Economists: Poverty like rose in 2003 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Epitome22 · 08-19-2004, 06:51 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...y_poverty_dc_1

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More Americans likely slid into poverty in 2003 and the gap between the rich and poor widened, economists said on Thursday in a report that could fuel Democrat criticism of President Bush (news - web sites).

While the nation's official poverty rate will not be released until next week, the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated 700,000 Americans were added to the ranks of the poor last year, based on early numbers.

That takes the number of poor in the United States to about 36.4 million, from 35.7 million in 2002.

The poverty line is set at an annual income of $9,573 or less for an individual, or $18,660 for a family of four with two children, according to the Census Bureau (news - web sites).

Using Census Bureau data for the first half of 2003, economist Heather Boushey said the percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty rose to 12.8 percent, up from 12.7 percent in the first half of 2002.

Children were even more likely to be poor, the study showed, with poverty rising to 18.8 percent of children in 2003 from 18.6 percent in 2002.

The poverty rate tends to track the overall economy, rising during a recession and falling in boom times. It has increased each year since 2000, sparking criticism from Democrats that Bush's economic policies are skewed to benefit the rich.

But Bush's economic team has argued he inherited the 2001 recession from former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites), a Democrat, and that three rounds of tax cuts have since spurred the economy's recovery and kick-started job growth.

The official poverty rate is set for release on Aug. 26. Boushey said it will likely be slightly different than her calculation because it will include a full 12 months of data and is taken from a separate but similar Census survey.

In past years, there has been only a slight gap between six months of one survey and a full year of the second.

The study also showed the median household income rose 3.6 percent to $48,216 in the first half of 2003 from the same period in 2002 -- though when inflation is taken into account, incomes rose a smaller 1.1 percent.

Together with the rising poverty rate, the increase in the median household income suggests the gap between rich and poor is widening, Boushey said.

"Families above the average are seeing an increase (in income), but the families at the bottom are seeing a drop," she told journalists.

The report also found the number of Americans with health care coverage likely fell in 2003 for the third year in a row, as unemployment grew and employers cut back on health benefits.

reeds · 08-19-2004, 06:57 PM

that is the republican way- the rich get richer- piss on everyone else....

mavsman55 · 08-19-2004, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: reeds
that is the republican way- the rich get richer- piss on everyone else....

Sure if by piss on everyone who's not rich you mean give them more money... [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]

THE POOR GOT RICHER

I have no idea how many more times I'm going to have to say this. Reeds, were you home when your parents opened the big-ass bonus check they received from George Bush earlier in the year? That doesn't count as pissing all over you.

dude1394 · 08-19-2004, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: reeds
that is the republican way- the rich get richer- piss on everyone else....

Should have known reeds would jump on this one since he's so jealous of those that achieve.

knowitall · 08-19-2004, 08:03 PM

OH CRAP!!! Now you guys have to start bashing the economist! Your job to protect Bush may never end.

LRB · 08-19-2004, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: knowitall
OH CRAP!!! Now you guys have to start bashing the economist! Your job to protect Bush may never end.

Quit making baseless accusations. No one here has bashed the economist and I seriously doubt that anyone will.

FishForLunch · 08-19-2004, 08:27 PM

We are just trying to help you decide who to vote for since you are undecided still

reeds · 08-19-2004, 08:42 PM

"I have no idea how many more times I'm going to have to say this. Reeds, were you home when your parents opened the big-ass bonus check they received from George Bush earlier in the year? That doesn't count as pissing all over you."

Mavsman- did u read the article?? DID U?? Those so called "big ass" bonus checks do very very little to help the poor. Of course you wouldnt beleive that, but its obvious..700k added to the ranks of the poor last year, how did those big ass checks prevent that??They didnt

"Should have known reeds would jump on this one since he's so jealous of those that achieve."

And for you DUDE..you shouldnt Assume things..because I stick up for the poor and want to see more of America thrive, that doesnt mean I am jealous of those that achieve..in fact, our family is much better off than the majority of this country- much better..we just built out third home in the past 10 years, we ARE living the American dream and then some. But you see, just because of that fact doesnt mean I cant fight for the poor. I know that is hard for a republican to beleive- I do realize that, but its the honest to God truth.

mavsman55 · 08-19-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: reeds
"I have no idea how many more times I'm going to have to say this. Reeds, were you home when your parents opened the big-ass bonus check they received from George Bush earlier in the year? That doesn't count as pissing all over you."

Mavsman- did u read the article?? DID U?? Those so called "big ass" bonus checks do very very little to help the poor. Of course you wouldnt beleive that, but its obvious..700k added to the ranks of the poor last year, how did those big ass checks prevent that??They didnt

I got $900 in the mail because of G.W.'s tax breaks last year. For a lot of families, $900 can go a long way. For you to complain about Bush spending so much money, what else are you asking for? Do you want Bush to give more or less to the poor?

LRB · 08-20-2004, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Do you want Bush to give more or less to the poor?

It's a simple answer Mavsman, in the Spirit of John "Flip Flop" Kerry, the answer is yes.

sturm und drang · 08-20-2004, 01:02 PM

I can't speak for every Democrat, but the fact that Bush simultaneously:

a.) led us into a massively expensive war costing tens, scores or hundreds of billions (TBD)
b.) cut taxes

is a little scary. Did you know that our budget deficit this year, $445B, was the biggest ever? That Bush has taken us from the biggest budget surplus ever to the biggest deficit ever?

You can't have it both ways, Bushie. If you're going to lead us into war, we have to pay for it.

LRB · 08-20-2004, 01:15 PM

Sturm we have to pay for it, but we don't have to pay for it immediately. Deficit spending is justified in times of national emergency IMO, and I would classify our situation with Iraq and the war on terror a national emergency. If the alternative to military spending was significant loss of life most people would want to spend the money. Now not everyone may agree that Iraq was necessary to prevent significant loss of life, but that's why Bush did it. If Bush didn't cut taxes, then our recession would most likely have gotten worse instead of better. Over increased recession and significant loss of life, I would chose to have the deficit that we have.

sturm und drang · 08-20-2004, 01:26 PM

I agree, obviously, that this doesn't have to be paid off immediately. I'm not suggesting Bushie had to raise taxes comensurate with the costs incurred by the war.

But to actually CUT taxes simultaneously with going to war? There's a reason it's never been done in the US before: it's fiscally irresponsible.

mavsman55 · 08-20-2004, 01:46 PM

Sturm you make a very good argument. However, is it just my bad memory, or were the tax cuts all made before the war started? There was a gap of a year or two between the tax cuts and Bush being informed about the WMD's that everyone was so certain existed.

LRB · 08-20-2004, 02:18 PM

Quote:

But to actually CUT taxes simultaneously with going to war? There's a reason it's never been done in the US before: it's fiscally irresponsible.

If if Bush did implement them very close together, saying that it is fiscally irresponsible is an opinion. Saying it is fiscally risking is something that I would agree with as a reason it hasn't been done before. However, I would agree with Bush that the risk seems justified in this case.