Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 1969 - the poverty level was 12.1%
In 2007 - the poverty level was 12.5%
It doesn't look like progress until you look at the details.
From 1989 to 2007, about three-quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics -- mostly immigrants, their children and grandchildren. The poverty rate for blacks fell during this period, though it was still much too high (24.5 percent in 2007). Poverty "experts" don't dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty.
Second, the poor's material well-being has improved. The official poverty measure obscures this by counting only pre-tax cash income and ignoring other sources of support. These include the earned-income tax credit (a rebate to low-income workers), food stamps, health insurance (Medicaid), housing and energy subsidies. Spending by poor households from all sources may be double their reported income, reports a study by Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute. Although many poor live hand-to-mouth, they've participated in rising living standards. In 2005, 91 percent had microwaves, 79 percent air conditioning and 48 percent cell phones.
A proposal in 2011 may change the method in which poverty is counted from an absolute method to a relative method.
The "supplemental measure" ties the poverty threshold to what the poorest third of Americans spend on food, housing, clothes and utilities. The actual threshold -- not yet calculated -- will almost certainly be higher than today's poverty line.
So the percentage of those in poverty will remain pretty steady. So even if the standard of living increases for everyone, the dollar amounts will rise like a buoy in oily gulf waters. Plus, being that more families get their income from food stamps, and other government assistance - you can spend more than you earn. That will inflate poverty levels.
This also means there will always be people who are eligible to receive money from the government - i.e., a fixed amount of the population will most likely vote for the person that gives them free money.
Certainly it should count these other sources of income. It should also be adjusted for local differences in cost of living. Certainly it costs more to live in NY or LA than in Detroit. Of course people will vote for the one who gives them "free money." Didn't most millionaires vote for Bush.
Certainly it should count these other sources of income. It should also be adjusted for local differences in cost of living. Certainly it costs more to live in NY or LA than in Detroit. Of course people will vote for the one who gives them "free money." Didn't most millionaires vote for Bush.
Quick note - If you are talking about tax cuts, that's people keeping the money they earn.
If it's earned income credit, food stamps, or some other gov't program - it is not earned - it is free money redistributed from others.
No as long as their is a Party that believes in Hand Outs, and believe me there is one known for doing this, we will have Poor in this Country, when you give, and some feel they don't have to work for it, what do you think is going to happen.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, we could potentially have millionaires eligible for food stamps.
Leftists always require an underclass to function.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.