Posted on 12/23/2011 10:47:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
New Yorkers can be forgiven for shock at the newspaper headlines last week informing them that millions more of them were “near poor” or “low income.” They might relax a bit on learning that the “root cause” is simply new definition of poverty from the Census Bureau.
Indeed, under the Census definition, a family in New York City is “near poor” if it has full medical insurance and an annual income below $77,000. (In Oakland, Calif., the figure is $88,000!)
The Census report actually put nearly half the US population as “low income” — and news stories typically implied the startling new number was the result of sharply deteriorating economic conditions.
In fact, it was a surreptitious and dubious shift by the Obama administration, setting the “near-poverty” income level very close to the median-household income in most communities. (“Median income” is the point at which half the households have more income, and half have less.)
Thus, it was foreordained that, using this new standard, the Census folks “discovered” that almost half the population is living in “near-poverty” conditions. That is, if you define “near poverty” as an income roughly equal to the median, that means that by definition nearly half the population will always be “poor” or “near poor” — regardless of any changes in actual living standards.
Obama’s new poverty measure will produce very odd results. For example, if the real income of every single American were to magically double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty or “near poverty,” because the poverty- and near-poverty income thresholds would also double.
In other words, the president has introduced a statistical trick that gives new meaning to the saying that “the poor will always be with you.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
So, if you’re making over $75,000 you’re considered poor. I need another eggnog to get my mind around that one. More nog this time.
Now we know why the middle class is shrinking. If you earn above $200,000, you’re the Evil Rich. If you earn below $80,000, you’re the downtrodden poor. The middle class is being defined out of existence.
You missed the most significant part of Obamababble...
ALL taxes newly imposed on the "rich" immediately affect everybody earning $50k or more.
Unless it's welfare in cash or in kind or in subsidy or in lieu.
That costs too much and is too good for them.
Bundle up the whole lot of traitors and drop them off in the middle of Liberia. Let them fend for themselves.
If you make $75K per year and are paying $5K per month on housing you have either lost your good job and for that I am sorry or you are incredibly stupid.
Kudos to you and your wife for not taking advantage of the benefits you are “entitled” to but don’t believe you need. May you and your family be richly blessed!!
Well, even at $2000 a month, you are paying 33% of your income on housing. Top that off with NYC high tax rates and higher prices on consumer goods, and I think you will still be struggling to get by. I rent apartments, and we wouldn’t qualify someone to rent if the rent is 33% of their income, because it’s too much, and they usually end up defaulting.
RE: Well, even at $2000 a month, you are paying 33% of your income on housing.
Notice I said less than or equal to $2,000. If you shop around town and don’t mind an extra 15 minutes of subway ride to work in Manhattan, you could get a decent apartment for less than 30% of your annual income.
Yes, we are rich in spirit and our belief in God — and only poor according to this political change of the “near-poverty level.”
Do you get BAH?
The Census is a sham? Or the President is a sham?
By that we’re below dirt poor. We’re at dirt on fleas poor.
Hell, if you shop around far enough you can find rent for $100 a month and you’ll have plenty of disposable income. That’s not the point though. The average living expenses for the area are what counts when it comes to studies like this.
Okie dokie! Ask and you shall receive:
Barry Obama = “Grifter-in-Chief”
Michelle Obama = “First Grifter of the United States”
Michelle’s mother = “Grifter-in-law”
And their “adorable” little girls = “Grifters-in-Training” (I believe they are enrolled in the “Gifted-Grifters-Academy”.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.