poverty and unisured numbers up
 

The U.S. Census Bureau announced Thursday that the number of citizens living in poverty and without health insurance rose in 2003.

The government agency says the poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent of the population, or 34.5 million, in 2002, to 12.5 percent, or 35.8 million last year. The poverty rate for children under the age of 18 also increased from 16.7 percent, or 12.1 million in 2002, to 17.6 percent in 2003, or 12.9 million.

The number of citizens without health insurance coverage rose by 1.4 million last year for a total of 45 million people. The percentage of uncovered citizens rose from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 15.6 percent in 2003.

Do you have the numbers on the population increase? Or are we to assume that the population has remained the same and people's economic situation has made a turn for the worst? I'm sure Kerry will assume the latter and blame the increase in numbers on the Bush administration.

I suspect that the percentages are the answer to your question, Paul. Percentages of the entire population, I assume.

But I'm not sure I should assume that. The figures for uninsured are unexpectedly low. I wonder if this is the number and percent of folks who are WORKING and not covered by health insurance. My belief is that the proportion of Americans, whether employed or not, who lack health insurance is fairly high. Higher than 15.6%. But that's just my wild guess, perhaps wrong.

Still, by any measure, things are not moving in the happy direction.

Maybe the lazy ba$tards should:
(1) get off their fat assess and get a job
(2) Put their legs together and quit bringing children into the world that they can't possibly support.

Well, one thing that needs to be noted towards putting their legs together (which I 100% agree with) is that there are a lot of Catholics who are immegrating to this land. Catholics are not permitted to use a reliable form of birth control other than abstinance.

Thats about the most uneducated thing I've seen posted here. You must be very proud.:rolleyes:

Go get a job. Like they grow on trees.

I heard that Long Beach was looking for another 3000 workers to handle all the foreign shipments into the US.. and they got FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND APPLICATIONS!.. oi

Right. Some of our posters here probably believe that sex education should not be taught in schools. The theory is (I guess), that if you don't tell them about sex, then they won't learn about it and won't engage in that activity.

Poverty can occur when you have a job.

Look at the definition - a family of four on $18,660 per annum.

--> a family of two kids is not "too much" (actually, arguably it isn't enough - 2.1 children required to replace the adult population)
--> $18,660 is (I believe) approximately 1 full time adult minimum wage

What that basically says is that the US has become a country where you cannot have a single income family of four (the traditional unit), working on the minimum wage, without poverty.

I would have thought that fixing this would be the number one priority for conservatives :rolleyes:

It's almost like I paid you to say that, Cam. glad you did. Federal minimum wage is $5.12 per hour. Assuming a 2000-hour work year, that comes to a whopping $10,240 per year, which is more than $850 per month before taxes (yes, remember those "payroll" taxes? They're WAY steeper than income tax).

So, I'm wondering. How do some of the conservatives on this Board suggest that a family budget this money so as to create a comfortable, or even just a secure (or even dry when it rains) environment for their families?

Or perhaps we imagine they would have two minimum wage jobs to support a family. But if they do that, then they'd be tired all the time and their kids would wonder where they're at. Who is going to teach them the "family values" taht conservatives speak so highly of. Who is teaching values to the children of the working poor? I know the answer to that one. Two sources:

Each other
Television

So, in my humble view, if conservatives really wanted kids and citizens to grow up productive and respectful and filled with christian values, then they would support a change in this law so that minimum wage can be set at a "living wage" level. That's about $15 per hour.

"minimum wage" should definitely be re-labelled as "poverty wage" because that's what it is.

And, both Wal-Mart and Target have been taken to task in the past year for, through their "contractors" paying no overtime to janitors and also paying $4.00 an hour, for 7 day work weeks.

Doctor MArk: Sometimes your remarks are very insightful. Unfortunately, the one about folks getting "off their lazy asses" etc. was not one of those. Insensitivity toward one's fellow human is never becoming, particularly from a supposedly educated individual.

minimum wage is $5.12 per hour. Assuming a 2000-hour work year, that comes to a whopping $10,240 per year,

Ooops, I should have researched. Now I remember - it is closer top $10/hour in NZ (maybe $9? - which is about US$5-6).

I don't actually approve of high minimum wages - I think it can screw up competition and I'd rather see economic success sort it out in the long run. However, I feel sad when I see low socio-economic people consistently being painted as "lazy", "dole bludging" etc.

For a start, I'm much lazier (just better educated) than a hell of a lot of minimum wage folks.

For the fourth time I'll post this link - anyone wonder how far $18k p.a. gets a family of four (I suspect noone actually watched the slideshow, based on responses that come afterwards on previous threads):

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/tour2.htm

The message - you can pretend that there aren't poor people in your country, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

The thing I don't understand is how a Vietnamese or Mexican family can immigrate to the US with nothing, and make a comfortable life. Today, I helped a Vietnamese couple paint the interior of their new home. The father and mother came to the US in the 70s and since then have managed to put 6 children through college and 2 through MED school. Don't tell me slanted eyes makes one automatically successful.

The only thing I can draw from this is poverty is not all about money. It's related to a state of mind. It's related to personal sacrifice. Yes, poverty indeed manifests in lack of money, but I doubt it has a lot to do with the rate of minimum wage. In other words, raising minimum wage to $15/hr won't solve the root problems that lead to poverty.
Just my humble opinion, Jürgen

Opportunities live on every corner. Hard work and perseverance trumps poverty every time. It's all about choice and I believe that people allow themselves into a life of poverty instead of being thrust into it. I know my beliefs sound harsh, but this one is a fundamental tenet of conservative beliefs. As far as compassion for my fellow man, well, I'll be happy to give them a fishing pole and teach him how to fish.

It is all about choice. If you don't have enough money to support yourself...why would anyone be stupid enough to have children? Then whine because they do not make enough to raise two or four children. the problem is that they are not held responsible for their actions. the government can always bail them out.....with the money of someone else who had a little discipline and made better choices.

Not being able to afford to have children (in a relationship) at some stage in your life (largely defined by woman's age - 18-35), is what I would consider another manifestation of, or even definition of, poverty.

Mark/Fint - it is not about choice. By definition, there will always be a relatively large percentage of the population who work in unskilled jobs at or close to minimum wage. They cannot ALL get ahead - no matter how hard they apply themselves.

The irony is that you pay for them one way or the other (ie - if you won't pay a higher wage, they'll be supported by the state).

Jurgen - what did that Vietnamese family do to earn the cash to put their children through school, etc.

If a man and woman cannot earn and save enough to have a child by the time they are 35 years old, they certainly should not be allowed to have children because there is certainly reason to terminte those defective gene pools with the current generation.
Allowing such idiots to have children would certainly be tantamount to child abuse...Of course it is more likely that these "poor" are having their children at a much younger age. That allows them much more fertile time to produce a brood sufficient in size to guarantee that they will never live in anything but poverty.
Sure it is about choice. Don't worry Cam, I don't think we have to be concerned about all of them working hard enough to get ahead that there is any sort of shortage of losers to do menial work...the danger is really that we compensate them so much to do nothing that they will refuse to work.

What income level do you think it is appropriate for a couple to be "able" to have children at?

ok, i gotta admit, deep down inside, i feel like mark. go and improve your living situation by bustingASS. and if you cannot afford to have kids, dont have any.

growing up, i found that alot of people on welfare, seem to think the opposite way, the more kids they have the better their own future. kids support the parents later on in life. kind of like a pension plan. but till then, life is hard.

not an easy fix for this one.
so if you get hurt without insurance, you go to a free clinic? i would hate to see the line at that office.

An income level where they would not need any "help" from the government (ie other folks money) to feed, clothe, educate, and provide medical care for their family.

I suspect that this is a level higher than the median wage ($40k) (if you took govt assistance out of it). Lets say 20% goes on tax, about the same on heath insurance, another 40% on living costs, the other 20% (only $8k pa) on transport, food etc.

You still ok with that (less than half the population have kids)?

Fellow started at FEDEX 20 years ago, starting as a package handler. He still works night shift and drives an old Nissan Maxima. From what I gather, he saves and saves. Also, you don't need tons of cash to go to college. Pell grants, scholarships, and college loans make it possible, if you put forth the effort in high school.

Another Vietnamese man (old family friend) started work as a typesetter for a printshop. He has 3 children. All children went to college and are leading productive lives.

Today, I chatted with the first fellow. Here are some choice words he had for me:"Vietnamese man buy 1 chicken, and he eats for four days. American man buy 1 piece of chicken, and he eats for only one meal. Same price." "Vietnamese man earn $1, and he spends 10 cents. He saves the rest of the money" "America spends too little on education."

I can go on and on with success stories.

My dad (immigrant from post WWII Germany) said regarding American standard of living. "It's not a higher standard of living. It's a higher standard of waste."

Again, it is not about dollars and cents, in my opinion. It is about a mentality--a desire to succeed and advance in life. Sure, there are always tough breaks, but I find it hard to believe an individual has tough breaks for their entire lifetime. Of course, the question is how does the person break their stride. A defeated person must find a way to break out. $15/hr does not change the mind of such a person.

Now, if one proposed programs to change the mind of one living in poverty, you have my vote. Teach the child he/she can have dreams and reach. Don't give them handouts and pat them on the head. What good does this accomplishment?

I'm not criticizing those in poverty, but I don't feel raising wages should be the primary solution. What good is $15/hr to a child, when his parent doesn't teach the value of a buck, the value of an education, or open the door to some dreams.

Jurgen - we fundamentally agree - I wouldn't raise the minimum wage either, and I couldn't agree more with the fact that lower socio-economic people often (but not always) have poor budgeting skills and bad spending habits.

My reaction is that this warrants more money being spent on education. Handouts are never much more than a stopgap (more on this later).

Another thought thouw = for all those people who think that the allure of being wealthy is what will pull people out of poverty (aspiration).

If someone aspires to a middle class lifestyle, but starts enjoying aspects of it on a lower class wage, they aren't going to get ahead. In fact, chances are the hire purchase will get them behind. The consumer society will get them one way or the other (unless willpower is immense).

What am I saying? Good question! Basically, I think that human nature means that unless people live in abject (as opposed to relative) poverty, then the survival instinct is never going to be strong enough. I think the state needs to help - I think that abject poverty for some is a far greater evil.

Yes I am fine with that. You are assuming that they start having the children with only current income. If they really want children, they have many years to invest and save to prepare.

I agree with Mark

1. Forced labour for the Ba$tards.
2. Sterilization for those who fail to meet the poverty line.

...now back to work on my master plan....

And what about if they already have kids and bad luck befalls them? Should they give them back?

Or do we need to have "them" having (further) money in the bank to cover this eventuality?

Cam, that is one of the problems the right especially have got to deal with, and that is bad things can happen to good people. Charley is an excellent example. I suppose some of those folks who lost home and place of work somehow (other than choosing FLA as a home) have themselves to blame for their plight.

At least our president is astute enough to go there, offer solace and promise aid. Even Kerry did "the right thing" by not showing up and make it a photo op. Such tragedies should not be politicized.

fint, if something untoward happened to you, I would hope someone would be there to help you get back on your feet. Charity and compassion are the finest attributes our flawed race have to offer.

Ooooh, I forgot that one in my "feel good about Bush post". And I remembered another - I think he (and Powell in particular) are trying pretty hard on Sudan.

Sorry, but I really don't believe in bad luck. The difference between one man's good fortune and another's bad luck is planning.

Yes, folks should have money in the bank and insurance. Those seem to cover most "bad luck."

What if it runs out? How much is prudent?

If they lived in a hurricane prone area and did not purchase insurance to cover any possible losses...they can indeed blame themselves.

There is a big difference between "charity and passion" and the redistribution of wealth at gunpoint via taxes. The difference is that charity is voluntary. I have no problem for guys who want to give more money to the poor...giving their own money. I resent them giving away mine also. I prefer to choose my charities myself.

If they lived in a hurricane prone area and did not purchase insurance to cover any possible losses...they can indeed blame themselves.

However (and this is the point of the discussion), they doend up in that position (or poor and with kids, or just plain poor). Society - through charity alone - is not going to provide them with what they need in this circumstance.

I'm happy paying taxes - what would your solution be?

If it runs out...it was not enough. Simple as that. Everyone has a different situation to plan around so there is no set amount. There will always be charity for the truly needy.

I'm gonna keep at this.

And how is that charity given out? Is it withheld if they didn't behave prudently? I can see the foodbank now - "I'm sorry sir, but I understand that you only had $10k in the bank and given your circumstances you should have had $20k. I'm afraid you will have to starve on the street today".

Another way to think of it - if you were taxed a minimum (say 10%) to cover military/police/certain infrastructure, etc, would you give to charity as much as you pay on top of that 10% in tax now?

Would your neighbours?

I believe society would provide a subsistence via charity..although perhaps not what the "think" they "need."

I have no problem with you or anyone else voluntarily paying extra taxes for social welfare....I just don't believe people should be forced to. If liberals were really as compassionate as they claim to be, we would not need to raise taxes to pay for welfare, they would voluntarily pay extra..."to help the children."

It would be given out as the charity saw fit....just as charities do now. I don't believe anyone would starve, but I would expect that many charities would look at the circumstances surrounding one's financial problems...might even make one earn their keep via work programs.

I would indeed give more because I would know it is going to a worthy cause and most would not be wasted on govt apparatus to collect and distribute the money.

Yeah. The same problem applies now as it would if taxes were low and charity was the major source of protection for the poor.

People are selfish -- any system rapidly evolves to a point where it favours the lowest common denominator (the people who wouldn't pay anything to charity).

I'm a pretty good example - I have high aspirations for donating to charity (incl church) which I don't meet. And I don't meet it because I'm selfish (don't want to cut back on stuff, basically, and the money never seems to be there). However, I still give more than most (people I know), so I feel like I'm doing a good job. However, when I'm honest, I know I'm not - I'm not meeting my goals.

(edit) unfortunately charitable apparatus to distribute the money wouldn't be a huge amount better. Buireaucracy is bureaucracy.

Since you know that regardless of how much you give to charity, the govt will always step in and bail people out...it is natural to withhold from charity. If you thought a family would starve without your help (that is the premise, correct?).....I think you would be a bit more likely to open your wallet.

Most small local charities have very little or no overhead and waste very little since they know what the local needs are (case-by-case). The government makes "one size fits all" decisions.