Poverty reaching historic high; who cares

[liberty]

Poverty reaching historic high
Published: Sunday, July 22, 2012

By HOPE YEN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The ranks of America’s poor are on track to climb to levels unseen in nearly half a century, erasing gains from the war on poverty in the 1960s amid a weak economy and fraying government safety net.

Census figures for 2011 will be released this fall in the critical weeks ahead of the November elections.

The Associated Press surveyed more than a dozen economists, think tanks and academics, both nonpartisan and those with known liberal or conservative leanings, and found a broad consensus: The official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent. Several predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest since 1965.

Poverty is spreading at record levels across many groups, from underemployed workers and suburban families to the poorest poor. More discouraged workers are giving up on the job market, leaving them vulnerable as unemployment aid begins to run out. Suburbs are seeing increases in poverty, including in such political battlegrounds as Colorado, Florida and Nevada, where voters are coping with a new norm of living hand to mouth.


“I grew up going to Hawaii every summer. Now I’m here, applying for assistance because it’s hard to make ends meet. It’s very hard to adjust,” said Laura Fritz, 27, of Wheat Ridge, Colo., describing her slide from rich to poor as she filled out aid forms at a county center. Since 2000, large swaths of Jefferson County just outside Denver have seen poverty nearly double.

Fritz says she grew up wealthy in the Denver suburb of Highlands Ranch, but fortunes turned after her parents lost a significant amount of money in the housing bust. Stuck in a half-million dollar house, her parents began living off food stamps and Fritz’s college money evaporated. She tried joining the Army but was injured during basic training.

Now she’s living on disability, with an infant daughter and a boyfriend, Garrett Goudeseune, 25, who can’t find work as a landscaper. They are struggling to pay their $650 rent on his unemployment checks and don’t know how they would get by without the extra help as they hope for the job market to improve.

In an election year dominated by discussion of the middle class, Fritz’s case highlights a dim reality for the growing group in poverty. Millions could fall through the cracks as government aid from unemployment insurance, Medicaid, welfare and food stamps diminishes.

“The issues aren’t just with public benefits. We have some deep problems in the economy,” said Peter Edelman, director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy.

He pointed to the recent recession but also longer-term changes in the economy such as globalization, automation, outsourcing, immigration, and less unionization that have pushed median household income lower. Even after strong economic growth in the 1990s, poverty never fell below a 1973 low of 11.1 percent. That low point came after President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, launched in 1964, that created Medicaid, Medicare and other social welfare programs. Continued...


1234See Full Story“I’m reluctant to say that we’ve gone back to where we were in the 1960s. The programs we enacted make a big difference. The problem is that the tidal wave of low-wage jobs is dragging us down and the wage problem is not going to go away anytime soon,” Edelman said.

Stacey Mazer of the National Association of State Budget Officers said states will be watching for poverty increases when figures are released in September as they make decisions about the Medicaid expansion. Most states generally assume poverty levels will hold mostly steady and they will hesitate if the findings show otherwise. “It’s a constant tension in the budget,” she said.

The predictions for 2011 are based on separate AP interviews, supplemented with research on suburban poverty from Alan Berube of the Brookings Institution and an analysis of federal spending by the Congressional Research Service and Elise Gould of the Economic Policy Institute.

The analysts’ estimates suggest that some 47 million people in the U.S., or 1 in 6, were poor last year. An increase of one-tenth of a percentage point to 15.2 percent would tie the 1983 rate, the highest since 1965. The highest level on record was 22.4 percent in 1959, when the government began calculating poverty figures.

Poverty is closely tied to joblessness. While the unemployment rate improved from 9.6 percent in 2010 to 8.9 percent in 2011, the employment-population ratio remained largely unchanged, meaning many discouraged workers simply stopped looking for work. Food stamp rolls, another indicator of poverty, also grew.

Demographers also say:

—Poverty will remain above the pre-recession level of 12.5 percent for many more years. Several predicted that peak poverty levels — 15 percent to 16 percent — will last at least until 2014, due to expiring unemployment benefits, a jobless rate persistently above 6 percent and weak wage growth.

—Suburban poverty, already at a record level of 11.8 percent, will increase again in 2011.

—Part-time or underemployed workers, who saw a record 15 percent poverty in 2010, will rise to a new high.

—Poverty among people 65 and older will remain at historically low levels, buoyed by Social Security cash payments. Continued...

1234See Full Story
—Child poverty will increase from its 22 percent level in 2010.

Analysts also believe that the poorest poor, defined as those at 50 percent or less of the poverty level, will remain near its peak level of 6.7 percent.

“I’ve always been the guy who could find a job. Now I’m not,” said Dale Szymanski, 56, a Teamsters Union forklift operator and convention hand who lives outside Las Vegas in Clark County. In a state where unemployment ranks highest in the nation, the Las Vegas suburbs have seen a particularly rapid increase in poverty from 9.7 percent in 2007 to 14.7 percent.

Szymanski, who moved from Wisconsin in 2000, said he used to make a decent living of more than $40,000 a year but now doesn’t work enough hours to qualify for union health care. He changed apartments several months ago and sold his aging 2001 Chrysler Sebring in April to pay expenses.

“You keep thinking it’s going to turn around. But I’m stuck,” he said.

The 2010 poverty level was $22,314 for a family of four, and $11,139 for an individual, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income, before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth, such as home ownership, as well as noncash aid such as food stamps and tax credits, which were expanded substantially under President Barack Obama’s stimulus package.

An additional 9 million people in 2010 would have been counted above the poverty line if food stamps and tax credits were taken into account.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, believes the social safety net has worked and it is now time to cut back. He worries that advocates may use a rising poverty rate to justify additional spending on the poor, when in fact, he says, many live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.

A new census measure accounts for noncash aid, but that supplemental poverty figure isn’t expected to be released until after the November election. Since that measure is relatively new, the official rate remains the best gauge of year-to-year changes in poverty dating back to 1959.

Few people advocate cuts in anti-poverty programs. Roughly 79 percent of Americans think the gap between rich and poor has grown in the past two decades, according to a Public Religion Research Institute/RNS Religion News survey from November 2011. The same poll found that about 67 percent oppose “cutting federal funding for social programs that help the poor” to help reduce the budget deficit. Continued...

1234See Full Story
Outside of Medicaid, federal spending on major low-income assistance programs such as food stamps, disability aid and tax credits have been mostly flat at roughly 1.5 percent of the gross domestic product from 1975 to the 1990s. Spending spiked higher to 2.3 percent of GDP after Obama’s stimulus program in 2009 temporarily expanded unemployment insurance and tax credits for the poor.

The U.S. safety net may soon offer little comfort to people such as Jose Gorrin, 52, who lives in the western Miami suburb of Hialeah Gardens. Arriving from Cuba in 1980, he was able to earn a decent living as a plumber for years, providing for his children and ex-wife. But things turned sour in 2007 and in the past two years he has barely worked, surviving on the occasional odd job.

His unemployment has run out, and he’s too young to draw Social Security.

Holding a paper bag of still-warm bread he’d just bought for lunch, Gorrin said he hasn’t decided whom he’ll vote for in November, expressing little confidence the presidential candidates can solve the nation’s economic problems. “They all promise to help when they’re candidates,” Gorrin said, adding, “I hope things turn around. I already left Cuba. I don’t know where else I can go.”

Associated Press writers Kristen Wyatt in Lakewood, Colo., Ken Ritter and Michelle Rindels in Las Vegas, Laura Wides-Munoz in Miami and AP Deputy Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

Online:

Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov
1234See Full StoryReturn to Paging Mode.

[Rick]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6868

[Gob]

Liberal environmentalist says: We don’t need no sticking and polluting manufacturing.

other see comment

What relevance is this?

[liberty]

Liberal environmentalist says: We don’t need no sticking and polluting manufacturing.

other see comment

What relevance is this?

Just being provocative and trying to stimulate discussion and thought. And the US, in my opinion, is polluting less than in the past because we are producing less. We could reduce our pollution to almost zero by producing nothing.

[Gob]

What does pollution have to do with poverty levels?

[rubato]

Not Repuglicans. They just love making more poor folks:

[Grim Reaper]

What does pollution have to do with poverty levels?

Obviously the EPA regulations are what's keeping the poor job creators from building dozens of new factories all across the USA.

[dgs49]

Actually, the EPA is working tirelessly to shut down as many coal-fired power plants as they can. The EPA is largely responsible for the lack of any new oil refineries in the U.S. in - how many decades is it now? The EPA is the primary reason why the number of foundries in the U.S. is about 10% of what it was 40 years ago. Virtually ALL large metal castings must be produced off shore, mainly in Korea.

And ironically, most Liberals think the air is dirtier now than ever before (which in Liberal parlance means "...than I personally can remember...").

But as any good Lib can assert, pollution control CREATES jobs.

[rubato]

Nafta went into effect Jan 1 1994. Poverty fell continually for 6 more years, to the lowest level in decades under Clinton's leadership (after being driven to the highest level in 40 years under Reagan/Bush I).

Gatt was the precursor to the WTO and existed even before then.

No connection to rising poverty.


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Rising poverty can be directly correlated to our relentless increase in bastardy, which has nothing to do with who is President. The "hard working Americans" who would normally be working but can't find work now are on the margins, but are not THE problem (don't tell them that).

The only President in our lifetimes who had any positive effect on the economy by his intentional policy initiatives was Ronaldus Maximus, whose election induced Congress to fix the repressive Tax Code. President Clinton, to his credit, ignored the pleas of his Liberal constituency and didn't fuck things up. If they had had their way, we never would have had either NAFTA or welfare reform. (And one might note that the recent all-Democrat Congress killed the Clinton welfare reforms that induced people to (be still my heart) WORK).

[Grim Reaper]

Actually, the EPA is working tirelessly to shut down as many coal-fired power plants as they can.

Children are taught to clean up after themselves. Corporations are allowed to spew toxic chemicals, anything less is un-American.

The EPA is largely responsible for the lack of any new oil refineries in the U.S. in - how many decades is it now?

There are two being developed right now. But then the assumption that you're making is that we've needed them, but haven't been able to make them.

The EPA is the primary reason why the number of foundries in the U.S. is about 10% of what it was 40 years ago.

The EPA is also the reason we don't have rivers catching fire anymore.

And ironically, most Liberals think the air is dirtier now than ever before (which in Liberal parlance means "...than I personally can remember...").

I see Captain Strawman is on the scene.

[liberty]

What does pollution have to do with poverty levels?

I am talking more about the attitude of some in the environmental movement. I feel that there are some, not all, environmentalist that are pleased by a bad economy if it means lower pollution. Based on news reports I have seen people have lost their jobs for salamanders and spotted owls. Why can’t the owls and salamanders be place in zoos or preserves and save the jobs?

[dgs49]

Consider: Our Liberal friends have classified Carbon Dioxide - the normal and natural byproduct of LIFE as "pollution," and are hell bent on reducing mankind's production of it.

But as we all know, the most efficient means of transportation, the most efficatioius energy production (leaving Nuke out of it),and the best means of industrial production inevitably produce large quantities of carbon dioxide. Thus, Libs can do everything possible to fight rational energy production, human mobility, and industrial production, all in the name of fighting "pollution." And if a power plant or an industrial plant shuts down, that's fine because it promotes a "higher good."

I wonder if the people in China and India are concerned about "Global Warming." Or would they rather have cars, air conditioning, and computers like we do in the more developed countries. I'm not sure they would be willing to forego those niceties in the name of reducing "pollution" and global warming.

[Grim Reaper]

Consider: Our resident strawman generator has completely misunderstood the point so completely, yet feels he should weigh in on the argument.

Consider also, that our previous most efficient means of transportation, just a hundred years ago, relied upon horses, steam, or sails. But of course now that we have oil, there's nothing else we'll ever think of to replace it. Which is great since it will last forever and ever and be replenished by magical wishes and oil fairies.

Of course you don't care about global warming. It's not something that will immediately impact you. But once it does start hitting the fan, I can bet you'll be the first one up to blame the Democrats for not doing anything about it.

[rubato]

Rising poverty can be directly correlated to our relentless increase in bastardy,... "

Wrong and stupid

Which country has the highest rates of poverty? :



Anyone? Anyone?

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

Rising poverty can be directly correlated to our relentless increase in bastardy...

Can it now... can it really?

Would you care to show some hard evidence for this? I know that this is your personal hobby horse and I'll be honest Dave, for reasons that are personal to me it's really beginning to get on my tits!

You seem to think that all of the world's problems (poverty, crime, etc) are the direct result of single parent families. So prove it! I've let it go until now but I've really had a gutful of this uneducated, ignorant, blinkered shite!

[Big RR]

Come on Sean, don't blame him for including the "y" as a typo. The increase in poverty is directly correllated with increase in the election of bastards (often republican bastards) to positions in the government which allow them to take their frustrations out on people experiencing financial difficulties, or to export jobs, or to remove any possible safety nets, etc.