Poverty Rate in US rises

[bpwallace49]

Census: US poverty rate swells to nearly 1 in 6

Census: US poverty rate rises to 15.1 percent; number of uninsured hits high of 49.9 million

 

 

tweet53EmailPrint..Hope Yen, Associated Press, On Tuesday September 13, 2011, 11:22 am EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The ranks of the nation's poor swelled to nearly 1 in 6 people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment woes left millions of Americans struggling and out of work. The number of uninsured edged up to 49.9 million, the biggest in over two decades.

 

The Census Bureau's annual report released Tuesday offers a snapshot of the economic well-being of U.S. households for 2010, when joblessness hovered above 9 percent for a second year. It comes at a politically sensitive time for President Barack Obama, who has acknowledged in the midst of a re-election fight that the unemployment rate could persist at high levels through next year.

 

The overall poverty rate climbed to 15.1 percent, or 46.2 million, up from 14.3 percent in 2009.

 

Reflecting the lingering impact of the recession, the U.S. poverty rate from 2007-2010 has now risen faster than any three-year period since the early 1980s, when a crippling energy crisis amid government cutbacks contributed to inflation, spiraling interest rates and unemployment.

 

Measured by total numbers, the 46 million now living in poverty is the largest on record dating back to when the census began tracking poverty in 1959. Based on percentages, it tied the poverty level in 1993 and was the highest since 1983.

 

Broken down by state, Mississippi had the highest share of poor people, at 22.7 percent, according to rough calculations by the Census Bureau. It was followed by Louisiana, the District of Columbia, Georgia, New Mexico and Arizona. On the other end of the scale, New Hampshire had the lowest share, at 6.6 percent.

 

The share of Americans without health coverage rose from 16.1 percent to 16.3 percent -- or 49.9 million people -- after the Census Bureau made revisions to numbers of the uninsured. That is due mostly because of continued losses of employer-provided health insurance in the weakened economy.

 

Congress passed a health overhaul last year to address rising numbers of the uninsured. While the main provisions don't take effect until 2014, one aspect taking effect in late 2010 allowed young adults 26 and younger to be covered under their parents' health insurance.

 

Brett O'Hara, chief of the Health and Disability Statistics branch at the Census Bureau, noted that the uninsured rate declined -- from 29.3 percent to 27.2 percent -- for adults ages 18 to 24 compared to some other age groups.

 

The median -- or midpoint -- household income was $49,445, down 2.3 percent from 2009.

 

Bruce Meyer, a public policy professor at the University of Chicago, cautioned that the worst may yet to come in poverty levels, citing in part continued rising demand for food stamps this year as well as "staggeringly high" numbers in those unemployed for more than 26 weeks. He noted that more than 6 million people now represent the so-called long-term unemployed, who are more likely to fall into poverty, accounting for than two out of five currently out of work.

 

Other census findings:

 

--Poverty rose among all race and ethnic groups except Asians. The number of Hispanics in poverty increased from 25.3 percent to 26.6 percent; for blacks it increased from 25.8 percent to 27.4 percent, and Asians it was flat at 12.1 percent. The number of whites in poverty rose from 9.4 percent to 9.9 percent.

 

--Child poverty rose from 20.7 percent to 22 percent.

 

--Poverty among people 65 and older was statistically unchanged at 9 percent, after hitting a record low of 8.9 percent in 2009.

 

If only we had some continued tax relief for the upper upper income brackets . . . that would really help these people out.

[bushwacked]

Thank you John Boner and the Teatards!

[polksalet]

Let's play word association here. If I say hope what do you say?

[The Mucca]

It's a proud day for Obama.

[bpwallace49]

Let's play word association here. If I say hope what do you say?

 

Trickle-down?

 

As in I am hoping that the cash being hoarded through upper income tax cuts will trickle-down to the people that need it for basic living expenditures?

[bushwacked]

The Sun Will Come out Tomorrow.

Bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow

The Rich will Come out tomorrow

They'll laugh and say "Thank god I'm not you" and run away

 

Tomorrow!

Tomorrow!

It's just another tax cut for the rich away!!!!

[Perchoutofwater]

What is the current poverty level, and how does it stack up with the average world income?

[tosberg34]

This was a good read:

 

Strange Facts about America’s ‘Poor’

 

This morning, the Census Bureau announced that a record 46.2 million, or one in seven Americans, lived in poverty last year. Although the current recession greatly increased the number of poor persons, high levels of poverty predate it.

 

In fact, for two decades, census officials have announced in most years that more than 35 million Americans were poor. Last year’s number was 43.5 million. But there is a wide chasm between the public’s concept of poverty and “poverty” as it is defined by the Census Bureau.

 

The public generally thinks of poverty as substantial material hardship such as homelessness, or malnutrition and chronic hunger. In reality, the vast majority of those identified as poor by the annual census report did not experience significant material deprivation.

 

In a recent Rasmussen poll, adults agreed (by a ratio of six to one) that “a family that is adequately fed and living in a house or apartment that is in good repair” is not poor. By that simple test, about 80 percent of the Census Bureau’s “poor” people would not be considered poor by their fellow Americans.

 

In the same Rasmussen poll, however, 73 percent said poverty was a severe problem. Why the disconnect? The answer: Public perception of poverty in the U.S. is governed by the mainstream media, which invariably depicts the Census Bureau’s tens of millions of poor people as chronically hungry and malnourished, homeless or barely hanging on in overcrowded, dilapidated housing.

 

The strategy of the media is to take the least fortunate 3 percent or 4 percent of the poor and portray their condition as representative of most poor Americans. While we must have compassion for those who are truly homeless or without food, they are far from typical among the poor.

 

How do the poor live? For starters, a poor child in American is far more likely to have a widescreen plasma television, cable or satellite TV, a computer and an Xbox or TiVo in his home than he is to be hungry.

 

How can that be? In 2009, the U.S. Department of Agriculture asked parents living in poverty this question: “In the last 12 months, were [your] children ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more food?” Some 96 percent of poor parents responded “no”: Their children never had been hungry because of a lack of food resources at any time in the previous year. Only 4 percent of poor parents responded “yes,” their children had been hungry at some point in the year.

 

Don’t hold your breath waiting for ABC or CBS to beam out that information.

 

Here are more surprising facts about Americans defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, all taken from various government reports and included in my new paper from The Heritage Foundation called “Understanding Poverty in the United States”:

 

● Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

 

● Fully 92 percent of poor households have a microwave; two-thirds have at least one DVD player and 70 percent have a VCR.

 

● Nearly 75 percent have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.

 

● Four out of five poor adults assert they were never hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.

 

● Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.

 

● Half have a personal computer; one in seven have two or more computers.

 

● More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as Xbox or PlayStation.

 

● Just under half — 43 percent — have Internet access.

 

● A third have a widescreen plasma or LCD TV.

 

● One in every four has a digital video recorder such as TiVo.

 

As noted, TV newscasts about poverty in America usually picture the poor as homeless or as a destitute family living in an overcrowded, rundown trailer. The actual facts are far different:

 

● At a single point in time, only one in 70 poor persons is homeless.

 

● The vast majority of the houses or apartments of the poor are in good repair; only 6 percent are over-crowded.

 

● The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom.

 

● Only 10 percent of the poor live in mobile homes or trailers; half live in detached single-family houses or townhouses, while 40 percent live in apartments.

 

● Forty-two percent of all poor households own their home; on average, it’s a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

 

Certainly, the recession with its high levels of unemployment has generated suffering in many segments of our society. But the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that among the lowest-income fifth of households, inflation-adjusted consumer spending actually increased modestly during the recession.

 

Given these facts, how does the Census Bureau conclude that more than 40 million Americans are poor? They identify a family as poor the family’s cash income falls below specific thresholds. For example, in 2009 a family of four was “poor” if annual cash income fell below $21,954.

 

But in counting income, the Census Bureau ignores almost the entire welfare state. This year, government will spend over $900 billion on means-tested anti-poverty programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services to poor and near-poor Americans. (Social Security and Medicare are not included in that total.)

 

This means-tested welfare spending comes to around $9,000 for each poor or low-income American — virtually none of which is counted by census officials for purposes of calculating poverty or inequality. The missing money is greater than the gross domestic product of most other countries.

 

All of this might lead a thoughtful liberal to ask: Doesn’t the higher standard of living enjoyed by most of the poor (supported by the uncounted means-tested welfare spending) suggest the welfare state is working? Have we won the War on Poverty?

 

The answer is a partial yes.

 

Not even the government can spend $900 billion per year and have no impact on living standards. But the original goal of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty was to eliminate the “causes” as well as the “symptoms” of poverty.

 

Johnson said he sought to make the poor self-sufficient and prosperous, and to reduce dependence on government. LBJ promised to shrink, not expand, the welfare state. In helping the poor, he said, his goal was to “make taxpayers out of taxeaters.”

 

After $17 trillion spent on the War on Poverty, Johnson’s goal is further off than ever.

[bpwallace49]

This was a good read:

 

Thank God for the hyper conservative Heritage Foundation! How else can the wealthy feel good about telling poor people to "stop yer bitchin, at least you dont live in Zimbabwe"!

[SEC=UGA]

What yer sayin is that since Obama took office the poverty rate in the US has skyrocketed?

[Ursa Majoris]

What is the current poverty level, and how does it stack up with the average world income?

I spent this morning volunteering, along with 30 others, sorting and packing food at a food shelf hub here in the great state of Minnesota, here among the middle class elite. They shift well over 5,000 tons of food through that hub each year, more than 14 tons every day and they aren't the only ones. Hunger here has spread to the suburbs from it's more traditional areas. The amount of food tey have been asked to supply has doubled in the last three years and it was already rising before that.

 

The elderly are particularly hit by it, while politicians and economists bullchit each other with their ridiculous retail price index refinements when any f'n idiot with eyes can see that grocery prices have been increasing far faster than inflation, as have any number of other essentials.

 

Comparing conditions here to the conditions in Ethiopia is, like patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel, a pathetic attempt at deflection.

[Deathpig]

I get that you don't like tosberg, but he replies to your post with something that has some actual facts and figures and posts it without any kind of zingy commentary, and you reply with a textbook Ad Hominem attack.

 

Honestly, I expect better.

[SEC=UGA]

I spent this morning volunteering, along with 30 others, sorting and packing food at a food shelf hub here in the great state of Minnesota, here among the middle class elite. They shift well over 5,000 tons of food through that hub each year, more than 14 tons every day and they aren't the only ones. Hunger here has spread to the suburbs from it's more traditional areas. The amount of food tey have been asked to supply has doubled in the last three years and it was already rising before that.

 

The elderly are particularly hit by it, while politicians and economists bullchit each other with their ridiculous retail price index refinements when any f'n idiot with eyes can see that grocery prices have been increasing far faster than inflation, as have any number of other essentials.

 

Comparing conditions here to the conditions in Ethiopia is, like patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel, a pathetic attempt at deflection.

 

Why can't we compare our standard of living to other countries? You guys are always throwing out how bad our healthcare and entitlement programs are when compared to Finland.

[Perchoutofwater]

I spent this morning volunteering, along with 30 others, sorting and packing food at a food shelf hub here in the great state of Minnesota, here among the middle class elite. They shift well over 5,000 tons of food through that hub each year, more than 14 tons every day and they aren't the only ones. Hunger here has spread to the suburbs from it's more traditional areas. The amount of food tey have been asked to supply has doubled in the last three years and it was already rising before that.

 

The elderly are particularly hit by it, while politicians and economists bullchit each other with their ridiculous retail price index refinements when any f'n idiot with eyes can see that grocery prices have been increasing far faster than inflation, as have any number of other essentials.

 

Comparing conditions here to the conditions in Ethiopia is, like patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel, a pathetic attempt at deflection.

 

I applaud your service, keep it up My wife works very closely with the local food bank, and my 92 year old grandfather still delivers meals on wheels to the "old" people. There is a definite need, and I agree it has gotten worse. Still there is poverty and then there is poverty. Very few people in the US live in real poverty. Those should definitely be helped. The people living in the projects with a direct tv dish hanging out the window, not so much.

[WaterMan]

Thank God for the hyper conservative Heritage Foundation! How else can the wealthy feel good about telling poor people to "stop yer bitchin, at least you dont live in Zimbabwe"!

 

 

And who are the rich to tell the poor what hungry feels like?

[tosberg34]

Thank God for the hyper conservative Heritage Foundation! How else can the wealthy feel good about telling poor people to "stop yer bitchin, at least you dont live in Zimbabwe"!

 

I expected as much from a country club liberal such as yourself. Did you make yourself feel better?

[BeeR]

I get that you don't like tosberg, but he replies to your post with something that has some actual facts and figures and posts it without any kind of zingy commentary, and you reply with a textbook Ad Hominem attack.

 

Honestly, I expect better.

I can't imagine why.

 

Props tosb, for injecting a dose of reality/perspective, despite that being like kryptonite to a few here

[bpwallace49]

I get that you don't like tosberg, but he replies to your post with something that has some actual facts and figures and posts it without any kind of zingy commentary, and you reply with a textbook Ad Hominem attack.

 

Honestly, I expect better.

 

You are absolutely correct. I now see that poverty is only a matter of semantics that are completely the fault of the liberal media and the communist census bureau. The fact that poverty today is different than is 1970 is very true. Poverty here is different than poverty elsewhere. What an extremely informative and enlightening article!

 

 

Now back to reality . .. if you like the article, then are you saying that people cant REALLY be poor unless . . . what? They have living conditions like Somalia? Poverty in the United States means you have access to clean drinking water . . therefore you are not listed as being in "poverty" because kids in Guatemala dont get clean drinking water? The United States has a higher standard of living than the rest of the world. Does that mean that our poor should somehow be brought lower to somehow "match" the poor in other countries? I was under the impression that the US was better than that . .

 

The piece is designed as a feel good story (for very conservative people that read what the Heritage center puts out) about how if you are in America, then you really cannot be poor or impoverished because it doesnt meet the semantic definition of what the guy that writes for the ultra conservative heritage foundation agrees with.

 

Is it a stretch to think that his next step is that If there are no poor people, why then I guess we dont need safety nets like unemployment, food stamps or shelters . . . right? So this is really a rallying cry for the TEA party? Because the definition of poverty in America doesnt meet the standard for his definition of poverty?

 

Cmon deathpig . . . . I thought you were better than that.

[bpwallace49]

reply with a textbook Ad Hominem attack.

Honestly, I expect better.

 

I expected as much from a country club liberal such as yourself. Did you make yourself feel better?

 

Deathpig? Waiting for you to scold tossberg here . . .

[Ursa Majoris]

Why can't we compare our standard of living to other countries? You guys are always throwing out how bad our healthcare and entitlement programs are when compared to Finland.

You are quite entitled to say that our internal poverty levels are perfectly acceptable when compared to the West African coast, Madagascar, central Siberia or <pickyourfunplacehere>.

 

I, OTOH, am equally entitled to expect far better from the richest country on the planet and also to regard your statement as that of an evasive weasel.

[bushwacked]

I can't imagine why.

 

Props tosb, for injecting a dose of reality/perspective, despite that being like kryptonite to a few here

 

You've been reported to the modsssss!

[tosberg34]

Deathpig? Waiting for you to scold tossberg here . . .

 

I would expect a scolding if it wasn't true. but since it actually IS true - you are a country club liberal - then no scolding is necessary.

 

Sorry, pal, you lose again.

[bpwallace49]

I would expect a scolding if it wasn't true. but since it actually IS true - you are a country club liberal - then no scolding is necessary.

 

Sorry, pal, you lose again.

 

Do you have any other Heritage articles to link? Cause that is the extent of your usefulness . . .

[tosberg34]

Do you have any other Heritage articles to link? Cause that is the extent of your usefulness . . .

 

And washing someone else's golf balls is the extent of yours.

Edited September 13, 2011 by tosberg34

[Perchoutofwater]

Well, it doesn't look like much has changed in my absence.