January 29, 2010

Top of the morning

Posted at 6:51 AM by Chris Fitzsimon

sun145

Here are some sobering numbers from a recent report by the Brookings Institution—more than 30 percent of the nation’s population earns less than 200 percent of the poverty level in 2008—that is more than 90 million people.

The report explores the rise of poverty in the suburbs and the results are worse than they look. The study does not include 2009 when poverty and unemployment rose significantly. Happy Friday.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

5 Comments

5 Comments Add yours »

IBXer 29 Jan 2010 9:56 am

All this shows is that poverty began to rise rapidly in 2007, they year after the Dems took control of both Chambers of Congress.

pino 29 Jan 2010 10:46 am

The study does not include 2009 when poverty and unemployment rose significantly.

Nor does the study include the last 40 years or so:

In 1959 18% of the white, 55% of the black and 23% (though this is 1972 number) were living in poverty for a national average of 22%

In 1999 those % changed to 10%, 24%, 23% and 12% total respectively.

Further, while being poor in America relative to other American’s is one method of measuring, it is also useful to see what being poor in America is like compared to the rest of the world.

The average living space per person for someone listed as poor? 721 sq feet. The average living space for all of Europe, independent of poverty status? 396 sq feet.

Further, what does being poor in America give you?

Some examples, in 2004:

45.9% owned their home
72.8 had a car
97.3 had a color TV
55.3 had TWO color TVs
62.6 had cable or satellite

gregflynn 29 Jan 2010 11:20 am

You’re pointing at Democrats with Bush’s veto pen. There have been 2 recessions since 2000 separated by an anomylous growth spurt 2005-2007 caused by the housing bubble. Blaming Congressional Democrats for the crash is like blaming your boss for a Monday morning hangover.

gregflynn 29 Jan 2010 12:09 pm

The price of private health insurance is not directly related to the cost of care. Profits, recission, non-care spending, caps, denial protocols, and, in particular, profits or losses from insurance company investments and derivatives all figure into the price. In a good economy premiums don’t necessarily cover the cost. In a bad economy premiums can rise to cover much more than the cost of care including investment losses.

gregflynn 29 Jan 2010 12:10 pm

Sorry, health care comment in wrong thread

Add your comment

Please keep comments on topic and be respectful of other commenters. Inflammatory comments will be edited or removed.

NC Policy Watch