7.9 million U.S. families in poverty
August 31, 2005 9:55 AM   Subscribe

Poverty Rate Increases in 2004. The US Census Bureau announced yesterday that the number of Americans living in poverty increased in 2004 by 1.1 million, an increase from 12.5 to 12.7 percent of the population. 2004 also marked the second consecutive year in which real median household income showed no change. Full report here (85 page pdf). Census bureau links page here. President Bush's agenda for tax relief promised "an economics of inclusion. It is the agenda of a government that knows its limits and shows its heart." In the richest country in the world 13 million children under the age of 18 live in poverty. (scroll down to "Age.")
posted by three blind mice (36 comments total)
 
I speak for many here when I say: This is my shocked face.
posted by mullingitover at 9:57 AM on August 31, 2005


I blame George W. Bush. Who's with me???
posted by jonson at 9:58 AM on August 31, 2005


Like troutfishing, but without the pizazz.
posted by sciurus at 9:59 AM on August 31, 2005


As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2004 was an income of $19,307; for a family of three, $15,067; for a family of two, $12,334; and for unrelated individuals, $9,645.

Just so we know what we are talking about.
posted by flarbuse at 9:59 AM on August 31, 2005


And...will someone better at math win the next presidency?
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:00 AM on August 31, 2005


Hmm, seems to me that trickle-down economics isn't working... if you were poor to begin with.
posted by HiveMind at 10:01 AM on August 31, 2005


And...will someone better at math win the next presidency?

I would be pretty certain that the answer to your question is, yes. Granted, that's setting the bar pretty low, but...
posted by Pollomacho at 10:02 AM on August 31, 2005


Thanks flarbuse for the context. Two people living in $1000 month doesn't leave a lot of room for buying Haliburton stock...

But it's not all bad news:

The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained unchanged, at 15.7 percent in 2004.

The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs rose in 2004, from 26.6 percent to 27.2 percent, driven by increases in the percentage of people with Medicaid coverage, from 12.4 percent in 2003 to 12.9 percent in 2004.

The proportion and number of uninsured children did not change in 2004, remaining at 11.2 percent or 8.3 million.

posted by three blind mice at 10:04 AM on August 31, 2005


Mission (Widen the Divide) Accomplished!
posted by fenriq at 10:05 AM on August 31, 2005


The poverty article is but a part of the overall problem. Our nation has some 45 million people without health coverage; the high school dropout rate continues to grow, having been at its lowest some 30 years ago--and for those without highschool diploma, the jobs are often going to illegals or out of the country.

If there is a spot of good news in any of this: should help military recruitment, where, like social welfare state, food, clothing, housing are provided, along with paying job.
posted by Postroad at 10:05 AM on August 31, 2005


Hmm, seems to me that trickle-down economics isn't working...

Sure it is. As Rev. Al Sharpton said, "They got the trickle and we got the down."
posted by three blind mice at 10:07 AM on August 31, 2005


You beat me to this... nice work.
posted by R. Mutt at 10:09 AM on August 31, 2005


Our nation has some 45 million people without health coverage...

More than some. 15.7% of a population of 297,038,752 = 46.6 million uninsured.

But it's unchanged since 2003 so at least it isn't getting worse. Yet.
posted by three blind mice at 10:10 AM on August 31, 2005


> Hmm, seems to me that trickle-down economics isn't working...

Perhaps bukkake economics would be a more apt term?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:14 AM on August 31, 2005


Hmm, seems to me that trickle-down economics isn't working...

Has it ever? Few serious economists really think it works and so far the evidence has not shown anything but a rich > richer and poor > poorer situation.
posted by aaronscool at 10:27 AM on August 31, 2005


The poverty rate is lower than in 1959 when records were first kept! Not to say their are not issues. The challenge here is not spending more moeny but enbaling people who are able and willing to support them selves, educate themselves etc.
As for trickle down economics of course it works.. Why would 8 out of 10 Mexicans surveyed say they would come here to work if it was legal? Because making 5 an hour is better than .25 an hour.
posted by hipshot at 10:39 AM on August 31, 2005


Actually, real median household income decreased slightly, not even keeping pace with inflation. It decreased more notably in the Midwest -- 2.4%.

Poverty last year rose by 1.1 million to 12.7 percent of the population. This is the 4th year in a row that poverty went up. By region, the South had the lowest household income at $40,773. Surprisingly, the rise in poverty over the last year was primarily driven by white Americans, many who find themselves underemployed and squeezed out of the middle class.

Something tells me that the Republicans might not do so hot in the next presidential election...
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:41 AM on August 31, 2005


bukkake economics

Well said PeterMcDermott. And damned funny.
posted by three blind mice at 10:44 AM on August 31, 2005


Because making 5 an hour is better than .25 an hour.

Those numbers are both far too high.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:44 AM on August 31, 2005


spending more moeny but enbaling people

Dude, there's a spellchecker on this site, let alone a wonderful array of spellcheckers available on free major-label browser toolbars out there.

I only remark on this because I had to work at getting a visual of the economy "enbaling" people out of my head.
posted by thanotopsis at 10:51 AM on August 31, 2005


I'm pretty sure intentional or not, that enballing people is indeed quite high on the GOP agenda.
posted by stenseng at 11:09 AM on August 31, 2005


Enballing and bukkake economics? Who ever thought a census report could be so sexy?
posted by Keith Talent at 11:15 AM on August 31, 2005


I blame George W. Bush. Who's with me???

WTF, jonson? Does this reverse-snark mean to assert that this administration's policies (tax breaks for the upper end of the economic spectrum, pushing for the elimination of the estate tax, capital gains, etc.) do not naturally result in a widening gap between rich and poor?
posted by psmealey at 11:16 AM on August 31, 2005


FWIW, I'd like to point out that people who are actually "poor" are usually eligible for Medicaid, an health insurance program for the poor. Thus, the majority of the ~46 million uninsured are not included in the 37 million who live in poverty.

The uninsured are a problem because:
* They put off small problems until they become large problems;
* If the problem is a communicable disease, anyone they contact is at risk of catching it;
* When the problem is finally treated, it is likely to end up being paid for either by taxpayers or not at all;
* When they work while sick -- and they can't afford not to -- they drive down productivity, infect co-workers (see above), and are at risk for causing workplace accidents;
* They are at greater risk of being financially devastated by medical bills.
posted by ilsa at 11:20 AM on August 31, 2005


Hmm, seems to me that trickle-down economics isn't working...

Hence the pejorative "Voodoo Economics."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:29 AM on August 31, 2005


Thus, the majority of the ~46 million uninsured are not included in the 37 million who live in poverty.

True enough ilsa. The census report observed:

The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs rose in 2004, from 26.6 percent to 27.2 percent, driven by increases in the percentage of people with Medicaid coverage, from 12.4 percent in 2003 to 12.9 percent in 2004.

The problem is that if you get sick poverty is your only solution. It is better to be poor than working which is a strange policy for a conservative governement.
posted by three blind mice at 12:04 PM on August 31, 2005


Interesting that the amount of people covered has not changed, but what I'd still like to know is how has the coverage changed over that period of time?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:39 PM on August 31, 2005


...and the headline in the Cleveland Plain Dealer today:

"Cleveland no longer poorest U.S. big city"
posted by Jazznoisehere at 12:40 PM on August 31, 2005


I had to work at getting a visual of the economy "enbaling" people out of my head.

Well, we may soon be reaching the point that the impoverished are worth more to the wealthy as protein, oils, and other useful materials than as cogs in a feeder-system economy. When that happens, let the enbaling begin!
posted by sourwookie at 1:06 PM on August 31, 2005


Perhaps bukkake economics would be a more apt term?


I'll say!

An overview of porn's economics -- from pay-per-view to the Internet to adult-video production -- and a closer look at how legitimate companies, like hotel chains and cable and satellite TV operators, are profiting from pornography. (NSFW)
posted by PenguinBukkake at 1:09 PM on August 31, 2005


I can't see the poverty situation getting any better with the new bankrupty rules that go into effect in October, either... Feh.
posted by daveqat at 2:29 PM on August 31, 2005


luckily, as of yesterday or so, everything from now on is the fault of the hurricane.
posted by hackly_fracture at 3:47 PM on August 31, 2005


tbm: "The problem is that if you get sick poverty is your only solution. It is better to be poor than working which is a strange policy for a conservative governement."

So true. I have a friend who suffered kidney failure and needed a transplant a couple years ago; fortunately for him he wasn't on dialysis very long and received a best-match kidney donation. He's currently alive and well, and doing fine.

However, he will be on anti-rejection drugs and some other stuff for the rest of his life - and it's very, very expensive, something like $2,000 a month worth of drugs. In the process of this dangerous illness, he depleted what little health insurance he had, and wound up having to quit working to get on Medicaid just to stay alive.

Medicaid has an upper limit on how much you can earn and still be eligible. He has gone back to work, but he can only take a paycheck that keeps him under that maximum income level to remain Medicaid-qualified. The gap between that maximum income and what he'd have to make to cover his medical expenses is huge - he'd have to more than double his salary to do it, and that's not possible where he lives (a pretty economically depressed area in New England). He can't afford to move anywhere; he barely makes enough to cover his basic expenses.

And soon, his Medicaid will run out. Without the ability to make enough money to cover his own medical expenses and buy his own insurance, he may have no other option than to again quit work, and go on permanent Social Security disability, which will pay him about $1,400 a month - just barely subsistence money for him. He would literally be trapped as a State welfare recipient, just to stay alive. In other words, forced poverty under the rules of the government.

He feels lucky to be alive, and grateful for the state support that he got to save his life, but he's pretty unhappy about having his life fall down to where he'd be essentially a shut-in, trapped in his home, unable to get out much and have anything resembling a life.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:54 PM on August 31, 2005



FWIW, I'd like to point out that people who are actually "poor" are usually eligible for Medicaid


Well, not really. Medicaid is administered by the states, and each state sets its own rules about eligibility, although certain groups must be covered. Here in Kentucky, for instance, adults can only get Medicaid if they're legally considered disabled, over 65, or if they're pregnant. This .pdf document gets around to describing Kentucky's eligibility standards eventually. It claims that poor families with dependent children are eligible, but that's new. Poverty's not enough, though.
posted by dilettante at 5:39 PM on August 31, 2005


There should be more free shit.
posted by shoos at 7:18 AM on September 1, 2005


Dilettante: that's why I used the word "usually." I must say I'm a little surprised that being over 65 is enough for Medicaid eligibility, inasmuch as that would make them eligible for Medicare, which is Federally funded and administered. Does Kentucky Medicaid run a Medicare supplemental program?
posted by ilsa at 9:50 AM on September 1, 2005


« Older Al-Aaimmah bridge catastrophe   |   Oil-vey! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments