Poverty ranks swell by over a million

[TonyM.]

We don't have poor people where I live. There were some people living under the railroad bridge with no permanent home, income or food, but the police did their job and chased them away to someone elses town.

 

[MisterMike]

But that aside, the facts seem to be that during Bush's Presidency, the number of people classified as, "poor," has grown by over a million. That's a lot of people, however you slice it.

Fine, but that's the thing. People look at the tiny slices and never the whole picture. Poverty numbers go up and down.

I'm still waiting for the definitive link that "This is W's fault."

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Fine, but that's the thing. People look at the tiny slices and never the whole picture. Poverty numbers go up and down.

I'm still waiting for the definitive link that "This is W's fault."

I was wondering about this myself when reading the article. All the comparisons that it makes (from what I can recall, mind you) are only as distant as Bush's first year in office. If they want to show how it's Dubya's fault, they could try showing how maybe his administration has caused a deviation from regular changes.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. The abrupt rise in oil prices contingent upon an unnecessary war in the mideast.

2. The collapse of several major companies, including Enron, as a direct result of Bush's curious approach to regulatory policies. The attendant loss of retirement plans, savings, stock options, etc., for some hundreds of thousands of people.

3. Republican deficit spending.

4. Bush's presiding over the continuing export of jobs at all levels.

But not to worry. None of this exists. None of it has anything to do with poverty. There are no poor people. Nobody lost their job over the last four years. The economy's doing great, despite those pesky numbers.

 

[michaeledward]

Just another point to add in to this discussion.

That the number of people living in poverty conditions has grown by 1.3 million people, according to the Census Bureau should also be viewed that this is the third consecutive year that this number has increased.

 

[MisterMike]

While Home Ownership is at a high....

 

[michaeledward]

yes it is.

I refer the gentleman to Mr. Edwards - "Two Americas".

 

[rmcrobertson]

See, under Clinton poverty figures go DOWN, under Bush poverty figures go UP....kinda reminiscent of the Federal deficit, ain't it?

As for home ownership, the Fed under Greenspan kept loan rates incredibly low because of the poor economy.

And not that it'll bother anybody, but a) the median home price in LA county is now well over 300,000; b) we continue to build more and more homes in high-risk areas such as the Florida panhandle and burn/flood areas out here in SoCal.

But them poor people? Still don't exist. The well-documented fact that the 400-to-1 difference between the highest paid CEO and the lowest paid company worker in this country, as compared to something like 24-to-1 in England, the European country with the biggest income gap...well, that doesn't exist either. Mere Martian propaganda.

 

[MisterMike]

See, under Clinton poverty figures go DOWN, under Bush poverty figures go UP....kinda reminiscent of the Federal deficit, ain't it?

As for home ownership, the Fed under Greenspan kept loan rates incredibly low because of the poor economy.

Actually, kinda reminiscent of the economy, which was handed over in 2000.

Also, Greenspan did not keep loan rates low, he lowered them under President Bush. This, along with tax cuts for the working class and families (who are 70% of this ecomony), are the reason for the economic rebound and hopefully soon, a lower poverty rate.

I guess it's easier to just skim taxes off the dot-com bubble and look like you are helping the poor than it is to turn it around when the bubble pops.

 

[MA-Caver]

<snip> I'm still waiting for the news to start playing the stories on all the dead and dying who starve to death each day here. I don't want to come off as a jerk, but it just aint gettin' played. Well, not 34 million times. 1 time is enough to make most take a step back and be thankful for what they have. But we still live in the greatest country ever, IMO. Room to grow, of course. I'm just a little tired of the spin and fuzzy math.

Until the U.S. Government relinquishes control back to the Media like it should be, (and IMO they do have control) we'll NEVER hear about the dead and dying except from rappers, and guys like Mike Moore and others who are anti-government and managed to get their spins out before they were convienently misplaced else-where... away.

It happens and even if it IS reported by the media it's usually in print and around page 11 or 14 of the newspaper buried among JC Penny ads and the Home-Depot coupons.

While I was at poverty level (and techinically I still am) I personally own between $500 to $700 worth of caving gear. Does this put me into the same catagory as those who wear $200 Nike's??
Geez, well, considering that I purchased each and every piece of gear ... one piece at a time over the last 14 years... I just don't see the comparison... same goes for the Nike owners. They could have worked at a temp. agency for a couple of days/weeks and rewarded themselves with these kewl shues... Or gotten them by *ahem* other means... who knows? Mebbe they were a gift?
Until we know for sure HOW they managed to have such expensive shoes while living in the projects I don't think that we need to critique their purchasing power over the fact of their poor judgement in spending habits.
The shoes are iconic and they can (psychologically) lift the spirits of those who are wearing them. ... I may be poor but I got some damn good shoes!

"...poor people used to live in slums, now the economically disadvantaged live in substandard housing in the inner cities... and they're broke! They don't have a negative cash-flow position... they're f---ing broke! Or maybe they were fired. You know fired? Management wanted to curtail redundancies in the human resources area so these people are no longer viable members of the work force? ~George Carlin on Euphanisims

 

[rmcrobertson]

Any way you slice it. Mike, poverty rates (and welfare rates) DOWN under Clinton, and UP under Bush. Can't git away from it.

So too with the deficit: DOWN under Clinton, UP under Bush.

But never let reality fash ye, lad.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

b) we continue to build more and more homes in high-risk areas such as the Florida panhandle and burn/flood areas out here in SoCal.[\QUOTE]

Um, call me ignorant or whatever, but what does this have to do with the economic gap in America? And by high-risk, I assume you mean weather-wise (the current hurricane coming from the east is top on my mind). So building in high-risk areas is a problem and all, but it's related to the economic gap how?

And here, I'll say it for ya: Don't let reality farsh ya', lad. Feel better?

 

[loki09789]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/index.html

Four More Years!

Could other interpretations of causes (such as post 9/11 economy, global perspectives of American market stability....) be the causes of these raw statistics and not necessarily the current administration? Are there population swells of changing lifestyles for adults who went from either working to retirment income status or graduating minors with part time jobs while in college that could be skewing these numbers? What about a possible increase of 'naturalized' citizens/immigrants who are on social services/minimum wage earnings as they build thier cultural capital to earn better wages? Remember how the baby boomer generation has impacted healthcare statistics because of age. Could be having the same impact on wage statistics as well.

I don't know about you folks, but I try to remember that raw statistics leave much room for interpretation of the root causes for the trends as well as how these raw numbers correlate with other information.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Building in high-risk, ecologically-unsound areas is related to the economy because it is just another aspect of unsustainable growth. See:

a) when we have to rebuild, and do so repeatedly, IT COSTS MONEY that could be better spent elsewhere;

b) high-risk areas demand high rate insurance, which everybody pays for, and THIS COSTS MONEY;

c) building in high-risk areas often contributes directly to the sorts of ecological damage that trash businesses such as fishing and tourism, and THIS COSTS JOBS AND MONEY.

But I think I'll let the latest Cat. IV hurricane--which is working hard on Cat. V--do the explaining for me.

 

[Makalakumu]

Building in high-risk, ecologically-unsound areas is related to the economy because it is just another aspect of unsustainable growth. See:

a) when we have to rebuild, and do so repeatedly, IT COSTS MONEY that could be better spent elsewhere;

b) high-risk areas demand high rate insurance, which everybody pays for, and THIS COSTS MONEY;

c) building in high-risk areas often contributes directly to the sorts of ecological damage that trash businesses such as fishing and tourism, and THIS COSTS JOBS AND MONEY.

But I think I'll let the latest Cat. IV hurricane--which is working hard on Cat. V--do the explaining for me.

These hurricanes are a one/two punch to the insurence agency. I vote for no bail out. People need to start making better decisons.

 

[loki09789]

These hurricanes are a one/two punch to the insurence agency. I vote for no bail out. People need to start making better decisons.

Would you have said that to early farmers during land offers in the 1800's and early 1900's of America because of Indian raid dangers, drought.... "NO SOUP FOR YOU?"

What about health benefits for those injured in said living areas/conditions? Do we deny medical treatment because they chose to live there in 'poor judgement?' I don't see the consistency to other socially minded points you have made.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, considering that the subsidies you're suggesting were being given to people who were in the process of taking Indian land and destroying other people's lives--not in all cases, to be sure, but in many--yeah, I probably would have said, "You're on your own."

I might also note that building a six bedroom ugly, oversized house after ripping out a mangrove forest, so you can take your fat butt around and around in circles on a jet-ski, or flattening forest to crank out cheap trailer parks and strip malls, is not exactly fulfilling the fronteir spirit of heroic adventure.

After all, Republicans are busy denying health care, child care, etc., to the poor on the grounds of their immorality and irresponsibility. 'bout time we applied the same logic to others, n'est pas?

 

[loki09789]

After all, Republicans are busy denying health care, child care, etc., to the poor on the grounds of their immorality and irresponsibility. 'bout time we applied the same logic to others, n'est pas?

Well in this day of Republicans aren't....

NYS has Child Health Plus programs and Healthcare plans for those who don't have coverage or can't get coverage because of employment or because employers don't offer it.... partially funded by federal money. It aint awesome, but it is there when it wasn't there before. It's incept was because of Clinton Admin policies but it still survived the 'evil Republican Power' of the current adminstration and has really taken off.

Ecological issues aside, Insurance is about risk/profit... I do think that making my insurance rates flux because of hurricane risk pools is crazy, but denying folks insurance is like denying someone health coverage because of a risky job...oh say like military service.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

:lurk:

 

[Makalakumu]

Would you have said that to early farmers during land offers in the 1800's and early 1900's of America because of Indian raid dangers, drought.... "NO SOUP FOR YOU?"

What about health benefits for those injured in said living areas/conditions? Do we deny medical treatment because they chose to live there in 'poor judgement?' I don't see the consistency to other socially minded points you have made.

If the federal government gets involved, we need to help the people who are hurt by the hurricane. The difference is that the action is not promoting a collusion of government and business.