In 2008, the poverty rate was 13.2%, or 39.8 million people. In 2009, it had risen to 14.3%, or 43.6 million people. The percent of Americans without health coverage also rose from 15.4% to 16.7%, mostly due to a loss of employer-provided health insurance. Many people (typically Republicans) blame the Obama administration. They claim that it is his fault that the poverty rate increased since the Bush administration, and that his help plans are not working. However, Obama states that it could have been much worse. Through his Recovery Act, he believes that he has kept millions of Americans out of poverty. Although his programs include providing tax relief and income support, many Republicans argue that these are not the right solutions. They say that people need jobs, not just government benefits. The Obama administration has created a new health law that will cover millions more impoverished people, but it will not be implemented until 2014. Therefore, the situation does show signs of improving any time soon.
This is interesting because the country is facing the same issues that it has countless times throughout history. The Republicans are fighting for a "trickle down" method in which money is granted to businesses first so that impoverished people eventually have steady jobs, while the Democrats vie for the "trickle up" method in which impoverished people are given money right away. Typically, I would side with the "trickle up" method, but seeing how badly the poverty rate has increased makes me think twice. Although I understand the reasoning behind the "trickle down" method, I am still uneasy about the fact that money is not given directly to those who need it. If only there was some way to combine "trickle down" and "trickle up" so we wouldn't have to choose...
Thoughts?
5 comments:
These are shocking numbers indeed, and they put the whole situation in perspective. A lot of people seem to have the mindset that Obama is not doing anything to help the economy back on track. The truth is that he is working to the best of his ability. People's expectations are too high. They expect Obama to fix this in the blink of an eye, but it took much longer than that to get in this mess so it'll take a long time to get out of it. Furthermore, Republicans aren't making it easier for Obama to pass any bills. Of course they are inclined to be against anything Democrats are for, but at this time they can't focus on their political differences. With a number this high, they need to focus on what's best for the country, not how to have their party in power. As for the trickle down or trickle up methods, I'm not sure which sounds better to me. Both are ideas that sound good in theory, and I believe that the trickle up method is better because I'm not sure if the corperations would use that money immediately to hire people, whereas poorer people would have no choice but to spend that money on necessities. This problem isn't going to go away that quickly and it will not be easy for Obama to tackle this problem fully. Hopefully he won't let us down.
I agree with Gurjote. Obama is working to the best of his ability and it's not like hes trying to let down our country. However, there is a part I do not agree with. Despite working to the best of his ability, he still needs to step it up. Yes, he is working hard, but it's not his effort that counts. The people don't care about how much he has to do or what stress hes going through. They only care about how he will solve the nation's poverty problems and to them, it's not how hard he works but the results and benefits to the American economy. He's been in term for close to two years already and theres only two more years till elections come by again. If he doesn't start implementing changes or show that the economy is getting better, he'll hardly have a chance to get re-elected. A presidential term lasts only four years before re-election and he needs to prove, in that short span of time, that he can solve America's worst problems if he wants to be re-elected again.
Poverty is one of the most serious problems facing this country, and one that is not getting nearly enough attention from either side of the spectrum. To solve the problem would require some serious shifting of national priorities, and cooperation from both parties. We can't expect Obama to accomplish anything significant all by himself.
From the very start of Obama's term, he has been quite frank with us. He knows he cannot solve the problems of America alone in his 4-year term. Like Gurjote said, people are expecting too much too fast. In Obama's inaugural speech to the nation, he clearly states:
"Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met."
He doesn't claim that it will be BARACK OBAMA that will solve the nation's hardships. He only assures Americans that America will get out of this mess, despite the lengthy journey. He doesn't put his trust in his administration, but rather in the enduring spirit of America itself.
In relation to what Gurjote has said earlier, people ought to keep in mind that Obama has probably the most difficult job that anyone could have. It seems that people have forgotten that he is the PRESIDENT. Yes, he is in charge of our country, and yes, not everybody will agree with what he does. While criticism is always healthy, pointing fingers may not be the best method. After all, it is not Obama who has put these people in poverty.
Personally, in regards to the trickle down or trickle up method, I believe that the trickle down method would be the better choice, in that I think it is more important to have a steady job, in which money is guaranteed at certain intervals, than to just be given money at once.
Post a Comment