[Technogeeb]

The definition of poverty level is one formally defined since 1967 and a matter of law since that time through formal declaration and acceptance by congress

If that were really true, then you could find a law that defines the poverty rate in the US each time it changes each year. You cannot, because no such laws exist. The power to define the "poverty level" has been granted to federal administrations, and they can modify that value without any interaction with Congress whatsoever.

There is only one mandated poverty level for all legislation, not independant measures for each and every piece. To raise that level on any basis other than the historical criteria in place since 1967 and codified into Census Bureau regulations as well as the Department of labor would be a clear act of provable fraud

They would not have to raise that level on any other basis. The mechanism as it exists now is more than adequate to allow them to adjust the poverty level as they see fit.

Your claim that a single bureaucrat can simply raise the number to some arbitrary $150k dollars or drop it by any outlandish figure by fiat of the bureaucracy is simply foolish. If that could be done and made to stick, by now some liberal duderhead in office over the last 35 years of official use would have done so

Not true. Many similar flaws, such as the transfer of power to the secretary of the treasury to determine what shotguns are suitable for "sporting purposes", took decades to abuse. There are political consequences for pushing the poverty numbers too high under the current system, such as making the current administration look bad because of the high "poverty" figures (the reason the Clinton administration manipulated the numbers to keep them lower than historical trends).

The "definition" of poverty level has not change since 1967

This is not really true. It potentially (and invariably) changes every year, when the census burea releases its annual figures. If by definition you mean the method of calculation, then it too is not fixed in any real manner, since the values of the variables used in calculating it (such as "inflation" and "cost of living") are subject to the manipulations of bureaucrats.

Just go to Google and search for - malfeasance United States Code - you will find many such tort cases against several departments of the United States and officials within those departments successfully prosecuted

I gave a specific example (a case relating to the conviction of the self-confessed manipulation of poverty level numbers by the Clinton administration), since it is the specific example relevant to this flaw. If "falsifying poverty level" numbers were really a crime capable of being prosecuted, then show me a conviction. There is more than enough evidence (and even a "confession" by Robert Reich in the New York Times that the Clinton administration did that specifically) for a trial if the government really did consider it a crime; but the fact that no such trial is likely to ever arise shows just how little of a "safeguard" those laws are. In real terms, the government bureaucracy determines the value of the poverty level, and they can set that value to whatever they desire. Certainly, there are consequences for doing so (including the lawsuits by the affected parties which you mention, assuming Congress gives them permission to sue), but that in no way reduces the fact that the bureaucracy does indeed have that power.

[ancient_geezer]

If that were really true, then you could find a law that defines the poverty rate in the US each time it changes each year.

The statistical methodology has been in the body of regulation and recognized by the courts as definitive since 1967. That methodology has not changed and was incorporated into Office of Management and Budget directive #14 in 1969.

The poverty line value changes each year in response to the economy, the methodology for its measurement does not change and is now recognised by the courts as binding in statutes referencing the HHS poverty-line or HHS poverty guideline as applicable in accord with statutes enacted by Congress.

HHS is charged with the responsibility of computing the value of the poverty line for each year using the methodology described and defined by OMB directive #14 1969 and publishing the result annually. The directive is now recognised law in the courts where controversy arises over specific programs means tested against the HHS poverty guidlines. There is no need or requirement for congress to incorporate the specific values each year as a statute. For the values are expressly referenced by statutes that rely on the numbers, and the courts have established that the OMB directive #14 methodology is the fundamental definition of poverty as it applies to statutes referencing "HHS poverty line" and "HHS poverty guidelines."

You cannot, because no such laws exist.

An all to familiar phrase used by TPrs, not very successfully however. I'm not interesting in hearing about your creative definitions of is.

I would suggest you use a different playbook that one is getting rather worn around the edges.

If by definition you mean the method of calculation, then it too is not fixed in any real manner, since the values of the variables used in calculating it (such as "inflation" and "cost of living") are subject to the manipulations of bureaucrats.

Methodology is fixed (it is a mathmatical formula), variables change in value with time DUH! that's why they are called variables and not constants.

You want to figure your own numbers for inflation and cost of living go ahead. Have fun pushing them through the courts or on anyone else involved in econometric measures.

If you figure the numbers are in error and have evidence to back you up go for it the courts are waiting your suit. If your numbers don't agree with that value which results from the application of the standardised methodology applied to obtain those figures however, you have nothing at all except opinion and no case.

You figure bureaucrats are playing games with numbers then go out and prove it in the courts, make them revise the figures. Until then your opinions are little more than sour grapes and of little application to anyone.

are subject to the manipulations of bureaucrats.

Numbers are also subject to the manipulations of demogogues even more readily as the demogogue is not constrained to a fixed methodology. A demogogue may claim anything, but making the claim and establishing a fact are two entirely different kettles of fish.

You have yet to establish any fact, nor even supported an assertion with more than mere personal opinion throughout this discussion.

I would suggest it is time for you to start producing independant evidences of the truth of your assertions rather than continue to rely on your stock cliches. They do not serve well in the determination of truth at all. They are just more noise and little substance and repetative annoying noise at that.