Unfortunately this is, for all too many people, not news.....
.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze. . . .

First, it appears that your reference to America’s place among nations based upon people living in poverty is predicated on data taken in 2004, six years before the census data. You might have picked up on this had you noted the discrepancy between the census figure of 15.1% and the 12.0% datum in the CIA Factbook reference.

Second, disregarding this sloppiness, the CIA Factbook reference lists America as having relatively fewer in poverty than either Denmark or Greece. Denmark is frequently cited as having the most satisfied citizens, the offered explanation for which is often that its citizens expect less, especially from their government, than most. On the other hand, Greece, a welfare state if there ever was one outside of the communist USSR, is apparently set to go bankrupt as a country in a couple of months, unless they receive another huge bailout.

Consequently, I am left wondering exactly what your point in citing, albeit sloppily, our standing on this scale behind. . . let’s say Syria . . . six years ago. . . . Syria, by the way, is an interesting choice on your part given what its government is doing to its citizens these days.

Third, we live in an era where our federal government collects, from all sources, about $2.3 trillion each year and spends almost this exact same amount ONLY on entitlement programs. This forces us to borrow $0.40 of every federal dollar spent simply to run all other departments of our national government. In this environment, it appears that illuminating the fact that poverty in America is increasing serves merely to highlight the failure of the very programs on which we spend so much money to (theoretically) reduce it – or as LBJ said, “eliminate” it. However, I am sure that I don’t have to go very far in your blog before I find something which suggests that we should be spending MORE on entitlements.

Fourth, I didn’t find the text in the Washington Post article listing the minimum income in order to qualify for the 5% wealthiest before they wanted me to register in order to read the article again. My question is whether the $64K / $181K between 1983 and 2010 was adjusted for the devaluation in the buying power of our currency during the intervening 27 years. If not, then a $64,000.00 purchase in 1983 would be matched by a $138,236.57 purchase in 2010. Hence, the advancement of those undeserving, wicked, rich exploiters would be only 31%, not 183%.

Nevertheless, we can’t tolerate even that much further accumulation of wealth, can we? Tell me, what does it get you to be envious of the rich?

@UncleChri

The CIA Factbook data for 2004 were used to cite the other lower poverty level countries because this was the latest information available from that source. I doubt very much that this information has changed much.

But, that’s really not the point. The fact is that the U.S. poverty level rate is now at 15.1%, and it is becoming more impoverished compared to other developed nations.

Being poor in America is not the same thing as in other countries, although since we compare ourselves to other people, that's also not the most important point either. It's not a surprise that poverty increases in recessions, since most people rely on labor income, and the racial structure in that data is not new, if a problem to address, although doing so isn't super easy either. Less poor is better than more poor, although, like the rich, we poor are always here.

Professor Keck has a related post over here:
http://open.salon.com/blog/profkeck/2011/09/13/writing_a_bad_check

I personally live well below the poverty level even if you count the SNAP benefits I receive. What many don't seem to know is that for many, those SNAP benefits are the ONLY income they have.
And everyone wonders why there is so much anger and grief hand-in-hand during this Recession....

The American Dream is just that, a dream. Supposedly you can achieve it if you "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and just work hard enough. I'm so tired of that same old schtick. If all of us were starting at the same line when the gun is fired, I might agree with that sentiment, but the sad truth is that the kid who can go to private school will almost always do better than the kid who goes to public school. The baby whose parents can afford the healthier food will most likely be a healthier adult. The adult whose rich uncle got him the job at his big company will always have a leg up over the adult who doesn't have those connections. There doesn't seem to be a light at the end of this tunnel. . .

I know, I know it's all Bush's fault ! Poor Barack....

Um no. This can't possibly be true. President Obama was going to fundamentally change America. Oh. Yeah. Go read my post on Matt Tiabbi's article on all of our money given away under President Obama's watch and "bailouts".

The disparity in income is clearly the single greatest threat to democracy in this country. This is a no brainer.

Blacks got wise to it in the 60's, burned down a few cities, and there were a few changes.

The question is: if it continues--what will come next? (The Fire Next Time, Baldwin said.)

@ UncleChri

I just took the time to read your comment again.

And I have to admit, you're full of shit.