Political News: Ranks of Poverty stricken and Uninsured Grows by Millions

wvrevy

Daddy to da' princess, which I guess makes me da'
Joined
Nov 7, 1999
Messages
8,130
But we've "turned the corner", don't ya' know ? :rolleyes:
-------------------
Ranks of Poverty, Uninsured Rose in 2003

WASHINGTON - The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau (news - web sites) reported Thursday.

It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush (news - web sites).

Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau. That was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1 percent in 2002.

The rise was more dramatic for children. There were 12.9 million living in poverty last year, or 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. That was an increase of about 800,000 from 2002, when 16.7 percent of all children were in poverty.

The Census Bureau's definition of poverty varies by the size of the household. For instance, the threshold for a family of four was $18,810, while for two people it was $12,015.

Nearly 45 million people lacked health insurance, or 15.6 percent of the population. That was up from 43.5 million in 2002, or 15.2 percent, but was a smaller increase than in the two previous years.

Meanwhile, the median household income, when adjusted for inflation, remained basically flat last year at $43,318. Whites, blacks and Asians saw no noticeable change, but income fell 2.6 percent for Hispanics to $32,997. Whites had the highest income at $47,777.

Even before release of the data, some Democrats claimed the Bush administration was trying to play down bad news by releasing the reports about a month earlier than usual. They normally are released separately in late September — one report on poverty and income, the other on insurance.

Putting out the numbers at the same time and not so close to Election Day "invite charges of spinning the data for political purposes," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

Census Director Louis Kincannon — a Bush appointee — denied politics played any role in moving up the release date. The move, announced earlier this year, was done to coordinate the numbers with the release of other data.

"There has been no influence or pressure from the (Bush) campaign," Kincannon said Wednesday.

Official national poverty estimates, as well as most government data on income and health insurance, come from the bureau's Current Population Survey.

This year the bureau is simultaneously releasing data from the broader American Community Survey, which also includes income and poverty numbers but cannot be statistically compared with the other survey.

The figures were sure to generate attention regardless of when they were released since they typically serve as a report card of sorts for an administration's socio-economic policies.

Partisan debate figures to be more heated now, when the economy and health care are big issues in the tight presidential election race between Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites).

Since job growth was slow until the second half of 2003 and wages were relatively stagnant, it was likely the report would show an increase in the number of people in poverty, said Sheldon Danzinger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan.

William O'Hare, a researcher with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a private children's advocacy group, expected increases in the number of kids in poverty and without health insurance. He called the changes in the way data is being released "bothersome."



"It makes me wonder whether this statistical agency is being politicized in some way," said O'Hare, who has studied the poverty and health insurance data for over two decades.
 
And this is Bush's fault?

It must be a awful to look around for only bad news. Don't ya think?

Oh, and I met one of your compadres yesterday. My first experience with a fire breathing liberal up close and in person. It was an enlightening experience to say the least.
 
Originally posted by Elwood Blues
And this is Bush's fault?

It must be a awful to look around for only bad news. Don't ya think?

Oh, and I met one of your compadres yesterday. My first experience with a fire breathing liberal up close and in person. It was an enlightening experience to say the least.
When I see him all the time taking credit for how his tax cuts have helped the economy so much, and something like this comes out...you're darn tootin' it's his fault ::yes:: You don't think he'd be crowing it from the rooftops if this report had been positive ? Gimme' a break.

And I don't "look around for negatives" all the time...the daily paper is filled with the miserable failures of this administration, so it doesn't take all that much looking. Of course, I'm sure every paper in the known universe (other than the Washington Times and New York Post...bastions of integrity that they are) is just biased against them, right ? :rolleyes:
 
Poverty will always exist; as the population grows, the ranks of those in poverty will grow as well; the real story is about where you draw the line, where you decide poverty "begins." The increase in the percentage of people in poverty is disheartening, but I wonder, did the line move?
 

I've said it before and I will say it again: Bush is out there on the stump claiming we are all doing so much better because of his policies. Looking for bad news???? Have you seen any good news, other than what Bush is saying, which is clearly different from what is actually happening?
 
Originally posted by danacara
Poverty will always exist; as the population grows, the ranks of those in poverty will grow as well; the real story is about where you draw the line, where you decide poverty "begins." The increase in the percentage of people in poverty is disheartening, but I wonder, did the line move?
1 - The percentage of the population under the pverty line increased, not just the total number. That pretty well negates that.

2 - The poverty line is drawn based on a complicated formula involving the number of people in a household. I can tell you for certain that a family of four is considered to be under the line if they are making less than about $18,500 a year.

3 - No, the line did not move.
 
I've seen plenty of good news myself. Mind you, I don't think Bush is responsible for that.

As for papers, well negative stories sell better than positive ones. It's that simple. No particular bias against any administration.

Danacara, another important point with that is it does not take into account cost of living. $18,000 in NY or DC will hardly cover rent. $18,000 in Mississipi, while not exactly living in the lap of luxury, will go a lot further. It makes a big difference where people under this poverty line are living.
 
Originally posted by danacara
Poverty will always exist; as the population grows, the ranks of those in poverty will grow as well; the real story is about where you draw the line, where you decide poverty "begins." The increase in the percentage of people in poverty is disheartening, but I wonder, did the line move?

Exactly. Not to mention the fact that the poverty numbers don't take into account the non-cash benefits (public housing, Medicaid, food stamps, etc) that these people are receiving. Yes, they have less cash, but they are also receiving lots of non-cash benefit that isn't accounted for.
 
I one believe this so true. Also believe they left off a millions of people this report.

People is living poverty because people can't found no jobs.

Bush have nothing but start a war and took down the American economy.

Until people start getting jobs and the economy is running on all cellars then I start believe Bush.

I very afraid if Bush gets election then the economy is gets worst besides better.


Everyone I have talk have apply for every job that possible can and companies is not hiring. Those people have been lucky enough to find jobs is working for less than 6.00 dollars a hour and not getting 40 hours a week. Believe or not alot those people got college diplomas is for local Burger King or Wal-Mart because that all that can found.

Yes people is living in poverty is sad thing when people won't jobs to support themselves.
 
Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Exactly. Not to mention the fact that the poverty numbers don't take into account the non-cash benefits (public housing, Medicaid, food stamps, etc) that these people are receiving. Yes, they have less cash, but they are also receiving lots of non-cash benefit that isn't accounted for.
This is a good point. I have a family member who definitely falls below the poverty line according to the Census Bureau definition ("the threshold for a family of four was $18,810"). He has a family of 5.

They receive all kinds of public aid, including health care that is practically free (except taxpayers foot the bill for that), food stamps, child care credits, earned income tax credits, Aid to dependent children, and other sources of support and income that is not calculated as "income."

They live in a 3-bedroom house, have 2 pick-up trucks and 1 minivan (all functioning quite well) parked in their driveway, and they just returned from a vacation to FL.

The family is very well fed, nicely clothed. They have multiple TVs with cable on each one. Mom, dad and oldest daughter all have their own cell phone, plus two separate phone lines to the house (1 for mom and dad; 1 for eldest daughter). They just finished purchasing a number of new appliances, including a washer, fridge and stove/oven combo. They are in the process of remodeling a bathroom and making plans for an addition onto the house.

Yet they are classified as living below the poverty line. :confused:
 
Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Exactly. Not to mention the fact that the poverty numbers don't take into account the non-cash benefits (public housing, Medicaid, food stamps, etc) that these people are receiving. Yes, they have less cash, but they are also receiving lots of non-cash benefit that isn't accounted for.
You're joking, right ? So, because these families also receive welfare and or food stamps, they shouldn't be considered poor when trying to support a family of four on $18,000 a year ?!?

And j, I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong on this one. $18,000 a year for a family of four ANYWHERE is going to have you scraping bottom (though, admittedly, not as deeply in some places). Here in WV, I don't know how we'd support a family of three on that, much less with another mouth to feed on top of it...and WV is a relatively cheap place to live.

Now...could someone please translate that last post into English for me :teeth:
 
Originally posted by crazelion
Yes people is living in poverty is sad thing when people won't jobs to support themselves.
BTW, the mom and dad in my previous post -- NEITHER one works full-time, not because they cannot find jobs...

Mom is an RN and there is a major shortage of nurses where she lives. She could get a job in a heartbeat. She chooses to be a SAHM.

Dad works when he wants to in order to be paid "under the table" -- cash only please -- but could easily get a full-time job in several fields he is qualified for.

Sometimes, unfortunately, it is easier and more lucrative to live "under the poverty line" than it is to work for an honest day's pay.
 
Hey, I'm not saying it's a comfortable or manageable living anywhere. But surely it makes a BIG difference where you are. At $18,000/year, obviously you're not doing very well. But if you're in New York City making $18,000/year, that's a lot "poorer" than if you're in rural Louisiana making $18,000/year.

As for the translation, can't help ya there ;)
 
Originally posted by Abracadabra
BTW, the mom and dad in my previous post -- NEITHER one works full-time, not because they cannot find jobs...

Mom is an RN and there is a major shortage of nurses where she lives. She could get a job in a heartbeat. She chooses to be a SAHM.

Dad works when he wants to in order to be paid "under the table" -- cash only please -- but could easily get a full-time job in several fields he is qualified for.

Sometimes, unfortunately, it is easier and more lucrative to live "under the poverty line" than it is to work for an honest day's pay.
Well, then, this man is committing a crime, and you should report it. Period. He obviously is NOT making less than that amount, just reporting less.
 
I know a lot of people who waited to have big families till they could afford them.

YES sometimes these people get laid off, or sick or whatever.

But in my personal experience, I live in a very poverty ridden area (Lawrence, MA). I see a ton of people at my grocery store buying food with food stamps, etc. I'm sure I will get flamed for this, but most of them do not speak English and do not appear to be making any effort to learn, or get work. They often have multiple children.

They live in poverty and it's sad. It's sad for those poor children.

BUT my question to the parents is, why did you CHOOSE to have 4 kids with your current financial situation. It's seems really cruel and selfish to me to have multiple children you can not afford to feed.

This obviously does not apply to people who have by unfortunate chance lost their jobs which has taken them from middle income to poverty. I have met wonderful people on this board who have for one reason or another had to use government assistance in their lives due to unfortunate circumstances and I applaud them for staying strong and trying hard to get ahead. I don't mind my tax dollars helping them out.

Also a good friends mother is very ill and on public assistance. I don't mind my tax dollars going to help out people like her who seriously need help.

But I think it would be interesting to see stats comparing how many of the poor are the ones who are really trying and have lost jobs over the last 4 years and how many are people who are not even looking yet continue to keep having children.

IMO, this is not as black and white an issue as it appears.

Am I saying they deserve to live in poverty and squalor? No, of course not. In an ideal fantasy world everyone would have food and a nice house etc.

But I am saying that there are alot of people (at least in Lawrence, MA) who make a choice to have children, even when they are out of work and not looking.

I REALLY wish that people would seriously consider their financial stability before having kids. Those precious children rely on their parents for food and shelter. It's not fair to THEM. I have to say that the only reason I don't mind my tax dollars going to these people is because I know in most cases, it is going to children who otherwise would not eat. But I WISH that people would think before having a baby (or 4, as in the case of my downstairs neighbor).

I would also like to add that I see excellent news almost every day. The market has it's ups and downs but that has almost always been the case. In my personal life, I only know of two people who have been laid off work because their jobs were elminated. One of them was a friend of mine and she found a better job within weeks of being laid off. The other was another guy who worked here and he ended up working in a similiar position for another company.

I'm sorry. I am struggling to find a better job, just like lots of people and I know it's hard. But I can also tell you with certainty that I will not be having a child until I am financially secure enough to handle it, and if that never happens, so be it.
 
Originally posted by wvrevy
Well, then, this man is committing a crime, and you should report it. Period. He obviously is NOT making less than that amount, just reporting less.

Oh the horror! Imagine someone doing something so outrageous as to take advantage of the welfare system.

I'm shocked, simply shocked!
 
It's funny, I relate to EsmereldaX in the sense that I have a dollar figure in mind to have my first child. It's a specific number, i.e., I (we, I'm not married yet, but it will be we) need to break $X per year for the first, $Y per year for the second ... and I understand how an accident can happen once, but honestly, accidents shouldn't happen multiple times. Not if you're careful.
 
Originally posted by bsnyder
Oh the horror! Imagine someone doing something so outrageous as to take advantage of the welfare system.

I'm shocked, simply shocked!
:rolleyes:

He is doing something ILLEGAL if he is getting paid "under the table"...Do you understand what that word "illegal" means ?
 
You're joking, right ? So, because these families also receive welfare and or food stamps, they shouldn't be considered poor when trying to support a family of four on $18,000 a year ?!?

I guess I typed something and didn't even realize it...where did I say or imply that they shouldn't be considered poor?

What I did imply and what I am flat out saying now is that getting by on $18,000 when you are receiving free housing, free food and free medical care isn't quite the same as getting by on $18,000 when you aren't receiving any of those benefits.
 




New Posts









Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE







New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top