Posted on 08/28/2007 7:46:00 AM PDT by Brilliant
The nation's poverty rate dropped last year, the first significant decline since President Bush took office.
The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent — were living in poverty last year. That's down from 12.6 percent in 2005.
The median household income was $48,200, a slight increase from the previous year. But the number of people without health insurance also increased, to 47 million.
The last significant decline in the poverty rate came in 2000, during the Clinton administration. In 2005, the poverty rate dipped from 12.7 percent to 12.6 percent, but Census officials said that change was statistically insignificant.
The poverty numbers are good economic news at a time when financial markets have been rattled by a slumping housing market. However, the numbers released Tuesday represent economic conditions from a year ago.
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.
The figures were released at a news conference by David Johnson, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.
The poverty report comes five years into an uneven economic recovery, and well into a presidential campaign that still has 14 months to go.
Poverty has not been a big issue in the campaign, and political scientists said they doubted the new numbers would change that.
"The poor are politically mute," said Larry Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. "What rational politician would listen to the poor? They don't vote, they don't write checks, why care?"
Democrat John Edwards has made fighting poverty a centerpiece of his campaign. But, Jacobs noted, "He's struggling to raise money and he's lagging in the polls."
Evelyn Brodkin, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, said she expects the rising number of people without insurance to get more attention in the campaign.
The share of Americans without health insurance hit 15.8 percent last year, up from 15.3 percent the previous year.
"It affects people in the middle, and it affects corporations," Brodkin said. "Especially those who compete globally, they are really hurting because they have to compete with companies that don't have huge health insurance bills for their labor force."
Lyndon Johnson was the last president to launch a major initiative aimed at eradicating poverty, said Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan.
Danziger said low unemployment in 2006 helped lower the poverty rate. But, he noted, the rate was slow to drop despite five years of economic growth.
"For three decades we have had an economy where workers with a high school diploma or less have hardly kept up with inflation," Danziger said.
Low-wage workers have been hurt by the nation's declining manufacturing sector, which has lost more than 3 million jobs since Bush took office.
“But the number of people without health insurance also increased, to 47 million.”
It will decease as we kick out the illegal burglars whom the rat is using to swell this number so he can push more socialism.
“Poverty rate declines again..”
Of course it has, that’s Capitalism for you.
Time for the Left to raise the bar on what defines “poverty”.
For a start, I’d say the lack of plasma screen TVs in at least three rooms, enough discretionary cash for bi-weekly forays to the gambling boat, and a smart phone with unlimited minutes and full internet access would be the new definition of poverty.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
The costs of medical care and related insurance coverage would drop significantly, if government got out of the healthcare business.
FINALLY!!!....Something, for which, we won’t BLAME President BUSH!!
Of coursre that means MSM will have to start quoting poverty numbers in absolute terms "The number of poor, who have grown by over 1 million during the Bush presidency..."
So, after 40 some odd years of Johnson's (not so) Great Society, and upwards of $14 TRILLION of our tax dollars shoved down this rathole, we still have 12.3% living in poverty?
Seems to me that this is the percentage of people who just don't give a rat's arse.....and the year to year statistics seem to bear this out.....
One of the last bombs that Clinton lobbed at the incoming administration was to raise the Poverty Level threshold so as to take effect after he left office.
Liberals and Democrats hardest hit.
BEING 'POOR' IN AMERICA
Today the Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty in America. Let's take a quick glance at the people who are classified as "poor" in this country, thanks to an article by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector:
46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.
62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
In other words ... it's all a fraud. Aren't you surprised?
I had almost forgotten about all the executive orders that Ex42 left in place for Bush to deal with. The one that got the most media attention was the ridiculous arsenic-in-the-water fiasco.
Do you know where there is a list of the Clinton's executive orders issued from Nov 2000 to Jan 19 2001? That list would make very interesting reading.
Bush’s fault!!!
LLS
If everyone were at making at least $1 over the definined “poverty” rate, would there then be no poverty?
Of course not. The bar would then move up to a different number. We cannot have NO POVERTY. That is simply not allowed.
If everyone were making at least $100,000 per year, it would still mean we have poverty. Because those making only $100,000 per year would then be “poor”.
It’s all relative.
Now, if we defined poverty relative to the entire population of the world, everyone in the USA would be rich!
But we cannot have that. That is not allowed.
Someone always brings up health insurance when discussing poverty.
The impoverished have Medicaid and in some cases Medicare. They generally aren't the ones without coverage for their medical bills.
Or, to put it another way, "For three decades we have had an economy where workers with a high school diploma or less HAVE KEPT UP WITH INFLATION!"
But according to Nancy Pelosi, wages have not increased under Bush.
Washington Post touts low unemployment, strong economy; credits President [FLASHBACK]
Washington Post Archives | May 4, 1996 | John M. Berry; Washington Post Staff Writers
Posted on 01/07/2006 8:14:50 AM PST by nwrep
In sharp contrast to yesterday, when the 4.9% unemployment rate was described by the MSM as “weak numbers”, the media was tripping over itself in 1996 while reporting the 5.6% unemployment under President Clinton in 1996 as evidence of a rosy economy and good policies by the administration.
Below is how the Post described the news. Notice that it buried the weaker than expected payroll growth deep in the report, while yesterday it lead most of the major newscasts, which downplayed the unemployment numbers.
******************************************************** The unemployment rate dropped to 5.4 percent, its lowest level in 14 months, the government reported yesterday, capping a week of good economic news for the country — and great news for President Clinton’s reelection bid. Wages are rising at their fastest pace in five years, consumer confidence is soaring, and business and consumer spending has fueled an unexpectedly strong burst of economic growth. with this report put out under Clinton.
Yep. There is also a problem with the way poverty is calculated. Accumulated wealth doesn't figure into the equation. A person could own a $10 million house free and clear, but not have any income per se and as such would be considered living in "poverty". I would suggest to our congresscritters that if they want to see real poverty, take a trip to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil or Managua, Nicaragua or some other city in a 3rd world country. I was dumbfounded when I first encountered "real" poverty in my travels. Open sewers, people living on dirt-floored tin shacks, real squalor. Nothing at all like what we call poverty here.
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.