U.S. Poverty jumps from 14.3% to 15.1% since 2009

[Little-Acorn]

The Obama administration's achievements just keep rollin' on.

How's that "Hope and Change" working out for you?

[liberal]
(It's George Bush's fault.)
[/liberal]

--------------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/census-us-poverty-rate-swells-nearly-1-6-142639972.html

Census: US poverty rate swells to nearly 1 in 6

by HOPE YEN
Tue, Aug 16, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — The ranks of U.S. poor swelled to nearly 1 in 6 people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment woes left millions of Americans struggling and out of work. The number of uninsured edged up to 49.9 million, the biggest in over two decades.

The Census Bureau's annual report released Tuesday offers a snapshot of the economic well-being of U.S. households for 2010, when joblessness hovered above 9 percent for a second year. It comes at a politically sensitive time for President Barack Obama, who has acknowledged in the midst of his re-election fight that the unemployment rate could persist at high levels through next year.

The overall poverty rate climbed to 15.1 percent, or 46.2 million, up from 14.3 percent in 2009.

Reflecting the lingering impact of the recession, the U.S. poverty rate from 2007-2010 has now risen faster than any three-year period since the early 1980s, when a crippling energy crisis amid government cutbacks contributed to inflation, spiraling interest rates and unemployment.

Measured by total numbers, the 46 million now living in poverty is the largest on record dating back to when the census began tracking poverty in 1959. Based on percentages, it tied the poverty level in 1993 and was the highest since 1983.

The share of Americans without health coverage rose from 16.1 percent to 16.3 percent — or 49.9 million people — after the Census Bureau made revisions to numbers of the uninsured.

 

[Openmind]

The Obama administration's achievements just keep rollin' on.

How's that "Hope and Change" working out for you?

[liberal]
(It's George Bush's fault.)
[/liberal]

--------------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/census-us-poverty-rate-swells-nearly-1-6-142639972.html

Census: US poverty rate swells to nearly 1 in 6

by HOPE YEN
Tue, Aug 16, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — The ranks of U.S. poor swelled to nearly 1 in 6 people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment woes left millions of Americans struggling and out of work. The number of uninsured edged up to 49.9 million, the biggest in over two decades.

The Census Bureau's annual report released Tuesday offers a snapshot of the economic well-being of U.S. households for 2010, when joblessness hovered above 9 percent for a second year. It comes at a politically sensitive time for President Barack Obama, who has acknowledged in the midst of his re-election fight that the unemployment rate could persist at high levels through next year.

The overall poverty rate climbed to 15.1 percent, or 46.2 million, up from 14.3 percent in 2009.

Reflecting the lingering impact of the recession, the U.S. poverty rate from 2007-2010 has now risen faster than any three-year period since the early 1980s, when a crippling energy crisis amid government cutbacks contributed to inflation, spiraling interest rates and unemployment.

Measured by total numbers, the 46 million now living in poverty is the largest on record dating back to when the census began tracking poverty in 1959. Based on percentages, it tied the poverty level in 1993 and was the highest since 1983.

The share of Americans without health coverage rose from 16.1 percent to 16.3 percent — or 49.9 million people — after the Census Bureau made revisions to numbers of the uninsured.

And yet, you're still convinced that more poor and lower middle class people should pay taxes, so that the wealthy 1% gets to keep their historical low tax rates!

This, just in case you haven't made the connection in your impatience to blame Obama again for this increase in poverty rate, clearly demonstrate that the "redistribution of wealth" the GOP thinks is so bad, because it would bring more money to the poor and lower middle class instead of the wealthy, is happening. . .but in the direction of the POOR to the WEALTHY!

And. . .where the "trend" of increase in poverty level since 2009 (which you obviously want to blame on Obama!) is real. . .that trend has been present for many years. . .UNDER BUSH. . .at a time when the economy was supposed to have been "great!" and where the wealthy were enjoying even more tax breaks!

Here is the trend since 1993. . .under Clinton (poverty went down from a high of 15.2% to a low of 11.3 %), and under Bush (poverty went up from a low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004 and 14.3% in 2008). And, obviously, since those "Bush tax cuts" are still in effect, and we are still living with the aftermath of Bush/Cheney's policies AND a worldwide economic downturn, the trend has continued to reach 15.1% this year

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.1 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.

 

[Little-Acorn]

And yet, you're still convinced that more poor and lower middle class people should pay taxes,

The only weird thing, is your bizarre insistence that they shouldn't.

 

[Alias]

I know a good remedy for poverty. Never, ever, under no circumstances and under no conditions ever allow liberals to run anything.

 

[Openmind]

I know a good remedy for poverty. Never, ever, under no circumstances and under no conditions ever allow liberals to run anything.

Then, how do you explain that the percentage of poverty INCREASES under Republican administrations, but DECREASES under Democrat administrations?

 

[Openmind]

The only weird thing, is your bizarre insistence that they shouldn't.

Poor people ARE paying taxes. . .just not Federal taxes.

What do you want them to pay taxes with. . . an income of less than 22,000 per year for 4 people?

They do pay sales taxes on every penny they make. . .because they don't make enough to "save" money, so they use ALL their income to purchase necessities. . .not "wants".

Do you want them to cut their grocery bill by half so they could pay some Federal taxes?

You are such a giving heart! I am just so very glad I don't know you!

 

[Openmind]

The only weird thing, is your bizarre insistence that they shouldn't.

Funny how you have nothing to say about the more "thorough" data provided to you!

Is that called "hypocrisy?"

 

[Alias]

Then, how do you explain that the percentage of poverty INCREASES under Republican administrations, but DECREASES under Democrat administrations?

It has increased under this administration.
http://www.businessinsider.com/poverty-under-obama-2010-9

 

[Openmind]

It has increased under this administration.
http://www.businessinsider.com/poverty-under-obama-2010-9

I didn't say othewise. . .did I???

It is obvious that, with this huge recession world wide recession (triggered by our American economy and Bush/Cheney's policies), the job market would have suffered, and. . obviously, the poor and the lower middle class will always suffer more than the wealthy!

However, the direction of the OP was to look ONLY at the years under Obama's administration (although, obviously, the 2009 budget was still George Bush's), to demonstrate that this President was the one responsible for the increase in poverty.

I hope you have more integrity than some here, and that you will recognize that the trend started LONG before Obama (under George Bush), even long before the economic collapse at the end of 2008 (in fact, just about the time when Bush gave "us" his generous tax cuts for the wealthy!), and that the continued trend is (at least partially. . .if not completely) the reason of this economic collapse and the loss of jobs that followed it!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

yes its all Obamas fault...because the poor here doing great under Bush right? When the housing market crashed before Obama was in office, that really helped the poor..when the econ tanked before Obama it really helped them...

The Right pounds away attacking Unions ( aka good working class jobs) crys that the Min wage is to high ( because nothing gets rid of poor people like paying them less) cuts school funding ( because education is overrated for finding jobs) Wants to cut off Unemployment for workers ( in debates they talk about how its Obamas fault for unemployment...then to there own people they attack the people as only unemployed because they are lazy...even when there are 10 people looking plus for every job opening..)

Republicans don't blame Obama for this record...take credit ..after all is it not what you want? the rich are richer and the poor are worse off...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I didn't say othewise. . .did I???

It is obvious that, with this huge recession world wide recession (triggered by our American economy and Bush/Cheney's policies), the job market would have suffered, and. . obviously, the poor and the lower middle class will always suffer more than the wealthy!

However, the direction of the OP was to look ONLY at the years under Obama's administration (although, obviously, the 2009 budget was still George Bush's), to demonstrate that this President was the one responsible for the increase in poverty.

I hope you have more integrity than some here, and that you will recognize that the trend started LONG before Obama (under George Bush), even long before the economic collapse at the end of 2008 (in fact, just about the time when Bush gave "us" his generous tax cuts for the wealthy!), and that the continued trend is (at least partially. . .if not completely) the reason of this economic collapse and the loss of jobs that followed it!

Republcican viewpoint is...if your in charge of making sure no one falls off the roof of a tall building...and someone goes over the edge...but half way down, you change shifts...and someone else is in charge when the person hits the ground...it was the one now on duty's fault for not saving them.

 

[Openmind]

Republcican viewpoint is...if your in charge of making sure no one falls off the roof of a tall building...and someone goes over the edge...but half way down, you change shifts...and someone else is in charge when the person hits the ground...it was the one now on duty's fault for not saving them.

Good metaphor!

But. . . Maybe a drawing is needed for some!

 

[Alias]

I didn't say othewise. . .did I???

It is obvious that, with this huge recession world wide recession (triggered by our American economy and Bush/Cheney's policies), the job market would have suffered, and. . obviously, the poor and the lower middle class will always suffer more than the wealthy!

However, the direction of the OP was to look ONLY at the years under Obama's administration (although, obviously, the 2009 budget was still George Bush's), to demonstrate that this President was the one responsible for the increase in poverty.

I hope you have more integrity than some here, and that you will recognize that the trend started LONG before Obama (under George Bush), even long before the economic collapse at the end of 2008 (in fact, just about the time when Bush gave "us" his generous tax cuts for the wealthy!), and that the continued trend is (at least partially. . .if not completely) the reason of this economic collapse and the loss of jobs that followed it!

I don't think my integrity has anything to do with the facts. A lot of people are to blame for the recession that began under Bush. You also have to remember that the Dems took control of congress in 2006 and the House is where spending originates.

The American people are turning away from Obama because his policies are not working but making things worse. That has nothing to do with Bush.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I don't think my integrity has anything to do with the facts. A lot of people are to blame for the recession that began under Bush. You also have to remember that the Dems took control of congress in 2006 and the House is where spending originates.

The American people are turning away from Obama because his policies are not working but making things worse. That has nothing to do with Bush.

his policies not working . aka he has not fixed the problem fast enough...but that is different then he is to blame for the problem in the first place that was there before he was in office....as for his policies....Republicans have done there best to stop most, and half of what he has signed was as the Speaker put it 98% of what they wanted..2% his plan...The Stim even, that did create jobs just not enough...was 40% tax cuts...but that was not enough for the Right...even though many on the left said tax cuts do not creat jobs that spending does...and wanted more spending and a bigger deal...this issue was compounded later when studies showed the econ was more in the hole then was first though when it passed...Republicans have had power in the house for a while now...what have they done that is effective? Say no to everything and created a fake crisis about the debt ceiling that hurt the econ and cost jobs...but gained them tea party support.

 

[Pandora]

Republcican viewpoint is...if your in charge of making sure no one falls off the roof of a tall building...and someone goes over the edge...but half way down, you change shifts...and someone else is in charge when the person hits the ground...it was the one now on duty's fault for not saving them.

And a conservative or libertarian would say it's the guy's own fault for getting too close to the edge personal responsibility!