20% Of Children In United States Living In Poverty

Shocking, ain’t it? And it’s the official number from the U.S. Census Bureau, so probably the real number is higher. From the New York Times:

Forty-four million people in the United States, or one in seven residents, lived in poverty in 2009, an increase of 4 million from the year before, the Census Bureau reported on Thursday.

The poverty rate climbed to 14.3 percent — the highest level since 1994 — from 13.2 percent in 2008. The rise was steepest for children, with one in five residents under 18 living below the official poverty line, the bureau said.

Poverty Rates by Age

The report provides the most detailed picture yet of the impact of the recession and unemployment on incomes, especially at the bottom of the scale. It also suggested that the temporary increases in benefits in aid provided in last year’s stimulus bill eased the burdens on millions of families.

For a single adult in 2009, the poverty line was $10,830 in pretax cash income; for a family of four, $22,050.

Given the depth of the recession, some economists had expected an even larger jump in the poor. Expanded unemployment insurance and a rise in the number of families doubling up helped temper the trend, said Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin.

“A lot of people would have been worse off if they didn’t have someone to move in with,” said Mr. Smeeding, noting that in a typical case, a struggling family, like a mother with a child, stays with more prosperous parents or other relatives.

The Census study found an 11.6 percent increase in the number of such multifamily households over the last two years…

[continues in the New York Times]

, ,

  • oman28

    Need another ‘war on poverty’

  • Anonymous

    Need another ‘war on poverty’

  • Vox Penii

    Hmm…

    the graph shows that the poverty rate rose during Clinton’s presidency then dipped during GWB’s term. And since Messiah Obama was elected and implemented a variety of Keynesian economic policies, the poverty rate climbed again.

    Hmm…

  • Vox Penii

    “War on Poverty Revisited,” by Thomas Sowell (2004)

    August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the major turning points in American social history. That was the date on which President Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his “War on Poverty” program in 1964.

    Never had there been such a comprehensive program to tackle poverty at its roots, to offer more opportunities to those starting out in life, to rehabilitate those who had fallen by the wayside, and to make dependent people self-supporting. Its intentions were the best. But we know what road is paved with good intentions.

    The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society — and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word “liberal” so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

    In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and quickly degenerated into new slums. Many of these projects later had to be demolished. Unfortunately, the assumptions behind those projects were not demolished, but live on in other disastrous programs, such as Section 8 housing.

    Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed.

    The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the “root causes” of crime and creating new “rights” for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed.

    The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.

    Government social programs such as the War on Poverty were considered a way to reduce urban riots. Such programs increased sharply during the 1960s. So did urban riots. Later, during the Reagan administration, which was denounced for not promoting social programs, there were far fewer urban riots.

    Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions question the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even conservatives often attribute much of the progress that has been made by lower-income people to these programs.

    For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City Journal says in its current issue: “Beginning in the mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved markedly.”

    That is completely false and misleading.

    The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before any of the legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks out of poverty did not — repeat, did not — accelerate during the 1960s.

    The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.

    In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 — that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards.

    While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of many other decades, so did major social disasters that continue to plague us today. Many of those disasters began quite clearly during the 1960s.

    But what are mere facts compared to a heady vision? Liberal assumptions — “two Americas,” for example — are being recycled this election year, even by candidates who evade the “liberal” label.

    http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/poverty/3864-War-Poverty-Revisited.html

  • guest51

    It shouldn’t suprise anyone. The crackpot Milton Freidman stupidnomics got the same results in Chilie, almost took down Britain during the Thatcher era.

    Everywhere crackpot Milton Friedman’s stupidnomics is applied poverty increases by leaps and bounds. The Noble Prize became corrupt because the purpose of the prize is to award those whose works benefit mankind. The only people that benefit from crackpot Mltion Friedman’s stupidnomics are the very wealthy, just ask Pinochett. The rest of mankind suffers, just as these children are suffering because of Bush Jr who did the crackpot Milton Friedman stupidnomics.

  • guest51

    It shouldn’t suprise anyone. The crackpot Milton Freidman stupidnomics got the same results in Chilie, almost took down Britain during the Thatcher era.

    Everywhere crackpot Milton Friedman’s stupidnomics is applied poverty increases by leaps and bounds. The Noble Prize became corrupt because the purpose of the prize is to award those whose works benefit mankind. The only people that benefit from crackpot Mltion Friedman’s stupidnomics are the very wealthy, just ask Pinochett. The rest of mankind suffers, just as these children are suffering because of Bush Jr who did the crackpot Milton Friedman stupidnomics.

  • guest51

    It shouldn’t suprise anyone. The crackpot Milton Freidman stupidnomics got the same results in Chilie, almost took down Britain during the Thatcher era.

    Everywhere crackpot Milton Friedman’s stupidnomics is applied poverty increases by leaps and bounds. The Noble Prize became corrupt because the purpose of the prize is to award those whose works benefit mankind. The only people that benefit from crackpot Mltion Friedman’s stupidnomics are the very wealthy, just ask Pinochett. The rest of mankind suffers, just as these children are suffering because of Bush Jr who did the crackpot Milton Friedman stupidnomics.

  • Andrew

    What, you think people can’t read a graph, or are you unable to read one when it contradicts your bias? The graph clearly shows increasing poverty under Bush too (2001 to 2009), and decreasing poverty under Clinton (1993 to 2001).

  • Ironaddict06

    I got an idea. Birth control will be put in all fast food, in small amounts, that can accumlate over time. The people that live off of fast food wont be able to reproduce.

    • Haystack

      Your mom must be proud.

  • Ironaddict06

    I got an idea. Birth control will be put in all fast food, in small amounts, that can accumlate over time. The people that live off of fast food wont be able to reproduce.

  • Haystack

    Your mom must be proud.

  • Ironaddict06

    Yes. Ok, you think people should be able to have unlimited amount of kids? So instead of %20 it could be %30 in years?

  • Ironaddict06

    Yes. Ok, you think people should be able to have unlimited amount of kids? So instead of %20 it could be %30 in years?

    • Haystack

      No, clearly it would be better for the government to implement a program of forced sterilization where qualified bureaucrats would pick and choose who is allowed to reproduce. What was I thinking.

      I know. I was thinking that we could focus on eliminating poverty instead.

  • Haystack

    No, clearly it would be better for the government to implement a program of forced sterilization where qualified bureaucrats would pick and choose who is allowed to reproduce. What was I thinking.

    I know. I was thinking that we could focus on eliminating poverty instead.

  • 5by5

    What graph are you reading? The Fox Nooz one in your imagination?

  • Andrew

    What, you think people can’t read a graph, or are you unable to read one when it contradicts your bias? The graph clearly shows increasing poverty under Bush too (2001 to 2009), and decreasing poverty under Clinton (1993 to 2001).

  • 5by5

    What graph are you reading? The Fox Nooz one in your imagination?

21
More in Children, Poverty
Poverty Rate In U.S. Saw Record Increase In 2009: 1 In 7 Americans Are Poor

These figures are estimates, but when the actual data is released this week, hopefully it's not worse. Hope Yen and Liz Sidoti write on the Huffington Post: WASHINGTON — The...

Close