Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

  1. Aug 30, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    WASHINGTON (Aug. 30, AP) -- The nation's poverty rate rose to 12.7 percent of the population last year, the fourth consecutive annual increase, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday.

    The percentage of people without health insurance did not change!

    Overall, there were 37 million people living in poverty, up 1.1 million people from 2003.

    And we have rising gas prices and a big disaster along the Gulf Coast -

    and we should expect a few more big storms/hurricanes this year.
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 30, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And what are Bush's plans for them?
  4. Aug 30, 2005 #3
    The good news is that they are not drawing unemployment.

    That stands at 5% so this is just some liberal attempt at undermining the confidence in our President and his fantastic economic policies.

    Oh hell, getting harder and harder to argue that point.
  5. Aug 30, 2005 #4
    I assure you there are plenty of people who have and will continue to claim all is going wonderfully. They are called Republicans.
  6. Aug 30, 2005 #5
    We've turned a corner.

    There's light at the end of the tunnel.
  7. Aug 30, 2005 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, how 'bout some perspective: that's a 0.2 percentage point increase from last year, or within the limits of the error in the stats. Ie, its flat. Considering that the job market didn't really start to rebound until last year, that's not surprising - and considering how good the job market is today, that poverty rate is likely to fall significantly this year.
  8. Aug 30, 2005 #7
    I'm hoping that it's not a train coming. :uhh:
    And the world according to PF's card carrying Republican... Check out the thread on the economy and Greenspan's warnings. In addition to other points made, for example the deceiving statistics for the job market, people have been taking equity out of their homes to deal with debt and supplement income. Those people and others who are purchasing more home than they can really afford with exotic mortgages are likely to be in trouble--especially ARMS that will come due in three to five years and rates will be where? Yep, I think it's a train coming.


    Odd that the states hit hardest are the red states that supported Bush.
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2005
  9. Aug 30, 2005 #8
    A 0.2% increase in poverty sounds a lot better than 1.1 million more people living in poverty.

    Hey I think I am getting the hang of this self delusion thing. :approve:
  10. Aug 30, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hell the people in poverty by the numbers in China is more then the entire population of most countries on Earth. Its not self-delusion, its called science. But I suppose you don't know what "science" is.

    And where exactly is the link for this article?

    I find it odd that astronuc used #'s to make a point and % to cover up another point that didnt help his cause. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
  11. Aug 30, 2005 #10
    So since it is worse elsewhere, Americans shouldn't be concerned about 1.1 million more people in the U.S. living in poverty... I can see you haven't majored in logic either. Perhaps you are a scientist and can enlighten us all on what science is?

    Edit: From the link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9130342/
    Bush became president. The article goes on to say:
    I'd like to know what family of any size can live on $12,649 to $19,157. So taking into account these very low thresholds for the statitics on poverty, IMO there are a lot more than 1.1 million more people living in poverty.
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2005
  12. Aug 30, 2005 #11
    OK, you got me Penquino.

    I don't understand this post at all, or how it is relevant to mine.

    I guess I don't understand self delusion after all.
  13. Aug 30, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Its called percentages. Anyone can throw numbers out and razzle dazzle ignorant people. Hell if you gave people the # of people who die in car accidents, you'd get people wanting to ban all cars. Give them the actual percentage, and all of a sudden the world isn't the death trap you imagined it to be. Hell, lets say you got a $2,000 raise. Tell that to most people on earth and they'll think you just automatiaclly rose to the top of your company. Tell them what % it was of your actual normal salary and things become a lot more relative.

    Since we have one of hte highest poverty limits on Earth, your point is irrelevant.
  14. Aug 30, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, self-delusion is defined as disregarding real world %'s as long as you can get a shock value out of a number to support your case. Or is that called propoganda....

    And I wonder why the OP failed to point out...

  15. Aug 30, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I haven't covered anything up. I just reported what the Census Bureau reported in their highlights for the report about 2004. This is simply for discussion. My cause is the discovery of the truth about matters. That is why I studied mathematics and science.

    from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html [Broken]

    Politically, my causes are justice and fairness, and integrity in government, and true democratic principles. I guess that makes me a Liberal.

    Certainly statistics can be manipulated to put a more favorable picture on matters. All governments do that, and so do many politicians, of every party.

    The question is then - does it tell the true story?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  16. Aug 30, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This thread is replete with claims that lack substantiation. That's just poor form, folks. Show us the links.
  17. Aug 30, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Hmm... actual data vs anecdotal evidence and baseless conjecture? I think I'll go for actual data, Bob (what have I won?)...
    And again with the baseless conjecture. That "very low threshold" is among the highest in the world, and what we consider "poverty" bears no resemblance whatsoever to poverty in most other countries.
    As if that's an accurate assessment of my political perspective. :rolleyes:

    It should scare you, knowing that I'm a moderate.
    Exactly: rather than reporting nothing because they have nothing to report, the media uses a big number to say something meaningless, but sound ominous. That's how the media works! And a great many people....
    ....accept it without thinking about what it actually means.

    Lemme ask you this: had it not said something ominous, would you have looked for holes in the story? I get the feeling that a lot of people here only question stories when they say things they don't want to hear.
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2005
  18. Aug 30, 2005 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I found the story cited in the OP by searching USA Today online. Its on the AP and all the major news outlets likely have the exact same story verbatim. You can find it HERE.
  19. Aug 30, 2005 #18
    I guess this is why I find most conservatives to be repugnant. 1.1 million people living in poverty, is tragic in my opinion. Your logic reminds me of Kathleen Turner in the movie Prizzi's Honor, where she played a contract killer. When she tells Jack Nicholson how many hits she had made in the last year he was taken aback, and he was a mob boss. Her reply was, "That is not so many when you compare it to the size of the population."

    It is very evident in the replies to Alexandra when she said she was depressed. The more liberal and nuetral posters were sympathetic where as the more conservative on the other hand....

    Ok after telling her that her beliefs are wrong you did offer a word of sympathy.
  20. Aug 30, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Wheres the tear for the poor in China? Where is their thread? India? What about the 10% unemployment in France and Germany? Russia?

    Put your ideology up against the problems of the world and all of a sudden your view of "tragic" becomes a godsend.

    Your sympathetic because you believe in the misguided beliefs she holds. And what about when religion is discussed? Liberals practically demand the religious people be murdered and fed to dogs. Just look at adrilino or whatever.

    Nice. 2 examples.
  21. Aug 30, 2005 #20
    Considering that we just lost a member perhaps we can STOP with making personal remarks in response to others posts?
  22. Aug 30, 2005 #21


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Screw it! keep pushign our luck! :P jk.
  23. Aug 30, 2005 #22
    Typical, don't have an argument?

    Change the subject.

    I am sure there is a name for this type of warped logic.

    Didn't realize you were so good at reading peoples motives. I think you should examine your own and stop speculating about mine. Because you are dead wrong.

    OK here is another;

    Not much sympathy, just a little smug advice.
  24. Aug 30, 2005 #23


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Umm...this is all over the news these days, for example:

    There it is again, the "you think this is bad, well that is even worse" type of reasoning. Why can't conservatives ever acknowledge problems at face value? You are aware that people go hungry in our country, right? Oh...I guess that would make the Bush administration look poorly, and we wouldn't want that.
  25. Aug 30, 2005 #24


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It shows the utter hypocricy involved.

    Yah I suppose there is some sort of warped logic that thinks a small number of people living in poverty is not much to debate about when hundreds of millions are much worse off (and their "poverty" is considered luxury in 1/2 the Earth's nations).

    Sounds like your speculating about my motives :rolleyes:

    Hmm If that was in alexandras thread... maybe i was trying to throw some humor into the conversation to cheer her up! Hmm... maybe you're biased! Hmm hmm hmm... bias sure knows how to pull the wool over someones eyes.
  26. Aug 30, 2005 #25
    Showing concern for the poor in this country is hypocritical how?

    Again I fail to see your logic.

    Poverty is growing in the US. But we should not discuss it because poverty is worse in the rest of the world?

    Why can't we do both?

    And what would that speculation be?

    I said you were dead wrong about my motives, and should perhaps examine your own. I didn't speculate as to what they might be.

    I think I am beginning to understand why most people here tend to just ignore you.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook