 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nat...Poverty.html?hp
quote:
Ranks of Poverty and Uninsured Rose in 2003, Census Reports
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:36 a.m. ET
Published: August 26, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.
It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush.
Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau. That was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1 percent in 2002.
The rise was more dramatic for children. There were 12.9 million living in poverty last year, or 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. That was an increase of about 800,000 from 2002, when 16.7 percent of all children were in poverty.
The Census Bureau's definition of poverty varies by the size of the household. For instance, the threshold for a family of four was $18,810, while for two people it was $12,015.
Nearly 45 million people lacked health insurance, or 15.6 percent of the population. That was up from 43.5 million in 2002, or 15.2 percent, but was a smaller increase than in the two previous years.
Meanwhile, the median household income, when adjusted for inflation, remained basically flat last year at $43,318. Whites, blacks and Asians saw no noticeable change, but income fell 2.6 percent for Hispanics to $32,997. Whites had the highest income at $47,777.
Even before release of the data, some Democrats claimed the Bush administration was trying to play down bad news by releasing the reports about a month earlier than usual. They normally are released separately in late September -- one report on poverty and income, the other on insurance.
Putting out the numbers at the same time and not so close to Election Day ``invite charges of spinning the data for political purposes,'' said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.
Census Director Louis Kincannon -- a Bush appointee -- denied politics played any role in moving up the release date. The move, announced earlier this year, was done to coordinate the numbers with the release of other data.
``There has been no influence or pressure from the (Bush) campaign,'' Kincannon said Wednesday.
Official national poverty estimates, as well as most government data on income and health insurance, come from the bureau's Current Population Survey.
This year the bureau is simultaneously releasing data from the broader American Community Survey, which also includes income and poverty numbers but cannot be statistically compared with the other survey.
The figures were sure to generate attention regardless of when they were released since they typically serve as a report card of sorts for an administration's socio-economic policies.
Partisan debate figures to be more heated now, when the economy and health care are big issues in the tight presidential election race between Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry.
Since job growth was slow until the second half of 2003 and wages were relatively stagnant, it was likely the report would show an increase in the number of people in poverty, said Sheldon Danzinger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan.
William O'Hare, a researcher with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a private children's advocacy group, expected increases in the number of kids in poverty and without health insurance. He called the changes in the way data is being released ``bothersome.''
``It makes me wonder whether this statistical agency is being politicized in some way,'' said O'Hare, who has studied the poverty and health insurance data for over two decades. |
so, two years after the recession ended, Bush continues to spread his form of "wealth" around.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
2000 Census
quote:
The nation's poverty rate dropped from 11.8 percent in 1999 to 11.3
percent in 2000 -- virtually matching the record low set in 1973 -- while
real median household income ($42,148 in 2000) did not change from the
1999 level, which was the highest ever recorded. These findings are
according to two reports released today by the Commerce Department's
Census Bureau.
|
So, the actual poverty rate right before the recession was 11.3%... Which indicates a great job by Clinton.
quote:
"The drop in the poverty rate belongs to a larger story of economic
recovery since the last recession," said Daniel Weinberg, chief of the
Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.
"Poverty rates tend to peak soon after a recession. For instance,
following the most recent recession in 1990-91, the poverty rate peaked in
1993. However, since that time, recovery has been wide-ranging as each
racial, ethnic and age group has experienced declines in their poverty
rates."
|
Poverty rate increases after a recession?! Even though the recession ended in 1991 the poverty rate didn't peak until 1993, 2 years later? Hmmm, this last recession ended in 2001, and it is now 2003 with poverty rates peaking at levels lower than in 1998? Sounds pretty common, and also pretty good to me... Good job Bush.
quote:
The poverty rate for people under 18 years old (16.2 percent) dropped
for the third consecutive year, reaching the lowest rate since 1979.
Despite the decrease in their poverty rate, people under 18 had a higher
poverty rate than those in any other age group.
|
Similar as well...
I think Clinton did a good job and I think Bush is doing a good job. 4 more years of Bush may make him look like Clinton who took over the economy in a bad stance, but didn't have such tragedies to deal with.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
|
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
Yes, yes... The Dems are souly to congratulate for the economic boom of the Ninties... Since Al Gore, DID invent the internet..
Clinton happened to be at a time of an emerging industry, lucky him. However, we shouldn't blame Bush for it's shortcomings.
I look at numbers and trends, and what I see is normal for an economy, and Bush had nothing to do with.
Granted, and I do believe, Bush can pay more attention to the state of the economy and to those who need help. However, status quo is occuring, and I don't see any reason to place "Blame" on someone for things remaining the same... especially when we are in the exact state of an economy that we were in just 5 years ago, and it was GREAT than, but AWFUL now... Please explain.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Have I insulted you, threatened to throw you from a chopper or anything else? |
No, but you've deliberately avoided contrary facts and refuse to debate them because you have your own sacred facts and that's that, such as when you quoted yourself and left that as your post... before you DanS'd, of course.
Such as the fact that the late 90s were an aberration in terms of growth (the bubble was in full swing) and we are easing back into equilibrium. Instead you parrot the numbers and the increase and think they are horrible, when it actuality the numbers are quite good when you look at the historic number of people in poverty. |
Maybe your studies of economics and law have blinded you to a simple fact- politics is about comparisons. Yes, compared to our times under the Reagan precidency, unemployment and poverty numbers are low, but compared to the previous four years things are not well- those four years of the Bush precidency.
As for the tiring "buble" arguement- yes, the stock market was in a bubble (thought would you say the hosuing market is currently in a bubble as well?) and that burst- BUT the government (which is what we are talking about here) came into this crisis with a huge store of funds it had gained during the bubble. Bush and his political allies are to blame for the missed opportunities in keeping poverty and unemployment numbers at historic lows- they didn't- they had other priorities.
Now, you said outright you don;t care about poverty numbers -fine by me, but I do care about poverty numbers, becuase those numbers are about people, unlike GDP numbers, which simply consider things, not human beings.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-08-2004 21:18
Have I insulted you, threatened to throw you from a chopper or anything else?
|