Replies

Technogeeb: Robert Reich, Clinton's secretary of labor, "has admitted that the administration didn't adjust the poverty level" during the Clinton administration for fear that it would make the poverty rate would look worse. Check out the May 26, 2001 issue of the New York times for proof of his statement. 942

Perhaps Technogeeb will be kind enough point out a year in which the proverty threshold value did not change, the changes of value are upward infact, during the Clinton administration, and consistent with the trend of prior years as well as those following the Clinton administration.

If there is an exception I can't seem to find one.

refer: the published values of poverty threshold since 1983: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld.html

refer: also the publish values of poverty guidline values since1982 (the second simplified measure for legislative implementation): http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/figures-fed-reg.htm

Obviously Clinton did not allow HHS and the Census bureau to change the methodology(i.e definition), as many liberals want to to expand the definition of poverty through changing the method by which poverty is measured to expand welfare benefits to a broader group of potential constituents.

The evidence is precisely opposite of what technogeep claims, there is no evidence of a manipulation of the definition or value of the poverty level at the arbitrary whim of bureaucrats in the manner Technogeeb suggests happened.

Perhaps Technogeeb will be kind enough point out a year in which the proverty threshold value did not change, the changes of value are upward infact

The values used to calculate poverty are usually manipulated every year. Instead of being a discrete calculation based on some fixed equation as you claim, the "methodology" includes arbitrary weighting factors whose values can be adjusted by the bureaucrats as desired. To suggest that the values are meaningful (other than as an arbitrary number agreed upon by bureaucrats) and should be used for policy purposes is insane. The only reason the "values are upward infact" is that some of the factors of the calculation, such as inflation, do change regardless of the actions or inaction of the bureaucrats to change the other values. In the case of the Clinton administration, they deliberately used values for the "weighting factors" to minimize the appearance of poverty, but even they admit that the numbers are meaningless.

The evidence is precisely opposite of what technogeep claims, there is no evidence of a manipulation of the definition or value of the poverty level at the arbitrary whim of bureaucrats in the manner Technogeeb suggests happened.

Sigh!

There, I'm over it now. Thanks for the link to the Census Bureau tables. I couldn't get onto the site last night/early morning. Servers were down or something.