Changes Marks Fourth Consecutive Increase
By JENNIFER C. KERR, AP

WASHINGTON (Aug. 30) -- The nation's poverty rate rose to 12.7 percent of the population last year, the fourth consecutive annual increase, the Census Bureau said Tuesday.

The percentage of people without health insurance did not change.

Overall, there were 37 million people living in poverty, up 1.1 million people from 2003.

Asians were the only ethnic group to show a decline in poverty -- from 11.8 percent in 2003 to 9.8 percent last year. The poverty rate among the elderly declined as well, from 10.2 percent in 2003 to 9.8 percent last year.

The last decline in overall poverty was in 2000, when 31.1 million people lived under the threshold -- 11.3 percent of the population.

The number of people without health insurance grew from 45 million to 45.8 million. At the same time, the number of people with health insurance coverage grew by 2 million last year.

Charles Nelson, an assistant division chief at the Census Bureau, said the percentage of uninsured remained steady because of an "increase in government coverage, notably Medicaid and the state children's health insurance program, that offset a decline in employment-based coverage."

The median household income, meanwhile, stood at $44,389, unchanged from 2003. Among racial and ethnic groups blacks had the lowest median income and Asians the highest. Median income refers to the point at which half of households earn more and half earn less.

Regionally, income declined only in the Midwest, down 2.8 percent to $44,657. The South was the poorest region and the Northeast and the West had the highest median incomes.

The increase in poverty came despite strong economic growth, which helped create 2.2 million jobs last year.

"I guess what happened last year was kind of similar to what happened in the early 1990s where you had a recession that was officially over and then you had several years after that of rising poverty," Nelson said. "... These numbers do reflect changes between 2003 and 2004. They don't reflect any improvements in the economy in 2005."

Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, said the poverty number is still much better than the 80s and early 90s.

"The good news is that poverty is a lot lower than it was in 1993, but we went through a hell of an economic boom," Danziger said. "Nobody is predicting we're going to go through another economic boom like that."

The poverty threshold differs by the size and makeup of a household. For instance, a family of four with two children was considered living in poverty if income was $19,157 or less. For a family of two with no children, it was $12,649. For a person 65 and over living alone, it was 9,060.

The estimates on poverty, uninsured and income are based on supplements to the bureau's Current Population Survey, and are conducted over three months, beginning in February, at about 100,000 households nationwide.

The only city with a million or more residents that exhibited a significant change in poverty level last year was New York City, which saw the rate increase from 19 percent to 20.3 percent.
---------
I'm starting to wonder people. Some of you seem to be worried about 'morals and religion' for the future. Forget that crap for right now. That's at the bottom of the pile as far as I'm concerned. We might all have to live off unemployment and welfare in 50 years if the poverty level keeps rising. I'm sure that Hurricane Katrina didn't help the situation in the south either.

A rise in poverty under a Republican president, who'd've thought it.

:rolleyes:

I.

Well, you conservatives on here always criticize us liberals on here who can't 'think of ideas' on exit strategies on Iraq and such, so what is your idea to bring the poverty level down? Please try not to say that you'd like to tax the middle class more. I know it'll be hard, but put the right sides of your brains together. I'm sure you can come up with something.

What tax increases on the middle class have there been recently Patrick? Oh that's right, none. It's actually funny that you think poverty is even an issue government can solve.

Wow...

But Iraq is?

Of course it is!

You guys are right, when you say: "Where is this world going to". Absolutely right, if one can even say

Apart from attempting to provide security for the Iraqi people, no it really isn't. It's up to the Iraqi people to solve their problems, not our government.

Patrick, I'd be interested in knowing how the government can solve the problem of poverty?

People living in conditions in which they have no indoor plumbing, inadequate food, medical care, or clothing for themselves or their children is not a problem that the government should try and solve?

This is the richest country in the world. Shouldn't all of its citiznes have a minimum standard of living?

Plaw you would think it is a basic right, but it isnt. It seems that people on the right are more than willing to accept Darwinism when it comes to social issues, if not his scientific theories.

Plaw, the USA is maybe the richest country, it is not the richest in terms of life-quality. Those are:

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Finland
4. Netherlands
5. Canada (or Iceland, forgot that)
6. Belgium

Very simple said, I believe that the reason why we in Belgium rank so highly is our Social Security, which is the best in the world. Until now.

I think there is a difference between CAN and SHOULD. Of course the Government SHOULD try and help poor people but like everything it is abused, welfare anyone? I would be all for turning welfare into a 6 month period to help people get on their feet and some money in the bank, not living off it. So yeah they SHOULD try and do something to help the poor in this country but CAN they is the question.

Apart from attempting to provide security for the Iraqi people, no it really isn't. It's up to the Iraqi people to solve their problems, not our government.

Patrick, I'd be interested in knowing how the government can solve the problem of poverty? [/b][/quote]So you can invade them, but not solve their problems, afterwards?
What you're saying is: "Hey Iraqi's, you have a dictator. What is that, you're saying you hate him? Yeah, we too. Let's remove him. ... Well, that's done. Now providing security, and off we go. What? More help? It's your shit, you clean it."

For poverty: More tax cuts for the poorest, less flexibility, more social security. That will solve poverty, but then the USA aren't competitive enough with nex kids on the block like China, and India.

I prefer to be less competitive, be less rich, but have more social security, and as such, dividing the wealth. But that's a socialist speaking, and I understood those aren't Mr Popular in the USA.

I don't want to get into a whole debate about welfare in this country, and no, I don't have the answer or solution.

But I think that the government can and should make sure that every American has a minimum standard of living.

It makes no sense to me, for example, that we hand out billions in foreign aid to help the world's poor, when we have citizens of our own country with the same needs.

I agree with you but then there are people that want to know why we only give xxx amount of dollars to countries overseas. I have always said once we get everyone IN THIS COUNTRY living well THEN we move on to others if there is money/time.
The reason I brought up welfare is because we are doing SOMETHING to help the poor.

I know the U.S. isn't on the list, but where did you get that list Enzo?

Now you're asking me something...
I just knew it, I read this information some months ago. So it's not up-to-date, but much can't be changed.
It was said by the UN, I think. They looked at wealth, school, medical help, ... Important things, IMO.

USA was somewhere between 10 and 20.

I just looked up quality of life online and got this:

Rank Country
1 Norway
2 Sweden
3 Canada
4 Belgium
5 Australia
6 United States
7 Iceland
8 Netherlands
9 Japan
10 Finland
11 Switzerland

Interesting stuff.

I couldn't agree more!


Don Cardi

Apart from attempting to provide security for the Iraqi people, no it really isn't. It's up to the Iraqi people to solve their problems, not our government.

Patrick, I'd be interested in knowing how the government can solve the problem of poverty? [/b][/quote]Check out the Communist Manifesto....

Let's see. What can the government, who you say is NOT responsible for helping solve poverty, do to help solve property? We can dictate millionares. That'd be awesome. We can make sure that the rich are taxed so heavily that they're just above the middle class. We can stop outsourcing jobs and give people in America a chance to work and make money who don't have that chance right now. I also thought of something the other night while watching all of this hurricane coverage. All of these people who have lost their homes in New Orleans. Why do volunteers go down there? Why doesn't the government, instead of having volunteers go down for free, pay those who don't have jobs to go down there and rebuild, give out food, etc?

I couldn't agree more!


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]But you agree that we need to give Bush the 200 billion he has needed for the Iraq war and the Iraqi people?

1) this is a democracy/republic not a socialist society
2) Since they have the funds available they would move to another country and we would lose all taxes from them

1) I know. Sweden is socialist though and they have a better standard of living.
2) Good. It'll open up more jobs. We don't want rich rednecks preaching religion here anyways. And I hope Canada rejects them. Send them to Mexico.

I think you mean YOU

and oh yeah, why aren't they allowed to preach whatever they want? Aren't they entitled to freedom of speech as well?

I think you mean YOU

and oh yeah, why aren't they allowed to preach whatever they want? Aren't they entitled to freedom of speech as well? [/b][/quote]Ofcourse, but I'm entitled to criticize them until they're on the brink of wanting to kill me....kinda gives me a good feeling.

1) this is a democracy/republic not a socialist society
2) Since they have the funds available they would move to another country and we would lose all taxes from them [/quote]You can perfectly have a goverment with socialists in it (not that there is a socialist party in the USA), that is still a democracy/republic. Since socialism means 'all equal', it is even more a democracy than the flexibility-rat-race that the USA is today.

I don't mean a communist-state (like the USSR was), cause communism, despite being the best system there is, doesn't work in reality. Why? Too little flexibility (I'm contradicting myself, I know :p )

I'm talking a government with socialism.

Our health care sucks too. Atleast everyone over there gets it for free. There's people here who don't have it...period.

Healthcare is not "Free" they pay for it in taxes. Sweden pays an enormous amount of taxes and every swedish person I've talked to says that yes they may get it but it is not that good of service.

NOTHING in this world is free