"The truth is, there is almost no true poverty in the US."

[iconoclastNYC]

Someone on Slashdot posted this from Heritage to counter someone who stated that we should end poverty in the US:

Warning. The manipulative logic contained in these facts might make your head explode.

This is what we on the left face. The legacy of think tanks funded by billionaires --- twisting logic and facts to create a false reality so that we'll allow wealth inequality to grow unchecked.


The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:

* In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes.
* The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.
* Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.
* The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian. 2
* Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.
* Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.
* Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.
* As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.
* The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.
* Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.
* Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm

[liberal N proud]

1. That is stretching the logic of even the most repuke mindset

:nuke:

[Atman]

2. That is just too scary to comment on!

Yikes. Those righties go to great lengths to conceal the depths of their compassionless conservativism.

[China_cat]

3. Two words for that

Bull Shit

[bullimiami]

4. so poor for them is squalid, begging, malnourished and homeless?

sick.

[Totally Committed]

5. Un-F*CKING-believeable....

oh, oh... there goes my head!!! :nuke:

These are the people who put the NUT in WingNUT.

TC

[sinkingfeeling]

6. I think I read somewhere that this garbage was taken from some

RW'er and posted without any verification. The RW nut kind of made it up. I cannot accept that people making minimum wage or any wage below the poverty line would be able to finance homes in the $150,000 to 300,000 range.

[iconoclastNYC]

12. The house is probably inherited from a death in the family

You inherit the house when it's value was $20,000. And it appreciates and now you own a $200,000 house. But you are still fucking poor, and if you can't even afford it then you have to sell it.

[Nay]

26. And if you own it free and clear, you'd be crazy to sell it for money--

money that you would have to use to -- buy another place to live. So how does this make them not poor? Esp if they live in a place with high property taxes?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

28. Elderly Couples...

Their home is paid for, but they're living on next to nothing. Sometimes raising their children's kids.

That would be assuming that these figures weren't pulled out of somebody's ass.

On Edit: Can't help but notice that much of this is based on Census figures, which grossly undercount the number of poor people.

[sandnsea]

32. Yes, elderly on social security

Good heavens, it's so obvious they ought to be smacked right upside the head for such blatant distortions. Only right wingers would find something wrong in the fact that we don't have mass starvation in this country and try to twist it into an attack on those who would be starving without the programs we have to help.

[fed-up]

17. Housing values have gone up, also illness can decrease one's income

I fit somewhere in those stats posted.

I slept in a closet for two years to buy my first house 20 years ago, since then I have recently had health issues and will be downsizing, and am just above poverty level income and struggle to pay bills.

My sis has MS and had to sell her home and move to Belize since she couldn't afford to live in Calif on her disability income with increasing rates for food, insurance, gas, heat etc.

My 70 something neighbor is just barely surviving on her deceased husband's social security.

Housing prices have doubled here in California in the last 10 years, the only reason more of us are not bailing out is because at least property tax can only increase at a rate of around 1% a year, but property insurance rates have doubled in the last few years.

[patdem]

7. So OUR poor are not poor ENOUGH and need to be impoverished

further to match the poorest of the poor on the earth? Thought we wanted others to be more like us and not us like them? I guess I got it wrong!

[Daphne08]

8. I taught school in one of the poorest areas of the country, and

I believe this is a load of bunk.

I also worked as a social worker for Headstart over thirty years ago, and yes, the standard of living (of the poor) overall has been raised since then, but there still exist great pockets of poverty in this country, and anyone who believes differently should visit some of the rural areas of the Deep South... for a start.

[eyesroll]

9. Well, compared to some third-world countries, sure.

But is that really a standard by which we want to live?

"Super nourished" doesn't mean well-nourished -- there's plenty of meat and calories in cheap food. Meat is no longer a sign of wealth and status. Hell -- wealthier people can afford to eat more vegetables, whole grains, etc. -- and have the time and $ for gyms, personal trainers, etc.That's why people of lower income in the U.S. are more likely to be overweight.


I'd hardly consider a TV picked up for $20 at Goodwill to be a sign of wealth.

[roseBudd]

10. I live surrounded by the ghetto, I drive through the ghetto to get to work

I would like to show those folks what the rotting porches, peeling paint, leaking roofs look like in these owner occupied houses worth $150,000

And then there are the leaky windows...

[Webster Green]

11. The old "welfare moms driving Cadillacs" bullshit again?

And they call themselves a think tank. :eyes:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

13. Why I don't...

Bother with Slashdot. FweepyVille for geeks.

[Jayhawk Lib]

14. I would be interested

to see the true statistics on this. I have heard this before but I do not quite believe it. It could be true but I doubt it.

[Giant Robot]

16. Search for poverty U.S.

To get a full listing of where to get info. I prefer U.S. Census Bureau. Their info is well organized, very detailed (almost too much), and as accurate I think as one is going to get.

[Giant Robot]

15. Hmmm OK I'll play along

"* In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes."

First off, 10 year old stats. Way to go guys! Second, so if you have a home you can't be poor? Despite the fact that everyone in the house is working to not lose it, keep food on the table, etc. Or should I talk about the ease of which credit is extended these days? Or how about how some homes are in families for generations? Oh and one last thing. According to US Census data, 2004, everybody else who is not "poor", about half do not own their own home either.

"* The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio."

See above. Nice try at demonizing this segment of the economic class.

"* Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000."

And this constitutes about one percent of the population of individuals meeting criteria for poverty according to US census data for 2004. What is up with these guys??

"* Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person."

How is this defined?? Are they counting the living rooms, bathrooms, laundry, garage, foyer, etc? Again making it look like the welfare queen is still alive and well.

"* The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian."

And Japan has a serious problem with overcrowding and has barely enough space for there population, rich or poor. Russia. Hmmm. A country we have railed on for its economic poverty for years now. So that is comparable to the U.S. OK. Whatever. How about comparing us to France, Germany, Britain, or any other industrialized nation. Let's see how we fare. Not bothering to look this up.

"* Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars."

Would love to hear how old the cars are, in what shape they are in, if they have registration and insurance, or really are even drivable.

"* Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.
* Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs."

Doing these two at once. I can get a VCR for $15 now. DVD player for $40. Believe it or not these are cheap consumer goods that we as a nation are pressured to have. Probably not arguing my best here.

"* Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning."

Again using their stats, over half the "poor" households are not owned, so this is not a luxury they have bought for themselves.And bringing up some useless stat from 30 years ago? WTF? What is the rate of air conditioning now in the U.S. Or 10 years ago, since they can't seem to find the Census Bureau's website.

"* Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher."

See my arguments about owning versus renting above. I have a dishwasher and microwave. Guess what? They are part of my apartment. I do not own them, did not buy them.

I am too tired and angry to do more. Needless to say, these bastards are off my Christmas card list.

[DrGonzoLives]

18. *sigh* This thing has floated around for years

And some little right-wing piglet always brings it up to show that America is super, thanks for asking.

"In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes."

Owned? Or had a mortgage? There is a very large difference. Note the lack of a definition of a "poor" household. Do they include seniors that have owned their homes long enough to have paid everything off?

"The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio."

See above on "ownership."

"Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000."

Once again, see above. Also reference the rocketing rise in property values. It's not like they bought a $300,000 home outright.

"The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian."

In Japan, space for living is at a premium, since 74% of the country is forested. As for Russia, the communists really didn't build big homes and apartments.

"Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars."

News flash, most people have to drive to work. Note that they don't list the average value of cars owned by poor households (which, as has been pointed out, they also don't define)

"Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions."

Has anyone even sold black & white TV's since about 1985?

"Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs."

Wow. People own twenty-year-old technology that you can pick up at Wal-Mart for thirty bucks. How extravagant.

"Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning."

Ever heard of a little thing called "central air"? Thirty years ago, only the wealthy could afford it. It's standard practice to install it in houses now. And the list presupposes that the poor people bought it and installed it. Not likely.

"As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight."

Because they can't afford nutritious food, but rather food with empty calories and a lot of fat. They may not be starving, but they are very malnourished by definition.

"The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms."

Might have something to do with school lunches, hmmmm?

This entire screed is a giant load of bullshit, and serves only to mollify those "libertarians" who don't want to spend money to alleviate poverty, despite the miniscule fraction of the budget that it actually consumes. In fact, they already point a gaping flaw in their own list:

"In determining whether a family is poor, the Census Bureau considers only current income and ignores all assets accumulated in prior years. Thus, a businessman who suffers temporary business losses resulting in a negative net income for the year will be labeled as "poor" even if he has a million dollars sitting in the bank."

Oops.

It's apparently easy to argue that one should be "self-sufficient" when you are sitting in a nice, Scaife-funded office, drawing a paycheck from a job that isn't going to be outsourced to China.

[Tsiyu]

19. 86% of statistics are made up on the spot

This post made me :rofl:

Mostly because the "abusers" of poverty - those who actually live too comfortably as "poor" people - are no doubt rich Repukes milking the system to get a few extra $$$$$

This dude or dudette needs to actually drive to an inner city and visit with folks there, or pay a call to a farm where migrant workers might live, or come up here to Appalachia and ask around about some poor folks.

By Third World standards, we may not have a huge problem, but when did we lower the bar so far that we now compare our nation to a Third World one?

[cssmall]

20. Would you like to counter this point for point?

* A large number of people classified as "poor" inherit their homes from relatives whom have all ready paid the banknote or have finished the payments themselves, this is not always the case but: in the older, poorer areas of Little Rock, Arkansas, it is.
* A three bedroom house makes sense as does two separate baths so that multiple people may go to the restroom at the same time.
* The reason why that value number is so high is because of the how much the property is valued at NOW, not at the time of purchase. Furthermore, the government has proven that it can spend itself into poverty and Bush basically told us to go out and buy.
* I want to see the definition of overcrowded here. But, to counter that, what are the numbers of the elderly that live in homes without their all ready grown children? Or an elderly mother living with one of her unmarried children. Bogus statistical analysis in the largest sense of the term.
* Well no shit. American mentality has been set on three intervals 12 foot, 14 foot and 16 foot living space. Japanese do not have the ability to spread across the landscape with ease and the Russians have a large number of pad complexes still.
* What is the value of the singular car? What is the value together of the two cars? Statistically flawed analysis. The better question here is to ask what type of car and the age of the model and then study what the percentage of poor is that has a brand new car.
* Color telveision is noted by the World Health Organization to aid in birth control (no shit, promise you!). Again, the questions are, how much did the television cost? Was it inherited?
* VCRs are nearly a dime a dozen at the pawn shop now. At Wal-Mart, one can purchase a VCR for approximately twenty dollars new.
* To what extent is the house air conditioned? Is it the window mounted units or central air? Seriously, we need to see a more noticeable difference, also when renting an apartment doesn't one usually get to enjoy the central heat and air?
* Dime a dozen at a pawn shop, thirty bucks at Wal-Mart. Could be interited. What brand, what cost? Don't most appliances come with the rental places? Can't the poor be saving up? Could it be inherited WITH the house? Bad analysis.
* Chronic hunger is NOT the hallmark of poor, it is a trademark of being in a third world country. What is the ratio of diabetes patients in the poor frame? That causes weight problems. People are poor because of disabilities a lot of the time, sedentism can cause weight gain.
* How much is that because of the schools keeping children nourished and local aid from churches and other support groups? And, because someone is poor doesn't mean they aren't going to try to feed their families properly.
* It's not tasty, but you can get cheap ass cuts of meat for a little bit of money: chicken and round steak, there's two for an example.
* As for this one, it doesn't even deserve my time. This is a statistic of all people, most people in the US are getting taller through the generations.

Don't forget the local aid groups that donate furniture, clothes, color televisions, and other goods for the poor. That inherently FLAWS this analysis. And, I'm a social scientist, I've studied how to do these things.

It is a cheap way for the rich to make the poor look like they don't deserve what they have or have earned.

[Tsiyu]

22. All of you who countered this did great

But did you know?

*99% of poor people bathe once a day. In 1940, most Americans only bathed once a week!

*75% of poverty-ridden Americans use toilet paper! In the 1950's, poor folks weren't too good to use corncobs and the Sears catalog.

*62% of poor Americans can ACTUALLY READ! Way back when, poor people knew their place and 89% of them remained illiterate.

:sarcasm:

[Gormy Cuss]

25. I 'll go you one further

* all of the statistics on housing use a popular slight of hand: they do not segregate senior households from those of mixed age groups. Picture granny living in her paid off house barely making ends meet on Social Security and maybe a small pension.
* all of the electronics measures lack a quality marker and again, I suspect some are skewed by failure to segregate senior-only households. Seniors in congregate buildings may have more A/C and dishwashers than your average low income households, for example.
*the fact that we don't have more starving and severely undernourished kids in this country can be attributed to successful interventions targeted at the poor -- WIC, Food Stamps, and school lunch subsidies.

But hey, let's pretend that there isn't much REAL poverty and protect those tax cuts for the rich.

[spooky3]

34. Very good points--and what about segregating

those who have recently lost jobs and are heading toward bankruptcy due to illnesses, layoffs, etc.? How about single parents whose spouses are divorcing them? They likely would have accumulated some household goods and "own" a home (that is, they have a loan for one that they will soon lose) that may make them appear wealthy, but they have very little income and can't maintain the prior lifestyle.

[PATRICK]

21. The muck can be distilled

into the providing of the America dream in housing and in vitamins and shots. For example we flood our food with vitamins. Who can escape being boosted by that added together with abundant crappy junk food for bulk? Housing is laudable, apartments a horror show, but the problem is the same. taxation and overvaluing will drive the poor out or the homes are wrecks in high rent districts soon to fall apart. Toys, like vitamins are plentiful and a tribute to the peer pressure, ad goals. They don't have to be expensive and many are used, second hand. Microwave ovens are cheaper than any other ovens now and quicker for the three minimum wage job earner. The difference in junk piles overseas is that you won't see so many tossed computers and digital wonders. We are awash in waste and loony priorities. The poor also sacrifice their meager dollars for vastly more meager hopes of winning the lottery.

All the toys, frugality, resources and vitamins won't help when disaster strikes in the form of job or health loss which is an instant ticket in this unsocialized country to death, not the poorhouse. The victims are again being blamed in the subtext for wasting the "bounty" they have and complaining. The article itself is obsolete sine it seems to still be attacking the "War on Poverty" but perhaps as a prologue to the new "War on the Poor".

If they die and die fast and demonstrably by their own fault it shrinks the problem more than defining well off as having more vitamins flooding your body, our our private NO's to live in until the sh*t happens.

But these are the type of pseudo statistics and research constantly flaunted by the RW parrot jungle in volume, in repetition, in flawed spin data, in media power, aggressively and mocking the weary discipline of real science to waste its valuable time in refuting people who lie and will not listen and intend you harm.

[tenshi816]

23. What crap. Never believe anything from Heritage.

They cherry-pick and manipulate statistics to fit their message.

That article set my teeth on edge, especially near the end where it says that there's no causal relationship between poverty and social issues.

Here are some interesting facts about poverty, with sources listed:

U.S. median household income: $40,816
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1999)

Average household net worth of the top 1% of wage earners: $10,204,000
Average net worth of the bottom 40% of wage earners: $1900
(Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998," April 2000)

Definition of middle class in terms of income: $32,653 to $48,979
(Economy.Com’s The Dismal Scientist, 1999)

Percentage of U.S. children who live in poverty: 20
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000)

Percentage of U.S. adults who live in poverty: 12
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000)

Percentage of single mothers who live in poverty: 37.4%
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1999)

Rank of the U.S. among the seventeen leading industrial nations
with the largest percentage of their populations in poverty: 1
(United Nations Human Development Report 1998, N.Y.C.)

Portion of U.S. stock owned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans: 9/10
(Economic Policy Institute, Washington D.C., 1999)

Median hourly wage of a former welfare recipient: $6.61
(Urban Institute, 2000)

Percentage of former welfare recipients who have no access to a car: 90%
(Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2001)

Bill Gates hourly wage: $650,000/hr
(Bill Gates Net Worth Page, average since 1986)


In October 1996, 48.6 % of 16-24 year old high school completers in lower income families were enrolled in college, compared with 62.7 % from middle income families and 78 % from higher income families.
(U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey)

Mean verbal SAT score for children in households with incomes below $10,000: 427
Mean verbal SAT score for children in households with incomes above $100,000: 559
Mean math SAT score for children in households with incomes below $10,000: 446
Mean math SAT score for children in households with incomes above $100,000: 572.
(SAT Program information, 1998)

Median household income for those less than a 9th grade education: $17,261
Median household income for those with a 9th - 12th grade education (no diploma): $ 21,737
Median household income for high school graduates: $ 35,744
Median household income for college graduates, B.A.: $ 64,406
Median household income for college graduates, M.A.: $ 74,476
Median household income for professional degree holders: $ 100,000
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1999)


Median net worth of a White American: $81,700
Median net worth of an African-American: $10,000
(Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998," April 2000)

Number of White people living in poverty: 21,922,000
Number of Black people living in poverty: 8,360,000
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1999)

Percentage of men earning poverty level hourly wage: 19.5%
Percentage of women earning poverty level hourly wage: 31.1%
(Economic Policy Institute, 2000)

Males:
White collar: 47% (of workforce), avg hourly wage = $22.20
Service: 10.4%, avg hourly wage = $10.92
Blue collar: 40.1%, avg hourly wage = $13.71

Females:
White collar: 73.4%, avg hourly wage = $14.90
Service: 15.2%, avg hourly wage = $8.17
Blue collar: 9.6%, avg hourly wage = $9.94
(The State of Working America 2000-2001, Economic Policy Institute, statistics are for 2000)

Median Income by type of household:
Family households (all): $49,940
Married couple families: $56,827
Female householder, no husband present: $26,164
Male householder, no wife present: $41,838
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1999)


36 % of those earning $15,000 a year call themselves middle class.
49 % of those with incomes between $ 35,000 and $ 49,999 call themselves middle class
71 % of those with incomes above $ 75,000 call themselves middle class
(National Center for Opinion Research, 2000)

Percentage of 5000 American adults polled who cited "lack of effort as a reason people are poor: 43%
Percentage who cited "strong effort" as a reason some people are rich: 53%
(Gallup Poll Social Audit, 1998)


Number of American households that spend more than 50% of income on housing: 14 million
(Habitat for Humanity, 1999)

Number of families or primary individuals who live in mobile homes or trailers: 6.8 million
(U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 1999)

Percentage change in the number of rural Americans living in mobile homes between 1980 and 1990: +52
(Housing Assistance Council, Washington D.C.)

Number of U.S. households earning less than $10,000/year: 7.6 million
Number of affordable housing units available: 4.4 million
(Low Income Housing Information Service, 1995)

Number of gated communities in America: approx. 20,000 (housing approximately 8.4 million people)

(Fortress America: Gated Communities in America, Edward J. Blakely and Mary Gail Snyder, Brookings Institution Press, 1997)Number of gated communities in 1950: 2,500
(Fortress America, 1997)

Interesting fact: In 1995, homeowners earning more than $100,000 a year received a total of $28.9 billion dollars in federal income tax deductions on mortgage interest payments. The entire 1996 budget of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was only $19 billion.
("The New Politics of Housing," Peter Dreier, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, Winter 1997)


Percentage of death row inmates who could not afford to hire a lawyer: 90%
(ACLU, 2001)

[HughBeaumont]

24. Heritage - selling cowshit as caviar since 1973!

So, in order to meet the Repuke/Republitarian's ideal of poor, do the poor have to be eating bugs for meals, sleeping in alleys and have it rain on their heads at night? What are they saying, that poor people have no rights to own anything, lest they want to revoke their "poor" status?

Squalor is squalor. Food, clothing and shelter is listed in Aritcle 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as drawn up by the UN in 1948. Different cultures have different standards. Many of the possessions they listed as the supposed domain of the middle class are not only ambiguous in terms of working condition, but can also be bought quite cheap even new nowadays.

[OneTwentyoNine]

27. Damn right!! 75% of Murikans own a VCR!!!!

Your doing fine if you own a VCR? I sold one at our garage sale a couple of years ago for $10.00. Damit...should have asked $100.00!!

[Sparkly]

29. I recommend everybody click the OP's link and read the rest of the page!!

I'm still going through it -- they've made their OWN adjustments for who is "poor," and decided the "poor" have income that's not counted by census, etc. etc...

Has Snopes debunked this? It's ridiculous!!

[quaoar]

30. What a steaming load of BS

I have spent the last 10 years building houses for Habitat for Humanity. I could show that Heritage asshole poverty housing that would make him throw up his lunch.

[blondeatlast]

31. Well, it's from the completely objective Heritage Foundation, therefore

it must be true. :sarcasm:

The TAX_EXEMPT Heritage Foundation--

NO:sarcasm:

[NMMNG]

33. Pure propaganda

Some more realistic stats:

According to the US Census Bureau, 35.9 million people live below the poverty line in America...including 12.9 million children.

snip

33 million Americans continue to live in households that did not have an adequate supply of food. Nearly one-third of these households contain adults or children who went hungry at some point in 2000.

snip

The figures below are 1998 figures)

Proportion of Americans living below the poverty level: 12.7 percent (34.5 million people)
The average poverty threshold for a family of four: $16,660 in annual income
The average poverty threshold for a family of three: $13,003 in annual income
Poverty rate for metropolitan areas: 12.3 percent
Poverty rate for those living inside central cities: 18.5 percent
Poverty rate for those living in the suburbs: 8.7 percent
Percentage and number of poor children: 18.9 percent (13.5 million)
Children make up 39 percent of the poor and 26 percent of the total population.
The poverty rate for children is higher than for any other age group.

http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp



****************************************************************************************************
Some official statistics from the Census Bureau


The official poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7 percent, up from 12.5 percent 2003.

In 2004, 37.0 million people were in poverty, up 1.1 million from 2003.

For children under 18 years old, both the 2004 poverty rate (17.8 percent) and the number in poverty (13.0 million) remained unchanged from 2003. The poverty rate for children under 18 remained higher than that of 18-to-64-year olds (11.3 percent) and that of people aged 65 and over (9.8 percent).

Both the poverty rate and number in poverty increased for people 18 to 64 years old (11.3 percent and 20.5 million in 2004, up from 10.8 percent and 19.4 million in 2003).

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html




For information on poverty thresholds visit: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh04.html


How poverty measurement methods affect interpretation of the data: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/whypov.html (note that there is nothing here about the alleged ability to have $1 million bank account that does not get counted)

The main page (many links--chock full of info) http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html

[Clark2008]

35. Up until I remarried and as a single Mom

I owned my own home and I was most definitely poor - but, let me tell you, my house payment was about $200 lower a month than rent for an equal size home or apartment. If I HADN'T owned my own home, I'd have been homeless. I couldn't spare an extra $200.

These people are nuts.

[DoYouEverWonder]

36. Here's a pic of your average 3 bedroom

The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.



Looks like the porch could use a little work.

[rman]

37. They don't mention healthcare and education

I wonder why that is.