Understanding Poverty in America (Putting latest Census Number into Context)

Heritage Foundation ^ | Jan. 5, 2004 | Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.

[QQQQQ]

The above is very important, to put into context the census data, which the Dems will be using against President Bush, that the ranks of poor rose 4% to 35.9 million in 2003. We had a recession, what is actually amazing, is that there only was a 4% increase in the "poor'.

And note above what the "poor" have. I think the definition of "poor" needs to be changed.

Here is the Reuters article:

Poverty rises in United States

I didn't want to put that in the headline, since it will be on the front pages of every news paper.

We need to put it in perspective and provide the context, which the Heritage Foundation has done.

The link to the Heritage Foundation article takes you to the Executive Summary of the report. But there is a link to the entire report, which has a lot of good graphics, which I would recommend reviewing.

The link to the full report is:

Understanding Poverty in America. Full Article

[Always Right]

By Democrat standards, you are poor if you have a household income of less than $60,000, and mega wealthy if you have a household income of more than $80,000. Hope that helps.

[QQQQQ]

Sure enough: Kerry turns new Census data against Bush

ANOKA, Minn. - John Kerry wasted no time turning new Census data against President Bush.

The Census Bureau said today that the number of Americans living in poverty rose by more than a million people last year. And the number of people without health insurance jumped by nearly a million and a half.

Kerry told an audience at Anoka Technical College that the figures are "fact, not political diatribe." And he says his policies would be better.

[QQQQQ]

And more:

Statement from Senator John Kerry on New Census Numbers

Today confirms the failure of President Bush's policies for all Americans. While George Bush tries to convince America's families that we're turning the corner, slogans and empty rhetoric can't hide the real story. Under George Bush's watch, America's families are falling further behind. Family income has fallen $1511 under George Bush - declining for three straight years. 5.2 million people have lost health insurance under George Bush -- 1.4 million people this year alone. 4.3 million people have fallen into poverty under George Bush -- 1.3 million this year alone. All while good paying jobs are disappearing and families struggling to make ends meet are being squeezed by skyrocketing costs for health care, energy and college tuition."

And the Republicans aren't standing up to put these "poverty" numbers in context!

[wbill]

Bush's fault. Women, children, minorities hardest hit.

[DB]

The "poverty standard" is only based on "income" and not actual assets. Really stupid. But hey, that's the government for you.

[QQQQQ]

How can people who own their own home, have airconditioning, own a car, two television sets, has plenty of food, and so on, be classified as "poor"?!

[QQQQQ]

But if that income is clearly comfortably enough for necessities and some, that is NOT poverty.

[elbucko]

During the depression, Will Rogers oft quoted that: "Americans were the first people ever to go to the poorhouse in an automobile". It would seem that the poor, as well as owning an automobile, now also own their own "poorhouse".

America; What a country!

[elbucko]

*** The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London,....

This, I know from personal experience, is a fact.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

If poverty is based on annual income. A multimillionaire farmer who has a bad crop and doesn't show a profit would be considered poor for that year. Sell enough assets that lost value to offset your income you to can be poor for a year. Use depreciation allowances to offset income and the same thing occurs. Using income as the determining factor can allow an individual to move from the bottom quintile to the top quintile with relative ease.

[QQQQQ]

Also seniors living in a multi-hundred thousand dollar house, all paid off, own investments, invested for appreciation, not for income, and their only expense is pretty much only food, utilities and incidentals, which are covered by Social Security, are considered "poor".

The definition needs to change!

[Neocon Shavuz]

Kerry told an audience at Anoka Technical College that the figures are "fact, not political diatribe." And he says his policies would be better. ...But didn't say how...

The truth is that wealthy and poor are not an evils but a natural result of living in society that doesn't pursue equality as a primary goal (communist nightmare) but rather allow it's members "pursuit of happiness" on their own. What can Kerry do to create more jobs, increase number of wealthy people, etc.?
Answer: NOTHING
And he better not touch anything!
I am stunned by cynicism of Dem's propaganda. They aren't fools they know it just a pile of populist slogans carefully designed to manipulate most ignorant and envious part of Americans to vote for them. Just imagine what if they REALLY mean what they say!

[QQQQQ]

"They aren't fools they know it just a pile of populist slogans carefully designed to manipulate most ignorant and envious part of Americans to vote for them."



Exactly. But the unfortunate thing is that there are way too many of these ignorant voters who think they are going to get free handouts from the Dems.

[wbill]

In America, poverty is defined as 'living without Cable TV'.

I recently went to Mexico. In the interior of Mexico, poverty is defined as 'living in a hut made of sticks, with a dirt floor and thatched roof, and with no electricity or running water or furniture, and sleeping in a hammock'.

It's all relative. I wish, though, that more people could see what real poverty is like, so that they could understand just how good things are in America.

[familyofman]

"...put into context the census data, which the Dems will be using against President Bush, that the ranks of poor rose 4% to 35.9 million in 2003. We had a recession,..."

There was no recession during any part of 2003, the recession took place back a couple of years ago. In fact the economy was growing quite fast in 2003.

[QQQQQ]

Jobs are a lagging indicator.

[ApplegateRanch]

Not only is the "poverty standard" only based on income, I don't believe it counts 'home production', such as raising a garden &/or food-animals or eggs, either.

At one point, we had little income, but raised rabbits, meat & egg chickens, a pig, and 1/3 of a steer; grew most of our own veggies, a lot of our own fruit. We cooped with a couple of neigbors, keeping the jointly owned & fed steer on one piece of property; the pig pen on another, and the poultry and rabbits on ours. We all kicked in equally for feed & butchering; grew our own gardens; each had a few fruit trees, so shared/traded fruit; and, split the chores.

If each of us had had to keep our own animals on our own, less than 1 acre, properties, it would not have been feasible.

NONE of that was taxable or reportable 'income', so we were near or even below the poverty line (Thank you, Mistah Jimmah!) but certainly we were not in 'need nor want'.

[Mr.Atos]

For further consideration...

1. Do the Census numbers, with regard to income, adjust the figures differently with regard to mortgage deductions on an IRS tax return? If so, wouldn't the fact that home ownership increased significantly in the last 4 years, technically adjust some of the population's income levels into the red? As far as I know, rent is not factored out of income as an adjusted expense.

2. Would the increased shift in the job market to entrepreneurship account for some of the reduction in the Health Care coverage numbers?

3. A baby boom has been underway for the last 3 years. This changes many factors in the demographic. Tax relief, home ownership, and improved economic conditions have encouraged us to consider shifting our lifestyles toward a single-income household. Many of our friends have already made a similar change.

Food for thought.

[QQQQQ]

You are making excellent point.

Someone with a gross income of 40K, but a mortgage deduction of $20K plus a few other deduction could well fall into the below $18 taxable income and be classified as "poor".