35.9 Million Americans at Poverty Level - Up 1.3 million from Last year

[question]

taken from > CNN Money <

Poverty spreads
Census Bureau says 1.3 million more slipped into poverty last year; health care coverage also drops.
August 26, 2004: 12:33 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million last year, up by 1.3 million, while the number of those without health care insurance rose to 45 million from 43.6 million in 2002, the U.S. government said in a report Thursday.

The percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty rose to 12.5 percent from 12.1 percent -- as the poverty rate among children jumped to its highest level in 10 years, the Census Bureau said in an annual report. The rate for adults 18-to-64 and 65-and-older remained steady.

The bureau also said the share of aggregate income for the lowest 20 percent of Americans fell to 3.4 percent from 3.5 percent.

Democratic politicians were quick to seize on the new data, and none was quicker than their presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. He said the statistics "underscore the fundamental choice at stake in this election."

"Four more years of an administration that puts the narrow interests of the few ahead of the interests of most Americans, or new leadership that will serve as a champion for the middle-class and those struggling to join it," he said in a written statement.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., released a statement noting that the Census data covered the year 2003 and "does not include the full effect of the president's tax relief."

Gregg, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, took aim at Kerry, accusing the Massachusetts senator of planning to raise taxes and increase government spending and regulation.

Kerry has argued Bush's economic stewardship, including three rounds of tax cuts since 2001, has done more to help wealthy Americans than the poor or middle class.

But analysts have said the poverty rate typically tracks the broad economy, rising during a recession and falling in boom times. America has struggled to recover from the 2001 slump, and job creation has lagged behind overall growth.

Children and most racial minorities again fared worse than the overall population in 2003, according to the Census report. The rate of child poverty rose to 17.6 percent from 16.7 percent in 2002 -- boosting the number of poor children to 12.9 million.

The poverty rate of of African Americans remained nearly twice the national rate, with 24.4 percent of blacks living below the poverty line in 2003, slightly higher from 24.1 percent a year earlier.
Hispanic incomes decline

While the real median income for the entire country remained steady, households with Hispanic householders, who can be of any race, reported a decline in median income of 2.6 percent.

Non-Hispanic white household median income remained about $48,000, black households held at $30,000, while Asian households were steady at $55,500.

The West, at $46,820, Northeast, at $46,742, and Midwest, at $44,732, saw no change in median household income, but the South fell 1.5 percent to $39,823.

Women saw a decline in their earnings for the first time since 1995, falling 0.6 percent to $30,724, putting the female-to-male earnings ratio -- for full-time, year-round workers -- at 76 cents on the dollar, a penny lower than 2002.

Health care coverage also dropped last yeart, the Census Bureau said, seen by some as an important scorecard on the nation's economy and Bush's first term in office.

According to the data, more people were covered by Medicare and Medicaid in 2003 than in 2002, while the percentage and number of people covered by their employers fell from 61.3 percent -- 175.3 million people -- to 60.4 percent, or 174 million people.

Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for the poor, saw an increase in people covered to 35.6 million from 33.2 million while those covered by Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly, rose to 39.5 million from 38.4 million people.

The Office of Management and Budget at the Census Bureau defined the poverty threshold in 2003 as $18,810 for a family of four; $14,680 for a family of three; $12,015 for a family of two; and $9,393 for an individual.

[Anal Seepage]

Originally Posted by question

taken from > CNN Money <

The percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty rose to 12.5 percent from 12.1 percent

"Four more years of an administration that puts the narrow interests of the few ahead of the interests of most Americans

12% is not the majority.

[transparentaura]

Its not the majority, but it is an appalling statistic. A country where a family can have two working parents employed full time earning less than enough to support themselves and not covered by some sort of medical insurance is not a civilized nation. The new overtime laws are another example of an administration thats main concern is corporate profit. In their ongoing effort to reduce labor costs do they ever consider the hardships that the american workers must deal with everyday and the societal cost we all must bear as a result of growing poverty.

[dfwtrader]

i agree that poverty is appalling but keep in mind that statistics can be skewed. you must ask yourself, how many of those are illegal immigrants that moved to this country last year, how many are unemployed, how many are druggies or alcholics. all of that number does not fall into "the working poor". in reality "the working poor" is more appalling than the poverty level, but americans have grown this entitlement attitude. they need to learn to live within the means. the poverty level is 12 grand for a couple. im not saying it would be easy. but a cheap apartment, reasonable food cost and one car to share is not slumming. yeah, its not the american dream, but suck it up and pull yourself out of it if you want more. i did it, you know people who have done it....there is not one thing saying that having health insurance and wealth is an inalienable right. and its your pursuit of happiness, not me or anyone else carrying you to happiness.



just my $.02

j

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by dfwtrader

i agree that poverty is appalling but keep in mind that statistics can be skewed.

Actually they are tested on 3 different measures that sample 3 different ways, 3 different sets of samples, and measure 3 different ways. They all show the same data.

you must ask yourself, how many of those are illegal immigrants that moved to this country last year, how many are unemployed, how many are druggies or alcholics. all of that number does not fall into "the working poor". in reality "the working poor" is more appalling than the poverty level, but americans have grown this entitlement attitude. they need to learn to live within the means.

Stick to the point. Possibly, you should look into reading the Census data and finding that out for yourself.

the poverty level is 12 grand for a couple. im not saying it would be easy. but a cheap apartment, reasonable food cost and one car to share is not slumming. yeah, its not the american dream, but suck it up and pull yourself out of it if you want more. i did it, you know people who have done it....there is not one thing saying that having health insurance and wealth is an inalienable right. and its your pursuit of happiness, not me or anyone else carrying you to happiness

There's a number of economists who suggest the real poverty level, that is basically covering the means to survive, is at very least 120% of the established poverty level, if not 150%. It might be possible for a couple to live on $12,000 in a small town or a lower income area, but if you live in a bigger city or a suburb, the chances of that being true is simply incorrect. If you live in a shitty apartment in the suburbs here, even in say the midcities, the best you might get is $200 for an efficiency, but more likely $300-$400 for a 1 bedroom. And that's generously low. Even at $200/mo that's 20% of your income, plus another 10% for taxes, plus car insurance, plus gas, plus electricity, plus water, plus food and that's pretty much it. If some sort of emergency occurs, there's no money to take care of it, which means one car accident or one health problem could put your "living within limits" couple on the street.

What you're suggesting is that it is simply acceptable for people to be poor, to not have health care, to live substantially beneath the rest of the population. Maybe you think that way, but not all of us do. (Before you respond about entitlements, that's not what I'm suggesting.)

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by MasterTarvis

12% is not the majority.

But it is a much larger percentage of the population Bush has not addressed, while he very clearly gave great attention to the top 1% of the nation. Moreover, poverty ranks among people as one of the most important issues to be resolved, which does indeed make it an interest of the majority over the few.

[Anal Seepage]

I was just point out Kerry's flawed stance on the statistics. that is all. and was in no way endorsing either campain for the presidency. I mearly think he should have worded his interview differently.

[bfp]

I wonder what the answer to all of these problems are? There are several rebutalls released today about the misleading articles that I've yet to read.

Maybe the figures are from 2003? Over the past year we have seen 1.7 million jobs. What is classified as poor?

I will get back to this in a bit.

[transparentaura]

[QUOTE=dfwtrader]i agree that poverty is appalling but keep in mind that statistics can be skewed. you must ask yourself, how many of those are illegal immigrants that moved to this country last year, how many are unemployed, how many are druggies or alcholics. all of that number does not fall into "the working poor". in reality "the working poor" is more appalling than the poverty level, but americans have grown this entitlement attitude. they need to learn to live within the means. the poverty level is 12 grand for a couple. im not saying it would be easy. but a cheap apartment, reasonable food cost and one car to share is not slumming. yeah, its not the american dream, but suck it up and pull yourself out of it if you want more. i did it, you know people who have done it....there is not one thing saying that having health insurance and wealth is an inalienable right. and its your pursuit of happiness, not me or anyone else carrying you to happiness.



This argument is insulting to working Americans. Why should we have to continually adjust our standard of living downward to facillitate the holy grail of a greater return for the share holders. By all measures productivity is at its highest levels ever, yet real wages continue to decline. It is well documented that in the last 20 years the compensation for the average CEO has gone from approx. 40 X the wage of hourly workers to over 400 X hourly workers wages. Has their productivity justified this? Are you going to tell someone working 2 or 3 jobs to suck it up and work harder? Since the Reagan revolution launched a massive redistribution of wealth upward to the top there has been an increase in crime, drug abuse, homelessness and just about every other negative statistic. For some, education is a way out of the working class, but it is simply not realistic to think that everyone can become an educated professional, there isn't room in middle management for everyone, someone has to work. That so called "entitlement attitude" is a crock of shit along the lines of Reagans "cadillac driving welfare queens" comment and a self serving justification for greed as a philosophy and social darwinism by those already in power. The societal benefits of a more equitable distribution of wealth are obvious and in the long term would profit those on top greatly. But instead we have a, grab all you can now, you won't be around for the aftermath anyway, culture. Its offensive to dismiss a desire to earn a fair wage, have healthcare available to you, to take care of less fortunate members of society, to afford time off work to spend with your children as unearned entitlements. Society pays one way or another, whether its up front for living wages, education and healthcare or on the back end for prisons, emergency rooms and morgues. Individual achievement is commendable but it is arrogant to believe that you owe nothing to society beyond your shining example and tired bootstrap platitudes.

[Adam D]

well said.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by bfp

I wonder what the answer to all of these problems are? There are several rebutalls released today about the misleading articles that I've yet to read.

Wage equality.

Maybe the figures are from 2003?

Yes.

Over the past year we have seen 1.7 million jobs. What is classified as poor?

www.census.gov

I will get back to this in a bit.

You mean once somebody tells you what to think.

[thumpcbd]

Adam,

I am taking a look at http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html (thanks for the root link btw), but in reading it, it looks like its possible for someone who is well off to still qualify as poor since they are only taking into account income, albeit income from variouse sources. However they are not taking into account someones ballance sheet. Let me see if I can create an example that would show you what I mean.


Person A -- Investor taking a sabattical. Earns no paycheck for one year and is fully invested in the stock market, lets say he has $25million just for grins. All the stocks he is invested in don't pay a dividend. He will not earn any money from intrest, or dividends, however according to the govt. he is poor.

Am I misreadin this? This looks like a case where the definition of poor has been created to inflate the number of folks that fall into the category.

Casey

Originally Posted by Adam D

Wage equality.

Pay a doctor what you pay a cab driver?

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by MasterTarvis

I was just point out Kerry's flawed stance on the statistics. that is all. and was in no way endorsing either campain for the presidency. I mearly think he should have worded his interview differently.

He didn't say a majority of people were in poverty. He said the administration "puts the narrow interests of the few ahead of the interests of most Americans," and I agree with him. Whether or not Kerry would do any better is questionable.

[bfp]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Pay a doctor what you pay a cab driver?

The term 'wage equality' scares me.