What are they calling poor? The so called poor around here have cell phones, money for drugs ,tobacco and cars.
And now pie. Really, really expensive pie.
My point exactly. I have to pass a drug test to get and keep a job, but the government takes my earnings to give to drug dealers. What a country!
Under the new measure, a family will be judged poor if its income falls below a certain specified income threshold. Nothing new there, but, unlike the current poverty standards, the new income thresholds will have a built-in escalator clause: They will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the living standards of the average American.
The current poverty measure counts absolute purchasing power how much steak and potatoes you can buy. The new measure will count comparative purchasing power how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people. As the nation becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion. In other words, Obama will employ a statistical trick to ensure that the poor will always be with you, no matter how much better off they get in absolute terms.
The Left has promoted this idea of an ever-rising poverty measure for a long time. It was floated at the beginning of the War on Poverty and flatly rejected by Pres. Lyndon Johnson. Not so President Obama, who consistently seeks to expand the far-left horizons of U.S. politics.
The weird new poverty measure will produce very odd results. For example, if the real income of every single American were to magically triple over night, the new poverty measure would show there had been no drop in poverty, because the poverty income threshold would also triple. Under the Obama system, poverty can be reduced only if the incomes of the poor are rising faster than the incomes of everyone else.
Another paradox of the new poverty measure is that countries such as Bangladesh and Albania will have lower poverty rates than the United States, even though the actual living conditions in those countries are extremely bad. Haiti would probably have a very low poverty rate when measured by the Obama system because the earthquake reduced much of the population to a uniform penniless squalor.
According to Obamas measure, economic growth per se has no impact on poverty. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the incomes of nearly all Americans have increased sevenfold, after adjusting for inflation. However, from Obamas perspective, this increase in real incomes had no impact on poverty, because the wages of those at the bottom of the income distribution did not rise faster than the incomes of those in the middle.
What has the Obama measure to do with actual poverty? Not much. For most Americans, the word poverty suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 40 million persons classified as poor under the governments current poverty definition fit that description. Most of Americas poor live in material conditions that would have been judged comfortable, or even well-off, two generations ago.
The governments own data show that the typical American defined as poor (according to the traditional, pre-Obama poverty measure) has two color televisions, cable or satellite service, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He also has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his familys essential needs. While this individuals life is not opulent, it is far from the stark images conveyed by the mainstream media and liberal politicians.
Clearly, poverty as currently defined by the government has little connection with poverty as the average American understands it. The new Obama poverty measure will stretch this semantic gap, artificially swelling the number of poor Americans, and severing any link between the governments concept of poverty and even modest deprivation.
In honest English, the new system will measure income inequality, not poverty. Why not just call it an inequality index? Answer: because the American voter is unwilling to support massive welfare increases, soaring deficits, and tax increases to equalize incomes. However, if the goal of income leveling is camouflaged as a desperate struggle against poverty, hunger, and dire deprivation, then the political prospects improve. The new measure is a public-relations Trojan horse, smuggling in a spread the wealth agenda under the ruse of fighting real material privation a condition that is rare in our society. Source
“What are they calling poor? The so called poor around here have cell phones, money for drugs ,tobacco and cars.”
The ones around here do too, as well as the women having their hair and nail done on a regular basis. Also, none look to be going hungry, a huge percentage are obese.