Poverty in the U.S. climbs for third year
Brian Knowlton/IHT IHT
Friday, August 27, 2004
WASHINGTON The U.S. poverty rate and the number of
Americans without health insurance rose last year, each for
the third consecutive year, the Census Bureau reported
Thursday. The figures, which the administration released a
month earlier than usual, quickly became the focus of a
partisan debate.
"Under George Bush's watch," said Senator John Kerry,
referring to the new data, "America's families are falling
further behind." The report said that the number of
Americans in poverty rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5
percent a year later, totaling 35.8 million people, and
that the number of uninsured Americans rose during the same
period by
1.4 million, to 45 million, or 15.6 percent of the
population.
Median household income remained basically flat, at $43,318
when adjusted for inflation, ending a two-year decline.
The numbers were not unexpected, and do not reflect the
economic growth of the past several months, which has
created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Dan Weinberg, a Census Bureau analyst, said that the data
was typical for a post-recession economy, but that the
numbers of the uninsured reflected continued uncertainty
over employment. Employers, who have cited the high costs
of providing health insurance as a reason to hire
conservatively, are also offering less generous benefit
plans.
The poverty rate was the highest since 1998, when it
reached 12.7 percent. The Census Bureau places the poverty
threshold for a family of four at $18,810.
The Census Bureau noted that while the overall poverty rate
was up from 2002, it remained below the average of the
1980s and 1990s.
Still, the new data comes amid a close election campaign in
which debate over economic health and fairness loom large.
For campaign advisers to Kerry, who have been striving to
turn attention away from a bitter controversy over his
Vietnam War record and toward the economic issues, the new
numbers were a welcome gift. Kerry, the Democratic nominee,
wasted no time seizing on the Census report as evidence to
bolster his critiques of administration economic and health
care policies.
The new figures mean that "five million Americans over five
years have lost their health insurance," Kerry told an
audience of supporters and undecided voters in Anoka,
Minnesota. "About 45 million Americans go to bed every
night worried."
A Kerry campaign statement called on Bush to debate the
senator "once a week between now and the end of the
campaign, so that the issues that really matter to the
American people - like the number of uninsured and people
living in poverty - can be front and center in this
election."
The debate proposal was of a sort often made by presidential
challengers, but rarely agreed to by incumbents, who are
generally thought to have more to lose in debates. For now,
the candidates are expected to have three debates, on Sept.
30, Oct. 8 and Oct. 13.
Bush, giving a fairly standard stump speech Thursday during
an appearance in Las Cruces, New Mexico, did not
specifically address the Census numbers.
"We have more to do to make this economy stronger," he said,
mentioning, as he often does, the economic shocks of recent
years, from recession to terrorist attacks and corporate
scandals. The president, as he also does, credited American
workers and entrepreneurs, as well as his own "well-timed
tax cuts," for moving the country beyond the worst economic
woes.
But there was immediate dispute over the Census report.
Some Republicans noted that even as the number of uninsured
Americans grew by 1.4 million, the number of insured did as
well, by 1 million. Bush's health and human services
secretary, Tommy Thompson, said that Bush was working to
reduce health insurance costs to businesses.
Some Democrats saw political manipulation in the fact that
the administration issued the new numbers a month before
their usual release in late September. But Louis Kincannon,
the Census director and a Bush appointee, said that the
earlier release was intended to coordinate better with
other reports. It came, he said, without "influence or
pressure" from the Bush campaign.
International Herald Tribune
Copyright 2004 The International Herald Tribune |
www.iht.com

Ron wrote:

=20
What the article fails to mention is that the large number was caused
partly by illegal immigrants.
=20
=20
=20
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:05:07 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
=20
=20

What the article fails to mention is that the large number
was caused partly by illegal immigrants.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:05:07 -0600, "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote:

Perry wrote:
Imagine what a pathetic lowlife you must be
that some bean-eating Mexican wetback can
topple your trailertrash world and send you
irretrievably into abject poverty.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:05:01 -0600, "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote:
But you come across like some racist mother@$#*er

Perry wrote:
Says the ass-clown who blames his own failings and
shortcomings on immigrants, legal or otherwise.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:35:16 -0600, "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote:
Nope, I'm a Republican so that means I'm well off. At least
according to looser welfare Democrats.

Perry wrote:
Which Democratic congresspersons are you wealthier than?

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:35:16 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Nope, I'm a Republican so that means I'm well off. At least according
to looser welfare Democrats.

In article <bs84j05td33nbhs3o3i208h985qhgesr8v@4ax.com>,
Perry <perrymarlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
No. It means you support policies that benefit the well-off
more than working people. There are two possible reasons
for that. One is that you're well off. The other is that
you're deluded. There are a lot more of the deluded than
there are economic-interest Republicans.

Hugh Sedditt wrote:
The poor fools think that if they support the wealthy,
they will actually become wealthy themselves by some
sort of osmosis or the sudden benevolence of the ruling
class.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:29:34 -0600, "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote:
Didn't you know that most of the Republicans who post on
alt.military.retired are millionaires. One guy here always
#@&@
es about keeping fuel in his Yacht. Others brag about
72in Plasma TV's. etc. Me I just play with my three autos
which each cost more than what losers like you make in a
year. Yes being rich is fun and really comes in handy.
You're just jealous.

What the article fails to mention is that the large number was caused
partly by illegal immigrants.
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:05:07 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:

Let me see if I can get this straight=20
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists -
good...
Bush liberates 25 million from genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good....
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad....
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in a flight suit - bad...
Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Recession under Bush after 9-11 - bad...
Clinton imposes largest tax increase in history -good...
Bush instigates moderate tax cuts for all Americans - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
Then World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam in custody - bad...
Oh, it's so confusing! I guess I'll never be a Democrat.

In article <LrqdnY_4oaMd4KfcRVn-qg@look.ca>, "pedro martori" <pedro1940@progression.net> wrote:
You forgot one:
Republicans - good
Democrats - bad