Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 … The number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by more than 1.3 million last year, even though the economy technically edged out of recession during the same period, a Census Bureau report shows.
The spike in economic hardship hit individuals and families alike. The report indicated that the total percentage of people in poverty increased to 12.4 percent from 12.1 percent in 2001 and totaled 34.8 million. At the same time, the number of families living in poverty went up by more than 300,000 in 2002 to 7 million from 6.6 million in 2001.
The number of children in poverty rose by more than 600,000 during the same period to 12.2 million. The rate of increase in children under age 5 jumped a full percentage point to 19.8 percent living below the poverty line from 18.8 percent a year earlier.
"These numbers provide a moving picture of population changes," said Stephen Buckner, a spokesman for the Census Bureau. "It's more timely data that should allow decision makers to make more informed judgments."
The new data, some analysts say, may raise the level of scrutiny on a variety of federal programs like welfare reform and the recently enacted increases in child tax credits, which excluded about 6.5 million low-income working families with children.
Stuart Butler, an economist with the Heritage Foundation, a Washington policy institute, called the data "a fairly predictable product of the slowing economy."
"The issue is, what do you do to continue to strengthen the economy?" Mr. Butler said. "You take the necessary steps to encourage people to move back into the work force, plus making sure we don't do anything to weaken the welfare reforms put in place some years ago."
Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said, "Some people had drawn a Pollyanna-ish conclusion that somehow changes in the welfare system would insulate children from increases in poverty during economic slumps."
"These new data show that that assumption is flatly incorrect." Mr. Greenstein said. "It also underscores the mistake in federal tax policies that exclude the very families who are hurting the most."
"[E]ncourage people to move back into the work force"? These people are newly poor. That means they used to not be poor. What, you think they woke up one day and said, "Ho hum, this is booooring. I think I want to be poor."
"[E]ncourage people to move back into the work force"? What makes this idiot think they left it voluntarily?
"[E]ncourage people to move back into the work force"? Hey, Butler…There's gotta be jobs for them to move into!
LATER: Butler's assoicate, Robert Rector, isn't a sadist. He's merely insensitive enough to declare these folks to be collateral damage:
P6, you have found the money quote on the cluelessness of many on the right. Is there any better example why they should NOT be running the country? None of this should surprise us. These people don't give a damn about poor people. Let them starve as long as we don't tax capital gains. Starting tomorrow I am going to do my best to "encourage" my friends who have been out of work for OVER TWO YEARS (all smart, eduacated, knowledgable people) to get back into the work force. I'm sure they will appreciate it.
Yea, we're all just a lazy bums. We shouldn't be even read this. . .
Don't worry, John. Give 'em a few more years with the public school system and we won't be able to read this.
Wow, what an intelligent, thoughtful critique of the article above. Sorry, but name-calling and attacking motives ("these people don't give a damn") don't impress me.
There is an old saying that those who do not understand the other side of an issue cannot fully understand their own side.
All you've shown is that you don't understand conservative positions (hint: its not that we "don't give a damn"). And if you don't understand our position, how can you provide any meaningful critique?
So, go on living with a simplistic, cartoonish good-versus-evil view of politics. Just don't complain when your side loses the debate.
You're Stuart Butler, aren't you? I was on the third page of the Google search you made.
Sorry, but name-calling and attacking motives ("these people don't give a damn") don't impress me.
Assuming you come back:
1: My commentary is in the post. Read it ALL, not just the title of the post. There's no name calling, nor attacking his motive. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of saying people who USED TO work and are now poor because they are out of a job need to be motivated to rejoin the work force. They were FORCED out of it. [LATER: Oops. I did call him an idiot. Oh, well…]
2: I'm not trying to impress you. I'm not going to try to impress you.
3: My concern is over the outcome, not the philosophy. Whatever the reasoning behind conservative thinking (and I'm well aware of it, it's simply not my job to expound it), the outcome sucks. At best the reasoning has been hijacked to to mask a brutal insensitivity to anyone whose assets are insufficient to generate self-supporting wealth. At worst it's a flat lie.
4: There's an old saying - Most old sayings are full of shit.