« | »

Poverty To Post Record Gain Under Obama

From a highly concerned Associated Press:

US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009

By Hope Yen And Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writers Sat Sep 11, 2010

WASHINGTON – The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

Yet another feather in Mr. Obama’s cap.

Census figures for 2009 — the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat’s presidency — are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings.

It’s unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake.

The anticipated poverty rate increase — from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent — would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power

All that matters is how things will affect Mr. Obama or the Democrats.

Interviews with six demographers who closely track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures are likely to show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.

Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980 when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent during the energy crisis.

This is what Mr. Obama likes to call “unprecedented.” But which the media likes to explain is the “new normal.”

Among the 18-64 working-age population, the demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government’s role in social welfare programs from education to health care.

Gosh, do we ever need more ‘stimulus.’

Says the AP. Over and over.

Demographers also are confident the report will show:

Child poverty increased from 19 percent to more than 20 percent.

Blacks and Latinos were disproportionately hit, based on their higher rates of unemployment

Naturally. Children and minorities are always the hardest hit in all things.

(Thanks to Locomotivebreath1901 for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Saturday, September 11th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

16 Responses to “Poverty To Post Record Gain Under Obama”

  1. [From the Associated Press:]

    US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009

    by Hope Yen and Liz Sidoti – Associated Press Writers

    WASHINGTON—The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty…

    http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_16050730

    Insert ‘blame bush and the evil rich’ demagoguery here.

  2. Liberals Demise

    Another feather in the dingleBarry ring of accomplishments.
    But wait……..there’s more!

  3. mr_bill

    …That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government’s role in social welfare programs…

    Nearly half a century of punishing success with higher taxes and rewarding failure with wealth redistributed from the most productive citizens and what do we have to show for it? The poor are still the poor, and in the same proportion to the rest of the population.

    Liberals looooove to talk about the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Why don’t they ever talk about the cost of the “War on Poverty?” Rhetorical question, of course. If more Americans knew how much money has been taxed and squandered with absolutely no results to show for it, these “social justice” crusaders would find themselves facing pitchforks and torches in the form of angry voters at the polls casting their votes against the government plantation masters, and we can’t have that.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Yup, trillions of dollars have been spent all in the name of “helping the poor” and various derivatives thereof. The result? Higher crime, higher drug use, higher prison populations, higher teen pregnancy, higher everything except the good things.

      Then they glom onto “pollution” and cost us more money. Throughout the 70’s and 80’s California emissions-equipped cars all ran like crap. Though unleaded gas was a decent idea, now they put Corn-alcohol in it and further diminish performance.

      Socialists love the great “ideas on the mountain” where some uber-intellectual gets it in their head how to fix everything. But the answer usually comes down to this: “Take the money from the people who earn it and give it to the people who don’t”.

      They then say, “There, I fixed it.”

    • proreason

      “Higher crime, higher drug use, higher prison populations, higher teen pregnancy, higher”

      These are features, not bugs.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      That’s my point, exactly. Poverty will never be eliminated and thus the features thereof. By throwing money at poverty, a method is provided to make it profitable. The poor take that money and use it to buy, not the necessities of life but things like tattoos, drugs, liquor, guns, etc. One of the biggest scam “businesses” is food stamps. They are bought and sold in the seediest parts of town and used in many cases like cash.

      The answer is not to give poor people money. In most cases, the end result, which is being poor, began through a series of choices starting long before a child is ever born. It does perpetuate but it can be overcome. I cite Bill Cosby and others. Recently re-read Eddie Rickenbacker’s autobiography. I recommend it highly. He grew up dirt poor but at a very young age found ways (legal) to make money and help his family out. Never a moment did he think he couldn’t or shouldn’t at least try.

      Instead, the “spokespeople” for the poor act as if they are incapable of doing anything. They are lost causes and need the help of everyone else or they will continue to suffer. What they never acknowledge is that there is a definite limit to charity.

    • tranquil.night

      Rusty I think what Pro might’ve been trying to imply is that high-lighting the features over the bugs is sort of missing the point (and reverse demagoguery) at this mark.

      The poor will always have their personal choices which surely stunt their ability to succeed, and there will always be those from all walks of life that choose the wrong path. However, there really is a large chunk of people now where their poverty is institutionalized, and at least equally attributable to the devastating circumstances in which they grow up. We’re going into the 3rd generation on the War on Poverty. They say that 3rd generation immigrants typically have fully acclamated into the American way because their parents and grandparents’ hard work has developed a family tradition for the understanding and pursuit of freedom and individualism. Well, social engineering entitlements reverse that evolution – lives and families destroyed by the government nanny go on to destroy the lives of their illegitimate and oft unwanted children, who then grew up with such a complete lack of fundamental values and had children of their own. There’s hundreds of thousands now that grow up without parents at all – without any modern education or wisdom whatsoever except the rules and markets of the streets or elsewhere.

      We have leeching, toxic sub-cultures here bigger than Sweden that simply do not believe in or operate by American philosophy or American Law, being paid in almost full by the people making the country work. These people need State (preferably Church) assistance in the form of education, maybe some well-oversought catastrophic care, but mostly economic opportunity – and what do they get? Faceless bureaucracies that’re oriented at keeping them institutionalized in their ignorance and poverty so that the Ruling Class can continue farming them for their own gain.. financial, political, whatever.. and the continued pathetic decline of America.

    • proreason

      My point was that the marxists don’t think higher crime, bottom 20% lifestyles, etc. are a bad thing.

      Their purpose is not to improve life for the poor, but rather to TEACH PEOPLE TO THINK THEY ARE MISERABLE AND EXPLOIT IT.

      Criminals aren’t going to vote for Sarah Palin, they will vote for the Moron. Likewise for anybody who depends on the government teat.

      I wasn’t commenting on whether or not poverty can be eliminated, since it already is eliminated in the United States, at least by any reasonable definition. When a billion people in other countries are living on about a dollar a day, it’s kind of silly to call anybody in the US poor. Even mentally disabled people in the US live better than average people in most other countries. That doesn’t mean we can’t or should not do more for the tiny % of people who are unable to fend for themselves; it just means that the ‘problem’ is political, not economic.

      The whole poverty scam in the US is strictly about political power for the ruling class, nothing more.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      If you’re looking for an argument, you’re going to have to change the subject. (funny witticism, there)

      In other words, I agree with everything you and Pro have said. However, the mantra in the post WWII utopia-driven rhetoric was to collectivize charity. In other words, “not just give at the office, but through your tax dollars…and gosh, everyone wants to help ‘the poor’ ” thereby making it a subversive argument and taking on a vacuum-salesman pitch and tone.

      In other words, to “guilt” everyone into accepting the idea of more taxes to feed to welfare programs. My point was to highlight that all the points the socialists use to address the justification for stealing our money were to “decrease drug use, crime, homelessness, etc etc”. And yet, those features have remained. Why? Because of the very institutionalization of poverty that you and Pro have spoken. And–because no matter what is done, they will always be there, regardless.

      Again, there will always be the poor. And I didn’t want to go on a diatribe (as I so often do) about education both moral and intellectual and why it is important to learn to provide for yourself and then for others in your family, etc., etc. That is a code which most conservatives believe and support. I was “out the door” when I was 18. I had been working a real job since I was 15. College came later but I did it, too.

      Through bad choices and by blaming others, you’re absolutely correct: being poor becomes a self-perpetuating industry. Why work when money comes free? Do the minimum…just whatever it takes to survive and spend a lifetime blaming “the rich” for keeping you down. The ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy.

      Yet, even the poor, when enlightened and who break out of the bondage of welfare, move away from the crime-infested run-down areas of town and desire better for themselves. It does happen. I have met those who have struggled to move up rather than stay mired in the thought-processes of an “oppressed, down-on-his-luck loser”.

      So, yeah. I have always said, though that if you collect taxpayer money to live, your life is then subject to scrutiny and if you spend it on crap, you are therefore cut off. But there are no checks and balances in that aspect of welfare. By being a recipient, they are actually wards of the state and therefore, I advocate socialism all over their existence. In other words, it should be hard to get and maintain a welfare existence. Right now, it’s so easy and there is no accountability. I’d much rather increased expenses go to monitor their spending habits, choices and so on. That is, if we have to spend it at all.

    • tranquil.night

      Great posts guys. I wasn’t trying to be combatative with either of you, only trying to stir some thought on how to best deliver the message. We are going to be facing the situation sooner than later where we are going to begin rolling this back, and when the guns of smear and paranoia on the Left come out, Conservatives have to know how to best disarm the Left’s lies amongst those that’re more ignorant, emotion/compassion over logic driven and inclined to believe them.

      “The whole poverty scam in the US is strictly about political power for the ruling class, nothing more.”

      That’s the most powerful premise for public digestion right there, I think we can agree.

    • proreason

      we are all in violent agreement.

      I would only add to your point that the marxists effort to disable private charities is just another example of their war on all institutions that help indiviuals remain independent from the state.

      That theme ties together many liberal battles that otherwise seem disjointed, including their efforts to:
      – diminish families (gay rights, gay marriage, abortion ‘rights’, pay for babies out of wedlock, etc.)
      – reduce the influence of religion
      – put small businesses out of business
      – demean the Tea Parties (which in large measure are support networks for like minded individuals)
      – reduce the powers of state and local government
      – control local school boards via federal funding
      – and as you say, implement politicies to eliminate private charities.

      All of these things serve to consolidate power in the hands of the statists.

      The counter examples are Unions and Minority organizations. But Unions are just another form of Big government, and they will simply be subsumed withing the Mother State when the Marxists work is complete, and at that point, the union members will become proles, with no special status. Most of the Union leadership will then be eliminated. Likewise for Statist tools like the NAACP, which are merely agitprop appendages of the Politburo now. They imagine they will have special status in the final stage of Marxism. Fools.

  4. Liberals Demise

    Obamaville………..kinda like Pottersville from the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”.
    A place where you keep the little people under your ever watchful eye and living in a slum that you run.
    Slogan:
    “Obamaville….where we keep you under our thumb”

  5. Rusty Shackleford

    “…to 13 percent during the energy crisis. “

    Yet another gift from the liberal democrats(socialists) of the time.

  6. proreason

    It’s not a war on Poverty.

    It’s a war on the Middle Class.

    Poor people don’t threaten the Ruling Class.

    But we damn sure do.

    • tranquil.night

      Yep, more poor means the Ruling Class will be holding a bigger gun when we march up to them and demand they get their arse off our property. “If we start stripping all these unfortunate people of their entitlements now, it’ll be economic and social pandemonium,” they’ll say.

      NerObama is, well – was – succeeding from his point of view. Utopia was right around the corner but those blasted wingnut bigots, like the everyday heroes that always get overlooked by the villain in the movies, “stand to ruin everything!”




« Front Page | To Top
« | »