Poverty rate rises as incomes decline - Census

[bijou]

Amid a still struggling economy, more Americans fell below the poverty line last year, according to new census data released Tuesday.

The nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, its highest level since 1993. About 46.2 million people are considered in need.

The government defines the poverty line as income of $22,314 a year for a family of four and $11,139 for an individual. The Office of Management and Budget updates the poverty line each year to account for inflation.

As for middle-class American families, income fell in 2010. The median household income was $49,445, down slightly from $49,777 the year before. ...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Povert....html?x=0&.v=3

[AmPat]

Maybe the libertards will finally realize that a falling tide lowers all ships.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Maybe the libertards will finally realize that a falling tide lowers all ships.

um, no not really. Read the article:

How the rich became the über rich

Median income has changed very little over the last 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, the middle-income family only earned 11% more in 2010 than they did in 1980, while the richest 5% in America saw their incomes surge 42%.

"Over that period of time, it's not that the American economy has necessarily performed badly," Osterman said. "As a country we're richer over that period, but there's been this real shift in where the income has gone, and it's to the top."

Amplifying that trend, the bottom 60% of households saw their income fall last year, while households making $100,000 or more enjoyed a rise in income.

The poverty rate is growing, the middle class is stagnant, and the rich are getting WAY richer.

[lacarnut]

The poverty rate is growing, the middle class is stagnant, and the rich are getting WAY richer.

You can not stay on unemployment for a couple of years, collect food stamps and have your hand out and expect your economic fortunes to improve. We need people going back to work, and then the poverty rate will decrease. Gimme, gimme, gimme is not going turn the economy around. Liberals like you do not understand that. Obama has done everything to stifle job creation. We need a politician that has a background in stimulating the economy rather than a community organizer that does not have a clue.

[Wei Wu Wei]

You can not stay on unemployment for a couple of years, collect food stamps and have your hand out and expect your economic fortunes to improve.

The jobs simply aren't there. In some communities if there are any jobs at all, they are very low paying service sector jobs like fast food or dishwashing. That is simply not enough to support a family, let alone make investments and have good economic fortunes.

For many people, this isn't about improving their stock portfolio or buying the newest model car, but paying their rent on time or feeding their children.

Some people work full time, some people even take part time jobs on the side, and still can barely afford to provide for their family with the high cost of food, gas, and housing.

Other people aren't even that lucky, and cannot find full time employment.

God forbid any of these struggling people get sick or injured and are stuck with expensive medical bills.

We need people going back to work, and then the poverty rate will decrease.

Yes, obviously. I totally agree with this. However, job growth is spurred by demand. If there is low demand for goods and services, then businesses do not need to expand, and therefore will not hire.

Gimme, gimme, gimme is not going turn the economy around. Liberals like you do not understand that.

I don't know what mean. no one is suggesting "gimme gimme gimme".

I think policies that increase demand for goods and services will cause businesses to hire to keep up with that increased demand.

Obama has done everything to stifle job creation.

such as? He extended the Bush tax cuts, he passed billions of dollars in extra tax cuts as well.

[lacarnut]

".


such as? He extended the Bush tax cuts, he passed billions of dollars in extra tax cuts as well.

Let me tell you how not to increase jobs in this country..... Create uncertainty, pass a health care bill that will increase cost to business owners, increase regulations, savage companies that provide more $$$ to the treasury than any other industry. That would be the evil oil companies. Rely on economists like Larry Summers who is a hack. Rely on ad visors like Immelt of GE whose company paid no income taxes and has exported 17,000 jobs overseas. Spend million from QE 1 & 2 to purchase windmills from Spain. Loan Venezuela millions for offshore oil drilling. How about lending a billionaire $500 million to build a greenie car at Tesla motors. Pissing more money into solar and wind energy boondoggles.

Obama has not invited one (1) small business owner to the WH for advise with the exception of the greenies. FYI, 80% of new jobs are created by them. Why no input from them?. The reason is that Obama and his band of economic clowns think government is the answer to creating jobs. You see how bad that has worked out. Evidently not because liberals want to keep doing the same thing over and over. It is "the private sector that creates most of the jobs" stupid.

You want to create jobs. Here is how. Lower taxes on business including matching payroll taxes, create an atmosphere of being business friendly rather than an adversary. Open up oil drilling in the Gulf, onshore and Anwar. The price would drop $20 per barrel overnight which would reduce cost to business. Sell land west of the MS ( no need for the government to own 70 to 80%. Eliminate thousands of onerous regulation that stifle business owners. Give incentives to large corporations to bring their overseas locations back to the US. Also, give them incentives to spend the trillions they are hoarding. Eliminate the EPA. This is just a tip of the iceberg of the things that need to be done to right the ship of economic doom. Another term with Obama and you can look for QE 3,4,5, etc along with bigger deficits that will make us a banana republic within 10 years.

[Starbuck]

The question I have is why?:

Why have the rich become richer? The stock market hasn't gone anywhere, so they haven't made it there; I know personally people who used to make 250+ and they can't find a job - they certainly aren't getting richer; companies are not paying their well-paid staff members any better; the only pay raise I have heard of lately is the 3% the government gave its workers.

I wish the article were a little more specific: Amplifying that trend, the bottom 60% of households saw their income fall last year, while households making $100,000 or more enjoyed a rise in income.

That's a pretty nebulous statement. $100,000 or more could apply to just about anyone from a successful trucker to two teachers in some areas. Or one government worker.

[lacarnut]

The question I have is why?:

Why have the rich become richer? The stock market hasn't gone anywhere, so they haven't made it there; I know personally people who used to make 250+ and they can't find a job - they certainly aren't getting richer; companies are not paying their well-paid staff members any better; the only pay raise I have heard of lately is the 3% the government gave its workers.

I wish the article were a little more specific: Amplifying that trend, the bottom 60% of households saw their income fall last year, while households making $100,000 or more enjoyed a rise in income.

That's a pretty nebulous statement. $100,000 or more could apply to just about anyone from a successful trucker to two teachers in some areas. Or one government worker.

Wee Wee and liberals rags are full of shit as usual. Many billionaires have had their clock cleaned this year. Carlos Slim has lost several billion since Jan 1st. Paulson made 5 billion in gold last year. This year his hedge fund switched gears to the stock market and now he is in the red. Bufett and Berky are not doing so hot either. So, I do not how, when or where the rich are getting richer in 2011 unless they have invested in gold or silver which is up around 30% this year; they are the best performing asset class.

[Starbuck]

Wee Wee and liberals rags are full of shit as usual. Many billionaires have had their clock cleaned this year. Carlos Slim has lost several billion since Jan 1st. Paulson made 5 billion in gold last year. This year his hedge fund switched gears to the stock market and now he is in the red. Bufett and Berky are not doing so hot either. So, I do not how, when or where the rich are getting richer in 2011 unless they have invested in gold or silver which is up around 30% this year; they are the best performing asset class.

I 'spec you're right. But damage is done by those types of headlines and the uninformative nature of the article. People read the headlines and that's it! - They have all the information they need. They never consider that all the business owned by all the rich people are doing poorly, and that most rich people have investments that are doing poorly.

The poor are doing poorly, and that's a fact. But I think the rich, whoever they are, are doing poorly, too.:(

[AmPat]

um, no not really. Read the article:



The poverty rate is growing, the middle class is stagnant, and the rich are getting WAY richer.

I stand by my statement. the evidence is as obvious as your flawed ideology.