New Census data raise number of poor to 49 million

They must all be lazy right?

(Reuters) - The number of poor Americans hit a record 49 million in 2010, or 16 percent, according to new data released on Monday that showed poverty rates for the elderly, Asians and Hispanics higher than previously known.

The biggest rise occurred among people aged 65 and older who are being driven into poverty by out-of-pocket medical expenses, including premiums and co-pays from the federal government's Medicare program for the elderly.

Both sides have proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare, which threatens to explode the U.S. debt burden, despite intensive lobbying against reductions by groups that represents beneficiaries and healthcare providers.

"People will say this shows how crucial it is not to cut a penny out of Medicare spending. And that's unfortunate, because it's an argument against solving the deficit," said Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution.

 

I don't agree with that assessment at all. I think poverty is increasing because of the failed economic experiments of BO.

 

Really? Because when he walked into office the economy had contracted a full 9%. That's 9% before he even sat down in the oval office. In his term so far, it has grown 4%. So for the convenience of spewing your own biases, you decide to twist reality to match your delusion? OK.

 

And just what has happened to the unemployment in you "growing" economy?

 

....and our debt, and our credit rating?

 

We are adding jobs at this point unlike the day Obama took over and we were losing 750 thousand jobs a month. That's what happened.

 

The growth of out debt has slowed under Obama. One credit rating organization, S & P has dropped us from triple A to AA+ largely due to the recession Obama inherited and at least in a significant way, the obstructionism of the Tea Party cohort in congress that S & P saw as hostile to the idea of raising revenues. You really didn't hear this already?

 

I would be even nicer if the jobs added would at least keep up with the population. And just look what Reagan did when he inherited even higher unemployment.

 

I am so glad that I have clueless people to correct and you are among the most clueless. Here are Reagans' unemployment numbers after a much less severe recession.



Unemployment Rate: 1980-9
Year% Unemployed

1980 7.0
1981 7.5
1982 9.5
1983 9.5
1984 7.4
1985 7.1
1986 6.9
1987 6.1
1988 5.4
1989 5.2

Current unemployment numbers 9.0. Keep touting Reagan. It makes you look more and more foolish. And Reagan got to raise taxes 7 times in 8 years. Imagine if Obama had not had the Cons blocking his recovery efforts. We might have no unemployment problem at all. Thank you Cons!

 

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp?fromYear=1980
Just because Reagan controlled it so no YEAR was worse that BO's does not mean that unemployment was not worse. BO never hit 10.8%.

 

All that means is the problem was worse this time and I completely agree that this recession is worse AND not Obama's doing and that Obama is recovering faster. Thanks!

 

Or, when you use some logic, it means that Reagan did something that worked and BO's "stimulus" made things worse.

 

Yeah, he raised taxes! Duh!

 

So you say he raised taxes? That is exactly what I have been saying. When you cut the tax RATES and the economy improves, the taxes collected go up. Now if you are trying to say he raised the tax RATES, show me. What were they in 1980 (70%)? What were they in 1983 at the height of recovery (50%)? What were they in 1988 as Reagan left (50%)? Hummm? Raised the rates?

 

The problem I find that I have with this argument is that current unemployment numbers don't accurately represent the number of people out of work. It doesn't represent the changes in employment either.

 

You are exactly right! Our unemployment, underemployment, etc numbers are much worse than BO is allowing us to know.

 

I agree. However, if you agree that the unemployment numbers are inaccurate you have to agree that the employment numbers are inaccurate and have been for a while. The fact that there was "high employment" recorded during Clinton, Bush and Obama aren't truly reflective of the state of employment. The significant increase of part time jobs without benefits during the recent years means that people have to work twice as hard to achieve the same results. This increase makes it harder for those on the lower economic rungs to ever achieve what they have been told they can achieve. If you are having to work three jobs to support your family you will not be able to get out and the middle class is learning the lesson, too.

 

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

 

Why not? If the data is unreliable in one circumstance then it has to be unreliable in the rest. You can't use it to bash Obama and then support Bush without engaging in some serious cognitive dissonance.

 

For the Past 3 quarters the US has had growth, Unemployment has actually dropped at the last count and while these figures are not wonderful they are at least going in the right direction slowly but not fast enough.

The problem you have is 14 Million people unemployed with 1/3 of those been out of work for over a year add to this some 46 million people recieving food stamps !

Still you have both sides playing party politics For all his faults President Obama has at least put forwards a job plan for now, repair roads/bridges/and other infrastructure but what do I read on this forum and others Damn Socialist ideas!! Just what do you call keeping 46 million people on food stamps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...yment-Jobless-rate-falls-6-month-low-9-0.html