National poverty rate declines

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Nice to see the rate dropping.
I think the poverty rate is one of the last things to show improvement during 'good' economic times.

I have to wonder what would happen to the poverty rate if we cut off the flow of cheap illegal labor flooding into the country and keeping wages low for unskilled workers.
link
Five years into a national economic recovery, the share of Americans living in poverty finally dropped.

The nation's poverty rate was 12.3 percent in 2006, down from 12.6 percent a year before, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Median household income increased slightly, to $48,200.

Individual earnings dropped for both men and women in 2006, but more members of each household worked, resulting in the overall increase in household income, said David Johnson, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.

The numbers provided some good economic news at a time when financial markets have been rattled by a slumping housing market. But they were tempered by an increase in the number of Americans without health insurance, from 44.8 million in 2005 to 47 million last year.

Some advocates said the numbers were evidence of an uneven economy that is leaving many Americans behind.

"Too many Americans find themselves still stuck in the deep hole dug by economic policies favoring the wealthy," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "Income remains lower than it was six years ago, poverty is higher, and the number of Americans without health insurance continues to grow."

Douglas Besharov, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said there is a lot of good news in the numbers.

"We're looking at a situation where unemployment was down, and it was down for single mothers, who make up a substantial portion of the people in poverty," Besharov said. "We need a good economy. That's not all we need, but we should not complain when it helps lower poverty."

The last significant decline in the poverty rate came in 2000, during the Clinton administration, when it went from 11.9 percent to 11.3 percent.

The poverty rate increased every year for the next four years, peaking at 12.7 percent in 2004. It was 12.6 percent in 2005, but Census officials said that change was statistically insignificant.

"When we keep taxes low, spending in check, and our economy open ? conditions that empower businesses to create new jobs ? all Americans benefit," President Bush said in a statement.

The poverty level is the official measure used to decide eligibility for federal health, housing, nutrition and child care benefits. It differs by family size and makeup. For a family of four with two children, for example, the poverty level is $20,444.

The poverty rate ? the percentage of people living below poverty ? helps shape the debate on the health of the nation's economy.

Democrats on Capitol Hill said the insurance numbers justify spending more money for a popular government health insurance program for children.

Both chambers of Congress recently passed bills that would dramatically increase funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP. The Bush administration, however, opposes both measures saying they would result in people abandoning private coverage for public coverage for children.

The share of Americans without health insurance hit 15.8 percent last year, the highest percentage since 1998. In 2005, 15.3 percent were without insurance.

The annual increase was fueled mainly by a decline in the share of workers covered by employer-provided health insurance, said Johnson.

The income group with the most people losing insurance was households making $75,000 or more a year, showing that the issue is not limited to the poor.

Bush said the growing number of people without health insurance presents a challenge. "Containing costs and making health insurance more affordable is the best way to reverse this long-term trend," Bush said.

Several Democrats running for president said the insurance numbers point to weaknesses in the nation's health care system.

"These statistics show what most Americans know: Tens of millions of our fellow citizens are completely left out of the economic progress enjoyed by the individuals and corporations on the very top," said Democrat John Edwards, who has made eradicating poverty a centerpiece of his campaign. "We need truly universal health care and a national effort to eliminate poverty."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton noted that there were a lot fewer people without health insurance when she first addressed the issue as first lady. In 1993, there were 39.7 million Americans without health insurance, according to the Census Bureau.

"It is an even deeper outrage today," she said in a statement.

Sen. Barack Obama issued a statement that said, "We can keep making excuses for this or ignore it altogether, but as long as these statistics exist they will always be a betrayal of the ideals we hold as Americans."

The Census Bureau on Tuesday released 2006 income and poverty figures for all the states and every city and county with a population of 65,000 or more.

Among the findings:

_Maryland led the country with a median household income of $65,144. It was followed by New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and Massachusetts.

_Mississippi had the lowest median income, at $34,473. It was followed by West Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Alabama.

_Mississippi had the highest poverty rate, at 21.1 percent. It was followed by Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas and West Virginia.

_Maryland had the lowest poverty rate, at 7.8 percent. It was followed by New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey and Hawaii.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Amazing how a thread can have no responses but have a rating of ?zero?

Bunch of cowards running scoring threads a zero but not having the balls to comment in the thread.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
I was just going to say....As soon as I read the title I thought to myseld "Good news = 0 stars in P&N"...and what'dya know...:p
 

CrazyHelloDeli

Platinum Member
Jun 24, 2001
2,854
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Amazing how a thread can have no responses but have a rating of ?zero?

Bunch of cowards running scoring threads a zero but not having the balls to comment in the thread.

Well the canned response is usually "THIS IS ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!!". Can't honestly expect them to answer that way in a thread with good news now can you? :D
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
LOL, you guys don't even wait for any responses before you go on the attack.:roll:
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Good news!!!! The Libs would surely agree if we had a Dem president in office...but since we don't all we hear are crickets. It appears to me that Libs place their highly partisan ideology well ahead of their alledged love of humanity.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Amazing how a thread can have no responses but have a rating of ?zero?

Bunch of cowards running scoring threads a zero but not having the balls to comment in the thread.

Maybe because it is only dropping in places where the rich live in Utopia?

8-29-2007 Oklahoma's Poverty Rate Continues To Climb

While the nation's poverty rate dropped, the number of Oklahomans living below the poverty line continued to climb, newly released statistics show.

The number of Oklahomans living in poverty in 2006 reached 17%, tying Oklahoma with Kentucky for the seventh-highest rate in the country, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey figures released on Tuesday.

The study showed 587,591 Oklahomans were estimated with income below the poverty level, which in 2006 was $20,000 annually for a family of four.

``I don't think there is an obvious or immediate answer as to why Oklahoma is moving in the opposite direction, particularly when we know the economy is doing well,'' said David Blatt, director of public policy for Tulsa's Community Action Project, an anti-poverty agency.
====================================================
I have to say this David Blatt guy is an idiot and shouldn't be in that position if he can't figure out that $8 hr won't cut it.

Employers do not pay well in Oklahoma, period.

That does not bode well when you have high energy costs such as electricity and gas and extremely high tax rate.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Amazing how a thread can have no responses but have a rating of ?zero?

Bunch of cowards running scoring threads a zero but not having the balls to comment in the thread.

Maybe because it is only dropping in places where the rich live in Utopia?

8-29-2007 Oklahoma's Poverty Rate Continues To Climb

While the nation's poverty rate dropped, the number of Oklahomans living below the poverty line continued to climb, newly released statistics show.

The number of Oklahomans living in poverty in 2006 reached 17%, tying Oklahoma with Kentucky for the seventh-highest rate in the country, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey figures released on Tuesday.

The study showed 587,591 Oklahomans were estimated with income below the poverty level, which in 2006 was $20,000 annually for a family of four.

``I don't think there is an obvious or immediate answer as to why Oklahoma is moving in the opposite direction, particularly when we know the economy is doing well,'' said David Blatt, director of public policy for Tulsa's Community Action Project, an anti-poverty agency.
====================================================
I have to say this David Blatt guy is an idiot and shouldn't be in that position if he can't figure out that $8 hr won't cut it.

Employers do not pay well in Oklahoma, period.

That does not bode well when you have high energy costs such as electricity and gas and extremely high tax rate.

Yes they do...if you have a skill. Just like anywhere else, if you have a marketable skill you will get paid for it.

As for high energy costs...they aren't high here in Oklahoma at all. Pfft.

Of course they totally failed to take into account that the poverty rate continues to climb here due to the influx of illegals. That and all the lazy ass criminals that were placed here post Katrina aren't helping the numbers at all.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Good news!!!! The Libs would surely agree if we had a Dem president in office...but since we don't all we hear are crickets. It appears to me that Libs place their highly partisan ideology well ahead of their alledged love of humanity.
No it appears you and the others are just looking for a fight and when one doesn't happen you go on the offensive looking to stir up the shit. No wonder P&N is such a joke.

 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Good news!!!! The Libs would surely agree if we had a Dem president in office...but since we don't all we hear are crickets. It appears to me that Libs place their highly partisan ideology well ahead of their alledged love of humanity.
No it appears you and the others are just looking for a fight and when one doesn't happen you go on the offensive looking to stir up the shit. No wonder P&N is such a joke.

Well...that and space cadet Dave

 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Amazing how a thread can have no responses but have a rating of ?zero?

Bunch of cowards running scoring threads a zero but not having the balls to comment in the thread.

Maybe because it is only dropping in places where the rich live in Utopia?

8-29-2007 Oklahoma's Poverty Rate Continues To Climb

While the nation's poverty rate dropped, the number of Oklahomans living below the poverty line continued to climb, newly released statistics show.

The number of Oklahomans living in poverty in 2006 reached 17%, tying Oklahoma with Kentucky for the seventh-highest rate in the country, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey figures released on Tuesday.

The study showed 587,591 Oklahomans were estimated with income below the poverty level, which in 2006 was $20,000 annually for a family of four.

``I don't think there is an obvious or immediate answer as to why Oklahoma is moving in the opposite direction, particularly when we know the economy is doing well,'' said David Blatt, director of public policy for Tulsa's Community Action Project, an anti-poverty agency.
====================================================
I have to say this David Blatt guy is an idiot and shouldn't be in that position if he can't figure out that $8 hr won't cut it.

Employers do not pay well in Oklahoma, period.

That does not bode well when you have high energy costs such as electricity and gas and extremely high tax rate.
Perhaps Brad Henry, your Dem Governor, should do something about it.

 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Amazing how a thread can have no responses but have a rating of ?zero?

Bunch of cowards running scoring threads a zero but not having the balls to comment in the thread.

thats because the idiot admins allow people to rate threads without posting.

If you have a problem with the way these forums are run please use the proper forums to voice your concerns.

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Good news!!!! The Libs would surely agree if we had a Dem president in office...but since we don't all we hear are crickets. It appears to me that Libs place their highly partisan ideology well ahead of their alledged love of humanity.
No it appears you and the others are just looking for a fight and when one doesn't happen you go on the offensive looking to stir up the shit. No wonder P&N is such a joke.

Well...that and space cadet Dave
Dave's his own worse enemy. Even the most liberal of members ignore him, it's only those on the Right that pay any attention to him.

 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Amazing how a thread can have no responses but have a rating of ?zero?

Bunch of cowards running scoring threads a zero but not having the balls to comment in the thread.

Maybe because it is only dropping in places where the rich live in Utopia?

8-29-2007 Oklahoma's Poverty Rate Continues To Climb

While the nation's poverty rate dropped, the number of Oklahomans living below the poverty line continued to climb, newly released statistics show.

The number of Oklahomans living in poverty in 2006 reached 17%, tying Oklahoma with Kentucky for the seventh-highest rate in the country, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey figures released on Tuesday.

The study showed 587,591 Oklahomans were estimated with income below the poverty level, which in 2006 was $20,000 annually for a family of four.

``I don't think there is an obvious or immediate answer as to why Oklahoma is moving in the opposite direction, particularly when we know the economy is doing well,'' said David Blatt, director of public policy for Tulsa's Community Action Project, an anti-poverty agency.
====================================================
I have to say this David Blatt guy is an idiot and shouldn't be in that position if he can't figure out that $8 hr won't cut it.

Employers do not pay well in Oklahoma, period.

That does not bode well when you have high energy costs such as electricity and gas and extremely high tax rate.
Perhaps Brad Henry, your Dem Governor, should do something about it.

Hehe...Brad has actually not been too bad. Mostly because even though his is our local version of GWB he is smart enough to stay out of the way and just be a figurehead. Honestly he is the only person I can think of in politcs that comes close to being as poor a speaker as GWB.

I actually voted for him last go round because the Republican running against him was a piece of shit.

 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Good news!!!! The Libs would surely agree if we had a Dem president in office...but since we don't all we hear are crickets. It appears to me that Libs place their highly partisan ideology well ahead of their alledged love of humanity.
No it appears you and the others are just looking for a fight and when one doesn't happen you go on the offensive looking to stir up the shit. No wonder P&N is such a joke.

Well...that and space cadet Dave
Dave's his own worse enemy. Even the most liberal of members ignore him, it's only those on the Right that pay any attention to him.

C'mon Red...everyone enjoys a good game of Whack-A-Mole

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: shinerburke

Hehe...Brad has actually not been too bad. Mostly because even though his is our local version of GWB he is smart enough to stay out of the way and just be a figurehead.

Honestly he is the only person I can think of in politcs that comes close to being as poor a speaker as GWB.

I actually voted for him last go round because the Republican running against him was a piece of shit.

Interesting info. :thumbsup:

Actually shocking to hear a Republican that can actually not vote Republican :shocked:
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: shinerburke

Hehe...Brad has actually not been too bad. Mostly because even though his is our local version of GWB he is smart enough to stay out of the way and just be a figurehead.

Honestly he is the only person I can think of in politcs that comes close to being as poor a speaker as GWB.

I actually voted for him last go round because the Republican running against him was a piece of shit.

Interesting info. :thumbsup:

Actually shocking to hear a Republican that can actually not vote Republican :shocked:


I've voted for many Democrats since I became old enough to vote. Hell I was originally registered as a Democrat. But I got better.

Honestly anyone who votes strictly along party lines is a dumbass.
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,900
63
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Amazing how a thread can have no responses but have a rating of ?zero?

Bunch of cowards running scoring threads a zero but not having the balls to comment in the thread.

Awwwwww poor baby. Did we hurt your feelings by rating your thread low? Do you need a hug? Do you want to me to create the inevitable thread in Forum Issues for you to cry about how people are hurting your feelings? While you use the same personal attacks that you cry about?
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: shinerburke

Hehe...Brad has actually not been too bad. Mostly because even though his is our local version of GWB he is smart enough to stay out of the way and just be a figurehead.

Honestly he is the only person I can think of in politcs that comes close to being as poor a speaker as GWB.

I actually voted for him last go round because the Republican running against him was a piece of shit.

Interesting info. :thumbsup:

Actually shocking to hear a Republican that can actually not vote Republican :shocked:

No, just shocking to you because you are a partisan hack.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Amazing how a thread can have no responses but have a rating of ?zero?

Bunch of cowards running scoring threads a zero but not having the balls to comment in the thread.

yeah this is great news, the number of people living in poverty hasn't changed though and the number of people without health insurnace continues to rise.

WOOHOO, LET'S PARTY, GOOD TIMES ARE HERE AGAIN!!

:thumbsdown:
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Median income rises. Great, however, I would like to know what the Census thinks medium income is. If its wages+benefits+investments, like the fed likes to define it, instead of just wages+investments, then the news would means squat since the increase would just be because health insurance costs are skyrocketing.

Also, it is interesting that individual income didn't rise at all. The picture for 2006 isn't a good one, but it isn't bad either. The rich get richer, as expected, since we had a republican president calling the shots, and the average person didn't see any increase in his/her wages at all, and had to ask his spouse to help out .
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
LMAO... This thread is priceless.

OP makes a post linking an article that says Americans living in poverty has "finally" dropped.

It states: The nation's poverty rate was 12.3 percent in 2006, down from 12.6 percent a year before.

Well ya don't fucking say! So if there are 250M people in this country, 30,750,000 are now living in poverty. Wow, that is great news! I think the problem here is that 30M people in this great, prosperous economy we hear about all the time from the fanbois, ARE LIVING IN POVERTY.

Then the OP starts drooling all over his keyboard because Boo Hoo Hoo, no one replied to his post in 30 minutes, so he had to make a Waaa Waaa Waaa post only to be followed by the kneejerk fanboi glee club high fiving one another. You guys are pathetic and I hope you one day find yourselves included in these numbers.

The article goes on to note:

"Individual earnings dropped for both men and women in 2006, but more members of each household worked, resulting in the overall increase in household income."

"Some advocates said the numbers were evidence of an uneven economy that is leaving many Americans behind. "

Well isn't that just great news! People are making less money than they were and have had to ask their 14,15, and 16 year old kids to get part time jobs to help pay the bills along with trying to get an education in our shit public schools.

Well that is just the American dream in action! :roll: at the OP and the choir that chirped in behind him... and you wonder why people give your OP's no stars.

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
One of the most common forms of propaganda is to simply tell one bit of the story. The OP here has that and other forms.

The president represents the ultra wealthy, not most Americans, which is why his policies have led to increases in poverty during his presidency throughout that are higher than his predecessor, *including* now. The story contnues to be the bad policies that cause higher ratess of poverty. Poverty declined under Clinton.

Another propaganda technique in the OP is that trends do change. If there's a plague that kills an increasing number of people each year, and finally so many are killed that there aren't that many left to kill and the number declines, the headline could be 'plague killing fewer people, trend improving'. So what?

If the liberal stereotype the republicans believe in got in office and raised taxes again and again and again, eventually there might be a downward blip while they are still far higher than his predecessor; certainly the rate of increase has to go down evemtually.

The fact that this president continues to have bad policies for most Americans, that the bottom 80% of Americans continue to get about zero of the productivity increases after inflation as they have since Reagan, the fact the the concentration of wealth has continued to skyrocket, those are the relevant facts.

This OP is just a piece of propaganda to try and trick someone into thinking that this president isn't too bad on poverty after all. Why? Because the American people don't care for a president who is bad on poverty, generally, and it's simply an attempt to hide the facts to help him politically.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: CrazyHelloDeli
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Amazing how a thread can have no responses but have a rating of ?zero?

Bunch of cowards running scoring threads a zero but not having the balls to comment in the thread.

Well the canned response is usually "THIS IS ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!!". Can't honestly expect them to answer that way in a thread with good news now can you? :D
Actually, since this has been announced after last November, I'm sure the Left will gladly take credit for it... :roll:

This is good news btw.. thanks for the info PJ!