Four million Americans fall into poverty in one year

US Census Bureau shows one in seven Americans on poverty line as Obama says reforms are vital


* Ewen MacAskill in Washington
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 September 2010 20.27 BST


One in seven Americans now live on or below the poverty line, according to figures published by the US Census Bureau. It is the sharpest annual rise for three decades, and analysts predicted next year's figures will be even worse.

According to the bureau, 43.6 million people or 14.3% of the population were in poverty in 2009, up from 39.8 million in 2008. This is the third consecutive annual rise. The hardest-hit are African-Americans and Hispanics.

The numbers are comparable to poverty levels of the early 1960s that led President Lyndon Johnson to launch his "war on poverty" as part of the "Great Society", a series of programmes aimed at creating jobs and providing welfare – his equivalent of Franklin D Roosevelt's New Deal.

The jump coincided with the first year of Barack Obama's presidency and reflected the impact of the recession on jobs.

William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, said: "The one-year gain in poverty is the highest in almost three decades, when unemployment shot up in the early 1980s. It's only the beginning, since I would expect an even higher level next year.

"What's important this time, is that [it] has especially affected previously growing parts of the country in the south and west, and the nation's fastest growing minorities, Hispanics. They are certainly not as horrific as before the Great Society but they reflect a huge shock to large parts of America."

The idea of the American Dream maintains a strong grip on the imagination of many Americans and would-be citizens, but a detailed breakdown of the figures reveals a grim reality.

CNN broadcast a harrowing interview with one woman who has fallen into poverty. She lost her job, sold her television and furniture, even her wedding rings, and depends on charitable food handouts. Named Maria by CNN, she said she never expected to find her family in this position. She had been an accountant and her husband worked for an airline: both lost their jobs. They did temping jobs whenever they could. They have two children, one of them autistic.

"You either gather yourself and look for options," she said. "Or you get depressed and shoot yourself."

Many of those classified as poor have cable and satellite television, fridges, air-conditioning units, microwaves and a roof over their heads, even if it is just a caravan in a trailer park. But they have little disposable income and few opportunities to step up the ladder.

Obama promised during the presidential election to tackle poverty, and to try to reduce the disparities between African-Americans and white Americans, mainly through education.

Although the figures are embarrassing for him, they are unlikely to become a major issue in the run-up to the 2 November congressional midterm elections. The Republicans, while making jobs and the recession election themes, will almost certainly not make poverty an issue, partly because poverty rose under George Bush's presidency too.

Obama said the figures underlined why his reforms were vital. "Today, the Census Bureau released data that illustrates just how tough 2009 was," he said. Without his reforms millions more Americans would have ended up in poverty, he added. Even before the recession, incomes for working-class people had been stagnant and the numbers in poverty unacceptably high.

"Today's numbers make it clear that our work is just beginning. Our task now is to continue working together to improve our schools, build the skills of our workers, and invest in our nation's critical infrastructure," Obama said.

One of the alarming statistics in the Census Bureau report showed the number without health insurance rose from 46.3 million in 2008 to 50.7 million in 2009. Obama introduced a healthcare reform package earlier this year but most of the provisions are not due to kick in until 2014.

Lyndon Johnson saw poverty at first-hand growing up in rural Texas and as a teacher in a deprived school for Hispanics. During the Depression, he played a part in implementing Roosevelt's New Deal. As president, he launched a New Deal of his own – the Great Society – which aimed to tackle poverty and racial discrimination.

Appalling levels of poverty still existed in the 1950s. In 1959, the numbers on or below the poverty line was 22.4%. Even though, it had dropped to 19% by 1964, when he made a State of the Union address setting out his hopes for the Great Society, it was still embarrassingly high for a country as wealthy as the US.

He introduced legislation in 1964 and 1965 that led to spending on education, health, welfare and job programmes on a scale that has not been repeated since.

Four million Americans fall into poverty in one year | World news | The Guardian

Yep.

I remember when I spoke with Russian friends and one of them told me that, in the late 70s and 80s, when they were told about the situation of the Afro-Americans in the USA (as part of the USSR gvt to demonise the USA), they would discount it as just propaganda like the rest...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

The paradox of American poverty

The Obama administration has been tardy to tackle economic misery, but looks set to lose to a GOP that would do even less


o Sadhbh Walshe
o guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 September 2010 22.31 BST


According to the US Census Bureau report released this week, the number of Americans living in poverty has jumped to 43.6 million, or one in seven Americans. It is the highest single-year increase since the government began tracking poverty levels in 1959, five years before President Lyndon Johnson launched his war on poverty; and the indications are that the trend is continuing this year.

Yet, there is no talk of an all-out war or even a euphemistic Operation New Dawn to tackle the most pressing issue for ordinary Americans – their economic security. In fact, in a strange paradox, the party that is accused of doing too little to combat the crisis is poised to suffer heavy defeats in the upcoming mid-term elections by the party accused of doing nothing at all.

Since the Obama administration took office, the GOP, or "the party of no" as Republicans have styled themselves, have opposed every measure that would ease the economic burdens of struggling Americans. The $800bn stimulus package, which is now widely accepted as having averted (so far, at least) a double-dip recession, was passed into law without a single GOP vote in the house and only three GOP votes in the senate. The healthcare bill passed, after a tortuous year of wrangling and watering down, with no republican votes; and GOP leaders already have proposals in place to repeal it, if they are awarded the opportunity in November.

Extension of benefits to 2.5 million unemployed Americans were held up for weeks by a GOP filibuster. President Obama's recent proposal for an increase of $50bn in infrastructure spending to build roads, railways and runways was similarly shot down by GOP leaders and, of all things, a jobs bill has been held up for months in the senate by Republican opposition.

One would think that opposing a jobs bill at a time when there are 14.9 million unemployed Americans, and approximately six applicants for every one job opening would be political suicide, but apparently not. Finally, this week, two Republican senators broke ranks with their party to assist passage of the modest bill that promises to provide around 500,000 new jobs. In the end, the long-awaited bill will barely scratch the surface of the problem, but it is better than nothing.

The scary thing that the census report on poverty highlights is that if it were not for these hard-won and, in many people's view, inadequate measures – extending unemployment and food stamp benefits, for example – millions more struggling Americans would soon be joining the 4 million who were plunged into poverty last year alone.

So why, then, does it seem likely that we are poised to return to power in congress the party that opposes virtually every form of assistance and stimulus – other than tax breaks to the rich?

It seems that it's not so much the programmes themselves that are the problem; rather, it is how to pay for them. Thanks to the financial collapse, two wars, the Tarp bailout, and yes, the stimulus package, the deficit is growing. And Republican party leaders are staunchly opposed to having a deficit, except, strangely, when they themselves are controlling congress.

It is old news that the budget deficit grew astronomically during the Bush era, thanks to funding two wars while granting tax cuts to the wealthy. These tax cuts, which have now been in place for almost a decade, were supposed to have a trickle-down effect on the rest of us. It's hardly necessary to provide statistical proof that this has not been the case, but on the off-chance that any doubt remains, one can reference the census report, which shows in detail that the median income for all households has fallen below the level it was at in the late nineties. We are all poorer since the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were legislated, yet these cuts are touted time and again by the GOP as a magic wand solution to all our economic woes.

In the meantime, what is undeniable is that the middle class are getting poorer and the poor are getting poorer still. The number of people lacking health insurance rose in a single year from 46.3 million to 50.7 million, due mostly to the loss of employer-based health insurance; and 20% of American children – one in five – are now living in poverty. As a New Yorker, I am getting weary of seeing homeless on every street corner and passing ever-growing lines of people waiting for food handouts in midtown Manhattan where the abundance of wealth has failed miserably in its attempts to trickle down.

I just hope that when it comes to making a decision in November about who will be in charge of our economic futures, we choose leaders who at least try to address the dire straits facing ordinary Americans, rather than those who cultivate short memories about how deficits grew and hold firm to policies that benefit only the few.

The paradox of American poverty | Sadhbh Walshe | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

It is a mistake to describe this as "falling" into poverty. It actually consists of graduating into poverty.

The US, as the most devotedly Christian nation of the English-speaking world and perhaps of the OECD, has a population of billionaires who believe that the rest of their nation can best find happiness by giving up all they have, and following the Lord.

hope and change....

__________________
....attached to sanity by a bungee cord.....