Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Rose in 2003

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#1


Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Rose in 2003
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...27/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/census_poverty&printer=1

By GENARO C. ARMAS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau (news - web sites) reported Thursday.

It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush (news - web sites).

Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau. That was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1 percent in 2002.

The rise was more dramatic for children. There were 12.9 million living in poverty last year, or 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. That was an increase of about 800,000 from 2002, when 16.7 percent of all children were in poverty.

The Census Bureau's definition of poverty varies by the size of the household. For instance, the threshold for a family of four was $18,810, while for two people it was $12,015.

Nearly 45 million people lacked health insurance, or 15.6 percent of the population. That was up from 43.5 million in 2002, or 15.2 percent, but was a smaller increase than in the two previous years.

Uninsured rates for children, though, were relatively stable at 11.4 percent, likely the result of recent expansions of coverage in government programs covering the poor and children, such as the state Children's Health Insurance Program, analysts said.

Meanwhile, the median household income, when adjusted for inflation, remained basically flat last year at $43,318. Whites, blacks and Asians saw no noticeable change, but income fell 2.6 percent for Hispanics to nearly $33,000. Asians had the highest income at over $55,000, while whites made $47,800 and blacks nearly $30,000.

Census Bureau analyst Dan Weinberg said the results were typical of a post-recession period. He said the increase in people without insurance was due to the uncertain job picture.

"Certainly the long-term trend is firms offering less generous (benefit) plans, and as people lose jobs they tend to lose health insurance coverage," he said.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) seized on the numbers as evidence the Bush administration's economic policies have failed. During the years Bush has been in office, 5.2 million people have lost health insurance and 4.3 million have fallen into poverty, he said.

"Under George Bush (news - web sites)'s watch, America's families are falling further behind," Kerry said.

Bush administration officials were quick to counter that the data didn't reflect more recent gains in the economy in the first half of 2004 and left some of the blame on Congress. Health and Human Services (news - web sites) Secretary Tommy Thompson said Bush was focusing on proposals that would reduce the costs of health insurance for businesses.

"The big failure is not what is happening in the administration," Thompson said. "Individuals in the Senate have failed to adopt the president's health care plan."

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, noted that while more people lost insurance, the number of Americans who had coverage grew by 1 million last year. Overall, 243 million people had insurance in 2003.

"The bottom line is this: More people in America have health coverage today than at any time in our nation's history and I think that's a fact worth noting, but we can always do more," Barton said.

Even before release of the data, some Democrats claimed the Bush administration was trying to play down bad news by releasing the reports a month earlier than usual. The reports normally come out separately in late September — one on poverty and income, the other on insurance.

Releasing the numbers at the same time and not so close to Election Day "invite charges of spinning the data for political purposes," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

Census Director Louis Kincannon — a Bush appointee — denied politics played any role in moving up the release date. The move, announced earlier this year, was done to coordinate the numbers with the release of other data.

Official national poverty estimates, as well as most government data on income and health insurance, come from the bureau's Current Population Survey.

This year the bureau is simultaneously releasing data from the broader American Community Survey, which also includes income and poverty numbers but cannot be statistically compared with the other survey.

___

On the Net:

Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#4
#1could it be because in large numbers poor people are popping out babies left and right knowing damn well that the government is going to give them multiple checks.

#2while hard working people are only having 1 or 2 kids because they have to bust their asses with two jobs a morgage and 3 cars. oh ya and not to mention supporting the kids of the poor people i mentioned in #1.

oh ya and i would also assume that the over 12 million ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE PART OF THE POOR AND UN INSURED. sahould we give them everything also??? hell why not tax Americans another 50% of their remaining paycheck to pay for all of latin americanto have free healthcare and foodstamps?? yippy.
 
Sep 13, 2002
1,983
0
0
41
#5
work get insurence dont be poor, that simple.

everyone here always says how stupid my comments are, how i can spell, and a bunch of other shit. so if i can live nice save money have a kid and a wife, have insurence. then it cant be that hard, can it??????????


if your born poor work to get out it, if your still poor when your 40 you wernt motivated and you were lazy as fuck, your fault when you get old you shouldnt expect anyone to help you because when you were able to do shit you didnt help your self.

its like people i saw working at mc donalds when i was a little kid and now there at the same mc donalds doing the same job. 15 years and there still unhappy and grumpy as fuck. they aint even in managment. there fault.


when are people going to start holding others acountable for there actions, instead of blaming the next man.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#6
theyre not. theyve got democrats to keep them entrenched in poverty and a negative pessimistic mindset. everybodys out to get you!!! the republican boogie men are coming!!!! oooooooooooohhh!!!
 

shep

Sicc OG
Oct 2, 2002
3,233
2
0
#7
phil said:
theyre not. theyve got democrats to keep them entrenched in poverty and a negative pessimistic mindset. everybodys out to get you!!! the republican boogie men are coming!!!! oooooooooooohhh!!!
that's because the republicans DON'T care about the minorities, and don't want to help them out in any way. they only think about themselves, how does this affect me? where as most democrats are thinking for the better social order, creating after school programs, PBS, endowment for the arts, and other things that help people out.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#8
youre an idiot. why dont you look at the numbers of minorities who now own their own homes as opposed to the clinton administration or any other. endowment for the arts??? are you fucking kidding me? democrats are providing solutions to problems they incur. its a cycle. ask your local democratic representative why he doesnt want your kids going to the same schools as his kids when its 3 times cheaper than a public govt education and PROVEN to be far superior. whos looking out for who? while democrats work for after school programs they feed the problems that cause a need for the same program. i know that might be too much factual information for you to soak but take it one word at a time.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#9
shep said:
that's because the republicans DON'T care about the minorities.
they dont care about any1. and they shouldnt its your responsibility to care for YOURSELF

shep said:
and don't want to help them out in any way.
only you can help yourself out.

shep said:
they only think about themselves, how does this affect me?
oh ya i forgot and democrats dont huh.

Ex. john kerry has missed 75% of the senate vote his ENTIRE CAREER. is he looking out for you, i think not, i mena he is never there. all he is looking out for is HIMSELF. he wants the power that goes with being a senator. he doesnt need the money hew is already a billionaire. all he wants is the power.

shep said:
where as most democrats are thinking for the better social order.
they are not looking out for the better social order they are also looking out for themselves. thats why they give everything away, they offer all the people things so in return they can get their votes, and in the long run the people are hooked on them and what they have to offer and become dependant on the governemnt instead of themselves.

shep said:
oh ya that rreally helps people out a hell of a lot. hardly any1 listens/watches PBS and yet it costs the hard working tax-payer millions every year.

endowment for the arts
ya, that was a good one right there.

i can see how spending millions of dollars to wet the appetites of RICH liberals on art museums and so on is going to help POOR people
 

shep

Sicc OG
Oct 2, 2002
3,233
2
0
#10
phil said:
youre an idiot. why dont you look at the numbers of minorities who now own their own homes as opposed to the clinton administration or any other. endowment for the arts??? are you fucking kidding me? democrats are providing solutions to problems they incur. its a cycle. ask your local democratic representative why he doesnt want your kids going to the same schools as his kids when its 3 times cheaper than a public govt education and PROVEN to be far superior. whos looking out for who? while democrats work for after school programs they feed the problems that cause a need for the same program. i know that might be too much factual information for you to soak but take it one word at a time.

at least democrats want to give money to public schools instead of privatizing them. factual information? show me one fact in there. show me how creating after school programs is feeding into the problem. i'd like to see this. next thing you are going to tell me is that people do crack because big bird tells them to and that's why we need to get rid of PBS
 

shep

Sicc OG
Oct 2, 2002
3,233
2
0
#11
as for mclean, it is shown that people who have interest/background in the arts perform better in education and are more likely to go to college. also, a lot of the money in the endowment for the arts, is given to poor artists, not liberals in art museums.

as for PBS, i don't watch it, but kids do. believe it or not, kids do learn shit from PBS. and most of the money from pbs comes from organizations and "viewers like you"
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#12
whoa shep. what do you mean they want to give money to govt schools. like i said in previous posts it costs the city of washington d.c. 10000 dollars on an annual basis per child in a public school. why can that child get an IMMENSELY greater education at a private school at a huge fraction of the cost? why does it take 10000 per student to have a graduation rate at about my shoe size when 3500 can get you in a good private school with MUCH BETTER RESULTS? LIKE I SAID, WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR YOU? DEMOCRATS ARE OWNED BY TEACHERS UNIONS. DO THE MATH. I have no problem with after school programs, but why do we need after school programs? could it be single parents?? why are there so many single parents? because its easy!!! democrats have established themselves as the backup plan for any failure you want to partake in. you wanna have 8 kids? you wont starve to death! the government will take care of you and tell you how the rich people actually did something underhanded and sneaky to be rich and at the same time hold you down. JUST TELL ME HOW YOUR SOLUTION OF THROWING MORE MONEY INTO THE FIRE PIT WILL HELP ANYONE EXCEPT ALONG THE MONEY TRAIL TO POLITICIANS AND UNIONS????

i dont have a problem with pbs at all. i never said after school programs feed any problem. they are good. the fact remains, democrats will give you an after school program but dont want to or are too p.c. to offer a solution so that those programs arent needed.

democrats = give someone a fish, they'll eat for a day

republicans = teach someone to fish, they'll eat for life

SORRY BUT THOSE ARE FACTS. YOU CAN ARGUE TIL YOURE BLUE IN THE FACE.
 
Sep 13, 2002
1,983
0
0
41
#13
pjil said it all


fuck the democrats.


do for self. people talk about hustle but i guess they aint got none. dont take food out of my mouth. im sick of the shit that goes on.


STOP BEING FUCKING LAZY. WOMEN STOP BEING FUCKING SLUTS. MEN STOP GETTING 5 DIFFERENT FEMALES PREGNET THEN NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE. PEOPLE IF YOU WORK AT MC DONALDS AT LEAST MAKE AN EFFORT TO MOVE UP AND MAKE $9.00 AN HOUR INSTEAD OF 6.75


SOME PEOPLE ARE FUCKING JOKES, HOPEFULLY ONE DAY THE DEMOCRATS WILL STOP LAUGHING AND HANDING OUT MONEY TO THESE WORTHLESS PEOPLE.
 

shep

Sicc OG
Oct 2, 2002
3,233
2
0
#14
you really think that all these problems are individual faults and not social problems? you all got some learning to do
 
Sep 13, 2002
1,983
0
0
41
#15
seen plenty of people come from homes with parents on every kind of drug imaginable no education, no money no nothing.

and guess what? when they worked hard and didnt use it as an excuse they made it.
 

shep

Sicc OG
Oct 2, 2002
3,233
2
0
#16
its not a matter of excuses. if you think everyone in this country is treated equally, then not only are you stupid, but you are also blind.
 
Sep 13, 2002
1,983
0
0
41
#17
shep are you living good or are you broke as fuck?


and what is the reason for you living like this?



life isnt fair, deal with it and make your money.
 

shep

Sicc OG
Oct 2, 2002
3,233
2
0
#18
well, i'm in college, so i'm broke as fuck. but you know what, it was easy to get into college, get a job, and make money, because i am for the most part, not discrimated against. the same CANNOT be said for the majority of the country.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#19
shep said:
its not a matter of excuses. if you think everyone in this country is treated equally, then not only are you stupid, but you are also blind.
if you think the heavy hand of govt can make life fair for every single american, then you need to examine who is blind. its common knowledge that life isnt fair. uncle sam could confiscate 100% of our paychecks and redistribute them evenly and some people will still be poor, broke, homeless.
 
Jun 18, 2004
2,190
0
0
#20
Motherfuckers just don't fucking get it...heavy handed govt?...How about a govt. so weighted by power and industry, amongst other conglomerates, that the richest pay the fewest tax dollars? How is that possible? What about approvals for billions in defense spending, at the same time, in California, we have raised tuition for state and community colleges for the first time in over fifty years? At least I know we'll be better equiped while we are in *looks at watch* Iran? Syria? N. Korea?....Oh yeah that's right, Iraq...hunting phantom WMD, and trying to walk through all the flowers being thrown at our soldiers feet accompanied by thankful Iraqis hugging and praising our "freedom" fighters. Johnny can't read, but he can fire a surface to air missle like no other...and that will prove to be a greater asset in the WWIII appocalypse that is US world diplomacy. :dead: