|
Census: More Americans living in poverty
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LiquidX |
Noooo Waaaiiittt... Bush's Policy's are brilliant.. this is part of the PLAAAN!!! Ignore this numbers.. right ?
| quote: | [B]Census: More Americans living in poverty[B]
Number of uninsured also rises
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.
Census Bureau analyst Dan Weinberg said the results were typical of a post-recession period. He said the increase in the number of people without insurance was due to the uncertain job picture.
"Certainly the long-term trend is firms offering less generous [benefit] plans, and as people lose jobs they tend to lose health insurance coverage," he said.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry seized on the numbers as evidence the Bush administration's economic policies have failed. During the years Bush has been in office, 5.2 million people have lost health insurance and 4.3 million have fallen into poverty, he said.
"Under George Bush's watch, America's families are falling further behind," Kerry said.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, noted that while more people lost insurance, there also were about 1 million more Americans with coverage in 2003. Overall, 243 million people had insurance last year.
"The bottom line is this: More people in America have health coverage today than at any time in our nation's history and I think that's a fact worth noting, but we can always do more," he said.
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-New York.
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.
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 was 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.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/ce...y.ap/index.html |
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| Poverty isn't a result of Bush. If you are smart, have a good education, and have a good personality you won't be living in poverty. If you don't have these qualities then it is your own fault. Everyone at birth is born with a clean slate, what you decide to do with the slate is up to you. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
Poverty isn't a result of Bush. If you are smart, have a good education, and have a good personality you won't be living in poverty. If you don't have these qualities then it is your own fault. Everyone at birth is born with a clean slate, what you decide to do with the slate is up to you. |
Well, I dont think that its your fault to have a poor education, to be born in poor conditions, and not be able to pay off college, nor be able to afford yourself the expensive insurance that most americans face. |
|
|
| occrider |
Don't read too much into it.
A) Poverty is the most lagging economic indicator of all ... more so than jobs. Therefore, since we're looking at 2003 data, we're likely seeing the results from fiscal policies implemented in 2002 and the aftereffects from the recession.
B) The last peak of the poverty rate occurred in 1993 at around 20% ... so it continued a dramatic rise a full year into Clinton's term and a full two years after the previous recession.
So what am I saying? Wait until next year's data before you start politicizing the poverty rate.
Oh and by the way, the poverty rate (as opposed to the number in poverty) right now is actually not at so much of a dramatic level. The last time it was at this level was in ... 1998.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/.../pov03fig03.pdf |
|
|
| Spin Doctor |
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
Poverty isn't a result of Bush. If you are smart, have a good education, and have a good personality you won't be living in poverty. If you don't have these qualities then it is your own fault. Everyone at birth is born with a clean slate, what you decide to do with the slate is up to you. |
Simply not true. Someone from a deprived background has to work twice as hard to ‘make it’, compared to someone from an affluent background if they do at all, the odds are stacked against them.
Plus, there are countless social factors which come into play too. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
Well, I dont think that its your fault to have a poor education, to be born in poor conditions, and not be able to pay off college, nor be able to afford yourself the expensive insurance that most americans face. |
At a younger age you are right, its probably the parents fault as the children can't decide what grade school to attend. However education is free for the most part, and as a right you can choose a different high school if the one you are assigned to does not meet your standards. It happens here all the time.
If you work hard in high school then you can get free education in college. College payments are a direct corrolation with how hard you work in high school. Even if you don't do well in high school, there are plenty of opportunities including student loans, work study programs, and various scholarships. I got over $20,000 off my college fees because of my art portfolio alone!
Insurance, well that as a child has to be covered by parents so until around 18 it isn't under your control. After that however, if you did well in college, networked, got a good job, most likely it will have benefits including healthcare. If you are self employed like me you can deduct your FULL health costs. So if I pay $3000/year in health coverage I can deduct the full amount at the end of the year.
I definetely understand that many high qualified people are unemployed and that is because our economy isn't quite out of the recession yet. The poverty level is quite low though, ~$9500 year for a single person and ~$18,000 for a family of 4. Most educated people should be well above that. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spin Doctor
Simply not true. Someone from a deprived background has to work twice as hard to ‘make it’, compared to someone from an affluent background. |
Yes you are correct.
I didn't say it would be easy for someone from a deprived background, I said that with a clean slate you can pretty much do whatever you want and with hard work you shouldn't be in poverty, from a deprived background or not.
Those with silver spoons of course have life easier, they can slack in high school and get fully paid educations, can attend the best schools, and due to networking with family friends get the best jobs. |
|
|
| Spin Doctor |
| And I just realised I didn’t read all your post though the first time! ;) |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | The Data on Poverty and Health Insurance You’re Not Reading
by Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
WebMemo #556
August 27, 2004 |
If you are like most Americans reading about this week’s poverty and health insurance report,[1] you are not getting all of the facts. This week’s Census Bureau report, based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), has predictably garnered much media attention. While pundits and the press have focused on the rising poverty and uninsurance rates, there has been little discussion of what happens to people who are poor or uninsured. Do the poor tend to stay poor? Do those who lack health insurance stay uninsured for short or long periods of time?
While most of the CPS-based report focuses on the static issues of year-to-year health insurance and poverty rates, there is a small mention of another Census Bureau series of reports called the “Dynamics of Economic Wellbeing.”[2] These reports, based on data from the long-standing Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), track actual individuals over time, as opposed to the CPS, which only provides snapshot information. For that reason, the CPS has been criticized for providing an incomplete picture of these social indicators.
By surveying people over time, SIPP provides a rich source of data and information for policymakers and public at-large. In the SIPP reports are some startling but seldom-reported findings:
Poverty is often short-lived. More than half of all poverty “spells” (time spent in poverty) last less than four months, and about 80 percent last less than a year. (See Chart 1.) In fact, very few people—only about 2 percent of the total population—are chronically poor in America, as defined by living in poverty for four years or more.[3]
Substantial income mobility, both upward and downward, exists in America. About 38 percent of all households in the lowest income quintile rose to a higher quintile within three years. An almost equal percentage (34 percent) of all households in the top quintile fell within three years.[4]
Spells of uninsurance are short-lived. The typical family that loses health insurance is uninsured for only 5.6 months on average.[5]
Very few people lack health insurance long-term. Only 3.3 percent of all Americans went without some kind of health insurance for four or more years. Additionally, only one in nine people were without health insurance for more than two years of the four-year study period. (See Chart 2.)
Health insurance coverage rates have risen over time. In 1996, some 8.8 percent were without health insurance for the entire year, a figure that dropped to 8.0 percent by 1999. Conversely, 78.2 percent of all Americans had health insurance for the entire year in 1996, which rose to 80.4 percent by 1999.
Such data present a very different picture of poverty and the uninsured than what has been reported this week. Although the rates of poverty and uninsurance have increased on a static year-to-year basis according to the CPS, this phenomenon is likely to be short-lived among affected persons, according to the SIPP.
Additionally, when it comes to health insurance, the Census Bureau’s own statisticians argue that SIPP provides a better measure of health insurance coverage than CPS.[6] In a recent research report on the differences between CPS and SIPP in this regard, Census Bureau statistician Shailesh Bhandari wrote,
Since the SIPP collects monthly information and allows us to see changes from month to month, SIPP may be closer to the truth. This implies that although designed to estimate the coverage at some point during a year, the CPS is underestimating it.[7]
In short, the CPS data provide an incomplete picture on poverty and health insurance in America. Policymakers would be well advised to look to other data, such as SIPP, to gauge what actually happens to people who fall into poverty or lose their health insurance. Only then will public policy be fully informed, and America can truly have an intelligent debate on how to better address these problems.
Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation |
|
|
|
| tathi |
interesting article:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996323
"An association between disorganised, noisy and cramped homes and lower childhood intelligence has been observed before. But whether socio-economic status (SES), genetics or the environment itself is the cause has never been clear....."
i've also read that playing Classical music in the household when young children are growing up will help increase their mathematical abilities |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
i've also read that playing Classical music in the household when young children are growing up will help increase their mathematical abilities |
That acutally was discouted by the same professor that put forth the notion of classical music affecting intelligence. Looking at all reports done on the issue, there is a slight, acute and fleeting change (at best) to adult thinking skills after listening to classical music, but none associated with infants or children. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| I wonder what playing trance music to children would do to them. |
|
|
|
|
