1.3 million more Americans slid under poverty line in 2003

[Darth Wong]

From CNN

Poverty spreads
Census Bureau says 1.3 million more slipped into poverty last year; health care coverage also drops.

August 26, 2004: 1:20 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The number of Americans living in poverty jumped to 35.9 million last year, up by 1.3 million, while the number of those without health care insurance rose to 45 million from 43.6 million in 2002, the U.S. government said in a report Thursday.

The percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty rose to 12.5 percent from 12.1 percent -- as the poverty rate among children jumped to its highest level in 10 years, the Census Bureau said in an annual report. The rate for adults 18-to-64 and 65-and-older remained steady.

The bureau also said the share of aggregate income for the lowest 20 percent of Americans fell to 3.4 percent from 3.5 percent.

Democratic politicians were quick to seize on the new data, and none was quicker than their presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. He said the statistics "underscore the fundamental choice at stake in this election."

"Four more years of an administration that puts the narrow interests of the few ahead of the interests of most Americans, or new leadership that will serve as a champion for the middle-class and those struggling to join it," he said in a written statement.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., released a statement noting that the Census data covered the year 2003 and "does not include the full effect of the president's tax relief."

Gregg, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, took aim at Kerry, accusing the Massachusetts senator of planning to raise taxes and increase government spending and regulation.

Kerry has argued Bush's economic stewardship, including three rounds of tax cuts since 2001, has done more to help wealthy Americans than the poor or middle class.

But analysts have said the poverty rate typically tracks the broad economy, rising during a recession and falling in boom times. America has struggled to recover from the 2001 slump, and job creation has lagged behind overall growth.

Children and most racial minorities again fared worse than the overall population in 2003, according to the Census report. The rate of child poverty rose to 17.6 percent from 16.7 percent in 2002 -- boosting the number of poor children to 12.9 million.

The poverty rate of of African Americans remained nearly twice the national rate, with 24.4 percent of blacks living below the poverty line in 2003, slightly higher from 24.1 percent a year earlier.

Hispanic incomes decline

While the real median income for the entire country remained steady, households with Hispanic householders, who can be of any race, reported a decline in median income of 2.6 percent.

Non-Hispanic white household median income remained about $48,000, black households held at $30,000, while Asian households were steady at $55,500.

The West, at $46,820, Northeast, at $46,742, and Midwest, at $44,732, saw no change in median household income, but the South fell 1.5 percent to $39,823.

Women saw a decline in their earnings for the first time since 1995, falling 0.6 percent to $30,724, putting the female-to-male earnings ratio -- for full-time, year-round workers -- at 76 cents on the dollar, a penny lower than 2002.

Health care coverage also dropped last year, the Census Bureau said, seen by some as an important scorecard on the nation's economy and Bush's first term in office.

According to the data, more people were covered by Medicare and Medicaid in 2003 than in 2002, while the percentage and number of people covered by their employers fell from 61.3 percent -- 175.3 million people -- to 60.4 percent, or 174 million people.

Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for the poor, saw an increase in people covered to 35.6 million from 33.2 million while those covered by Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly, rose to 39.5 million from 38.4 million people.

The Office of Management and Budget at the Census Bureau defined the poverty threshold in 2003 as $18,810 for a family of four; $14,680 for a family of three; $12,015 for a family of two; and $9,393 for an individual.

[Faram]

GW the 2nd's tax breaks to the wealthy is having an effect I see.

[Talon Karrde]

GW the 2nd's tax breaks to the wealthy is having an effect I see.

Right, so now tax breaks somehow put people below the poverty line. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you get a tax break, don't you keep more money?

[Keevan_Colton]

Right, so now tax breaks somehow put people below the poverty line. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you get a tax break, don't you keep more money?

I guess the refrence to how G.W. and the rights trickle down economics via tax breaks for the wealthy not working slipped by you there didnt it?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Right, so now tax breaks somehow put people below the poverty line. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you get a tax break, don't you keep more money?

You're really not very good at this, are you? In essence, you just proved Faram's point for him, which I suppose is a nice gesture but doesn't make you look very smart.

Your (and Bush's) assertion was that the tax cuts were going to give the economy a short term boost.* Faram was pointing out that this hadn't done jack shit with respect to the economy and things had actually gotten worse, potentially due to the program cuts (not just federal, but also state) necessitated by the tax cuts. Your reply was extremely lackluster and I hope you try harder next time.

I think it's nice that the Census Bureau is giving the lie to the administration and right-wing claim that everything is getting better. It is my impression that it has been so far shown statistically that we are in a jobless recovery.

*[Actually, at first it was giving the surplus back to the people, then it was setting the economy up for a long-term trickle-down improvement, and eventually it became a short-term recession-killer--those amazing tax cuts can do anything!

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Having more kids puts more people below the poverty line, for one. NOt JUST taxes. Taxes however, increase the problem.


1 Taxes would help middle class americans IF most of the tax breaks didn't go to the super wealthy.


for a taxbreak:

[quote} a sutibile family must make between 35, and 75000 dollars per year. [however ther eare cathes wich disqualify many people]

1. itemized its taxes
2. have no children in day care
3. Have no children in college
4. no night school
5. no substantial savings outside of a 401 K


85 % of all couples in that income range they selected didn't get the tax cut becaues of that.

The vast majority of tax cuts didn't go to the vast majority


the tax cut was supposed to bestow a 100% tax cut break, according to bush. That didn't include payroll tax, but income taxes. this is "extremely important if you are at the bottom of the income tax line."


Now if you give most of the money to the rich, and they don't increase wages and jobs, wouldn't more people go into poverty? Even so, this mostly applies to children, not adults, so the people who are already beyond the poverty line must have had more children. Still bad all around for poverty.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

also....i forgot. DUe to the " catches" attatched to many of the taxcuts, the poverty line wages are lower than the family paradigm established for accepting taxcuts. 53-70k. (but even those people don't always get them).

[Faram]

Right, so now tax breaks somehow put people below the poverty line. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you get a tax break, don't you keep more money?

*Sigh*

Sarcasm is wasted on some people.

But then again you need a brain to get sarcasm and you seem severe lacking in that part.

[His Divine Shadow]

Lazy bastards, won't work eh! well you deserve to be poor.

[Joe]

Faram was pointing out that this hadn't done jack shit with respect to the economy and things had actually gotten worse, potentially due to the program cuts (not just federal, but also state) necessitated by the tax cuts.

What program cuts?

[LadyTevar]

Faram was pointing out that this hadn't done jack shit with respect to the economy and things had actually gotten worse, potentially due to the program cuts (not just federal, but also state) necessitated by the tax cuts.

What program cuts?

In WV, you can only be on Welfare for a total of 5yrs IN YOUR LIFETIME

[LadyTevar]

Faram was pointing out that this hadn't done jack shit with respect to the economy and things had actually gotten worse, potentially due to the program cuts (not just federal, but also state) necessitated by the tax cuts.

What program cuts?

In WV, you can only be on Welfare for a total of 5yrs IN YOUR LIFETIME

Edit (thought of more):
Clothing vouchers have been cut form $150 to $100 per child
Programs to provide or offer Daycare have been cut 20%.
Eligibility for Food Stamps has been revised.

[Talon Karrde]

Ok, but explain how a lack of trickle down effect actually would HURT more families or people to make them fall below the poverty line. I'm yet to see why that would cause people to fall beneath it. I can understand your points in it not working as planned, but how can it hurt exactly?

[Andrew J.]

Ok, but explain how a lack of trickle down effect actually would HURT more families or people to make them fall below the poverty line. I'm yet to see why that would cause people to fall beneath it. I can understand your points in it not working as planned, but how can it hurt exactly?

No one mentioned anything about hurting the lower classes, it's just not helping them, at all. Stop with the strawmen.

[SirNitram]

Ok, but explain how a lack of trickle down effect actually would HURT more families or people to make them fall below the poverty line. I'm yet to see why that would cause people to fall beneath it. I can understand your points in it not working as planned, but how can it hurt exactly?

Do you understand the concept of a 'budget'? Do you realize that if you reduce your income, you can't spend as much, or you go deeper into debt. There will be harm somewhere.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I'm always amused how averages work. 46K a year for people in certain parts of California or New York is not enough for even a single person to survive on and live well.

While the economy is improving it has not created lots of high paying jobs to replace those that were lost. We still have a way to go for the recovery to be complete.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ok, but explain how a lack of trickle down effect actually would HURT more families or people to make them fall below the poverty line. I'm yet to see why that would cause people to fall beneath it. I can understand your points in it not working as planned, but how can it hurt exactly?

Because it provided none of the promised help while the economy was tanking, dumbass.

Shrub promised a safety tube for these families which was never thrown; and unsurprisingly they're submerging beneath the stormy surf.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Ok, but explain how a lack of trickle down effect actually would HURT more families or people to make them fall below the poverty line. I'm yet to see why that would cause people to fall beneath it. I can understand your points in it not working as planned, but how can it hurt exactly?

Since trickle down economics is BASED on the idea that to help the lower classes you give more money to the upper crust and let the money "trickle down" and then you don't have to give them welfare, not that you could afford it after giving the money to the wealthy. But since this is the ONLY support for low income people in the trickledown system, and it ISN'T WORKING, you can justifiably say that it is hurting people and that it is bad economic policy.

[Darth Wong]

Ok, but explain how a lack of trickle down effect actually would HURT more families or people to make them fall below the poverty line. I'm yet to see why that would cause people to fall beneath it. I can understand your points in it not working as planned, but how can it hurt exactly?

Tax cuts to the wealthy are supposed to spur economic growth, but this presumes that the wealthy will give their money back to the economy in equal proportions to what the middle-class would do (the argument is that rich people tend to invest money while middle-class people tend to just buy stuff, and that investing money makes the economy grow more than increased consumer spending; I have never heard precisely how we know that last item to be true).

The problem is that if these tax cuts to the wealthy do not produce the desired results, then the government just lost a bunch of money for little or no gain to society at large. This means that they must either cut program spending or run deficits, either of which can cause problems.

[Imperial Overlord]

The problem with the whole theory is that lower income people spend more of their money (they have to in order to survive) than the wealthy. The trickle down effect actually works in reverse. The more help you give to lower income people, the more income they generate, and the more they spend.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I'm always amused how averages work. 46K a year for people in certain parts of California or New York is not enough for even a single person to survive on and live well.

While the economy is improving it has not created lots of high paying jobs to replace those that were lost. We still have a way to go for the recovery to be complete.

Tell me about it. My wife and I can't afford to live on our own, especially since I'm taking night courses for my teaching credential. It's humiliating and demoralizing to graduate from college and not be able to find a job--any job-- that pays more than 150% of minimum wage. My degree is worthless and my student loan payments are huge and I can't get a decent job because the market is absolutely glutted with more experienced applicants.

[Mr Bean]

Once more as I always ask whenever I hear
That phrase I hate Tax cuts for the Weathy

Define Weathy, When one says tax cuts for the weathy its impossible to put it first in contex unless you first define the term "weathy"

At one point does one become rich? One doller amount? Not what standing amount or one's ability

What salrey range does one become weathy at? 40K? 60k? 90k? 140k?

[Patrick Degan]

Once more as I always ask whenever I hear
That phrase I hate Tax cuts for the Weathy

Define Weathy, When one says tax cuts for the weathy its impossible to put it first in contex unless you first define the term "weathy"

At one point does one become rich? One doller amount? Not what standing amount or one's ability

What salrey range does one become weathy at? 40K? 60k? 90k? 140k?

Right. Keep pretending that the Bush tax cuts weren't overwhelmingly slanted toward advantage for the top 1% bracket and those deriving the bulk of their income from compound interest and investment dividends and that they clearly have not produced the effects advertised. This has been analysed and written about for four years now in minute detail and the arguments of the naysayers have clearly been borne out by experience.

But by all means, keep pretending that this isn't what's happening.

[Gil Hamilton]

This probably also has alot to do with the fact that people who lost their good jobs are replacing them with shittier ones to make ends meet, thus don't have as much money and are slipping under the poverty line. Some people have talked about employment going back up (morely optimist conservatives who make a thread on message boards about it every time a new report comes out), but what's not being address is "Are they as higher paying as the jobs that were lost?" Of course people are getting back to work after losing their shit, but they are taking a major step down from where they were because the higher paying jobs they had before are still gone. Naturally, this is going to be reflected in more people slipping under the poverty line.

[Iceberg]

The disappearance of entry-level jobs to overseas outsourcing is extremely worrisome: Many jobs are still safe, but there is now no longer a path for new entrants into the workforce to reach those jobs.