KD: Still, looking at this chart, it's sure hard to convince myself that welfare reform had any effect at all on actual poverty rates.

sweetheart, that's because "welfare reform" wasn't supposed to affect poverty rates. not in any real world sense. so you tell someone they can't have public assistance for life, they can only have it for three years, and only if they have kids. how's that supposed to lower poverty? you tell people, oh you're supposed to work now, give them a little bit of job training, and just enough education to get a minimum wage job. throw in some child care while they're looking for work or in school, but none when they actually get a job. all you get is people living in a different kind of poverty.

well not really different, just not getting any support while they're trying to live.

it's a beautiful system if what you care about is demonizing poor people and/or ignoring their problems.

not so beautful if you have to live that way or, y'kno actually give a shit.

You know, just yesterday that helpful chap (or chapette) known as GOP was telling us how we all were misguided about the effects of the Bush junta on wages, poevery, etc.

And today, the government itself destroys his/her arguments.

It's tough to be a Bush junkie, when he's just not that into you.

Great point, Kevin, and there's another one that will blow the historical myth that LBJ's Great Society was such a great "failure".

Take a look at the same chart - but start it in 1960 or 1945. What you'll see is a huge drop in the poverty rate in the mid and late 60s. You, know, during the time that the Great Society supposedly wasn't working to attain its goal, reducing poverty.

The GOP myth makers succeeded in labeling the whole project as a failure, obscuring the basic fact that government intervention does work, however, imperfectly, sometimes.

See, Bush's policy is making poverty rate go up, so that the poor really see that it only pays to be rich!

And the abortion rate mirrors that curve, so that Bush can show how abortion is murder!

I think it is good news that it had no impact on the poverty rate. As i understand it, the government took a step back from providing assistance/support/subsidies/crutch and the poverty rate did not go up.

So perhaps that aid was not so necessary in the first place.

One can wonder what else the government can cut back on with no ill effects.

Poverty rate measure does not measure any goverment grants to poor families.

So if I got $100,000 from welfare and $10,000 from a private job. I would still be below the poverty line, because the $100,000 isn't measured in the statistics.

The poverty line is totally meaningless since no government action can put people above the poverty line.

So family of 4 makes $15k in part time salary they are below the poverty line, even if they get $800 month housing grant, $700 month health insurance, $500 month food stamps. To sensible people this family is now making $39,000 a year and are above the poverty line, unfortunetly government data doesn't measure this.

So the republicans can always say, see government programs don't work because we still have the same number of people below the poverty line. And the democrats can say, there are poor people we need these government programs.

They are both lairs. And until people pay attention to what the data actually measures they wil continue to play this game on us.

Kevin,

Does that convenient annotation show when welfare reform took effect, as in, the law was passed, or does it show when welfare refore took effect, as in, a couple years later some people got kicked off welfare because they hit lifetime limits?

Reducing the poverty rate wasn't the only goal of the "reform" in '96. Look at a chart showing combined Federal and State spending on "welfare" programs. If that shows a decrease (and I don't know that it would) during the time the poverty rate was doing pretty much what the macroeconomic situation would lead you to expect it to do, that's a success. The same results at a lower cost is a GOOD thing.

I haven't seen any discussion of the specifically exempted groups such as the Hmong.

What? You didn't know?

It doesn't show any effect because you've put the arrow in the wrong place. If you move the arrow to 1996, you'll see an inflection in the previously levelling line.

You know, that graph would be really informative if only it had numbers on the y-axis.

You know, that chart correlates pretty nicely with the overall movements in the economy too.

It also doesn't say anything about social mobility and that's important when talking about poverty and the effects of the reform.

...lift the poor out of poverty once they got back to work.

One of the key features of capitalism is the dependence on scarcity to act as an engine of rational choice. “You can go hungry; you can be homeless; so you better get your ass moving.”

This is much more the case in American style capitalism. It is something we need to change. How can we change this without overly subsidizing irrational behavior seems to be the trillion dollar question.

no name,

I agree. Without a scale on the Y axis there is no way to tell if this is anything but noise.

Does anyone else notice the (albeit slight) trend downward immediately following enactment of the Clinton Welfare Reform Act and the REVERSAL in that trend line after 2000? Clinton's Welfare Reform efforts were real and they worked.

19th century economists talked about the iron law of wages, the idea that wages (at least for unskilled workers) would tend to fall to subsistence levels. That's because employers can always find someone to do the job for less money, as long as it's enough to survive.

People used to talk about how the iron law had been disproven. But only labor unions, the minimum wage, and the dole stand in its way, and business and its political friends have scored major successes against all three.

Forcing people to work, and giving government aid to the working poor, lets employers do even better. They can pay their workers below a subsistence wage, and let the taxpayers make up the difference. Thanks, Bill.

Clinton's welfare reform, if anything, put downward pressure on wages for unskilled laborers, by increasing the number of applicants. Add in 12 million undocumented workers and decades of union-busting, and the decline in the real value of the minimum wage, and the result isn't surprising.

There's one positive effect: we no longer hear talk of the lazy welfare queens. But it's small comfort.

Now, if the right-wing would just get serious about corporate welfare reform, which is where we really piss away a lot of tax dollars!

Of course, the prevailing "conservative" philosophy in America is to privatize the gains and socialize the losses. Look at the $13+ billions in tax breaks that were doled out to oil companies in 2005. Like they really needed those, with oil prices exceeding $70 a barrel. Ludicrous.

How different would the poverty rate have been if immigration hadn't increased so much in the 1990s? We've had a huge influx of people earning low wages, starting before 1996 and accelerating. If you were to exclude them, the poverty rate for the rest of us may have fallen faster. Certainly many immigrants (and not just illegals) do not apply for TANF, but might show up in survey statistics.

And anyway, the point of welfare reform wasn't to reduce poverty, it was to reduce welfare. Liberals at the time were concerned that ending welfare would destroy the safety net that people needed if they lost their jobs and couldn't find new ones before unemployment ran out. If our fears had been realized, poverty would have risen.

I guess we as a country could have used the money saved from welfare to reduce poverty, but it doesn't seem like that's happened, has it.

Looks more like the poverty rate is just the inverse of how the economy is doing. Economy up, poverty down and vice versa... (I'm not saying it's one-to-one or anything - just general)

The need for welfare reform was recognized during the Johnson administration because the way it was operating was forcing men from the home. Back then the fucking conservatives blocked any effort at reform because they feared it would become too successful and make the government actually look competent and their goal was to denigrate government at every turn, this was when Ronnie was running around the country claiming that if medicare was passed we would one day be telling our children what is was once like in America when men were free. Those fuckers haven't changed one fucking bit.

craigie: It's tough to be a Bush junkie, when he's just not that into you.

Outstanding.

I have to point out again and again, "The Mystery of Capital" by DeSoto.

The major cause of poverty in the world, in general, has been restrictions by governments that prevent the working poor from earning a fair return from their private sector enterprises. These restrictions are sometime outright prohibition and other times just the burden of government on the private sector.

I can give you an example:

In south Fresno, California; a government permited septic tank is $1500; getting the city to expand its boundary by a half mile and bringing sewage is $7,000 per lot; and putting in a perfectly working home made septic system is $100. A big difference.

The city would love to expand its boundaries down this area, but the city price is that we new citizens bear a large responsibilities for the $9,000 per year cost of providing health insurance for city employees and their spouses for life; hence the $7,000 cost to dig a sewage line from the middle of the street to the edge of the lot.

So, we engage in the underground economy, and industrial expansion is stalled. The banks do not recognize our activities, so we keep all the net income, and even the federal taxes are lost. The cost of government, indirect and direct is 40% of anything you or I do in the private sector. To legally hire the guy down the street to dig a ditch, I must first account for the giving government or its agents 40% of any money I generate by having my neighbor dig a ditch. It is not a fantasy. Just selling beans legally requires an initially investment of $10,000 to get past the city and other government requirements. The best legal activity we can muster is setting up a farmers market, and that alone is $4,000 up front to the county, even though were are legally allowed this business by virtue of being zoned agriculture.

The Mexicans do much better because neither they not the government recognize each other. They use throw away cars. It is cheaper to run a low cost, illegal, $500 car in rural Fresno until the cops impound it, then just get nother. Actually a sort of thriving business in providing these cars.

All of the small grocers were grandfathered in years ago. The big box markets cannot even see us, we are off the radar. Small corner grocers pocket 80% of their income tax free. Tow companies, metal recyclers, auto repair shops all run off of ag lots, illegal according to county and city. None of the governments see any tax money.

So we have an underground economy, probably close to 35-40% of the entire Fresno county economy, for one simple reason; government expectations are a fantasy. Even so, government still provides over half of the job growth, clearly unsustainable and when major cutbacks come, government employess will be screaming for promises made about life time tenure.

Please, step into my Boskin Commission Shrine, and get down on your knees and pray to the Gods Of Economic Rationality - who can make sense out of any mumbo-jumbo. Read their sacred scripture that shows that because I can buy a Digital Camera manufactured by coerced child labor in China with no safety regulations or pollution controls, that these poor people are actually wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of the Pharohs of ancient Egypt.

Therefore, wealth is increasing!

Wasn't the central provision of the welfare reform that benefits would end after 3 years?

Now look at that chart. 3 years after welfare reform is enacted poverty starts increasing.

I'd say the simpleminded correlation is pretty clear. I don't have huge confidence in that correlation explaining everything, but there it is.

WalMart has made the retail sector so much more efficient, that the grocery-carts homeless people push around today, are better than the Cadillacs they had in 1973. I

t's TRUE!

The McKensey report said so!

You'll just have to poney up the cash for the privilege of reading it, so I will condescend to read your response.

Otherwise, you're an ignorant idiot.

But it sure would have been nice if all those people who put so much energy into getting people off welfare had been able to work up the same level of energy to lift the poor out of poverty once they got back to work.

And as long as we're dreaming, I'd like a pony.

What he said.

It's funny how the second part of these bargains never quite seems to materialize, isn't it

That's centrism for ya.

I love how people say everyone on welfare is a poor sap who is down on their luck and really wants to have a job but can't get one.

The ones I run into have a better car than I do. Where do they keep coming up with money to make that car payment?

NAFTA caused the surge in illegal integration, by absolutely destroying the Mexican rural economy. Suddenly small-time farmers found themselves competing against mechanized, subsidized American agriculture and losing badly.

The choices were crossing the border, becoming a beggar in a large city, or starving.

If the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, then the rich can make the poor, richer.

>To sensible people this family is now making $39,000 a year and are above the poverty line

Remember that next time Instastupid tries to tell you that Sweden is poorer than Mississippi, or similar nonsense.

Ah, you probably won't.

jefff wrote: "Wasn't the central provision of the welfare reform that benefits would end after 3 years?" No, the lifetime cap on benefits is 5 years.

The chart shows the reform took effect when the economy was doing better and poverty went down somewhat, because there were more jobs.

Welfare reform has nothing to do with poverty. The reform just threw people off, there were just more poore people without welfare.

Conclusion, there will be fewer people on welfare if there are jobs, welfare reform or not. Most people want to work and bring home a paycheck.

The reform is just an excuse for a brutal society.

It looks to me like poverty goes down when someone named Clinton is in office and up when someone named Bush is.

That arrow points to the exact moment that I left the Democratic Party and joined the Green Party.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

The ones I run into have a better car than I do. Where do they keep coming up with money to make that car payment?

The ones I run into don't own cars. That's the great thing about anecdotes--you can always find another one.

"I dunno. Maybe welfare reform had other beneficial effects. But it sure would have been nice if all those people who put so much energy into getting people off welfare had been able to work up the same level of energy to lift the poor out of poverty once they got back to work. It's funny how the second part of these bargains never quite seems to materialize, isn't it?"

Kevin, your folksy populist act is wearing thin. If this is all you know about the welfare issue, you know very little. As other commenters have pointed out, the government benefits low-income people receive (Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance), etc. aren't counted as income, so they can't affect the poverty level. The real poverty rate is substantially lower.

But the most shocking thing is, most welfare recipients like the reforms. They don't like being on the dole. They like earning their own way. But paternalistic liberals like you want them on the dole so you can feel sorry for them and good about yourself.

Bush subpoenaed in nsa wiretaps,

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/BREAKING__Bush_White_House_subpoenaed_0829.html

the poverty rate has fluctuated. The mean for the 10 years since passage is lower than the mean for the 10 years before.

Reducing welfare did no net harm, showing that the welfare was probably useless in the first place.

by some amount, the work done by the people who got off welfare contributed to the net wealth of the US, wheras the welfare itself had no net wealth creatin effect.

All-in-all, the net effect of the Clinton welfare reform was positive.

Conservative Deflator:

"Now, if the right-wing would just get serious about corporate welfare reform, which is where we really piss away a lot of tax dollars!"

Tally up total social spending next to total corporate welfare each year and get back to us on that one.

Tally up total social spending next to total corporate welfare each year and get back to us on that one.
Posted by: murphy on August 29, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Considering that our $100 Billion-a-year unnecessary war is essentially corporate welfare for unscrupulous, traitorous, war-profiteering defense contractors like Halliburton, I can't see as how food stamps are even a blip on the radar.

But the most shocking thing is, most welfare recipients like the reforms. They don't like being on the dole. They like earning their own way. But paternalistic liberals like you want them on the dole so you can feel sorry for them and good about yourself.
Posted by: Alan Vanneman on August 29, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Most welfare recipients don't like putting in 60hr weeks for minimum wage, no paid time off, and no health insurance either. They like earning their own way - which; if you count the cost of transportation, food, housing, the minimum wage doesn't even come close to covering. Which means the government makes up the difference with medicaid, public transit, etc - which is essentially subsidizing Corporations who underpay their employees.

If anything can be taken from the chart, it is that Clinton policies -- including but not limited to welfare reform -- reinforced a downward trend in poverty and Bush policy interrupted and reversed the trend. Put this chart together alongside one that shows, say, the effects of a rise in minimum wage on poverty levels and we might see something more interesting and revealing.

FWIW... According to the graph bend upward in poverty rate occured while Clinton was still in office.

sorry... should read, "According to the graph, the bend upward..."

Considering that our $100 Billion-a-year unnecessary war is essentially corporate welfare for unscrupulous, traitorous, war-profiteering defense contractors like Halliburton, I can't see as how food stamps are even a blip on the radar.

Halliburton earned about $21 billion revenues in 2005, with a profit of a little over $2 billion. About the same as what McDonalds pulled down that year. Lost in the noise.

When it comes down to it, almost ALL government spending eventually ends up in the hands of corporations or other businesses, even food stamps.

When it comes down to it, almost ALL government spending eventually ends up in the hands of corporations or other businesses, even food stamps.
Posted by: murphy on August 29, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

People MUST eat.

People are not forced to make up lies to justify bombing a country back to the stone age to create a power vacuum to be filled in by the mullah-cracy next-door.

"At the time of its enactment, liberal groups passionately denounced the welfare reform legislation, predicting that it would result in substantial increases in poverty, hunger, and other social ills. Contrary to these alarming forecasts, welfare reform has been effective in meeting each of its goals.

Child poverty has fallen. Although opponents of reform predicted it would increase child poverty, some 1.6 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995.

Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black children. In the quarter century prior to welfare reform, the old welfare system failed to reduce poverty among black children. Since welfare reform, the poverty rate among black children has fallen at an unprecedented rate from 41.5 percent in 1995 to 32.9 percent in 2004.

Unprecedented declines in poverty also occurred among children of single mothers. For a quarter-century before welfare reform, there was little net decline in poverty in this group. Povertywas only slightly lower in 1995 (50.3 percent) than it had been in 1971 (53.1 percent). After the enactment of welfare reform, the poverty rate for children of single mothers fell at a dramatic rate, from 50.3 percent in 1995 to 41.9 percent in 2004.

Welfare caseloads were cut in half. The AFDC/TANF caseload dropped from 4.3 million families at the time PRWORA was enacted to 1.89 million today.

Employment of single mothers has surged. The employment rate of the most disadvantaged single mothers increased from 50 percent to 100 percent.

The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing has come to a near standstill. For thirty years prior to welfare reform, the percentage of births that were out-of-wedlock rose steadily by about one percentage point per year.The out-of-wedlock birthrate was 7.7 percent in 1965 when the War on Poverty started; by 1995 it had reached 32.2 percent.Following welfare reform, the long-term rapid growth in out-of-wedlock birth rate ended.Although the rate has continued to inch up slowly, the increase is far slower than in the pre-reform period."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/tst071906a.cfm

Welfare reform was the best thing Clinton ever did, and many children are better off today for it.

Welfare reform was the best thing Clinton ever did, and many children are better off today for it.

Yeah, no wonder the Right wanted to impeach him.

"Welfare Reform Bill"

Bill Number: HR 4
Issue: Welfare and Poverty
Date: 12/22/1995
Sponsor:Rep Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. [FL-22]

Roll Call Number: 0613
Conference Report Adopted (Senate)
How members voted

Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=765&can_id=S0421103

Should also be noted that other notable Democrat Senators did not for, or reluctantly supported this bill.

Has there been a change in the definition of "poverty"?

The idea that unrestrained capitalism is bad for the working class is an old joke certainly, those heads of industry would try to maximize their profit to the worker's disadvantage- there are cases in the Supreme Court from the late 1800's and early 1900's where corporations fought state laws that banned chaining children under 14 to a machine for longer that 14 hours a day- on the other hand- without the human means of production- industry simply cannot produce. What we have tried to acheive in the US is a balance of power. It is still balanced against the working class. Communism doesn't work- and the "haves" do not want a level playing field.

Scott Wickham: The poverty line is totally meaningless since no government action can put people above the poverty line.

See Alternative Poverty Estimates in the United States: 2003, June 2005. Among those are alternatives are different measures of income, including non-cash transfers such as food stamps, housing assistance, etc.

While absolute poverty rates and percentages vary significant using different methods, the trends are surprisingly consistent, except for a notable difference for 1999-2000 (see Figure 3).

"NAFTA caused the surge in illegal integration, by absolutely destroying the Mexican rural economy"

Correct I think. The purpose of NAFTA qwas to make the entire North America as efficient as possible. Efficiency is served when we pack in the rural poor to large American cities and feed them fast food. Meanwhile we let large agribusiness mechanize agriculture.

True, but sad. It is more efficient in the sense that the greatest amount of squirrels get their walnuts under this scheme.

Regarding LBJ and the war on poverty, try looking at the GINI index (a tough index to trust however)

http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Stats_incpov.html

Here is one cobbled together. Inequality started rising in 1960 at or about the time Keedy flattened income taxes by the way.

However, about 95% of the benefits of economic growth over the last 25 years have gone to the richest 5% (as this report indicates).

This is an important point because if government is leading the charge in growth with the private sector following, then all the big government liberals and conservatives are just switching the private sector expenses of the rich to the government.

It is not socialism for the poor that helps, but it always seems to be socialism for the rich hurts when taxes are flattened.

The growth of severe poverty
Newswise — Since 2000, Americans have been getting poorer, and national rates of severe poverty have climbed sharply, according to a study published in the October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. The researchers reported that the growth in the poverty rate is due largely to a rise in severe poverty and that “moderate” poverty has grown little.
The percentage of Americans living in severe poverty—earning less than half of the poverty threshold—grew by 20% between 2000 and 2004, and the proportion in higher income tiers fell. The researchers reported that the number of Americans living in severe poverty increased by 3.6 million between 2000 and 2004.
...“The rise in severe poverty is striking children the hardest,” said Woolf. His study found that children under age 5 are twice as likely to be living in severe poverty as the rest of the population. “In 2004, one of three Americans with incomes less than 50% of the poverty threshold—5.6 million people—was a child.” Severe poverty is also dramatically worse among African Americans and Hispanics, and minority children therefore face the greatest risk. The researchers reported that children account for 45% of Hispanic and African Americans living in severe poverty.

Go Bush: Comfort the comfortable; afflict the afflicted. It's another Republican success story for everyone to admire.

Re: severe poverty, much as I would like to attribute this to Bush, this is the real effect of the Welfare Reform so lauded by the clowns above.

免费铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 三星手机铃声 三星铃声 诺基亚铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 移动铃声下载 nokia铃声 波导手机铃声 手机游戏免费下载 免费手机游戏 手机小游戏 诺基亚手机游戏 三星手机游戏下载 nokia手机游戏 摩托罗拉手机游戏 手机小电影 mp4手机电影下载 手机看电影 免费手机电影 手机视频下载 nec手机铃声 联想手机铃声 摩托罗拉铃声 amr铃声 手机彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 炫铃 移动炫铃 手机酷铃 手机电影 夏新手机铃声 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 联通彩铃下载 联通炫铃下载 特效铃声 midi铃声 和弦铃声 搞笑铃声 原唱铃声 mid铃声 cect手机铃声 和炫和旋铃声 海尔手机铃声 索爱手机铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 康佳手机铃声 真人真唱铃声 mmf铃声下载 lg手机铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 短信铃声 来电铃声 西门子铃声 小灵通铃声下载 tcl手机铃声 手机图片 手机铃音 手机动画 图铃下载 手机游戏 手机炫铃下载 手机彩信 手机铃声图片 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内裤 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫电影 美女波霸 美女淫水 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片

Maybe simplistic chart reading, but the last two recessions were preceded by a noticeable shift in the poverty rate. Of course the last uptick also roughly corresponds to the three-year cut off for benefits imposed by welfare reform.

…Welfare reform was the best thing Clinton ever did, and many children are better off today for it. Jay 6:19 PM

Here is the source of the above information. It's a centerist site, but it often presents useful economic data.

Otherwise, you're an ignorant idiot.

Noodle,

Your parody of Birkel left out the fuckin-moron this and the shit-for-brains that and the bit about raping someone's grandfather.

Take a look at "Waging a Living" on P.O.V. on your PBS station. Or read "Nickled and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich to see actual individual cases of hard working poor people with pluck who still find it hard to survive.

If your wage increases from $8 to $11 an hour you loose child care, medical, food stamps and housing help. The result? You make less than you did before your raise.

Half of the 48 million or more people without health coverage are full time working poor.

Holbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he ays that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, whenhe says it shuld be a last resort, he obviously meansthat too: he devoted ucounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argument when the subject turned to Iran. Diplomacy is not, he reminded Kristol, in and of itself a sign of weakness. Of course we should be willing to ta

"Halliburton earned about $21 billion revenues in 2005, with a profit of a little over $2 billion. About the same as what McDonald's pulled down that year." -- murphy

And your point is WHAT, exactly? That if two companies make similar profits, one of the companies could not possibly have come by those profits dishonestly?

I'm a vegetarian, so I don't spend much time at McDonald's, but I'm guessing they're not selling our soldiers Big Macs for twenty bucks a pop, "losing track" of hundreds of millions of dollars, and being reprimanded by the GAO for misappropriation of funds and other improprieties.

It's a sad commentary on Halliburton that they could be slopping up so much money at the public trough and still not turn a better profit. Clearly whoever is running the joint now isn't doing any better a job than Cheney did--not that his poor management skills stopped him from getting a $40 million golden parachute, for favors previously and yet to be rendered...

As many above have pointed out, these poverty numbers do not include most of the things that are actually done to try and alleviate poverty : EITC, food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid. So they are a guide to the number of people who need help: they’re not a guide to how many people actually get help or how much of it they get.
Strangely, at least some of (and no, I don’t know how much) the rise in the poverty rate since the Great Society days is down to exactly that point, how the numbers are calculated. Welfare payments (by which I mean all aid to the poor) have steadily been moving, over the decades, from straight cash payments to the use of the tax system (EITC) and benefits in kind. Those latter two are not included, whereas the cash payments were. So while we’ve been spending more on poverty alleviation, the poverty rate itself has been increasing (most certainly from where it would be if we counted all the aid as cash transfers), simply because we do not count the extra money being spent.

csHello. I am new here. It is very interesting. panty fetish videos|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/panty-fetish-videos.html
trans pantyhose|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/trans-pantyhose.html
free xxx stockings|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/free-xxx-stockings.html
free shemale porn galleries|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/free-shemale-porn-galleries.html
sexy black stockings|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/sexy-black-stockings.html
buy used wet panties|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/buy-used-wet-panties.html
sex pantyhose|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/sex-pantyhose.html
free porn pic galleries|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/free-porn-pic-galleries.html
mature woman pantyhose|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/mature-woman-pantyhose.html
cum covered pantyhose|http://pantyhosebang.pornoszones.com/cum-covered-pantyhose.html

Something important is missing from this chart, and I'm not the one to tell you how to add it. But the gist is this.

First, the "poverty line" is well below what actual poverty is, as I am sure you well know, because it hasn't been updated in like a hundred years.

So, the chart needs to include some factor that shows how people who are in on-the-street poverty are doing.

Second, the economy changed significantly over that window, and that needs to be factored in somehow too, so that the long decrease that coincides with the economic boom might just turn out to be a long flat period. (And I suppose, to be fair, the uptick that coincides with the recession might be flat too, although I'd guess it'd actually be steeper, because during a recession everyone suffers but the poor suffer the most.)

Anyway, those two factors need to be added in (somehow), and I suspect that they will (a) change your conclusions and (b) horrify people who care about the poor in this country even more.

csMy URLs is glamour teen models|http://rentateen.pornoszones.com/glamour-teen-models.html
gay teen boy sex|http://rentateen.pornoszones.com/gay-teen-boy-sex.html
teen webcams|http://rentateen.pornoszones.com/teen-webcams.html
free teen sex movies|http://rentateen.pornoszones.com/free-teen-sex-movies.html
teens wearing thongs to young|http://rentateen.pornoszones.com/teens-wearing-thongs-to-young.html
free nude teens|http://rentateen.pornoszones.com/free-nude-teens.html
black teen girls|http://rentateen.pornoszones.com/black-teen-girls.html
german teen models|http://rentateen.pornoszones.com/german-teen-models.html
teen girls naked|http://rentateen.pornoszones.com/teen-girls-naked.html
fresh teenage sex|http://rentateen.pornoszones.com/fresh-teenage-sex.html

csHi. This is my links. http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncestmomandson.html
mom son free gallery
1ncest story archive
http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncesttwin1esbiansistersnud3.html
http://tuupi.poes.net/stories1ncest101ita.html
1ncest teen
http://tuupi.poes.net/
http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncestteen.html
http://tuupi.poes.net/familys3xstory.html
http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncestlove.html

From the graph one can see that welfare reform has no effect on poverty. Anyone shown this graph inadvertedly, would be utterly unable to point to a breakpoint event.

I'm pontificating that the tax dollar expenses for welfare have not dropped either. It's very simple: people have to be able to live or else they'll steal and kill. Thomas Hobbes pointed that out very clearly a couple hundred years ago.

csLook this bestiality trailers
male zoophilia
http://dogsex.pornfilmssales.com/cute-animal-photos.html
beastility free
http://dogsex.pornfilmssales.com/beastiality-drawings.html
toon bestiality
monkey bestiality
relatos zoofilia
free animal sex video clips
http://dogsex.pornfilmssales.com/sex-with-horse-gallery.html

csThis is very sadly, but such resource are exists: albino black sheep|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/albino-black-sheep.html
black teen pussy|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/black-teen-pussy.html
huge black cock|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/huge-black-cock.html
black on blonde|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/black-on-blonde.html
the black plague|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/the-black-plague.html
black sexy models|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/black-sexy-models.html
black beauty|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/black-beauty.html
fat black pussy|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/fat-black-pussy.html
big black women with asses|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/big-black-women-with-asses.html
black eyed peas lyrics|http://blackhoes.theamateur.us/black-eyed-peas-lyrics.html

csOhh, this is bad but interesting plump sex|http://fatporn.takegirls.com/plump-sex.html
chubby fuck|http://fatporn.takegirls.com/chubby-fuck.html
huge fat cocks|http://fatporn.takegirls.com/huge-fat-cocks.html
gay fat men|http://fatporn.takegirls.com/9ay-fat-men.html
fat gay porn|http://fatporn.takegirls.com/fat-gay-porn.html
chubby wife|http://fatporn.takegirls.com/chubby-wife.html
bbw lesbian|http://fatporn.takegirls.com/bbw-lesbian.html
fat white ass|http://fatporn.takegirls.com/fat-white-ass.html
fat women nude|http://fatporn.takegirls.com/fat-women-nude.html
sexy fat girls|http://fatporn.takegirls.com/sexy-fat-girls.html