# Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

• News
Staff Emeritus

## Main Question or Discussion Point

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:

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
Lisa!
Gold Member
And what are Bush's plans for them?

Skyhunter
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.

Informal Logic
Skyhunter said:
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.
I assure you there are plenty of people who have and will continue to claim all is going wonderfully. They are called Republicans.

We've turned a corner.

There's light at the end of the tunnel.

russ_watters
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.

TRCSF said:
We've turned a corner.

There's light at the end of the tunnel.
I'm hoping that it's not a train coming. :uhh:
russ_watters said:
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.
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.

Edit:
Household income unchanged -
The median household income, meanwhile, stood at $44,389, unchanged from 2003. Regionally, income declined only in the Midwest, down 2.8 percent to$44,657. The South was the poorest region and the Northeast and the West had the highest median incomes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9130342/

Odd that the states hit hardest are the red states that supported Bush.

Last edited:
Skyhunter
russ_watters said:
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.
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.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Skyhunter said:
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.
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.

I find it odd that astronuc used #'s to make a point and % to cover up another point that didnt help his cause.

Pengwuino said:
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.

I find it odd that astronuc used #'s to make a point and % to cover up another point that didnt help his cause.
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?

The last decline in overall poverty was in 2000, when...
Bush became president. The article goes on to say:
...poverty is a lot lower than it was in 1993, but we went through a hell of an economic boom,” Danziger said. “Nobody is predicting we’re going to go through another economic boom like that.”

The poverty threshold differs by the size and makeup of a household. For instance, a family of four with two children was considered living in poverty if income was $19,157 or less. For a family of two with no children, it was$12,649. For a person 65 and over living alone, it was 9,060.
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:
Skyhunter
Pengwuino said:
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.

I find it odd that astronuc used #'s to make a point and % to cover up another point that didnt help his cause.
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.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
2CentsWorth said:
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?
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. 2CentsWorth said: [/url]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. Since we have one of hte highest poverty limits on Earth, your point is irrelevant. Pengwuino Gold Member Skyhunter said: I guess I don't understand self delusion after all. 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... Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, said the poverty number is still much better than the 80s and early 90s. Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Pengwuino said: I find it odd that astronuc used #'s to make a point and % to cover up another point that didnt help his cause. 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. The official poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7 percent, up from 12.5 percent 2003. In 2004, 37.0 million people were in poverty, up 1.1 million from 2003. 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: Gokul43201 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. russ_watters Mentor 2CentsWorth said: 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. Hmm... actual data vs anecdotal evidence and baseless conjecture? I think I'll go for actual data, Bob (what have I won?)... 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.
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.
And the world according to PF's card carrying Republican...
As if that's an accurate assessment of my political perspective.

It should scare you, knowing that I'm a moderate.
Skyhunter said:
A 0.2% increase in poverty sounds a lot better than 1.1 million more people living in poverty.
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....
Hey I think I am getting the hang of this self delusion thing.
....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:
russ_watters
Mentor
Gokul43201 said:
This thread is replete with claims that lack substantiation. That's just poor form, folks. Show us the links.
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.

Skyhunter
russ_watters said:
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.

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.
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....

Kat said:
oh my lord, what a fruitcake.
Kat said:
Lol, you're rather obtuse aren't you?
Russ_Watters said:
Its good that you realized some of your errors before realizing the ideology had "lost", because I'm sure that helped soften the blow, but you haven't finished the line of reasoning yet (things like making the logical leap from the fact that Marx's predictions on capitalism and poverty were wrong to the more generalized conclusion that Marx's ideology itself was wrong). But I really do think you'll get it.

I honestly wish you luck in coming to terms with this ideological upheaval.
Ok after telling her that her beliefs are wrong you did offer a word of sympathy.
Russ_Watters said:
Well, whether its thinking you can change the world or hoping the world can change for you, the impact on your emotional health is the same. Either way, you're coming to realize that the world is not what you want it to be and probably never will be. That's tough to accept. All you can really do is be what you want to be and let that be enough.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Skyhunter said:
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."
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.

Skyhunter said:
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....
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.

Ok after telling her that her beliefs are wrong you did offer a word of sympathy.
Nice. 2 examples.

Considering that we just lost a member perhaps we can STOP with making personal remarks in response to others posts?

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Screw it! keep pushign our luck! :P jk.

Skyhunter
Pengwuino said:
Wheres the tear for the poor in China? Where is their thread? India? What about the 10% unemployment in France and Germany? Russia?
Typical, don't have an argument?

Change the subject.

Pengwuino said:
Put your ideology up against the problems of the world and all of a sudden your view of "tragic" becomes a godsend.
I am sure there is a name for this type of warped logic.

Pengwuino said:
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.
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.

Pengwuino said:
Nice. 2 examples.
OK here is another;

Penquino said:
Hmm... ive never been depressed... sad maybe, but never depressed

And I never drink coffee

.... maybe a connection? :)
Not much sympathy, just a little smug advice.

SOS2008
Gold Member
russ_watters said:
Hmm... actual data vs anecdotal evidence and baseless conjecture?
Umm...this is all over the news these days, for example:
Feds no longer dismiss talk of housing bubble -
Regulators focus on role of 'exotic' loans in propping up prices
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8514801/

russ_watters said:
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.
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.
russ_watters said:
As if that's an accurate assessment of my political perspective. It should scare you, knowing that I'm a moderate.
:surprised

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Skyhunter said:
Typical, don't have an argument?

Change the subject.
It shows the utter hypocricy involved.

Skyhunter said:
I am sure there is a name for this type of warped logic.
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).

Skyhunter said:
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.
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.

Skyhunter
Pengwuino said:
It shows the utter hypocricy involved.
Showing concern for the poor in this country is hypocritical how?

Pengwuino said:
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).
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?

Pengwuino said: