Skip to comments.
Us poverty rate up
AP ^
| August 30, 2005
| Jennifer Kerr
Posted on 08/30/2005 9:27:02 AM PDT by Scarchin
The nation's poverty rate rose to 12.7 percent of the population last year, the fourth consecutive annual increase, the Census Bureau said 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.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: poverty; workingpoor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
Okay - call me cold, but does anyone know the truth behind these numbers? Can you be living in "poverty" and own cell phones, cable TV, Xbox, cars etc? I'm always very suspicious of these reports.
1
posted on
08/30/2005 9:27:03 AM PDT
by
Scarchin
To: Scarchin
"Can you be living in "poverty" and own cell phones, cable TV, Xbox, cars etc? I'm always very suspicious of these reports."
That's why they are living in poverty.
2
posted on
08/30/2005 9:28:14 AM PDT
by
tfecw
(It's for the children)
To: Scarchin
Can you be living in "poverty" and own cell phones, cable TV, Xbox, cars etc? I'm always very suspicious of these reports.Well you might not be living in "poverty" but you sure can be living in public housing and own cell phones, cable TV, Xbox, cars etc
3
posted on
08/30/2005 9:28:56 AM PDT
by
rhombus
To: Scarchin
It's just based on income, I think. So if you made a million dollars for the last 10 years, and zero this year, you are in poverty.
It also doesn't count government transfer payments. Also, of course, everyone involved in selling drugs is "in poverty".
4
posted on
08/30/2005 9:30:20 AM PDT
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: Scarchin
Two words: Illegal immigration.
5
posted on
08/30/2005 9:30:27 AM PDT
by
Brilliant
To: Scarchin
So how are they defining "poverty?" That never seems to come to light.
6
posted on
08/30/2005 9:30:54 AM PDT
by
NRA1995
("People do stupid things...." and I hear the Vonage music playing.....woo-hoo, woo-hoo-hoo....)
To: Brilliant
You beat me to it. Deport the illegals and watch these numbers drop DRAMATICALLY.
7
posted on
08/30/2005 9:32:42 AM PDT
by
Eagle of Liberty
(Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind - Einstein)
To: Scarchin
Can you be living in "poverty" and own cell phones, cable TV, Xbox, cars etc? I'm always very suspicious of these reports.
Don't forget the food.
I wonder how many of the poor in this country are obese because of all the food the consume.
8
posted on
08/30/2005 9:32:46 AM PDT
by
adorno
To: Scarchin
Isn't that about the number of illegals whom we've not stopped from breaking and entering the US last year?
To: Scarchin
Bingo! You know the old cliche the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Yes technically that is correct because the poor continues to do things that make them poor, and the rich do things that make them rich.
Of course the class warfare warriors always try to say the rich are only rich because of luck, or their cheating the system in some way. It is never because the rich worked hard, and made good decisions.
We are the out come of decisions we have made in life, and continue to make. This is the hardest thing for someone to say. It is human nature to blame someone else. The hardest thing to do is to look in the mirror, and say I am the result of my decisions.
To: NRA1995
Rush mentioned yesterday that some RAT wanted to suggest that because the Federal Poverty Income is not based on Cost of Living expenses relative to where you live, the Poverty Income should be considered anything below $45,000.
Seems about right. </sarcasmoff>
11
posted on
08/30/2005 9:36:27 AM PDT
by
Eagle of Liberty
(Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind - Einstein)
To: Scarchin
We were on the verge of winning the war on poverty, and the government had to do something & fast. So they began importing poverty from latin america.
The real irony is they sold it to us as a great thing for our economy.
12
posted on
08/30/2005 9:37:17 AM PDT
by
skeeter
To: Scarchin
The poverty level is calculated in a very simplistic way, and always has been since LBJ started it. Someone simply calculates the expenditure necessary to maintain basic nutrition levels on a national level, and the poverty line is the minimum level of income necessary to get that basic nutrition without crossing some percentage, which I don't know. Some more details are
here. Interestingly, two big anti-poverty programs, food stamps and housing subsidies, are not counted as income.
It is true that the poverty line in the early part of this decade was higher than the average standard of living in 1955, and that the poor in the U.S. own cars and homes at a significantly higher rate than the poor in all rich countries and even the average population in some.
The Money Tree.
13
posted on
08/30/2005 9:38:14 AM PDT
by
untenured
(http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com)
To: Scarchin
14
posted on
08/30/2005 9:38:49 AM PDT
by
Lowell
(The voice from beyond the edge!)
To: Scarchin
Just pumping up the phony numbers in preparation for the mid-term elections. This is as valid as only being able to find homeless people when Republicans are in power. There is no reason for poverty to increase in this economy. It has gotten so bad that these things are cyclical and can easily be predicted, which Limbaugh does all the time.
15
posted on
08/30/2005 9:40:18 AM PDT
by
Bahbah
(Praying for all in Katrina's path, from St. Louis)
To: Brilliant
Two words: Illegal immigration.Eliminate the past 10 years of rampant invasion from south of the border and the poverty rate would be half the current number.
I prefer to look at the "glass half full" numbers.
Home ownership at an all time high and wealth also at an all time high.
The income levels that define the so-called poverty rate in America would be affluent in the countries of origin.
To: Sprite518
Exactly! It's impossible to have a rational conversation with my libtard friends about this because just by questioning this I'm automatically an A-hole.
My simple point is that American "poverty" today would be considered extravagant luxury when compared to other countries or time periods.
Am I wrong?
17
posted on
08/30/2005 9:43:05 AM PDT
by
Scarchin
(www.classdismissedblog.com.)
To: Kerretarded
You know that that the median income in the US is $28000. With a household income of just around $100000 you will fit into the top bracket. Top 20%
To: Kerretarded
...the Poverty Income should be considered anything below $45,000.
Wait a minute now!
Just a few years back, during the Clinton administration, weren't people considered rich if their income levels went above $30,000?. Noe they may be considered poor if their income levels are below $45,000?.
The difference may be due either to inflation, or a republican adminiistration in power. If and when the democrats take over, if they ever do, the rich level may be back to $40,000 and the poor level somewhere around $39,000.
19
posted on
08/30/2005 9:46:07 AM PDT
by
adorno
To: Scarchin
The poverty rate is based on the bell curve of income, which, of course, means that you cannot eliminate poverty. Everyone below that magic floating dollar amount on the curve is in "poverty", even if the same income in Sweden would place them solidly in the middle class.
Why are so many children "in poverty"? Because young people have children while still low on that bell curve. Of course, as they mature and gain job skills, their income rises until their children strike out on their own - and become instant "poverty" stats.
20
posted on
08/30/2005 9:46:52 AM PDT
by
LexBaird
(tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson