Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!glosser From: glosser@ut-ngp.UUCP (glosser) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: A statistic on poverty Message-ID: <1132@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Sat, 15-Dec-84 13:26:30 EST Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1132 Posted: Sat Dec 15 13:26:30 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Dec-84 03:23:06 EST References: <2780@ucbcad.UUCP> <1203@dciem.UUCP> <1341@ihuxq.UUCP> <369@klipper.UUCP> <161@gcc-opus.ARPA> Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas Lines: 92 <> In a recent article Alien (alien@gcc-opus) was trying to make the claim that entitlement programs (especially food stamps) where helping as far as the war on poverty is concerned. I will agree with him in that sense, because without entitlements things would be worse. However, when he makes the following statement about including benefits (food stamps, etc.) when determining who is below the poverty level (8.8% of the population below the poverty level if benefits are included, 22% if not.) he shows a great misunderstanding of what the issues are vis a vis the incidence of poverty in this country: >What does this mean? > >First, Poverty in the US is not as bad of a problem as >some people would want you to believe. Clearly, 8.5% is >not as bad as 22%. (Did you ever stop to wonder where >those 22% were? I mean, if there were that many, wouldn't >you know a lot of them?) > First, it might enlighten people to see what the %'s of people below the poverty level have been from 1970 through 1982 for the total population as well as the white and black population: % of Persons Below the Poverty Level (source Economic Report of the President - 1984 Page 252) Year Total White Black 1970 12.6 9.9 33.5 1971 12.5 9.9 32.5 1972 11.9 9.0 33.8 1973 11.1 8.4 31.4 1974 11.2 8.6 30.3 1975 12.3 9.7 31.3 1976 11.8 9.1 31.1 1977 11.6 8.9 31.3 1978 11.4 8.7 30.6 1979 11.7 9.0 31.0 1980 13.0 10.2 32.5 1981 14.0 11.1 34.2 1982 15.0 12.0 35.6 Also, consider the following data for families below the poverty line. (source Economic Report of the President - 1984 Page 252) Where: Total = Total % of all families in the USA Female = Total % of all Female headed families in the USA White = Total % of all White families in the USA White F. = Total % of all White Female headed families in the USA Black = Total % of all Black families in the USA Black F. Total % of all Black Female headed families in the USA % of Families Below the Poverty Line Year Total Female White White F. Black Black F. 1970 10.1 32.5 8.0 25.0 29.5 54.3 1971 10.0 33.9 7.9 26.5 28.8 53.5 1972 9.3 32.7 7.1 24.3 29.0 53.3 1973 8.8 32.2 6.6 24.5 28.1 52.7 1974 8.8 32.1 6.8 24.8 26.9 52.2 1975 9.7 32.5 7.7 25.9 27.1 50.1 1976 9.4 33.0 7.1 25.2 27.9 52.2 1977 9.3 31.7 7.0 24.0 28.2 51.0 1978 9.1 31.4 6.9 23.5 27.5 50.6 1979 9.2 30.4 6.9 22.3 27.8 49.4 1980 10.3 32.7 8.0 25.7 28.9 49.4 1981 11.2 34.6 8.8 27.4 30.8 52.9 1982 12.2 36.3 9.6 27.9 33.0 56.2 From the above, issues such as what the poverty incidence would be without food stamps, horror stories of people spending all their entitlement money on soft drinks and hard liquor, etc. detract from what I consider to be one of the main issue associated with poverty in this country: The incidence of poverty shows that RACISM and SEXISM is alive and well in the United States! In other words, when: roughly one out of two black female headed households are below the poverty line; three times as many female headed households as compared to male headed households are below the poverty line (this also means three out of ten female headed households as well); as well as three tenths of the black population living below the poverty level, something is seriously wrong! Stuart M. Glosser