Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FOUR MORE YEARS! Of this?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FOUR MORE YEARS! Of this?



    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.
    If you don't like reality, change it! me
    "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
    "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
    "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

  • #2
    What could Bush of done to keep the economy from slipping? Could policy of stopped terrorism that was a spill over from the previous presidents? Could policy of stopped the dot coms from busting, which occured just after he took office?

    Complain all you want GePap, and blame who you want. However, I don't know what could of been done.
    Monkey!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm of the school of thought that says the President has very little direct effect on the economy, and I thank my lucky stars for that. I really, really, really want Bush to lose this election, but I also recognize that the economy was due for a recession. What he's been doing hasn't helped, but I'm not gonna pin all of this stuff on him.

      -Arrian
      grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

      The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

      Comment


      • #4
        I guess we really have Hillary's failure to blame for the health care problem.


        Hmmm, yes, that sounds just as silly.
        It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
        RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

        Comment


        • #5
          The issue is one of poverty: Ways Bush could have helped stem these number:

          One: reduce the size of the tax cut to the top 1%
          Two: use that money to help states shore up their budgets to stop cuts to basic services
          Three: use some more for anti-poverty programs from the fed level
          Four: Include in this funding to state programs that provide free healthcare to certain target populations, like Children.

          Wow, that was really difficult to think of.....

          May I add that according to the Administration, the recession ended in 2001 and according to Bush we "turned a corner" thanks to his tax cuts. These numbers show the hollowness of Bush's economic claims.
          If you don't like reality, change it! me
          "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
          "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
          "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Arrian
            I'm of the school of thought that says the President has very little direct effect on the economy, and I thank my lucky stars for that. I really, really, really want Bush to lose this election, but I also recognize that the economy was due for a recession. What he's been doing hasn't helped, but I'm not gonna pin all of this stuff on him.

            -Arrian
            THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE OVERALL ECONOMY- THIS IS ABOUT A RISE IN POVERTY. ADD TO THAT THAT ACCORDING TO THE AMDINISTRATION THE RECESSION ENDED IN 2001 AND SINCE 2002 THE ECONOMY "HAS TURNED A CORNER" THANKS TO HIS TAX CUTS.

            SO THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT BUSH'S HANDLING OF THE ECONOMY!!!!

            Is that clear now!?
            If you don't like reality, change it! me
            "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
            "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
            "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

            Comment


            • #7
              His economic policy came straight from the pages of "My Pet Goat!"

              O'course it's gonna be okay...

              -=Vel=-

              Politicians
              The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.

              Comment


              • #8
                THIS IS ABOUT A RISE IN POVERTY. ADD TO THAT THAT ACCORDING TO THE AMDINISTRATION THE RECESSION ENDED IN 2001 AND SINCE 2002 THE ECONOMY "HAS TURNED A CORNER" THANKS TO HIS TAX CUTS.


                The economy has 'turned a corner'. Look at GDP growth rates. Poverty numbers are irrelevant.
                “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Now there is another line of thought..good, real debate.

                  I don't think the poverty numbers are irrelevant- I think they are even more relevant than GDP in terms of the effects on actual human beings, citzens.
                  If you don't like reality, change it! me
                  "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                  "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                  "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes, that's nice, but GDP is the gross domestic product. That determines if the economy is doing better. You could have less poverty numbers, but the economy could still be in the ****ter. However, with a rise in GDP, the economy, by definition, gets better. So nominal poverty numbers are irrelevant to determine if the economy is better. GDP is the number to look at.
                    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I would expect poverty levels to rise due to a recession.

                      When did the recession begin?

                      From a Liberal Lib,

                      Poverty Levels of 1998, Good Job Clinton

                      The poverty rate feel from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998
                      12.5% in 2003?

                      Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years.
                      17.6% in 2003?

                      I'd say he did a good job to keep it steady, if not lower, through a recession.
                      Monkey!!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE OVERALL ECONOMY- THIS IS ABOUT A RISE IN POVERTY. ADD TO THAT THAT ACCORDING TO THE AMDINISTRATION THE RECESSION ENDED IN 2001 AND SINCE 2002 THE ECONOMY "HAS TURNED A CORNER" THANKS TO HIS TAX CUTS.

                        SO THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT BUSH'S HANDLING OF THE ECONOMY!!!!

                        Is that clear now!?
                        Um, ok.

                        I'm with you on the tax cut thing. All that did was force the States to raise taxes and make cuts (which made towns raise taxes and make cuts). It, um, trickled down. I was against the tax cut from the beginning.

                        That's what I meant when I said "what he's been doing hasn't helped."

                        Your article also discussed median household income and other things that I do not feel are the President's fault. Hence my response.

                        So chill.

                        -Arrian
                        grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                        The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Japher, interesting numbers. It seems then, according to the stats, that the poverty level in '03 was lower than in 1998 (when it was considered a 'boom') and rising povery levels are still much much less than they were in 1993.
                          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Japher
                            I would expect poverty levels to rise due to a recession.

                            When did the recession begin?

                            From a Liberal Lib,

                            Poverty Levels of 1998, Good Job Clinton



                            12.5% in 2003?



                            17.6% in 2003?

                            I'd say he did a good job to keep it steady, if not lower, through a recession.
                            Look at the article- Bush has seen 3 straight years of increases: that means that under Clinton, from 98 to 2000 the numbers sank even more starkly to lows, to then see increases in 2001, 2002 and now 2003.

                            So little by little we are undoing Clinton's good work is being undermined.
                            If you don't like reality, change it! me
                            "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                            "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                            "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              2000 Census

                              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.

                              "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.

                              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.
                              Monkey!!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X