Skip to comments.43.6 Million Americans Living In Poverty Is The Highest Number Ever Recorded
Posted on 09/16/2010 8:34:43 AM PDT by blam
43.6 Million Americans Living In Poverty Is The Highest Number Ever Recorded
Sep. 16, 2010, 10:31 AM
This was expected, but it still hits you in the gut. Poverty in America has hit the highest level the Census has ever recorded, according to a new report out today.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
I’m sure it has nothing to do with our continued slide to the left over the past 20 years.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, looks like a golf club or a Hillerich & Bradsby oh no wait ...it looks like a hockey stick?
Isn’t Poverty just another name for Socialism?
Recovery Summer is over?
I travel throughout the world to make a living, and visit the entire spectrum of countries from dirt poor to fabulously wealthy.
Believe me, this country hasn't known real poverty for decades. And, being America, any individual or family has the ability to be mobile and move up in the class structure through their own hard work and determination (for now, anyway).
This crap looks like something the LSM used to but out while Dubya was presiding. What a joke.
We import illegal aliens who come here with no posessions, work for minimum wage, and then wire part of their paychecks HOME and wonder why we have “not erradicated poverty”.
The welfare safety net provides a cruch for those who want to survive at that level by choice.
When you make little and wire it out of the country, you aren’t really hurting.
Provide for yourself first. Those who are unwilling to provide for themselves and are able to do so deserve no support. Legal or illegal.
What I am sure of is that it is:
2) Bush's Fault
I think of Obama’s brother every time he says we MUST HAVE Obamacare and other socialist programs because “the bible” tells us “I am my brother’s keeper”.
(A) I cannot be required to tithe to Obama’s religious belief system
(B) I’ve seen how Barack does nothing for his own blood brother.
Absolutely meaningless number. It's the percentage that matters.
Weisenthal knows better.
I would LOVE to see a chart comparing America today to America pre-1900. I would bet that all of the BS going on during the turn of the century negatively affected America.
find Jan 2007 on the graph... that’s when the dems took over
only job they didn’t have was the POTUS. the POTUS does not spend money or set taxes. that’s congress
* Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Yeah, but you can have a car and a microwave and cableTV and still qualify as “poor” in the USA. Kinds of makes the statistics useless.
Poverty my a$$. By who’s standards? A used Mercedes vs a new one? A 40 inch flat screen vs. a 50 inch? A Blackberry vs conventional cell? A 14k gold dollar sign hangin around the neck vs. 10k?
It would be interested to see this by percentage of population, rather than raw numbers. (Since the population is always increasing - I guess yet another “bubble” coming).
Absolutely meaningless number
43 million people would disagree
Oh ... stoopid me! There it is in percent right on the chart!
What this number actually shows is that as leftist policies take hold, the already wealthy use the government to stop those aspiring to be wealthy from achieving their goals. Make no mistake, fascism and Marxism are not designed to end rich and poor, they are designed to make them permanent.
WOW..this is a much different take than the other media reports that it is the ‘highest since 1994’!
IT IS THE HIGHEST EVER RECORDED IN CENSUS RECORDS!
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
How many cars, TV’s, cell phones, IPODS etc...do these “poor families” own?
What is your definiton of poverty? The Dept. of Commerce states that, in 2006, a single person was in poverty, if his or her income was less than $10,294, per year. A couple was in poverty, if their income was less than $13,167, per year. A household of four was in poverty, if their income was less than $20,614, per year.
Nobody is in poverty here, now in Haiti, THAT’S poverty.
Show me the money!
If you earn $22,025 you are in the top 10.72% of global earners. Maybe Obama will embark on another apology tour for our ‘greed’.
Cue Hollyweird crowd:
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let’s start giving
There’s a choice we’re making
We’re saving our own lives
It’s true we’ll make a better day
Just you and me
Weisenthal knows better.
This politics, not accounting. Using the 43 million number is the correct choice.
Well, Rush, it looks like the administration is winning because the sheeple THINK they are poor!
Of course the number is higher—we have a larger population than we did during the last census (2000). But look at the percentage. It has fluctuated little since 1982.
barack hussein obama... MMMMMMMMM... MMMMMMMMM... MMMMMMMMM!
great job barak. next up, more people living in a van down by the river.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of “poverty” is.
Oh please. If we had the “poverty” rate today, that we had in 1959, the number would be 70.6 million people.
It is meaningless.
They should start the chart at 1929. I know - no data.
But there was a high percentage of Americans living in poverty after the start of the '29 depression.
I would say we didn't know it because everyone was in the same boat. But that isn't really true. We knew it and everybody, including the kids, pitched in to help.
Only if you want to look like an idiot when someone points out that if we had the poverty rate today, that we had in 1959, the number would be 70.6 million people.
It makes me sick too. I’ve seen them lined up at a Wal Mart wiring the money. I’ve seen them load up cars with “free stuff” and I know they are caring it across the border. It is sickening. My 88 year old mother was listening to a Mexican woman talking to her toddler and asked her why she didn’t try and teach him English. Mom was ignored and I know that Mexican could speak English. It is just sickening.
Two points to consider:
1. How many of these so called poverty cases are illegals, who came into this country illegally with no assets and minimal if any job skills. Our census probably now counts these illegals in these figures. Some estimates of illegals in America are as high as 30 million illegals.
2. Pelosi, Reid, 0b0z0 and other rats took over Congress in Jan 2007 and immediately began their attacks on small businesses and taking money away from us to pay for their illegal voters and perpetual welfare scum.
I read once that our ‘’poor’’ have a higher std. of living than most Europeans.
Man, do I ever agree with you. The definition of poverty in this country is ridiculous. And sensationalistic articles like this one are just a prelude to more heart-wrenching appeals for more socialist programs.
From HotAir via Fox:
“What?! The 67-Cent Down Payment Mortgage”
“The financial collapse occurred because housing lenders wrote paper to people who couldnt afford the houses they bought, often getting a no-down arrangement, while lenders sold the paper to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which securitized them and spread the bubble throughout the financial markets in order to provide even more capital for even more bad loans. After nearly watching the Western worlds financial structure melt down, one would hope that we would have learned a lesson from the catastrophe. Apparently not, as CNBCs Diana Olick reports (via Instapundit):
At around the same time this program went into effect, the New York Times did a piece on a small program Fannie Mae is implementing through state housing finance agencies, which have been crippled by the recession. Its called Affordable Advantage, and it allows first-time home buyers in four states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, Idaho and Wisconsin) to get essentially no-money-down loans that are then sold to Fannie Mae. It requires $1000.00 down, but the couple profiled in the piece received a grant, and ended up paying just 67 cents for a $115,000 home.
The Fannie Mae program requires a minimum credit score of 680 (720 in Massachusetts) and the buyer must live in the home. All loans are 30-year fixed. The arguments for the program are persuasive: It wasnt the no-money-down loans themselves that fueled the housing crash, it was the poor underwriting. These loans are very strictly underwritten. Adjustable rate loans were the primary drivers of default, while these loans are fixed.”
Well, Obama said he was going to fundamentally remake America. I guess he has!
I agree with you about poverty worldwide, but the left’s attack on the middle class is starting to bear fruit, and it’s not over yet. Ask around and see how quickly an unemployed person finds another job. The effects of long term unemployment are devastating and will affect the children and grandchildren of those currently unemployed — and I’m talking about people like you and me, unless you have a federal government job. No job is safe anymore; every family is vulnerable.
Damn! I thought LBJ fixed that?
The high unemployment rates of the 1930s made those who had jobs both thankful that they had jobs and fearful that they could lose them. Those who could not find jobs often took to the roads--thousands of men regularly rode the rails. The numbers in skid rows increased greatly, and other homeless set up homes in shantytowns throughout the nation that became known as "Hoovervilles." Because the Depression caused so much suffering, it is not surprising that it caused major changes in the political structure in the United States.
From the Civil War until the Depression, the Republican party was the dominant political party--it generally controlled the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the Presidency. In the elections of 1930, the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, and after the 1936 elections they outnumbered the Republicans 331 to 89. Only once in the next fifty years did Republicans capture a majority in the House. After the Republicans lost control of the Senate in 1932, they regained a majority in only six of the next fifty years. In the same year of 1932, Franklin Roosevelt was overwhelmingly elected, defeating Herbert Hoover with a total of 22.8 million votes to 15.8 million. Along with the change in dominant political party has come a change in what Americans expect from government. Only a limited understanding of American politics is possible without understanding the effects of this period; the shadow of the Depression dominated American political life for decades.
They were middle class... now they live in poverty... that's certainly change.
Oh, okay, 43 million Americans in poverty is a meaningless number.
Ding ding ding - We have a winner!