U.S. Poverty Rate Jumps To 14.3 Percent

[frontrange]

Source: NPR

The poverty rate jumped to 14.3 percent in 2009, up from 13.2 percent a year earlier and the highest rate since 1994, the Census Bureau said Thursday. Last year, a record 43.6 million people were in poverty, up from 39.8 million in 2008 — the third consecutive increase.

"The number of people in poverty in 2009 is the largest number in the 51 years for which poverty estimates have been published," the Census Bureau said.

The agency also reported that the number of people without health insurance coverage rose to 50.7 million in 2009, while the percentage increased to 16.7 percent.

The average poverty threshold for a family of four was $21,954 in 2009, the Census Bureau said.

Read more: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129905272

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[TBF]

2. And there is still debate about letting those tax give-aways expire? nt

[slackmaster]

7. Wait... ...what?

Keeping the tax cuts for middle- and low-income people in place would tend to keep the poverty level down, would it not?

[ShockediSay]

29. This is what the supermillionaire tax cut gave us, while THEY lined their pockets

took away our jobs, our health insurance, our retirement accounts, our homes and our budget surplus.

Do we want more of same?

Like hell they will create jobs. Look what they did the last go 'round.

Now they will create such a deeper national debt, they will come after our social security and our medicare, and line their pockets even more, all in the name of cutting deficit.

Wake Up to their Corporation Funded Propaganda.

[TBF]

31. Yup - let the tax cuts expire. Then enact new ones for anyone

under 250K a year, sliding scale. I have no problem with that.

[slackmaster]

36. That would be fine with me too - I haven't seen a serious proposal to do that yet

Just a lot of hot air.

[slackmaster]

35. It's unfortunate that discussions of expiring tax cuts always get derailed by this distraction

During the Bush administration, there was a broad tax cut that affected tax brackets that cover pretty much all income levels.

In reply #2, TBF referred to "letting those tax give-aways expire", without specifying any particular tax bracket or brackets, therefore the comment refers to ALL of the tax cuts.

Not all of the tax cuts can accurately be described as "supermillionaire tax cuts".

Many people on this forum tend to ignore the fact that taxes for low- and middle-income people were cut as well, and that without action by Congress and the President, those cuts will expire as well.

Congress has not yet made any credible move toward preserving the tax reductions for the middle and lower classes, therefore any honest discussion about allowing the tax cuts to expire should take that into consideration.

If Congress comes up with a proposal that raises taxes on high-income people, that would be fine with me. Until that happens, anyone talking about doing nothing and allowing the tax cuts to expire, is in fact talking about increasing taxes on everyone.

[TBF]

39. Yes, I meant at the 250K above and should have specified. nt

[sharp_stick]

3. Notice the timing?

The highest since 1994, once more it's at a high just 2 years after a Repuke administration drove the economy in this country off a cliff.

Just as in 1994 it now falls upon a Democratic President to pull our asses out of the fire.

[frontrange]

5. But neither party is really helping the working class

...and the Tea Party doesn't give a damn about making our lot in life better.

People who make too much to qualify for food stamps but not enough to pay for basic living expenses are really getting screwed.

[leftstreet]

12. +1

[alp227]

19. "too much...but not enough" BINGO

Income doesn't come in black and white "you're either lazy and poor or hardworking and rich". It's a lot more complicated than that. Our elected officials need to wake up and go talk to the middle class.

[HillbillyBob]

20. Yea...I noticed.......9$ a month in food stamps goes

a long way..if I wanted to live on rice and beans. I won't though I have lived on rice and beans before its not exactly a healthy diet.

[madrchsod]

24. hell ya can buy a couple cases of ramen noodles for 9 bucks at walmart!

[humbled_opinion]

26. Oh there you go being

all logical.... That is exactly true... It is those in the middle between what is acceptable middle class... Now I define Middle Class as a combined family income of 100k per year give or take but most of us are in the 40-50k combined family income per year bracket and we are the ones that work the hardest and wind up getting screwed the most. A perfect example, the bank reforms that just went into effect where very needed reforms but what is the first thing that the banks did? They passed the costs on to the consumers that is exactly what happens in all cases of "PUNISHING THE RICH" ... Are we fools enough to believe that the RICH really pay? ....

The only way to truly make the rich pay would be to take a majority of their wealth by government control and means testing of various commodities required i.e., OIL....

My point is that Gasoline should cost based on means to pay, lets use Tom Brady and his recent 20MIL per year contract... he should be forced to pay $10K per gallon of gasoline... He would then be forced to think twice before fueling up the private jet or the fleet of limos... The excess money i.e., cost to produce versus the amount that the rich guy would pay could be used by the government to spur green energy growth and get us all off of OIL and onto something more environmentally friendly and certainly less expensive...

[Dappleganger]

4. Wow.

How many of these people vote? Don't you think this is significant?

*for the bubble blowers*

[Roland99]

6. Highest level since 1994, eh? Hmm...2 years after the Reagan/Poppy years

Coincidence?



I think not.

[tabasco]

15. I wish I could recommed your reply.

The American people have the collective memory of a schnauzer.

[Fire1]

33. Now that was funny!! LOL!!! n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

8. The largest number ever recorded. Wonder how many kids that is.

My guess is that more people with kids are in poverty than those without. The poverty rate for kids was 25% before 2008. God knows what it is now.

[prolesunited]

21. Actually, it's in the article

"Child poverty rose from 19 percent to 20.7 percent."

Not sure where your number came for. Criminal, nonetheless. I guess the kids should just go out and get a job.

[krabigirl]

9. We are so screwed. Nt

[Desertrose]

10. ...and so many still deny it.

That is the big part of the problem. If it doesn't directly affect you*, then...oh well...that's very sad, but.....


*I mean the generic "you", not you krabigirl.

[area51]

37. +1

You've hit the nail on the head. And it's long past time to start up a new WPA in order to put America back to work. This is an emergency situation that needs emergency measures.

[kenfrequed]

11. And still...

The republicans are pushing for extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. Why isn't this being used against them yet? Why do the people running in battleground states not understand that running economically progressive is a win? They act as though the people in their districts are against ALL progressive legislation just because they like their firearms. It is the height of stupidity.

[county worker]

13. It looks like the conservative agenda is working well!

[FlyByNight]

14. This is the continuing result of...

...neoliberalism and its various forms (from Reagan on through). The middle-class is being decimated and the corporate super-party (Rs and Ds) don't seem to care.

:puke:

[Lost4words]

27. +1 nt

[RussBLib]

38. I'm afraid that this is the plan

Globalization is raising the wages of much of the developing world. So much so for Mexico that multinationals are fleeing there in search of lower wage workers. And wages are rising in China, so some are leaving there in search of cheaper workers.

If we are going to achieve a more equalized wage level across the world (a dubious goal), then Americans wages will have to fall. And they are falling. Rapidly.

Now they are beginning to outsource attorneys jobs, one of the few remaining high-wage jobs in America. I mean, really, why should corporations pay those sky-high American lawyers $500-$700 per hour when Indian lawyers will work for $50-$70 per hour? What's to stop them?

There is still almost nothing to stanch the flow of American jobs to lower-wage countries. The Obama admin could have changed the tax laws enough to discourage this sort of behavior, but it hasn't. I'm afraid that it won't. Our corporate masters appear simply too strong and too powerful for anyone in Congress to stand up to. There are a couple of heroes here and there: Alan Grayson, Denis Kucinich...Not nearly enough.

We all better get used to getting by with less in America. And I'm afraid that Republcans and Democrats are going to lie and demogogue us all into the poorhouse.

Perhaps the answer is lowering the amount of income that qualifies as "poverty." I would almost expect such a cosmetic action from our ineffectual Congress.

[Techn0Girl]

16. HuffPo also picked up this story - quotes both Dem And Rep sources trying to spin the numbers

....for the election .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/poverty-rate-jumps-to-tk-_n_719057.html

------
On Wednesday, congressional Democrats, facing losses in November because of the dismal economic situation, launched a preemptive strike calling the new poverty numbers "fresh evidence of the human cost of the Bush economic policies."

"Democrats have controlled both chambers of Congress for four years and Obama has been in the White House almost two," countered Doug Heye from the Republican National Committee. "At some point, Democrats need to acknowledge that they are in control because their Bart Simpson-esque 'I didn't do it' claims don't hold water with voters."

-------

Personally I feel this is one of the few times BOTH parties got it right.

[OhioChick]

22. +1 n/t

[BridgeTheGap]

17. It's their own fault. They should've pulled themselves up by their own boot straps. No boots?

That's their problem too. I got mine. They can't have any... Sound familiar?

[totodeinhere]

18. And the standard for qualifying for the poverty level is so artificially low that actually

a lot more people than that are by any objective measure living in poverty. As far as finger pointing goes, I think that policies starting with Reagan and running through every subsequent administration, Republican and Democrat alike, have contributed to the problem. But the real kicker was the deep recession started by Bush 43 which is going to take years to recover from.

[snot]

23. FYI, the U.S. "Poverty Line":

is variable depending on the CPI for food and other factors, as I understand; but per Wikipedia, the most recently determined threshhold for a family of 4 living in the 48 contiguous states is $22,050. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_poverty_guidelines#Recent_poverty_rate_and_guidelines .)

[disillusioned73]

25. Think about this for a moment.....

"The average poverty threshold for a family of four was $21,954 in 2009, the Census Bureau said."

How many millions were just above this "threshold" and not counted - I'd guess we are a lot closer to 20%


:mad: trickle down economics at it's best

edit; spelling

[SteveM]

28. Poverty & no health coverage: I am a member in good standing of both.

[Lucky Luciano]

30. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it mcconnel! nt

[notesdev]

32. You could bring every one of them out of poverty

Simply by having given them the PUBLIC money that went to banker bonuses.

14.3% times 300 million ~= 43 million people in poverty

$100 billion/43 million = over $2300/person

A reasonable assumption is that the median of all those below the poverty line is roughly half the poverty line... poverty line guidelines allocate just over $4k per additional person in a family to bring them to the line, half that is $2k, and we'd still have 15% wiggle room, which is quite substantial.

FIRE TIM GEITHNER TODAY.

[Psephos]

34. excellent post n/t

[blueclown]

40. For a family of 4, $21,954 or lower is considered poverty?

How about raising that to $35,000 and then seeing what the true poverty rate is. How many families can make a living on 30,000 a year?