Time to Redefine Poverty
You’ll be hearing that mantra from the left pretty soon because poverty rates are lower under Bush than they were under Clinton. That means the Republicans can look into the camera next fall and ask Americans, “Are you better off now than you were eight years ago.” For those at the bottom of the econmic ladder, the answer must be, “Yes!”
Leftist economists still claim that supply side economics and stimulation through tax cuts are fantasies. They also claim that the rich get richer. Well, the poor get richer, too. The Census Bureau numbers prove it. When the AP headline screams “pover rate declines significantly,” you know there’s something to talk about, and The Conservative Post wastes no time starting the conversation.
Bush’s tax cuts have resulted in large numbers of those who were just below the poverty line stepping over that line into lower-middle class. As Captain Ed points out, the details of the report show that poverty among seniors is at its lowest level since the Eisenhower administration–before Johnson’s Great Society wealth confiscication schemes drove the old people to the poor house. I would also give some credit to welfare reform under Gingrich’s Congress and Clinton’s administration. While Clinton might have been brought kicking and screaming to the table, he had the courage to sign the legislation, which is, by far, the pinnacle of his legacy.
Moreover, this proves beyond reasonable argument that drug prices are not driving seniors into poverty. Instead, the less invasive treatment available through drug therapy is keeping seniors economically and physically active, improving their standards of living.
Liberals will demand a change to the way the Census Bureau calculates or defines poverty. The left wants lots and lots of poor people and lots more who think they’re poor, because people who can help themselves never vote Democrat.
The next time you pass an empty street corner where a homeless bum used to be, thank a Republican: we’re making everyone’s life better.