One in eight US citizens lives in poverty.

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060829/ts_nm/life_usa_poverty_dc

U.S. data show one in eight Americans in poverty By Joanne Morrison

In the world's biggest economy one in eight Americans and almost one in four blacks lived in poverty last year, the U.S. Census Bureau said on Tuesday, releasing a figure virtually unchanged from 2004.

The survey also showed 15.9 percent of the population, or 46.6 million, had no health insurance, up from 15.6 percent in 2004 and the fifth increase in a row.

It was the first year since President George W. Bush took office in 2001 that the poverty rate did not increase. As in past years, the figures showed poverty especially concentrated among blacks and Hispanics.

In all, some 37 million Americans lived below the poverty line, defined as having an annual income below around $10,000 for an individual or $20,000 for a family of four.

The last decline in poverty was in 2000, the final year of Bill Clinton's presidency, when it fell to 11.3 percent.

"It shows that we are spending more money than ever on anti-poverty programs and we haven't done anything to reduce poverty," said Michael Tanner of CATO Institute, a free market think tank in Washington.

Around a quarter of blacks and 21.8 percent of Hispanics were living in poverty. Among whites, the rate edged down to 8.3 percent from 8.7 percent in 2004.

"Among African Americas the problem correlates primarily to the inner-city and single mothers," said Tanner, adding that blacks also suffer disproportionately from poor education and lower quality jobs.

Black median income, at $30,858, was only 61 percent of the median for whites.

Some 17.6 percent of children under 18 and one in five of those under 6 were in poverty, higher than for any other age group.

Real median household income rose by 1.1 percent between to $46,326 from $45,817 -- its first increase since 1999.

The figures contained wide regional variations, ranging from a median household income of $61,672 in New Jersey to $32,938 for Mississippi.

Major cities with the highest proportions of poor people included Cleveland with 32.4 percent and Detroit with 31.4 percent under the poverty line.



I dunno. It seems that one in eight is a HUUUGGGEEEE amount of people living in poverty.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: techs

I dunno. It seems that one in eight is a HUUUGGGEEEE amount of people living in poverty.

You're doing a heck of a job with your trickle down sh!t Bush boys.

 

[Strk]

And yet Bush has doubled money spent on poverty entitlements; way to go!

(and yeah, that last part is sarcasm, for the exceptionally thick)

 

[EagleKeeper]

And the government should be responsible for pulling people out of poverty?

Of coiurse, the effect of natural disasters that destroy an economy would have no impact on the numbers.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And the government should be responsible for pulling people out of poverty?

Of course, the effect of natural disasters that destroy an economy would have no impact on the numbers.

No, but don't expect it to spout bullsh!t about trickle down when the only thing that trickles is sh!t.

What destroyed Economy???

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And the government should be responsible for pulling people out of poverty?

Of coiurse, the effect of natural disasters that destroy an economy would have no impact on the numbers.

What natural disaster? Katrina? That would be the one year poverty did not increase under Bush. That is just an excuse anyway. Natural disasters are not unique to Bush.

----------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): Pulling the wool over America's eyes sine 1980

 

[Pens1566]

Not necessarily, but on the other hand its policies shouldn't be putting more people below the poverty line either.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And the government should be responsible for pulling people out of poverty?

Of coiurse, the effect of natural disasters that destroy an economy would have no impact on the numbers.

From about 1959 to about 1973 the percentage living in poverty declined. Since about '73 it has generally risen (though there were reversals during the '80s and again in the late '90s).

Some simple graphs regarding poverty.


Exactly what series of natural disasters are you referring to that have affected us for roughly 33 years?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And the government should be responsible for pulling people out of poverty?

Of coiurse, the effect of natural disasters that destroy an economy would have no impact on the numbers.

From about 1959 to about 1973 the percentage living in poverty declined. Since about '73 it has generally risen (though there were reversals during the '80s and again in the late '90s).

Some simple graphs regarding poverty.

Exactly what series of natural disasters are you referring to that have affected us for roughly 33 years?

The GOP disaster since 2001 night as well have been 33 years.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And the government should be responsible for pulling people out of poverty?

Of coiurse, the effect of natural disasters that destroy an economy would have no impact on the numbers.

From about 1959 to about 1973 the percentage living in poverty declined. Since about '73 it has generally risen (though there were reversals during the '80s and again in the late '90s).

Some simple graphs regarding poverty.


Exactly what series of natural disasters are you referring to that have affected us for roughly 33 years?

That site has a crap internet connection. I'd like to see a graph that overlays per capita spending on welfare and social programs compared to the rate of poverty for the past 70 years. I think it could be quite interesting to see where they intersect.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And the government should be responsible for pulling people out of poverty?

Of coiurse, the effect of natural disasters that destroy an economy would have no impact on the numbers.

From about 1959 to about 1973 the percentage living in poverty declined. Since about '73 it has generally risen (though there were reversals during the '80s and again in the late '90s).

Some simple graphs regarding poverty.

Exactly what series of natural disasters are you referring to that have affected us for roughly 33 years?

The GOP disaster since 2001 night as well have been 33 years.

😎

Not that I don't agree with you regarding the current admin, but this is a MUCH larger problem and crosses partisan boundaries soundly. Poverty actually declined again under Reagan (the grand-daddy of fiscal irresponsibility). So it's not fair to make this an administration or party issue.

While great strides were taken during the middle of last century (especially with minorities and because of the 'war on poverty'), those changes weren't lasting or wholly successful and are now being reveresed.

It's really time to quit this ridiclous polarization and party affiliation nonesense and start working on the actual problems through competent individuals.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And the government should be responsible for pulling people out of poverty?

Of coiurse, the effect of natural disasters that destroy an economy would have no impact on the numbers.

From about 1959 to about 1973 the percentage living in poverty declined. Since about '73 it has generally risen (though there were reversals during the '80s and again in the late '90s).

Some simple graphs regarding poverty.


Exactly what series of natural disasters are you referring to that have affected us for roughly 33 years?

That site has a crap internet connection. I'd like to see a graph that overlays per capita spending on welfare and social programs compared to the rate of poverty for the past 70 years. I think it could be quite interesting to see where they intersect.

Agreed. Interesting study topic actually, I might look into it.

 

[Genx87]

Ok it finally came up and I only viewed it. Looks interesting so far but what I did notice was a large drop in poverty rates from 1959-~1965 and then a stagnation from there.

What the point I am trying to convey is in terms of reducing poverty rates, it appears the war on poverty hasnt exactly done its job. Blacks looks like they saw a quick drop in poverty rates but stagnated about 1970. Hispanics have been going in the wrong direction, but immigration is probably more to blame there.

What appears to be happening is a certain % of the population will always be considered in "poverty" under the current system no matter the amount of cash we throw at it. What is even more interesting is the largest drops among the entire scope of the population happened before the war on poverty and govt intervention on the subject 1959-1965-66.
One could almost make the leap to say the trend really started to take shape after Kennedy dropped the income tax rates that were set at 90% 😉

Like before, I would like to see the poverty rates all the way back into the 1930s to see its trend downward to stagnation.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Ok it finally came up and I only viewed it. Looks interesting so far but what I did notice was a large drop in poverty rates from 1959-~1965 and then a stagnation from there.

What the point I am trying to convey is in terms of reducing poverty rates, it appears the war on poverty hasnt exactly done its job. Blacks looks like they saw a quick drop in poverty rates but stagnated about 1970. Hispanics have been going in the wrong direction, but immigration is probably more to blame there.

What appears to be happening is a certain % of the population will always be considered in "poverty" under the current system no matter the amount of cash we throw at it. What is even more interesting is the largest drops among the entire scope of the population happened before the war on poverty and govt intervention on the subject 1959-1965-66.
One could almost make the leap to say the trend really started to take shape after Kennedy dropped the income tax rates that were set at 90% 😉

Like before, I would like to see the poverty rates all the way back into the 1930s to see its trend downward to stagnation.

I by no means intended that to be an exhaustive site, it just has easy to access information.

There are a LOT of subjectives in the consideration of the data: what is the operative definition of poverty, what's a comparison against infaltion and cost of living, what were the government respones at the time, what are the geographic trends, what is the household sizes and expected contributions, etc.

So long as we have a society where people earn a minimum wage which places them below the poverty line, there will be people living in poverty. That's a given (and no I'm not arguing for increased minimum wages). Unless we transition into a society which provides the basic life necessities for every person who reasonably works for it, we can't possibly 'win'. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to try to run as much damage control as possible however. If the percentage of people living in poverty grows too high, there will be a failure of the society (rather from revolution or simple economic attrition).

 

[Genx87]

I agree and would like to see at what point spending money to try and supress poverty becomes futile. The problem seems to be people assume if the poverty rates arent decreasing it is because we arent spending enough cash on it, thus lets erect another govt organization and spend billions.

Interesting points on that axis are around Kennedys reduction in the top income tax, Reagans deficit spending by cutting taxes, and Clintons reform of welfare which made it harder for people to get onto and become resident recipients. All seemed to reduce the rate of poverty in this country.

Correlation == causation? On the surface it appears yes.

 

[fitzov]

And the government should be responsible for pulling people out of poverty?

Only if it puts them there, which it has.

 

[Aisengard]

Trickle-down economics fails for a second time.

When are these retards going to pull their heads out their collective asses?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Trickle-down economics fails for a second time.

When are these retards going to pull their heads out their collective asses?

Why should they? They directly benefit from the demise of the lower classes.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Trickle-down economics fails for a second time. When are these retards going to pull their heads out their collective asses?

And what solution do you propose as an alternative? Throwing money at the problem obviously isn't working either.

The poverty crisis starts at the local government level, not the federal level. Only local government officials have an understanding of the dynamics in their communities to truly enable change.

Why do inner city neighborhoods continue to spiral into decay...children born out of wedlock, poor school systems, gang activity, drugs, substance abuse, poor adult role models, and a myriad of other dynamics all contribute...yet very few local leaders are willing or perhaps able to tackle these dynamics one by one...instead, the tendency is to blame the federal government, and poor money into programs that obviously are not working.

How do you end the spiral...is starts in the school systems and radiates out into the community...prevent kids from dropping out of school and ensuring that they have access to higher education is usually the first step.

I dunno. It seems that one in eight is a HUUUGGGEEEE amount of people living in poverty.

Yes, and it is unacceptable...unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans use this fact as a political poker chip...I have yet to see either party truly take a leadership position in proposing a viable solution.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: fitzov

And the government should be responsible for pulling people out of poverty?

Only if it puts them there, which it has.

Yeah, personal responsibility is the responsibility of the gov't.

/sarcasm off

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: fitzov

And the government should be responsible for pulling people out of poverty?

Only if it puts them there, which it has.

Yeah, personal responsibility is the responsibility of the gov't.

/sarcasm off

Yep, it's the poor's fault for being lazy, etc. let 'em starve blah blah blah....that'll teach 'em to be poor. How dare they not have the resources to better their lives...YAWN.


Cliffs: Social problems don't fix themselves, nor can they be ignored.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Trickle-down economics fails for a second time. When are these retards going to pull their heads out their collective asses?

And what solution do you propose as an alternative? Throwing money at the problem obviously isn't working either.

The poverty crisis starts at the local government level, not the federal level. Only local government officials have an understanding of the dynamics in their communities to truly enable change.

Why do inner city neighborhoods continue to spiral into decay...children born out of wedlock, poor school systems, gang activity, drugs, substance abuse, poor adult role models, and a myriad of other dynamics all contribute...yet very few local leaders are willing or perhaps able to tackle these dynamics one by one...instead, the tendency is to blame the federal government, and poor money into programs that obviously are not working.

How do you end the spiral...is starts in the school systems and radiates out into the community...prevent kids from dropping out of school and ensuring that they have access to higher education is usually the first step.

I dunno. It seems that one in eight is a HUUUGGGEEEE amount of people living in poverty.

Yes, and it is unacceptable...unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans use this fact as a political poker chip...I have yet to see either party truly take a leadership position in proposing a viable solution.

I strongly disagree. The strength of America was largely based in family & community, with a good dose of religion thrown in (for support of this read Tocqueville or some of the 20th century sociologists). Now, I'm not one to generally talk about the good side of religion, so when I say that it had positive benefits you can believe that it's impossible to refute (even if it also has atrocious consequences).

Communities are mostly a thing of the past now, and these were quickly followed by families. I don't think we can necessarily force communities back, but we CAN recapture the family if we want it badly enough.

I would counter that the beginning of the solution to ALL of the problems is a family where at least one responsible adult is ALWAYS home, and taking responsibility for the children. That adult can replace the value driving of religion, and the family (especially extended family and close friends) can replace community. With that support structure in place the children will have a chance to succeed, regardless of the hardships faced. Without it children will continue to fail, regardless of the comforts and welfare provided.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
How do you end the spiral...is starts in the school systems and radiates out into the community...prevent kids from dropping out of school and ensuring that they have access to higher education is usually the first step.

Here is the result of pouring money into Politician's friends pockets in the name of Education:

8-29-2006 SAT score drop biggest in 31 years

The high school class of 2006 got stuck with a new, longer version of the SAT and didn't fare well on it. Average reading and math scores fell a total of seven points ? the sharpest decline in 31 years.

The results were not a surprise in the academic community. The College Board had previously indicated scores would be down this year after numerous colleges began reporting the trend.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I would counter that the beginning of the solution to ALL of the problems is a family where at least one responsible adult is ALWAYS home, and taking responsibility for the children. That adult can replace the value driving of religion, and the family (especially extended family and close friends) can replace community. With that support structure in place the children will have a chance to succeed, regardless of the hardships faced. Without it children will continue to fail, regardless of the comforts and welfare provided.

I agree completely, but the problem is that you can no longer depend on the family unit to provide such stability and support. In many inner city neighborhoods, you have up to three generations within a family all replicating the same negative behaviors which only serve to perpetuate the problem.

Unfortunately we can no longer depend on some parents to take responsibility for their children...and I am not sure I have an answer for how to accomplish this.

Here is the result of pouring money into Politician's friends pockets in the name of Education:

Perhaps I should clarify...I dont think the solution is to throw money at education, focused on things like standardized tests...we should be investing in quality teachers, as they are the only positive role models that many of these kids have in their lives.

 

[GTaudiophile]

And why the fvck should I care? This is America. The land of opportunity. People can get off their lazy asses, establish a work ethic, read a few books, and make their own success.

It's time for you apologizing Liberals, those responsible for the pussification of America, to stop treating the US Government as a crutch for the lazy. I mean, the fools in Orlando and Miami today closed the schools because of 20 MPH winds and rain. WTF! I really don't care if those spoiled-brat hellions called students have to whine and cry while walking to their sh!tty Government schools in rain, sleet, or snow. Their parents did it. Why can't they?

Also, the situation in NOLA is the perfect example of what happens when Big Government takes control, be it at the local, state, or federal level.