16 Million Americans Living in SEVERE Poverty:

[AnnInLa]

POVERTY? NOT A PROBLEM:

So the reporters at McClatchy snapped on the rubber gloves, plunged into the dark cavities of the Census Bureau, and pulled out a stunning statistic: "Nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty"--a category that includes individuals making less than $5,080 a year, and families of four bringing in less than $9,903 a year. That number, by the way, has been growing rapidly since 2000. The article itself hits the usual refrains--noting that the United States spends less on anti-poverty programs than any other industrialized country outside of Russia and Mexico--but I found this bit near the end quite striking:

The Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation shows that, in a given month, only 10 percent of severely poor Americans received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in 2003--the latest year available--and that only 36 percent received food stamps.

Many could have exhausted their eligibility for welfare or decided that the new program requirements were too onerous. But the low participation rates are troubling because the worst byproducts of poverty, such as higher crime and violence rates and poor health, nutrition and educational outcomes, are worse for those in deep poverty.

I doubt those are the only reasons for the low participation rates. As David K. Shipler reported in The Working Poor, welfare agencies spend a great deal of effort dissuading people from applying for assistance. They'll ask single mothers who come in a few perfunctory questions and then--illegally--refuse to give them an application. Or they'll design "Kafkaesque labyrinths of paperwork" that turn any attempt to obtain benefits into a full-time job. Anything to ease pressure on state budgets. Luckily, the Bush administration has taken note of all this and proposed to... eliminate the Census's Survey of Income and Program Participation, so that nosy researchers can no longer figure out how many eligible families are receiving assistance. Problem solved!

--Bradford Plumer

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=83584

[Bjorn Against]

1. We need to talk more about poverty, K&R

[Robbien]

2. Geeze. Only ten percent receives some kind of aid

I couldn't even imagine how one would manage living on less than five grand a year in the US.

[MedleyMisty]

3. Class warfare sucks

I need to look up statistics about which regions are the poorest. I have a theory about that.

Sometimes I think that class prejudice is the hardest prejudice to overcome. Even here on a liberal site you'll find people insulting poor people and calling them stupid and ignorant and saying they should be able to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and basically toeing the Republican line.

And don't even say that most poor people vote Republican. I saw the exit polls for the last election, and the percentage of Republican voters within a tax bracket steadily went up as you went up the tax brackets. Also, most Republican voters were white. The trend was especially marked in the exit polls for the South.

On another thread, I saw maps with population densities of African Americans. The South had the densest population of African Americans. (By the way, perhaps people should think about that the next time they want to paint every single Southerner as a rich white racist.)

I need to do more research, but I am wondering if it's a class/race divide that makes the South, at least nationally, a Republican stronghold. It seems rather obvious, I know, but apparently it's not that obvious to most people.

Anyway, yeah, to be more on-topic - capitalism sucks if you're not born into a rich family. It's basically feudalism, with CEOs in the king position, upper management as nobles, politicans as priests, and workers as serfs. Yeah, that's a sort of broad generalization, but you get the idea.

I would bet that quite a few of those 16 million in severe poverty work much harder and have a lot more personal responsibility than anyone born into privilege. But it's their fault, right? They were too stupid and lazy to choose to be born to rich parents.

[mntleo2]

4. Welfare Rights Activist Here (Saluting)!

...and I am here to tell you, this article barely touches the myriad of problems with putting mothers to work dead end jobs that do little or nothing to support their families. It leave kids behind without a mother, or any community support for the family ans for latch key kids as young as 5 years old. States are actually supplementing businesses with childcare help ~ and get this, it costs taxpayors almost twice as much as if a mother stays home and actually IS a mom. She is forced into the workforce when her child is barely 3 months old, still breast feeding and she is not allowed to raise her child ior go to school even if she needs a GED. DSHS cares little whether or not the job actually can support a family ~ even below minimum wage jobs are considered making the mother "successful".

Oh. And over 70% of welfare families are there because they fled domestic violence for the mother and/or the kids.

If you want to know more, you can visit the organization I volunteer for: http://www.wroc.org. My state (WA) is more generous, but our (Dem) governor is going to impose full family sanctions on families, this means that mothers who cannot comply will lose any support ~ and so will their kids, they are going to be thrown to the street, all of them. DSHS themselves say over half the non-compliers have serious barriers that make it impossible to work that McJob and become trapped itno permanent poverty: no childcare, no transportation, no jobs in their communities, the mother or child are disabled and moms don't even have cllothing to go to an interview or buy uniforms.

These women are raising the next generation. I often will ask a childless person who complains about helping these mothers, that with their thinking, they are paying their parents' social security and Medicare ~ then why should someone else's kids pay theirs? So, with their thinking, if the mother sacrificed and raised her kids without the help of society, then maybe she should be rewarded for her service with all childless people's social security money since the point of this system is that the next generation supports to former one. Of course this is a ridiculous suggestion, but the point is raising a family IS a contribution that deserves lots of support. support.

I would add, much less why should they depend upon the next generation to run this country when that childless person is too old to to it? Are they planning then to get out there at 80 years old and fight the next war? Change your OWN depends even if you are bedridden and childless, you lazy elder! So raising children IS contributing. But with the current thinking, raising children is "doing nothing" and Welfare DEformed codified this attitude into law in 1996.

Cat in Seattle

[intheflow]

5. Of course, if the stats don't agree with you,

eliminate them. That's BushCo 101. :puke:

[intheflow]

6. I knew I had heard something like the administration's answer:

From The Onion, November 10, 1999:

Eight Million Americans Rescued From Poverty With Redefinition Of Term

WASHINGTON, DC–Approximately eight million Americans living below the poverty line were rescued from economic hardship Monday, when the U.S. Census Bureau redefined the term. "We are winning the war on poverty," said bureau head James Irving, who lowered the poverty line for a four-person family to $14,945. "Today, millions of people whose inflation-adjusted total household income is less than $16,780 are living better lives." Said formerly poor Jackson, MS, motel housekeeper Althea Williams: "I never dreamed I'd ever become middle-class. America truly is the land of opportunity."

Leave it to this administration to have fact mirror fiction... :grr:

[Starfury]

7. Question: Does anyone know if these studies reflect the homeless population?

Also, what about "discouraged" workers and others who are generally off the radar?

Thanks!