News & Politics - In US, record numbers are plunged into poverty: report

migamoo · 02-25-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

In US, record numbers are plunged into poverty: report - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The gulf between rich and poor in the United States is yawning wider than ever, and the number of extremely impoverished is at a three-decade high, a report out Saturday found.

Based on the latest available US census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars -- one half the federal poverty line figure.

For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year.

"The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005," the US newspaper chain reported.

"That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period," it noted.

The surge in poverty comes alongside an unusual economic expansion.

"Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries," the study found.

"That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.

"These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty -- the highest rate since at least 1975. The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades," the report said.

It quoted an American Journal of Preventive Medicine study as having found that since 2000, the number of severely poor -- far below basic poverty terms -- in the United States has grown "more than any other segment of the population."

"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, a study co-author.

"We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."

US social programs are minimal compared to those of western Europe and Canada. The United States has a population of 301 million, but more than 45 million US citizens have no health insurance.

Bolding done by me.

Is anyone disgusted by this as I am?

Lexis · 02-25-2007, 06:05 AM

Eeek. That's scary.

elisheva · 02-25-2007, 10:06 AM

That's really terrible.

The US needs to get its act together where social support programs are concerned.

Papri · 02-26-2007, 10:14 AM

That's awful. Yet you'll still get people who oppose social security and benefits, and shock horror, free healthcare. Cos you know - poor people are just lazy.

**sunnykerr** · 02-26-2007, 06:19 PM

It's sad that a country that has the capital and governmental capability of stemming much of its social ills would, insitutionally, make it so hard for its citizens to have an equal share of their right to the pursuit of happiness.

To make a huge generalization, much of Africa lives in abject poverty. A HUGE generalization, right? Also, the kind of poverty that we "industrialized" people have no concept of. But, that's the thing, there's little to no infrastructure in Africa (again HUGE generalization) to take care of people.

In North America, that is not the case. So how is it that, every year, more and more people fall to the cracks?

Indian Summer · 02-26-2007, 06:24 PM

It's a huge generalisation, sure, but sadly true, especially of sub-Saharan Africa. I don't really think it's just the lack of infrastructure, though. The rest of the world has used Africa as a dumping ground of sorts for a while now, and it's only gotten worse lately (the best example I can think of is when you send a computer back to the manufacturer to dispose of it, chances are it ends up in a pile of other radioactive devices in Africa, and kids there have jobs of cleaning up after us and those companies, ugh).

There's areas in the world that are a lot worse off than we are, which is why we really need to buckle down and get the social programmes set up so we can protect our poor, and then help those elsewhere.

Laira · 02-27-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote:

In North America, that is not the case. So how is it that, every year, more and more people fall to the cracks?

Because the stated aim of the Republican party is to end each and every social program that currently exists in the USA. Ever since Reagan's victory in 1980, social programs have been under attack. It's quite deliberate.

If you don't believe me, consider Bush's non-response to hurricane Katrina. Rescue workers from Canada made it to New Orleans days before US troops arrived.

elisheva · 02-27-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laira (View Post)

Because the stated aim of the Republican party is to end each and every social program that currently exists in the USA. Ever since Reagan's victory in 1980, social programs have been under attack. It's quite deliberate.

If you don't believe me, consider Bush's non-response to hurricane Katrina. Rescue workers from Canada made it to New Orleans days before US troops arrived.

I don't think that's a fair statement at all

Yes, there have been attempts to cut social programs, but I woukld imagine that the reasoning is that cutting programs works better for people in the end - I don't personally agree with this reasoning, but I think your use of "deliberate" is a little bit exaggerated. Plus, I generally think that "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence" is often correct.

Lexis · 02-28-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.

A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

If his family had not lost its Medicaid.

If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.

If his mother hadn't been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth.

By the time Deamonte's own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of hospital care, the Prince George's County boy died.

Deamonte's death and the ultimate cost of his care, which could total more than $250,000, underscore an often-overlooked concern in the debate over universal health coverage: dental care.

Some poor children have no dental coverage at all. Others travel three hours to find a dentist willing to take Medicaid patients and accept the incumbent paperwork. And some, including Deamonte's brother, get in for a tooth cleaning but have trouble securing an oral surgeon to fix deeper problems.

washingtonpost.com

I almost could not get my head round this. How on earth is this possible in AMERICA? Its insanity that the US can afford to wage huge, costly wars and cut taxes but a kid can't get in for dental treatment?

ceilirose · 02-28-2007, 08:32 AM

Lexis - you beat me to it.

I'm watching CNN and their "Just In" story is that Anna Nicole may be buried this Friday! Al Gore's a hypocrite - look at his power usage! Etc, etc.

This should be the one of the lead stories in our media and it's not.

I know how it happens. I went without health insurance for about 2 years and you just can't afford to go to a doctor/dentist unless you're on your figurative death bed. Your teeth? Forget about it - it's a low priority.

A simple tooth extraction would have saved this child - a root canal for about $600to $800 would have done it. The family couldn't afford it.

This is just one case. I read somewhere that about 40,000 Americans die each due to conditions that are easily treatable but when left untreated - you have cases like this.

mh67511 · 03-01-2007, 03:42 PM

I don't really think it's fair to just blame the government. They already spend a hell of lot of money on social programs. Here are some numbers (from here:

Social Security (largest government expense) - $495.5 billion
Medicare - $269.3 billion
Medicaid - $176.2 billion
Housing assistance - $45.5 billion
Food Stamps/WIC - $40.7 billion
EIC Tax Credit - $33.1 billion
SSI - $31.2 billion
Family Support (TANF) - $24.2 billion
Total - $1115.7 billion ($1.1 trillion)

Now this is federal spending and doesn't include state spending. Nor did I include things like FAFSA or energy assistance. There are also thousands of charities in this country that provide assistance in some form or the other. It's hard for me to support increasing those programs, because quite frankly they total over $1 trillion and I'm not getting so much as a penny from any of these programs.

There are always going to be poor and I think ideally the way it would work is that the poor would be younger, in their 20's, and as they get older they come out of poverty. But, for reasons I don't know, that's not how it seems to work. Honestly, I don't know how you help the deeply poor. I mean if family of four is making $9K a year I don't even see how that's possible (full time at minimum wage is about $10K a year so that would mean one adult isn't working...why not?)

The truth is I think you need to have a lot of resiliency and willpower to rise from that. I think what we can do is prevent future generations from becoming deeply poor. I think the two absolute keys are:

(1) not dropping out of high school and
(2) not having kids until you are well-established and can afford them!

I think there are other important things: being smart financially (not living beyond your means; realizing you can't have everything you want) and taking care of your body (eating healthy, exercising, not smoking, etc.).

There's not some magic switch we can flip to make this all go away nor do I think automatically increasing sending is going to make things change. It seems to me like people are quick to criticize, but slow to provide real solutions to these problems. Sure free health care sounds nice, but who's going to pay for it? How much will it cost? Who will benefit?

Indian Summer · 03-01-2007, 04:16 PM

You're grossly oversimplifying things, though, but I'll start with this.

A lot of the time, the deeply poor have problems we don't take into account, emotional and physical. For every person who abuses the system, there's many who for one reason or another, can't get out of its grasps. For example, it's great that there's welfare/WIC... but without childcare, that doesn't do much good. Say a single mom get a full time, minimum wage job. By the time she pays for the baby-sitter/day care, she's going to be struggling to buy groceries let alone look for a place to live or a car to drive to work.

In addition, a lot of the deeply poor have physical or emotional problems that makes it difficult if not impossible to work constantly/full time. So while theoretically, a full time minimum wage employee should be making close to $10K, you aren't taking into account why they're in the situation they're in. You aren't taking into account they can't afford a babysitter to stay home with a sick kid, or that there's three to four months (summer vacation + the smaller school vacations) where children need an adult to care for them.

On the surface, the government's programmes look good, but when you actually delve into it, they're anything but. If you're a single mom who's pregnant, you're actually much better off than the poor, bankrupt couple putting off having kids until they can support themselves, for example (they don't qualify for welfare in most cases).

Anyway, most of those programs are tied up in red tape- you need to find the right doctors, the right neighborhood, go to meetings and fill out forms that you can't afford to take the time to do because it's the difference between putting a meal in front of yourself and your kids that night.

I just think it's incredibly easy for us to sit and judge from our cozy chairs in front of our nice computers with internet access.

**TheAngel** · 03-01-2007, 05:06 PM

You know, everyone here has the same opportunities as everyone else. I have a lot of friends that are from low income houses, single parent, abusive homes, with no insurance, alcoholic parents, wondering where their next meal's coming from. Now they're in college, working hard for a better way in life. I think minimum wage should be raised, and I agree with universal healthcare for children and college students, but why should I have to pay for the overweight, alcoholic, smoker that simply wants to collect his government stipends and mooch off everyone else? I pay enough for his medical care, why should I have to pay all of it.
My family doesn't have dental insurance, but my parents work hard. My dad grew up on a farm in Boaz, Alabama. My grandfather and grandmother had no education above 8th grade, they married when they were 16. My grandfather worked at Goodyear tire. My grandmother couldn't work. He was the youngest of five. He's a master's level psychologist. The difference between him and anyone else in that situation that's still in that situation? Motivation.

mh67511 · 03-01-2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Summer (View Post)

You're grossly oversimplifying things, though, but I'll start with this.

I'm not implying this is a simple problem, but what I see is a lot of criticism and few practical solutions. Usually I hear about how funding is being cut, yet seems to me like an incredibly amount of money is being spent on social programs. Then again I am an accounting major and prefer to look at the numbers.

Quote:

A lot of the time, the deeply poor have problems we don't take into account, emotional and physical. For every person who abuses the system, there's many who for one reason or another, can't get out of its grasps.

I can sympathize, but I think it's the government jobs to create programs with specific, objective qualifications. If we start looking at each individual situation, not only would it awfully time-consuming, but I just don't see how you could fairly administer programs.

Quote:

For example, it's great that there's welfare/WIC... but without childcare, that doesn't do much good. Say a single mom get a full time, minimum wage job. By the time she pays for the baby-sitter/day care, she's going to be struggling to buy groceries let alone look for a place to live or a car to drive to work.

A perfect example of my #2 suggestion. Having kids just makes life much more complicated than it should be.

Quote:

In addition, a lot of the deeply poor have physical or emotional problems that makes it difficult if not impossible to work constantly/full time. So while theoretically, a full time minimum wage employee should be making close to $10K, you aren't taking into account why they're in the situation they're in.

I can appreciate that, but I know for a fact that it's not just the deeply poor who have physical or emotional problems.

Quote:

You aren't taking into account they can't afford a babysitter to stay home with a sick kid, or that there's three to four months (summer vacation + the smaller school vacations) where children need an adult to care for them.

Growing up both of my parents worked, but alternated shifts so that there was always a parent at home. The second

Quote:

On the surface, the government's programmes look good, but when you actually delve into it, they're anything but. If you're a single mom who's pregnant, you're actually much better off than the poor, bankrupt couple putting off having kids until they can support themselves, for example (they don't qualify for welfare in most cases).

Maybe in the short-term the single pregnant mom will be better off, but in the long-run the couple is going to be a lot better off. They'll enjoy the freedom of being able to work more often and whenever they want without worrying about childcare or parental responsibilities.

Quote:

Anyway, most of those programs are tied up in red tape- you need to find the right doctors, the right neighborhood, go to meetings and fill out forms that you can't afford to take the time to do because it's the difference between putting a meal in front of yourself and your kids that night.

I'd challenge you to find anything government-related that isn't tied up in red tape. Just getting a drivers license can be a hassle. Unfortunately, it's difficult to accommodate everyone. Social services can't be open 24/7.

Quote:

I just think it's incredibly easy for us to sit and judge from our cozy chairs in front of our nice computers with internet access.

The only reason I have a comfy chair and a nice computer with internet access is because I've worked very hard to get those things. I wouldn't exactly call living along, going to school full time, and working full time "easy." And not having a car or getting $$ from your parents make things more challenging. But I enjoy a challenge and I don't want to be reliant on others.

I also think it's incredibly easy to just blame the government for all the problems in our country. They could always do better, but at what point do people assume any responsibility for their own situation? I just get tired of the whole always blaming others.

Now when it comes to children, I do think we should do more. I think it's totally backwards to spend hundreds of billions on social security for the elderly, while children die from tooth decay. As cold as this sounds, I'd rather an elderly person die than a child -- at least they've had a chance at a life.

ceilirose · 03-01-2007, 05:40 PM

I think most Americans want affordable health care and not free although I do think children up to 18 should be covered if their parents are not able.

Speaking of red tape - medical insurance companies invented that phrase IMO. If you've ever had to do battle with one of them to get a payment or clarfication then you know what I mean. The government has red tape too but insurance companies are no better. It's a wash out as far as I'm concerned.

Personally I have an easier time seeing my taxes go to social service programs vs huge corporations getting subsidies just to make their bottom line bigger. Cheney and oil/energy companies anyone? But that's just me.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > In US, record numbers are plunged into poverty: report