News Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

[Astronuc]

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.

 

[Lisa!]

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]

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.

 

[TRCSF]

We've turned a corner.

There's light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[2CentsWorth]

We've turned a corner.

There's light at the end of the tunnel.

I'm hoping that it's not a train coming.

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.

 

[Skyhunter]

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]

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.

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.

 

[2CentsWorth]

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.

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/

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.

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

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]

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, let's 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.

[/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]

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.

 

[Astronuc]

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

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?

 

[Gokul43201]

This thread is replete with claims that lack substantiation. That's just poor form, folks. Show us the links.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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]

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...

oh my lord, what a fruitcake.

Lol, you're rather obtuse aren't you?

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

 

[Pengwuino]

Screw it! keep pushign our luck! :P jk.

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

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.

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.

Nice. 2 examples.

OK here is another;

Hmm... I've 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]

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/

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.

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

 

[Pengwuino]

Typical, don't have an argument?

Change the subject.

It shows the utter hypocricy involved.

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).

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.

Sounds like your speculating about my motives

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]

It shows the utter hypocricy involved.

Showing concern for the poor in this country is hypocritical how?

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?

Sounds like your speculating about my motives

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.

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.

I think I am beginning to understand why most people here tend to just ignore you.

 

[Pengwuino]

Showing concern for the poor in this country is hypocritical how?

I don't see any threads about the poor in China or India or high unemployment in other countries. Kinda like giving money to a poor man out on the street yet ignoring a poor child who comes up to you afterwards asken for money as well. Either you have some rather dubious motives, or your ignorant of the world.

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?

Why can't you discuss any other nations poverty as well? Why can't you do both? Why does every criticism of another country on this forum turn into a Bush-bashing session. Why don't you jump in when say, TSM ignored Chinese poverty in his China praise simply so his attacks on the US sound less ignorant. Oh, right, because you can't blame the Bush administration for Chinese poverty...

I think I am beginning to understand why most people here tend to just ignore you.

Actually since I've never noticed anyone ignore me, I think your once again, talking out of another hole in your body. For someone with a mere 200 posts, you sure sound like you know the inner workings of everything. Unless of course its a 2nd account... but I am not sure why that would be.

 

[Skyhunter]

hypocrisy

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

Here is a much better example of hypocrisy.

The UN's projection is stupid. Every expert, everyone whose ever worked with the poor in Africa, says that no amount of money can just do away with world hunger. Its like saying that $20 will eradicate AIDS. You obviously have a very low comprehension of how the world works. You're naive, please think about what they are actually trying to say. Why not say it'll cost $80 billion to transform Egypt into a superpower. Yah, just doesn't work like that.

Hypocrisy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For other uses, see Hypocrisy (disambiguation).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look up Hypocrisy on Wiktionary, the free dictionary Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possesses or practise. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. The word is arguably derived from hypo- meaning small, + krinein meaning to decide/to dispute. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action whilst carrying out the same action oneself.

The term hypocrisy is also commonly used in a way which should be more specifically termed a double standard, bias, or inconsistency. An example would be when one honestly believes that one group of individuals should be held to a different set of morals than another group.

Hypocrisy also refers to the act of criticizing others for behavior which one engages in as well, or in other words, not practising what you preach. An example would be a parent who smokes, but admonishes their adolescent child not to smoke. Another example of hypocrisy would be a husband who has extramarital affairs, but forbids his wife from having extramarital affairs. Some people believe that most, if not all people are hypocrites since we constantly criticize what we deem to be bad behavior, even though most people do bad things at some point in their lives.

Can you site examples of where I have been inconsistent?

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't have time to search through your entire history here but realize that telling someone that a $ amount can't fix poverty and saying that no one shoudl talk about poverty is 2 very differenet things. OBVIOUSLY, poverty should be talked about (and we must be equal and fair about it and not IGNORE entire continents full of poverty) but we shouldn't be clamoring for ignorant ideas about poverty. Believing ignorant ideals about poverty is the same as ignoring it.

 

[Gokul43201]

This thread is begging to be locked. Please keep the attacks out of it.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't have time to search through your entire history here but realize that telling someone that a $ amount can't fix poverty and saying that no one shoudl talk about poverty is 2 very differenet things. OBVIOUSLY, poverty should be talked about (and we must be equal and fair about it and not IGNORE entire continents full of poverty) but we shouldn't be clamoring for ignorant ideas about poverty. Believing ignorant ideals about poverty is the same as ignoring it.

So calling someone a hypocrite with no evidence is constructive to the discussion?

Calling a solution ignorant without citing examples of why, or offering constructive ideas is furthering the dialogue?

Maybe you should examine your motives Penquino.

 

[outsider]

Screw it! keep pushign our luck! :P jk.

i don't often agree with you, but I agree... you crack me up!

i want to who's butt your kissing to stay so lucky... :!)

 

[outsider]

I don't see any threads about the poor in China or India or high unemployment in other countries. Kinda like giving money to a poor man out on the street yet ignoring a poor child who comes up to you afterwards asken for money as well. Either you have some rather dubious motives, or your ignorant of the world.

if you are so concerned, why don't you start a thread for china, India and other countries?

you were just trying to attack a person who is trying give an opinion... you sometimes make points, but sometimes you confuse personal attack arguments = with = intelligent debate.

How I read Skyhunter's post is that it's sad in a Western society to have this happen. I would hope that you'd agree with this. If this trend continues, it may affect someone close to you (even though i get the idea that you are much of an independent, lone wolf type, who stands alone and doesn't need help from anyone because no one has ever done you a favor; because you don't really deserve it due to your self righteous mentality that prevents you from helping others first) ... hehe.. yeah, i typed that all in one breath

Why can't you discuss any other nations poverty as well? Why can't you do both?

go ahead and start the thread, Fred. let's tango! :!)

Why does every criticism of another country on this forum turn into a Bush-bashing session.

you meant to use a question mark? Well, it's a discussion form... everyone is entitled to their opinion, and hopefully, you can see which way the compass points when all's said and done...

Why don't you jump in when say, TSM ignored Chinese poverty in his China praise simply so his attacks on the US sound less ignorant. Oh, right, because you can't blame the Bush administration for Chinese poverty...

I agree, Bush might have something to do with Chinese poverty... but personally, i don't know much about China... so how am I to comment? Sometimes, I do comment ... and sometimes I get a good schoolin from TSM... instead of taking offense, I learn from his insight... as said before, I sometimes agree with what you say... why would I let personal feelings get in the way of learning?

Actually since I've never noticed anyone ignore me, I think your once again, talking out of another hole in your body.

why do you always find this type of wording necessary?

For someone with a mere 200 posts, you sure sound like you know the inner workings of everything. Unless of course its a 2nd account... but I am not sure why that would be.

hilarious in a sarcastic, "i feel sorry for you" kinda way...

I don't have time to search through your entire history here but realize that telling someone that a $ amount can't fix poverty and saying that no one shoudl talk about poverty is 2 very differenet things. OBVIOUSLY, poverty should be talked about (and we must be equal and fair about it and not IGNORE entire continents full of poverty) but we shouldn't be clamoring for ignorant ideas about poverty. Believing ignorant ideals about poverty is the same as ignoring it.

perhaps you should start the discussion rather than talk about starting a discussion? Actions speak louder than words... u brought it up.. so you may have the honors my brotha

 

[loseyourname]

Here is the graph of poverty rates in the US since 1959 (I really wish we could turn on the img tags in this forum):

http://www.npc.umich.edu/images/graph.gif

The lowest it's ever been was in 1972, at 11.1%. I can't help but wonder if we've hit some kind of threshold from time to time, as the rate repeatedly approaches, but never goes any lower than, 11%. Where we are right now really isn't that bad. We can chide each other on who feels more sorry for other people, but I don't really see the point in doing so. I suppose I was technically born into poverty, but by the time I was old enough to form memories, my parents had worked their way up. It isn't exactly the end of the world, and thankfully we do live in a society where a person can rise up out of these situations to live a long, fruitful life. A much more meaningful statistic would be the percentage of people in this country that have lived in poverty for many years, as they are the ones we need to be concerned with. I don't pretend to know what the root causes of their malady are, but I know that people with computers yelling at each other through internet forums are not helping them.

Also, I don't mean to suggest that this percentage is an exaggeration, but there are people being counted that are not living impoverished lives. My sister, for example, is a single mother (unmarried, I should say, as the father is still around) who does not make enough to exceed the poverty level. Although she lives with my parents and they basically raise her kid while she works and goes to school, she reports herself as independent in order to receive benefits. She and her daughter are counted in these poverty statistics, but no reasonable person would say that either lives in poverty.

 

[Burnsys]

Penwino, you seem angry becouse we always talk about us poverty and not other countrys poverty.. well let me tell you something.
I am from argentina, with 50% poverty rate, yes 50%! but you know why i talk about poverty in the us, becouse people like you says: the us is the best, most rich, most advance, and more free country in the world, All other countrys has to do the same that US. The US is the "model to follow". The US is the most Capitalist country in the world,

So i say if the most capitalist, rich, modern, top mother****ing best country of the world can't take 37 million people out of poverty, what should we expect from capitalism...

 

[vanesch]

The lowest it's ever been was in 1972, at 11.1%.

Well, it seems that around 10% of the population is considered "having serious problems". This is called "poverty", in some European countries it is "unemployment" (ok, not exactly the same), etc...

I wonder if that is not simply due to the fact that we define our standards (employers' standards) such that we always come onto about these numbers. I mean: there's nothing *absolute* in poverty. A large part of the population of 1000 years ago (including the elite) would be considered "poor" by todays standards. So how do we define these standards ? As something that deviates about an order of magnitude from "average" ?

 

[russ_watters]

Penwino, you seem angry becouse we always talk about us poverty and not other countrys poverty.. well let me tell you something.
I am from argentina, with 50% poverty rate, yes 50%! but you know why i talk about poverty in the us, becouse people like you says: the us is the best, most rich, most advance, and more free country in the world, All other countrys has to do the same that US. The US is the "model to follow". The US is the most Capitalist country in the world...

So... you're saying you focus on the US out of...what emotion?

Your data and you opinion directly contradict each other: you say you focus on the US because you hear people say its better (implying that hearing it upsets you), and the stats you post say it is better! So there must be some emotional reason, not logical reason, why you focus on the US.

So i say if the most capitalist, rich, modern, top mother****ing best country of the world can't take 37 million people out of poverty, what should we expect from capitalism...

Well, what you should expect is much, much, much better than your current 50%. Why are you focusing on downplaying our success instead of trying to emulate it?

And again with the perspective: the poverty rate in the US is on par with that of other western nations. http://www.scp.nl/english/news/pressreleases/903770185x.html

Your position really makes no logical sense. It really just sounds like envy to me.

 

[loseyourname]

This link explains how the US Census Bureau calculates poverty:

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Poverty.htm

It's based around a USDA designed low-budget meal plan that can sustain a person's nutritional needs for a year. The idea is that, at the time the definition was devised, the average American family spent one-third of its income on food, so they simply multiplied the cost of the meal plan by three, figuring anyone living off of less money than that would not be able to feed themselves adequately.

 

[russ_watters]

I wonder if that is not simply due to the fact that we define our standards (employers' standards) such that we always come onto about these numbers. I mean: there's nothing *absolute* in poverty. A large part of the population of 1000 years ago (including the elite) would be considered "poor" by todays standards. So how do we define these standards ? As something that deviates about an order of magnitude from "average" ?

To some extent, poverty is a relative thing, even today, and that's very important to understand. Saying the US has a 12% poverty rate and, say, South Africa has a 50% poverty rate (CIA World Factbook, 2002) are not comparing equal standards of living.

 

[Art]

To some extent, poverty is a relative thing, even today, and that's very important to understand. Saying the US has a 12% poverty rate and, say, South Africa has a 50% poverty rate (CIA World Factbook, 2002) are not comparing equal standards of living.

I believe the point the census data makes is that more americans are poorer today than this time last year.
This data stands on it's own and it is totally irrelevant how it compares to poverty levels in other countries. The inference which can be drawn from the data is that current economic policies are creating hardship for a greater number of US citizens each year. This suggests a change of policy may be in order to reverse the trend.
As a change of economic policy in some obscure African state will have zero effect on US incomes it is hard to see why some posters are so keen to pull them into the discussion.

 

[Burnsys]

So... you're saying you focus on the US out of...what emotion?

Your data and you opinion directly contradict each other: you say you focus on the US because you hear people say its better (implying that hearing it upsets you), and the stats you post say it is better! So there must be some emotional reason, not logical reason, why you focus on the US. Well, what you should expect is much, much, much better than your current 50%.

And again with the perspective: the poverty rate in the US is on par with that of other western nations. http://www.scp.nl/english/news/pressreleases/903770185x.html

Your position really makes no logical sense. It really just sounds like envy to me.

No russ. its not envy, i will sayit again, us tend to impose it's economic policies on the rest of the world,and it's not only becouse i heard people like you say the us it the best, it's becouse we are constantly forced into folowing the american model, which for more than 50 years couldn't drop it's poverty rate below 11%
(I was being sarcastic when i sayd US is the best country. It's just what they tell us in Argentina mass media, Controled by US corporations..)

 

[vanesch]

The idea is that, at the time the definition was devised, the average American family spent one-third of its income on food

That's what I mean: somewhere some "average situation" is taken as a standard. However, this is typically what's called "bias" in a statistical analysis: if you use the sample you're studying to derive your standards (for instance, selection criteria) to which you will then again compare your sample, you have introduced a bias. There's nothing wrong with it, but it might explain, for instance, why you can never ever get this "poverty fraction" down to, say, 0.1%.
Highly simplified: Imagine that we always have a population with a similar distribution of relative wealth (meaning: always, 5% of the population will have an effective income which equals the average income divided by 7, say). Given that the food market will probably always keep a similar fraction of the economic activity (say, 1/3), it will adjust its prices such that the average family will then spend about 1/3 of its income on food. This will of course be better-quality food than what is *considered acceptable minimum standard*, but it will not be so significantly higher, say a factor 2. (by this, I mean: you could probably divide about by 2 what you spend on food, and still eat reasonably correctly ; you can probably NOT divide by 7, except if your passtime is eating caviar and drinking champagne). So the average income of the american, divided by 6, is what is considered an acceptable minimum food expense. But the average income divided by 6 is the income of a constant fraction of the population !

I agree that my above reasoning is based on a lot of assumptions and is highly simplified ; it took the numbers also just out of my hat. But I wanted to indicate that through similar bootstrapping, one could arrive at about constant measures for things like "poverty".

 

[outsider]

Poverty is:

The official definition of poverty in the United States is based on the income of a family in relation to the amount a family consumes, along with the size and composition of the family. A person, or family, is at the poverty level if their income equals the cost of a minimum diet, multiplied by three to allow for other basic needs. Income is measured before taxes and the poverty thresholds adjust each year based on the Consumer Price Index. This standard for measuring poverty is used by the United States Census Bureau. It is the standard used in the last four charts and graphs on this page.
For a family of five, the US poverty line is at $21,180. (See the HHS Poverty Guidelines for complete chart.)
The state of having little or no money and few or no material possesssions (WordNet 1.6, Princeton University, 1997)

In America poverty leads to crime. Since many criminals choose to use guns, this becomes a threat to public safety.

The problem is not unemployment or poverty as much as the ripple effects these have on society as a whole. The insecurity causes people to take on primal behaviour.

No one wants to live without the basics. No one wants to live in fear. No one wants to break their personal morals & ethics. But when push comes to shove, chaos takes over. You see this in children when you have one popsicle and 3 selfish kids.

Individual morale drops when times are rough. When morale is low, productivity follows. There are some people who can get themselves out of a rut, but it is more common for people to continue the downward spiral.

Personally, I was born to a responsible family and have never felt the affects of severe poverty. However, I did grow up in an impoverished neighbourhood and have seen the desperation of some kids having no choice but to commit crimes for to feed their families (the parents put them up to it).

http://www.children.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1676

In their paper "Economic Deprivation and Neighborhood Crime Rates," sociologists Robert J. Bursik Jr. and Harold G. Grasmick offer a test between two theories of how economic deprivation causes crime.

The direct effect idea is that poverty directly induces people to commit crimes because they want otherwise unattainable wealth. The indirect effect idea is that poverty encourages crime primarily by weakening a community's social ties.

The underworld is filled with lost souls who started out as someone's friend in kindergarten. They broke their personal integrity seal somewhere along the way and have never come back. (this of course does not encompass all the criminal elements)

http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/home.html
in addition, according to the above link, if we slice up the poverty pie, it appears that blacks and hispanics are make up a majority share over all other races (white & non white). According to the charts, it also shows that blacks and hispanics also have a greater ratio of children living in these impoverished conditions.

Children without proper education, who then become too preoccupied with survival will not likely seek further education. How can they get the college degree that will give them an opportunity change their situation? Even then, they have to outrun racism (which DOES occur, believe it or not). Where is the hope for these people? The violence and crime begins with poverty and an unsympathetic system.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't see any threads about the poor in China or India or high unemployment in other countries. Kinda like giving money to a poor man out on the street yet ignoring a poor child who comes up to you afterwards asken for money as well. Either you have some rather dubious motives, or your ignorant of the world.

Then start one. I was responding to this thread.

And once again you are speculating about my motives.

Why can't you discuss any other nations poverty as well? Why can't you do both? Why does every criticism of another country on this forum turn into a Bush-bashing session. Why don't you jump in when say, TSM ignored Chinese poverty in his China praise simply so his attacks on the US sound less ignorant. Oh, right, because you can't blame the Bush administration for Chinese poverty...

I assumed it was polite to stay on topic. The title of this thread is "Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent".

And there you go again speculating on my motives.

Actually since I've never noticed anyone ignore me, I think your once again, talking out of another hole in your body. For someone with a mere 200 posts, you sure sound like you know the inner workings of everything. Unless of course its a 2nd account... but I am not sure why that would be.

Yes I am new. No it isn't a second account. I have had a number of Private communications with other members here and they tell me that you are antagonistic, rarely post sources, and not worth getting banned for. They also said a few other things I won't repeat.

I am going to take their advice now.

 

[pattylou]

Here is the graph of poverty rates in the US since 1959 (I really wish we could turn on the img tags in this forum):

http://www.npc.umich.edu/images/graph.gif

Your graph only goes to 2001.
I couldn't find one that goes to 2005, but this one
http://factfinder.census.gov/img/saff/en/poverty_graph.gif
from the US census bureau, goes to 2003.

http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp8_poverty

The report mentioned in the original post, (census bureau), indicates that the the line at the right of the graph can continue to be extrapolated up (the census reports that poverty increased each of the last four years.)

Notice that the last upswing in poverty was during Bush 1. Notice the downswing corresponds with 1992 - 2000.

Like father, like son.

Recession plays a part on poverty - this is also illustrated in the graph. We see increase in poverty correlated with recession, no surprise.

 

[Skyhunter]

[QUOTE=loseyourname]This link explains how the US Census Bureau calculates poverty:

[PLAIN]http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Poverty.htm[/PLAIN] 

It's based around a USDA designed low-budget meal plan that can sustain a person's nutritional needs for a year. The idea is that, at the time the definition was devised, the average American family spent one-third of its income on food, so they simply multiplied the cost of the meal plan by three, figuring anyone living off of less money than that would not be able to feed themselves adequately.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I read the link and found it is rather a simple measure of poverty. I suppose it is better to keep it simple, but that means it doesn't reflect the difference in regional cost of living.

For instance, a family living in many cities would spend more than $12,000 a year for shelter alone. And what about the homeless? There is no mention of them. 

Do they even get measured by the census bureau?

 

[Manchot]

Your graph only goes to 2001.
I couldn't find one that goes to 2005, but this one
http://factfinder.census.gov/img/saff/en/poverty_graph.gif
from the US census bureau, goes to 2003.

Hmm...does anyone else find that graph...interesting? Poverty declines up until about 1969, where it basically levels off for about 10 years. Then, around 1980, it begins to rise again, but comes under control. In 1988, it rises drastically, but then enjoys a steep decline starting in about 1992. Then, in 2000, it begins another sharp increase, which it has done ever since. I wonder, could these trends possibly correspond with anything?

It should scare you, knowing that I'm a moderate.

It does, because I'm a moderate, and I often disagree with what you post. From where I'm standing, you're a conservative.

 

[Skyhunter]

In America poverty leads to crime. Since many criminals choose to use guns, this becomes a threat to public safety.

The problem is not unemployment or poverty as much as the ripple effects these have on society as a whole. The insecurity causes people to take on primal behaviour.

No one wants to live without the basics. No one wants to live in fear. No one wants to break their personal morals & ethics. But when push comes to shove, chaos takes over. You see this in children when you have one popsicle and 3 selfish kids.

Individual morale drops when times are rough. When morale is low, productivity follows. There are some people who can get themselves out of a rut, but it is more common for people to continue the downward spiral.

Personally, I was born to a responsible family and have never felt the affects of severe poverty. However, I did grow up in an impoverished neighbourhood and have seen the desperation of some kids having no choice but to commit crimes for to feed their families (the parents put them up to it).

http://www.children.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1676

The underworld is filled with lost souls who started out as someone's friend in kindergarten. They broke their personal integrity seal somewhere along the way and have never come back. (this of course does not encompass all the criminal elements)

http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/home.html
in addition, according to the above link, if we slice up the poverty pie, it appears that blacks and hispanics are make up a majority share over all other races (white & non white). According to the charts, it also shows that blacks and hispanics also have a greater ratio of children living in these impoverished conditions.

Children without proper education, who then become too preoccupied with survival will not likely seek further education. How can they get the college degree that will give them an opportunity change their situation? Even then, they have to outrun racism (which DOES occur, believe it or not). Where is the hope for these people? The violence and crime begins with poverty and an unsympathetic system.

Excellent point Outsider.

Poverty effects us all. The bleeding hearts may feel sympathy for the poor, but everyone is effected by crime.

The liberal solution:

Social institutions like education, child care, food stamps, health care, etc.

The conservative solution:

More guns.

 

[Burnsys]

Excellent point Outsider.

Poverty effects us all. The bleeding hearts may feel sympathy for the poor, but everyone is effected by crime.

The liberal solution:

Social institutions like education, child care, food stamps, health care, etc.

The conservative solution:

More guns.

The real solution, there should not be poors, it's a flaw of the capitalism system...

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm...does anyone else find that graph...interesting? Poverty declines up until about 1969, where it basically levels off for about 10 years. Then, around 1980, it begins to rise again, but comes under control. In 1988, it rises drastically, but then enjoys a steep decline starting in about 1992. Then, in 2000, it begins another sharp increase, which it has done ever since. I wonder, could these trends possibly correspond with anything?

Yes, I see what you're getting at: Reagan was handed an economy in a tailspin, with poverty levels rising fast for the two years prior to him taking office, and in two years he had it turned around. Impressive.

 

[russ_watters]

It does, because I'm a moderate, and I often disagree with what you post. From where I'm standing, you're a conservative.

In that case, you may be standing much further to the left than you think. Have you taken a political stance quiz recently?