15% of Americans are now living in poverty....

[WCGreen]

15%...

Let that roll around for a bit.

While doing that, think about this; over 1 in 5 of our children, you know those little people that politicians love to wax nostalgic for, who say they are the "future" of our "great country", are living below the poverty line.

What does poverty mean in a a land of plenty?

Well to me it means that those who have plenty are turning a blind eye to the suffering of those who are mired in poverty.

There is this nasty undertone from conservatives that poverty is a natural state, that the "markets" dictate who wins and who loses in the economic game. The poor are, I guess, the collateral damage of the market place.

This "I got mine so fuck you" mentality shows just how morally bankrupt our country has become.

And most of these people who scoff at the poor claim a religious soul.

But even the harsh religion of the Old Testament treated the poor better than we do.

And don't get me started on how Christ dealt with poverty...

http://erlc.com/article/biblical-directives-for-combating-hunger-and-poverty/

How moral is our society that we turn our back, no actually worse, we accept poverty here in the 21st century.

God shines his grace on thee...

Oh American, you ain't so beautiful anymore.


Added morally in sentence starting with this...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Those people have always existed, the ones who look down on the poor...

But somehow, now, they are in the ascendancy, running the show, looking down on all of us who aren't just like them.

How did we let this happen?

They are disgusting.

They are poisonous to our country.

[nobodyspecial]

2. Oh that's because they are

lazy and don't want to work.

An if only we hadn't done away with those pesky child labor laws, these kids could pull their own weight.

And if god loved these people, they wouldn't be poor. If you have money, it is because god loves you more and is rewarding you.

[NNN0LHI]

3. Highest since 1983

We were living in poverty in 1983.

Don

[Recursion]

19. An identical rate in 1983 means much higher actual poverty back then

The 1983 rate was everyone who was still "in poverty" (I use the quotes because how this gets defined is kind of stupid and irrelevant) after their TANF ("welfare") cash benefits. Those are essentially gone now but have been at least partially replaced with in-kind and voucher-based benefits, which don't count. Back in the 1980s you got a welfare payment and if that put you above the poverty line, you weren't "poor" anymore. Now you get SNAP voucher benefits but even though it lets you buy food it doesn't count in terms of whether you're "in poverty" officially or not.

My point is, a rate identical to 1983 means things are better than 1983 since we have a much higher level of non-cash benefits (housing subsidies, Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, etc.)

[LynneSin]

4. I wonder what % voted for republicans this last election

Poverty exists on all races, religions, etc etc etc.

[ChillbertKChesterton]

5. 1 in 5 children cannot find their bootstraps

If we repealed those socialist child labor laws then children could work and learn to feed themselves rather than sucking off of the government teet. hurf durf

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. hurf durf. Those teabaggers think that is a good idea. Repeal the child labor laws, that is.

:puke:

[WCGreen]

13. That is truly scary....

[Claudia Jones]

6. dramatically underestimated

15% of households are "food insecure" - translation: hungry.

Half of the households are below $35,000 annual income. It could be argued, therefore, that 50% of the population is now in poverty or sliding into poverty.

[PRETZEL]

7. This also crosses generations

the elderly poor are growing even faster. Same for the disabled living in poverty.

There is a hugh disconnect between what our political leaders are saying and what the reality is. We're being asked to do more with less and there's no solution being offered (especially in PA) that makes any sense.

[hfojvt]

11. according to the article

poverty for the elderly was at a record low last year, and this year it was only up by .1%.

Which makes sense. After all, in this economic downturn the elderly have not lost their jobs.

[PRETZEL]

14. Maybe it's regional then

where I work (which is for a local Area Agency on Aging) we are seeing a big increase in the number of low income seniors and that trend is rising.

[Recursion]

26. It may come back to the outdated way we define "poverty"

Food is much less of our budget today than it was 50 years ago, but we still define poverty as if food (and what's more, the types of food bought in 1961) were the main line item.

[Romulox]

8. This is 30 years of neoliberal economics. Next up: MORE tax cuts and "free trade" with Korea!

That ought to right this ship! :eyes:

[Cool Logic]

9. Poverty is cyclical in nature, but is typically in the 13% to 15% range...

Given the present state of the economy, it is not surprising to see those numbers moving up.

[WCGreen]

15. This is a straight statistical look at what is going on by the numbers...

It shows the effectiveness of the War on Poverty that began in 1960's. Look at how far it dropped from 1959 to 1968...

You can also look and see that the up ticks have happened during economic down turns.

The early 80's was the first big wave of outsourcing manufacturing jobs. You can see that tick up in the stats.

Then in the early 90's, it was NAFTA and the sucking sound that Perot refereed to in his campaign.

[Claudia Jones]

22. it is not so simple

From the beginning, the poverty measure had weaknesses, and they have become more apparent and consequential because of far-reaching changes in the U.S. society and economy and in government policies.

First, because of the increased labor force participation of mothers, there are more working families who must pay for child care, but the current measure does not distinguish between the needs of families in which the parents do or do not work outside the home. More generally, the current measure does not distinguish between the needs of workers and nonworkers.

Second, because of differences in health status and insurance coverage, different population groups face significant variations in medical care costs, but the current measure does not take account of them.

Third, the thresholds are the same across the nation, although significant price variations across geographic areas exist for such needs as housing.

Fourth, the family size adjustments in the thresholds are anomalous in many respects, and changing demographic and family characteristics (such as the reduction in average family size) underscore the need to reassess the adjustments.

Fifth, more broadly, changes in the standard of living call into question the merits of continuing to use the values of the original thresholds updated only for inflation. Historical evidence suggests that poverty thresholds—including those developed according to "expert" notions of minimum needs—follow trends in overall consumption levels. Because of rising living standards in the United States, most approaches for developing poverty thresholds (including the original one) would produce higher thresholds today than the current ones.

Finally, because the current measure defines family resources as gross money income, it does not reflect the effects of important government policy initiatives that have significantly altered families' disposable income and, hence, their poverty status. Examples are the increase in the Social Security payroll tax, which reduces disposable income for workers, and the growth in the Food Stamp Program, which raises disposable income for beneficiaries. Moreover, the current poverty measure cannot reflect the effects of future policy initiatives that may have consequences for disposable income, such as changes in the financing of health care, further changes in tax policy, and efforts to move welfare recipients into the work force.

from Measuring Poverty: A New Approach

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=poverty&page=summary.html

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Thank you for keeping this subject in view. Too often it falls off the radar.

[Tallulah]

16. This is what a blind eye doesn't see

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/

http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003708.html


Read it and open eyes. Notice the date. Imagine how it is now.

This should not be happening on this planet. Not with all we have.

I read this with shame and tears.

[WCGreen]

17. Thank you...

Ostracized in a land of plenty...

[Tallulah]

20. People need to read this

to see it, know it, help it.

I'd kick this thread for eternity if I could just so everyone could save those links and read the posts.

This is what you never hear about. For days after reading that I felt terrible.

On the outside looking in. It hurts.

[Recursion]

18. Most public assistance is no longer counted; it used to be

Back when we did TANF, the cash assistance was counted in the poverty calculations. TANF is gone but in-kind and voucher benefits (SNAP, WIC, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc.) are way way up so people are "on book" poorer than they were, even if they aren't actually poorer in terms of being able to buy stuff.

[Tallulah]

21. If we as a country

are going to give money and aid to other countries, we should at least make sure our people, ALL THE PEOPLE, eat.

There is no excuse for anyone, especially a child or the elderly, to go hungry.

A food program for everyone.

[Tallulah]

23. kick

because it's important.

[Claudia Jones]

24. the opposite may well be true

You are arguing that poverty is not as bad as it seems. A case can be easily made that it is much worse than it seems.

[Recursion]

25. Indeed; re-reading that seems Pollyanna-ish

There are many problems with our metrics of poverty. On the one hand, we don't count in-kind benefits; on the other hand, our very definition of poverty is pretty much hopelessly outdated.

[kentuck]

27. How bad will it have to get?

Before Americans recognize the truth?