It's The Poverty, Stupid
For four straight years, the poverty rate in the United States has increased, as too many Americans become caught in the grip of George Bush's failed economic policies.
The latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau show that the number of Americans living in poverty rose to 37 million last year; up 1.1 million from 2003.
Not surprisingly, the rise in poverty has not even registered as a blip on the Bush agenda. Nor has the disparity between the national unemployment rate, and the unemploymen rate for that of African-Americans.
Now, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bush has been forced to at least acknowledge the issue.
During his speech last night from Louisiana, Bush said "As all of us saw on television, there's also some deep, persistent poverty in this region, as well. That poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality."
Those sound like nice words. And if you didn't know Bush, they would sound as if they came from a 'President' (sic) who actually gave a darn. Yet Bush has failed to lay out a specific plan for eradicating the poverty which he now speaks against.
He says that the roots of poverty can be found in this country's history of racism. He's right. But I have one question for George W. Bush.
When he was a student at Harvard Business School in the 1970's, one day his professor led the class in a discussion about the ongoing energy crisis, and asked his students if they felt the government had an obligation to help poor people and those on fixed incomes with their home heating bills.
Bush responded no, because "poor people are lazy." If I could ask Bush one question, I would ask if he still subscribes to the notion that "poor people are lazy." If he does, then by Bush's own standard, he has helped contribute to poverty in this country.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
In the last week of September, the U.S. Census Bureau will issue its annual report on the number of Americans who are "living in poverty."
Census Bureau poverty reports vary little from year to year. For the past decade, the Census Bureau has declared that between 31.5 million and 39 million persons were living in poverty each year. Last year, for example, the Census Bureau declared there were 36.5 million poor Americans--nearly 14 percent of the U.S. population. But a close look at the actual material living standards of persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau demonstrates that the Bureau's official poverty report is misleading. For most Americans, the word "poverty" means destitution, an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, adequate clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 36.5 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit such a description.
In fact, numerous government reports indicate that most "poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more personal property than average Americans throughout most of this century. Today, inflation-adjusted expenditures per person among the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the average American household in the early 1970s.
1 The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:
*
In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes.
*
The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
*
Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.
*
Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.
*
The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian. 2
*
Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.
*
Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.
*
Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.
*
Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
*
Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.
*
As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.
*
Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the "poor" report their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.
*
The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.
*
Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.
*
Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
I can send more if you like it.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/16 @ 11:54 PM — (Reply)
There will always be poor people. No one can change that. So just get a grip.
Comment by — 2005/09/17 @ 12:10 AM — (Reply)
You have tried to draw the conclusion several times now that George Bush's policies are somehow responsible for the poor in New Orleans, well here are the links (check them out) that show in New Orleans parish the poverty rate actually went down from the time between 2000 and 2004. The individual poverty rate was actually cut by almost half.
2004 Census data for New Orleans Parish http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=05000US22071&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US22%7C05000US22071&_street=&_county=orleans%2C+la&_cityTown=orleans%2C+la&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050
2000 Census data for New Orleans Parish
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=05000US22071&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US22%7C05000US22071&_street=&_county=orleans%2C+la&_cityTown=orleans%2C+la&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 12:26 AM — (Reply)
Unemployment Rate -
Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease
Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change
* The Unemployement Rate is the same after GWBush's 1st three years as it was after Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Unemployment rate steadily declined in the third year with GWBush while it remained unchanged in Bill Clinton's third year.
Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7 out of 8 of Clinton's years in office.
Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)
* The % of people living in deep poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than the average across Clinton's entire TWO terms of office... AND lower than ANY of Clinton's 1st six years in office.
Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%
* The Homeownership Rate is higher under GWBush's 1st three years than under Bill Clinton's 1st three years.
* The Homeownership Rate grew MORE in the 1st three years with GWBush than in the 1st three years with Bill Clinton.
Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease
Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease
* The Inflation Rate is lower after three years of GWBush than it was after Bill Clinton's first three years.
* The Inflation Rate declined over three times greater under GWBush than under Bill Clinton.
And so even though GWBush "wrecked" the economy, caused a long and deep recession and threw 4 gabzillion people out of work - in just two years GWBush was still able to keep the poverty rate LOWER than what Clinton had done in almost EIGHT years?
* And all of this IN SPITE OF 9-11, which annhialated one of America's most important financial centers.
* AND in spite of waging two major overseas wars to overthrow two terrorist regimes.
* AND in spite of completely revamping and reconstructing our national security and intelligence agencies to defend against constant domestic terrorist threats.
* And yet we STILL had (as the numbers show) a far BETTER economy after three years of GWBush than when he first took office.
* And, as shown above, GWBush has had a GREATER positive impact on the economy than what Clinton was able to accomplish in his first three years.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 12:44 AM — (Reply)
You are ignoring the fact that the poverty rate DECREASED every year under President Clinton, and it has INCREASED every year under Bush. His policies are failing.
And to the person who commented that there will always be poor people so "get a grip." Does that mean we aren't supposed to do anything about it, and try to make their lives better?
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/17 @ 07:45 AM — (Reply)
Links to your claims please.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 08:45 AM — (Reply)
Go here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
You will see how the poverty rate decreased during Clinton's years, and has increased during Bush's.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/17 @ 09:07 AM — (Reply)
The link you provided shows the poverty rate lower during the years Bush has been president.
2004...... 290,605 36,997 12.7 241,153 26,564 11.0
2003...... 287,699 35,861 12.5 238,903 25,684 10.8
2002...... 285,317 34,570 12.1 236,921 24,534 10.4
2001...... 281,475 32,907 11.7 233,911 23,215 9.9
2000 12/.. 278,944 31,581 11.3 231,909 22,347 9.6
1999 11/.. 276,208 32,791 11.9 230,789 23,830 10.3
1998...... 271,059 34,476 12.7 227,229 25,370 11.2
1997...... 268,480 35,574 13.3 225,369 26,217 11.6
1996...... 266,218 36,529 13.7 223,955 27,376 12.2
1995...... 263,733 36,425 13.8 222,792 27,501 12.3
1994...... 261,616 38,059 14.5 221,430 28,985 13.1
1993 10/.. 259,278 39,265 15.1 219,489 29,927 13.6
1992 9/... 256,549 38,014 14.8 217,936 28,961 13.3
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 09:20 AM — (Reply)
I posted it here. http://elmersbro.bloghi.com/2005/09/17/poverty-comparison-from-the-census-bureau.html
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 09:24 AM — (Reply)
six years of the Clinton administration
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 09:34 AM — (Reply)
That still doesn't obscure the fact that the numbers are consistently RISING under Bush, and they LOWERED under Clinton. That is the issue here: more people going into poverty under Bush's failed leadership.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/17 @ 09:50 AM — (Reply)
You can ignore the facts all you want...the Bush administration average is still lower than Clinton's. It was up over 15% one year...did you look at the table?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 01:01 PM — (Reply)
That just happened to be the very first year he took office. So the figures released in 1993 would have been the figures from the previous year (1992).
And you won't address the fact that the poverty rate when DOWN during Clinton's years, and has steadily gone up during Bush's. You just can't ignore the fact that Clinton's policies helped LOWER the poverty rate, and Bush's has helped INCREASE it. That's the reality.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/17 @ 01:07 PM — (Reply)
The table shows all eight years and the only two that were lower than Bush were the last two. You could read my previous posts about the definition of poverty in America. You have not seen poverty like I have and neither has anyone in the US. As far as it going down...it certainly couldn't get much higher. Your "reality" ignores the the very facts you purport to make your claim. You hate this man so much that you can ignore facts. Go ahead. I said you are starting to sound like a cartoon.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 01:23 PM — (Reply)