Obama’s New ‘Poverty’ Measurement

[thundley4]

This week, the Obama administration announced it will create a new poverty-measurement system that will eventually displace the current poverty measure. This new measure, which has little or nothing to do with actual poverty, will serve as the propaganda tool in Obama’s endless quest to “spread the wealth.”

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.

NRO

WTF?  This is guaranteed to produce an ever increasing number of people below the poverty line.

[Eupher]

More smoke and mirrors from the Head Socialist.

The subtitle under the heading should read, "Obama Spreads the Wealth -- YOUR Wealth"

[rich_t]

More smoke and mirrors from the Head Socialist.

The subtitle under the heading should read, "Obama Spreads the Wealth -- YOUR Wealth"

You don't expect him or the political elite to share their's do you?

[Javelin]

If I remember right wasn't this thing already done once upon a time?  ... wasnt it called the Misery Index?  Hmmm.

[rich_t]

If I remember right wasn't this thing already done once upon a time?  ... wasnt it called the Misery Index?  Hmmm.

Late 70s.  Carter mentioned it several times during his campaign.

[NHSparky]

Dammit, why didn't we clone Reagan when we had a chance?

[Chris_]

What is not being said in this piece is that the "official poverty level" becomes the gateway statistic for entry into many aspects of the welfare system, Medicaid, section 8, WIC, et al, therefore guaranteeing an ever increasing pool of freeloaders that have (theoretically at least) access to "free ponies"......

doc

[NHSparky]

What is not being said in this piece is that the "official poverty level" becomes the gateway statistic for entry into many aspects of the welfare system, Medicaid, section 8, WIC, et al, therefore guaranteeing an ever increasing pool of freeloaders that have (theoretically at least) access to "free ponies"......

doc

And thereby making said recipients members of permanent serfdom; aka, "Vote for us or all your free goodies will disappear..."

Bottom line, Obama won't be happy until that "poverty level" is 100 percent.  The only equality socialism ensures is equal misery.

[Javelin]

What is not being said in this piece is that the "official poverty level" becomes the gateway statistic for entry into many aspects of the welfare system, Medicaid, section 8, WIC, et al, therefore guaranteeing an ever increasing pool of freeloaders that have (theoretically at least) access to "free ponies"......

doc

If he is successful in this and even if he lost healthcare it would be a huge victory for the democrats.  Your right in that the base of those receiving benefits would dramatically expand.  Yet I wonder what would come first... a pure socialist nation or a currency collapse?  It would certainly be a race to the finish line.

[docstew]

I see it another way... As the average American loses wealth, their comparative purchasing power won't shift much.  This way 0bama can say that there was no increase in poverty, even though more people are poor.

[thundley4]

I see it another way... As the average American loses wealth, their comparative purchasing power won't shift much.  This way 0bama can say that there was no increase in poverty, even though more people are poor.

He'll use it both ways.  When he is pushing for more welfare, he'll point to the higher poverty rates. When he runs for reelection, he'll play down those numbers saying they are due to the way the are figured.