfect example of that.

My income is the same, but I can't compalin about the amount. I do have a decent paying job. It is more the rising prices than the amount I earn that makes a difference. Is Bush to blame? I think he is to blame for rising fuel costs, which in turn raises the price of transporting food and thus increases the price of groceries. The bad weather has played a part in that too. I don't blame Bush for the weather. I drive a fuel-efficient car, and I wish I didn't have to use fuel at all. But, I do think Bush has a lot to do with the cost of fuel. Exxon-Mobile has been making HUGE profits. The term robber-baron comes to mind for me.

DH makes $111,000.00 per year but that has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with his education. Yes, fuel is higher and other household expenses have gone up, but we are doing well


Christine

__________________
TLJ ~ Women United in Spirit

We are doing better financially only because we are now homeowners and I work two jobs. When Clinton was President it was easier to get work around here and the jobs paid more (in that day's dollars). Since about 2001 many many many jobs in our community have gone overseas.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

We are doing worse financially.

Overall, I think we're doing about the same. However, I think that things are a lot tougher for the bulk of Americans. For those who's fortunes have improved, I believe we're looking at job changes more than anything else. I do know that 5 million people a year have been added to the poverty rolls since Bush took office.

I don't think a free market without regulation is the answer. Shipping all our jobs overeseas is not going to benefit many people in this country, just the rich.

Would you be willing to pay more for goods to have them made here in the USA, hence keeping jobs here???

Also, what about the goods we ship overseas. If we don't buy things from overseas, I think the overseas countries won't buy as much from us.

I think it's a double edge sword

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I would pay more for goods made here. I think that the quality is better. It is a double edged sword just as WalMart is a mixed blessing. Having a strong middle class is what made this country.

I don't think that there's a free market solution to government agencies. A case in point would be the reduction in inspections of our food supplies. How many cases of ecoli have we had in the past year? Do you really want to eat melanine? The Chinese think diethylene glycol (anti freeze) is a perfectly good substitute for glycerin. They even label it as such. It wound up as an ingredient in cough syrup in Chile. The adults that took it survived, the children did not.

Where are you getting this supposed fact from, please cite the source.

__________________
SPJRNTGADL!

It's not per year, it's total between 2001 and 2005.

Bloomberg.com: U.S.

From the same piece:

So there are .9% more considered to be living at or below the poverty level today than in 2001?

I have more questions than answers.

Has the threshold for being considered living in poverty changed?

During Clinton's terms in office, did the threshold change? In other words, it appears that fewer people were living in poverty when he left than when he entered. Did the threshold stay the same from the time he began in office to the time he ended?

What is the population (in raw numbers) today? What was it in 2001?

It seems to me that at some point, during one administration or the other, they changed the income level for what was considered to be "poverty."

There is work to be had in America. All of our jobs have not gone overseas. Just ask the Mexicans.

Mostly, it's the jobs none of us are willing to take, or the jobs formerly held by workers in highly unionized fields that have shifted from the US to other countries. Premium health benefits with no deductibles, hearty pensions, and a number of other expenses associated with jobs such as auto industry parts-making drove many of those jobs overseas. Check the health of our US auto making companies after many years of paying very decent wages and benefits to workers at every level within those industries, and you'll see that they're in deep debt. It's no wonder they've taken advantage of the opportunity to seek lesser-paid employees in nations where even our minimum wage is considered a fortune.

So, % wise , there are less in poverty under Bush, right?

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

The number decreased under Clinton and increased under Bush. Where do you think that lower number came from that Bush started his administration with? Where do you think the higher number came from that Clinton started with?

The number under Bush may be smaller as a percentage of the population, but it's larger in actual numbers. The smaller percentage is due to a larger population in the country.

Right, I get all of that.

What I would like to know is if the income level for being considered "living in poverty" changed.

When welfare reforms and changes in eligibility for food stamps, etc., took place, I believe they shifted the criteria for "poverty." I don't know which administration, or which direction, but I know Clinton's "Day One" in office and Bush's most recent day measure "poverty" differently.

So up and down are relative terms in this discussion.

As an analogy, they re-wrote the ACT test in 1989. It is now more heavily weighted towards reading comprehension and less towards exposure to topics related to social sciences. Between 1989 and 1990, the mean ACT score rose approximately 2 points, IIRC, a shift that was almost solely attributed to the change in measures, and not a change in "smarts" of the average high school student.

What "was" poverty?

What "is" poverty?

I don't know how poverty is defined. It only makes sense that the level would raise in accordance with the COLA adjustment. I'm sure you can get the answers to your questions by reading either the Bloomberg link or googling the question.


If you know that for a fact, there where did you get the information from? Probably you can get your other questions answered there as well.

I did a google search and found this:
Poverty Thresholds 2005

(Use landscape & legal printer options to print this table)

Poverty Thresholds for 2005 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years
(Dollars) Related children under 18 years Size of family unitWeighted Eight average None One Two Three Four Five Six Seven or more thresholds
One person (unrelated individual).... 9,973 Under 65 years....................... 10,160 10,160 65 years and over.................... 9,367 9,367 Two persons............................ 12,755 Householder under 65 years........... 13,145 13,078 13,461 Householder 65 years and over...... 11,815 11,805 13,410 Three persons.......................... 15,577 15,277 15,720 15,735 Four persons........................... 19,971 20,144 20,474 19,806 19,874 Five persons........................... 23,613 24,293 24,646 23,891 23,307 22,951 Six persons............................ 26,683 27,941 28,052 27,474 26,920 26,096 25,608 Seven persons.......................... 30,249 32,150 32,350 31,658 31,176 30,277 29,229 28,079 Eight persons.......................... 33,610 35,957 36,274 35,621 35,049 34,237 33,207 32,135 31,862 Nine persons or more................... 40,288 43,254 43,463 42,885 42,400 41,603 40,507 39,515 39,270 37,757 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.



Contact the Demographic Call Center Staff at 301-763-2422 or 1-866-758-1060 (toll free) or visit ask.census.gov for further information on Poverty Statistics.


Skip this navigation

Census Bureau Links: Home · Search · Subjects A-Z · FAQs · Data Tools · Catalog · Census 2000 · Quality · Privacy Policy · Contact Us


Page Last Modified: August 29, 2006

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

that didn't come out as nicely as on the census website, so, here's the link to the website
Poverty 2005 - Poverty Thresholds 2005


I'm sure you and find out the figures for other years, or even call the number they provide.

My guess is that the income level for "poverty" would go up and be adjusted for inflation???

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I have heard it stated on news programs.

A quick web search brought up this site, which does not date this particular page, but one of the sources used to compile the report was from 1999, so it is at least that recent, and likely written during the Bush term. It discusses a recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences to re-vamp the definition of poverty. An example of the types of measurement inequities is that the former method simply took the raw number of individuals living in a household and divided that number into the household income to determine poverty level. There was no accounting for the age of the inhabitants of the home. A family with two school-aged children who required no child care was viewed in the same way as a family with two babies in full-day daycare. An individual in a low-paying job that had full health benefits was treated as an equal to an individual with the same income but with no health insurance.

This piece recommended taking an average of a family's financial status over a three year period to determine whether they have been living in poverty, or if as a one-shot episode during the time of measuring they fell under the poverty line.

Proposal to Change the Poverty Measure

There are quite a number of sites devoted to discussing the various scales that can be used to determine changes in poverty levels. Some accuse Clinton of not ending poverty, but rather re-vamping welfare in a way that changed nothing but the definition. To be fair, as I do not know what then occurred under Bush, it would seem that Bush is receiving the benefit of the changed definition Clinton created, and still comes up with less stellar statistics. Then again, I am rather certain that the definition changed again under Bush.

Any way you cut it, it appears that the poverty level is an entirely political number, and rarely something measured in an identical fashion even from year to year and within the same administration. The little bit I've read leads me to believe that political entities are apt to artificially inflate or deflate the threshold in order to set themselves up to "improve" it the next year, despite there not being any true realized change for the families who are negatively economically impacted.

ETA: I am finding very interesting statistics that make it clear how much spinning can be done with legitimate facts. Did you know that the number of Americans without health insurance coverage rose in 2005? Well, it did. Then again, the number of Americans WITH health insurance also rose in 2005. Using raw numbers, both were up. Using percentages, the percentage of individuals with health insurance coverage went up that year. Then again, while our family has a 2,050 deductible and co-pay scenario before Blue Cross kicks in at 100%, my neighbor has a 20,000 deductible, and my sister-in-law whose husband is unionized has been heard to whine that they actually have a deductible of $100, when they used to have everything covered at 100% from the get-go, from eyecare to teeth cleanings to labor and delivery. So just saying "has health care coverage" doesn't give a very full picture, either...

and even with the last few "crunching of numbers" to the good or to the bad between the last two administrations...it does not represent the current status... the latest date that I saw in the last few posts is almost (depending on the month) 2 years old.

__________________
SPJRNTGADL!

Dreamscapes, from what I am seeing, they make guesstimates along the way based upon unemployment claims, but in fact the more highly refined numbers are not brought forth for a year or sometimes two, and they are particularly measured in-depth during census years.

One example of an issue that is sometimes measured and sometimes not relates to health insurance benefits. Say you were generally poor, but had a medical condition and received $100,000 in medical benefits. Are those part of your income? Or say you only earned $10,000, but you inherited $400,000 from a relative two years ago and have decided to cut back on work for several years and live off that kitty. According to government numbers, you are below the poverty line.

Noting today's jobless claims doesn't take into account the many things that are brought out by the more in-depth, less-frequent deeper studies.

We are doing FAR better than at any time that we've been married (11 years). In the past 8 months, we've managed to pay off almost all of our debt (besides vehicles) and two of the vehicles will just about be paid off by the end of the year. We chose Alaska because it has great wages for both civilian and military. No state income tax. Each year, thanks to Bush's tax cuts, we still manage to get a refund, which we in turn invest in the economy. It's working for us so I certainly can't complain.

__________________
Proud Wife of an Army Soldier and proud mother of an Army MP currently serving in Iraq.


"To any critics who say a woman can't think and work and carry a baby at the same time, I'd just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave." - Sarah Palin

I guess it depends on your definition of 'better off'.

Personally, I think my family is in a better place now than we were a few years ago, but it has nothing to do with the President or politics. It has to do with DH & I setting goals, making choices and doing things to get where we want to be. We don't rely on the government to determine where we are in life -- we make changes and get there ourselves.

I think since 9/11 and 'Homeland Security' and lot of things have become much more difficult and I don't feel any safer now than I did before 9/11. In fact, most of the time I feel less safe now because I think so much of the Homeland Security stuff (especially the TSA) is just for show, to make people think we are a lot safer than we really are.

Sarah......mom to Jason & Devin