[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.

[Technogeeb]

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

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't relevant. The methodology itself is subject to arbitrary manipulation. As has already been mentioned, even the bureaucrats themselves have admitted to manipulating the values.

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

You seem to be beginning to suffer from the reading comprehension problems affecting your allies. The statement "You cannot, because no such laws exist" doesn't even have the word "is" in it.

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

Once again, the calculation being used is not fixed, since the values used in that calculation can themselves be modified at will by the bureaucrats. The bureacrats themselves have admitted that. To suggest that it is not subject to manipulation, when even the bureaucrats admit that it is (and has been manipulated for political purposes in the past), is intellectually dishonest.

You figure bureaucrats are playing games with numbers then go out and prove it in the courts

The bureacrats themselves admit that they are "playing games" with the numbers. There is no mechanism to "prove it in the courts" because first, you can't sue the federal government unless you get its permission first and second, the way the "poverty level" methodology is written the manipulation is perfectly legal. Which is the problem with using it for purposes of determining the "prebate" government handout.

I would suggest it is time for you to start producing independant evidences of the truth of your assertions

I've already mentioned statements by Clinton administration officials (and where those statements can be found) admitting to manipulation of the numbers for political purposes. What more evidence do you need that the "poverty level" is subject to manipulation by the bureaucracy?