Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
15. Here's
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 01:25 PM
Jul 2013

"Something positive would be great!"

..."something positive," though it'ss going to take time to reverse a decades-old trend.

<...>

Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html


Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304

Also as the health care becomes more accessible and affordable, and the effects will become even more noticeable.

The data presented here are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates. The CPS ASEC is a sample survey of approximately 100,000 household nationwide. These data reflect conditions in calendar year 2011.

  • In 2011, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.2 million people in poverty.

  • After 3 consecutive years of increases, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statisti¬cally different from the 2010 estimates1

  • The 2011 poverty rates for most demographic groups examined were not statistically different from their 2010 rates. Poverty rates were lower in 2011 than in 2010 for six groups: Hispanics, males, the foreign-born, nonciti¬zens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropol¬itan statistical areas but outside principal cities. Poverty rates went up between 2010 and 2011 for naturalized citizens.

  • For most groups, the number of people in poverty either decreased or did not show a statistically significant change. The number of people in poverty decreased for noncitizens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropolitan statistical areas but outside principal cities between 2010 and 2011. The number of naturalized citizens in poverty increased.

  • The poverty rate in 2011 for chil¬dren under age 18 was 21.9 per-cent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.7 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 8.7 percent. None of the rates for these age groups were statistically different from their 2010 estimates.2
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/


Go to the "Publications" tab for more information.

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

Sex

  • The poverty rate for males decreased between 2010 and 2011, from 14.0 percent to 13.6 percent, while the poverty rate for females was 16.3 percent, not statistically different from the 2010 estimate.
<...>

Health Insurance Coverage

  • The number of people with health insurance increased to 260.2 million in 2011 from 256.6 million in 2010, as did the percentage of people with health insurance (84.3 percent in 2011, 83.7 percent in 2010).

  • The percentage of people covered by private health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 63.9 percent. This was the first time in the last 10 years that the rate of private health insurance coverage has not decreased. The percentage covered by employment-based health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 55.1 percent.

  • The percentage of people covered by government health insurance increased from 31.2 percent to 32.2 percent. The percentage covered by Medicaid increased from 15.8 percent in 2010 to 16.5 percent in 2011. The percentage covered by Medicare also rose over the period, from 14.6 percent to 15.2 percent. The percentage covered by Medicaid in 2011 was higher than the percentage covered by Medicare.

  • In 2011, 9.7 percent of children under 19 (7.6 million) were without health insurance. Neither estimate is significantly different from the corresponding 2010 estimate. The uninsured rate also remained statistically unchanged for those age 26 to 34 and people age 45 to 64. It declined, however, for people age 19 to 25, age 35 to 44 and those age 65 and older.

  • The uninsured rate for children in poverty (13.8 percent) was higher than the rate for all children (9.4 percent).

  • In 2011, the uninsured rates decreased as household income increased from 25.4 percent for those in households with annual income less than $25,000 to 7.8 percent in households with income of $75,000 or more.

    <...>
- more -

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

Dire information, but I would say a decrease in the poverty rate among most groups between 2010 and 2011 is big news, as is the information on health insurance coverage.

Employment Report: More Hiring, Wages Up, Still Weak Labor Market

The good news: This was the best first half for private employment gains since 1999. Also hourly and weekly wages increased 0.4% in June, and hourly wages are now up 2.2% over the last year (weekly wages are up 2.5% year-over-year).

Some bad news: the employment-population ratio for the 25 to 54 year old group (prime working age) declined, the number of part time workers (for economic reasons) increased and U-6 (an alternative measure of labor underutilization) increased to 14.3%.

Some numbers: Total nonfarm employment is up 2.293 million over the last 12 months, and up 1.211 million so far in 2013 (a 2.42 million annual pace).

Private employment is up 2.357 million over the last year, and up 1.234 million so far in 2013 (a 2.47 million annual pace). The following table shows the first and second half and full year changes in private employment since 1998.

- more -

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/07/employment-report-more-hiring-wages-up.html

And DU doesn't think he has usuped his authority enough BumRushDaShow Jul 2013 #1
"some folks"? gee why not identify those folks in the interest of clarity and detail. nt msongs Jul 2013 #2
Is this seriously a new Obama complaint? Haven't heard about this one. JaneyVee Jul 2013 #4
He's on a roll. Whining while trying to sound tough. Safetykitten Jul 2013 #16
Pointing out the truth is whining? JaneyVee Jul 2013 #20
You have just established treestar Jul 2013 #13
Very clearly, too. DevonRex Jul 2013 #21
Are you putting your name on the list? nt DevonRex Jul 2013 #14
'some people say...' leftstreet Jul 2013 #3
Anything positive about Obama is upsetting, huh? n/t ProSense Jul 2013 #5
Something positive would be great! leftstreet Jul 2013 #7
Here's ProSense Jul 2013 #15
2 in a row. Now people are complaining because he wasn't more nuanced. JaneyVee Jul 2013 #6
The rest of us know exactly what he's talking about. The Fox News folks DevonRex Jul 2013 #17
Whoopee. Now what? 1-Old-Man Jul 2013 #8
+1 leeroysphitz Jul 2013 #19
Oh, I don't think it is limited to Congress n/t Godhumor Jul 2013 #9
K & R Scurrilous Jul 2013 #10
The Republicans are on the home stretch mick063 Jul 2013 #11
Prosecutorial Discretion treestar Jul 2013 #12
That was a zinger against the racists in Congress. Solly Mack Jul 2013 #18
Yes it was. I stand with Obama against those racists. DevonRex Jul 2013 #22
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama: "Some of those fol...»Reply #15