Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

The National Academy of Science's formula, which is gaining credibility with public officials including some in the Obama administration, would put the poverty rate for Americans 65 and over at 18.6 percent, or 6.8 million people, compared with 9.7 percent, or 3.6 million people, under the existing measure. The original government formula, created in 1955, doesn't take account of rising costs of medical care and other factors. If the academy's formula is adopted, a more refined picture of American poverty could emerge that would capture everyday costs of necessities besides just food.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

TaoWarrior

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Single mothers and their children, who disproportionately receive food stamps, would see declines in the rates of poverty because noncash aid would be taken into account. Low-income people who are working could see increases in poverty rates, a reflection of transportation and child-care costs.

The current calculation sets the poverty level at three times the annual cost of groceries. For a family of four that is $21,203. That calculation does not factor in rising medical, transportation, child care and housing expenses or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does the current formula consider noncash aid when calculating income, despite the recent expansion of food stamps and tax credits in the federal economic stimulus and other government programs.

Just some interesting parts of the article. The poverty line at 21k is one that I have long known was crap. I mean I make well over that and am barely scraping by there is no way anyone making less than me could support a family of 4 anywhere in the country.

Counting non cash aid towards income is a good plan too. It has always pissed me off a bit that I can't get help but some people get section 8, food stamps, medicare, assistince with power bills, welfare etc. that adds up to more than my anual income. I don't mind us as a society helping people but when my taxes go to someone who's net income with benifits is higher than mine well I do get a bit pissed (this includes corporate welfare).

"I don't mind us as a society helping people but when my taxes go to someone who's net income with benifits is higher than mine well I do get a bit pissed (this includes corporate welfare)."

I agree. I can't afford to have a car in NYC, but people who have government assistance of multiple varieties are driving around in new vehicles.

The original government formula, created in 1955, doesn't take account of rising costs of medical care and other factors."

Danni's new talking point:

"When Bush took office the poverty level was 3.6 million people; today it's 6.8 million. America can do better"

I agree. I can't afford to have a car in NYC, but people who have government assistance of multiple varieties are driving around in new vehicles.

#2 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-09-05 09:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yikes I didn't think that anyone but a millionaire could aford a car in NY. My cousin lives there and makes more than I ever thought a stoner could make, lives with 3 other guys and can't afford a car. Well he could but not safe parking...

Vern,

I agree if we change the tables things will be ugly politicaly but the fact is the formula is crap. Maybe if it is changed we will finaly admit that there are people earning 40k a year living on government assistance. Meanwhile there are people who are working 60 hours a week to suport their family that don't get squat from the government.

Well this should make those in poverty feel better.

"Yikes I didn't think that anyone but a millionaire could aford a car in NY..... Well he could but not safe parking..."

Uptown most people own cars (draw your own conclusions). I wasn't even putting parkig costs into the calculus.

Have they added cell phones and flat screen TVs yet?

Luckily TV's and the like are deflating in price. The fools who buy at Aaron's or Rent-to-Own just haven't figured that out yet.

The changes have been discussed quietly for years in academic circles, and both Democrats and Republicans agree that the decades-old White House formula, which is based on a 1955 cost of an emergency food diet, is outdated.

No shit.

Even the NAS formula is inadequate but at least it is far more reality based than the current formula.

The current formula has served both parties for years in making their records look better.

Both sides have been loathe to change formulas while in power because then they fear that the public perception will be that they've actually put more people in poverty and that that will have adverse political consequences.

That that perception will overtake the reality that they've merely more realistically acknowledged po' folk who was already there.

So, in short, this adoption of the NAS formula is at least a baby step in the direction of neccessary change and a more reality based set of national data.

Be Well.

If u street park in nyc then it significantly reduces the cost. I have several friends with modest salarys (round 60k) that have cars IN manhattan.

I don't keep a car in nyc cause its pointless with subways and trains.

"I agree. I can't afford to have a car in NYC, but people who have government assistance of multiple varieties are driving around in new vehicles."

I see it all the time too. I figure that many people are committing fraud, not sure though, but how else can they drive new cars while living in Section 8 housing?

Danni,

Because there are multiple forms of public assitance and since none are calculated against each other you can double, triple heck even quadruple dip. Well as long as your "income" is low enough.

Make 21,204 though and you don't need any help.

Clinton juggled the CPI and by doing so he fucked anyone getting a government check - including our military and Granny Goody. Bush didn't rectify that, and certainly we won't see a reality check from the ObamaMamas - many of whom were instrumental in debasing the index.

Check out www.shadowstats.com

All of this feel good stuff is nonsense. They lie to us and the media repeats it as truth. The whole system needs a new approach to assessing the actual data, like having an independent forum to calculate the statistics and report them publicly. Let's start with the M3 and unemployment numbers.

"Make 21,204 though and you don't need any help."
#12 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Make $20k and get $30-$40k in benefits.

"Danni's new talking point:

#3 | Posted by vernon at 2009-09-05 09:23 AM | Reply | Flag: Troll

"If u street park in nyc then it significantly reduces the cost. I have several friends with modest salarys (round 60k) that have cars IN manhattan."

And how much time do they spend in their car, double parked, waiting for a spot to open up? How many mornings do they have to rush out to move that car when its a no parking day on that side of the street? You pay for parking in Manhattan with cash or with time. I think it amounts to about the same if you put even a small amount of value on your time.

I had no idea you were in NYC, Kliff.

What's the name of your band again?

I'd love to know about how someone could double and triple dip and get all these fabulous benefits. Since I'm newly unemployed--thanks to outsourcing--I would be all over that shit.

I suppose they are counting things like child care assistance that can very well add up to more than a working mother makes every month. If my 3 kids were in daycare, it would cost about $1500 a month, and that is here is cheapville. In places like NYC, I bet it's closer to $3000. Yes, thats a MONTH. that's why we work(ed) opposite schedules. You never get to see each other, but at least you can still afford to feed the kids.

I bet they calculate medicaid as a pretty high dollar amount as well, but in reality, medicaid doesn't cost the state unless the recipient is using it. It's not an insurance policy, it's pay per use medical--just paid by the government. But then, they can only go to certain doctors and only certain things are allowed--medicaid is not a free ride, despite what people think.

People on section 8 housing still pay 1/3 of their income towards rent and utilities and have pretty heavy restrictions on where and how they need to live to get it. In any large area, waiting lists are 2-3 years to even be considered for assistance.

If a single mother is actually getting child support (don't read into this guys, lots of great fathers actually pay child support, but there are also a hell of a lot of deadbeats out there) the state takes it if the mother is getting cash assistance and it counts 100% as income rather than the 50% earnings count as if she is getting food stamps or any other type of assistance, so she is penalized because she actually reproduced with a guy who's not a deadbeat.

There is no free lunch for anyone who is actually working and there aren't very many people who can get away with not working at all according to the rules imposed during the big welfare reform. So, those people driving new cars in NYC are probably drug dealers--not a stereotype, a fact. No one cannot afford a new car on welfare, no matter where the hell they live, unless they are cheating the system.

I agree that the people who have always worked are the ones getting screwed. That's why they need to change the system to reward people for working rather than penalize them.

"In places like NYC, I bet it's closer to $3000."

We pay $1880/month for one child. Some places you might get lucky and pay 1600.

#18

Ouch! For one? That's nuts. I would bet if you had 3 kids it would be cheaper to hire a live in nanny.

I would bet if you had 3 kids it would be cheaper to hire a live in nanny.
#19 | Posted by missesmerelda

If we had 3 we'd either leave the city for suburbia, or I'd be Mr. Mom.

Hell, if we have one more I might be staying home. Daycare usually doesn't give you a discount for multiple children around here, and I don't clear $5700 a month.

#15 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-09-05 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag: INCAPABLE OF ABSTRACT THOUGHT

Miss,

Right now Medicaid is not counted as income at all. I pay 4k a year for insurance so you can argue that it is pay as you need but the fact is the insurance companies are not charging me 4k a year to loose money. So if you are making 10k a year and get medicaid right there is equivalent to me at 14k. Then food stamps, you can get up to 668 a month so there is another 8k a year now we are up to 22k. Child care of lets say we are being cheap and it is only 200 a month in assistance so thats another 2400 a year now up to 24k a year. Now localy we can get assistance on power bills not much but could push you to 25k a year. Now we haven't even touched on tax credits child tax credit earned income credit maybe 3k more in credits that can be refunded so now we have fictonal family of four up to 28k a year. Now section 8 1/3 of 10k is 3333k a year rent is going to run most folks 900 a month around here so that is 7k more a year in benifits so now our fake family is up to 35k a year.

There are probably more benifits out there that I don't know about but I think the point is made. Saying that person is poor while the family of 4 making 21204 is not seems a bit silly no? Obviously they are both poor and saying that the 21204 is not worth benifits is a bit silly.

I see it all the time too. I figure that many people are committing fraud, not sure though, but how else can they drive new cars while living in Section 8 housing?

#11 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2009-09-05 01:20 PM | REPLY | FLAG


are you saying that Ghetto Fabulous is wrong?

If it is.. Then i dont want to be right!

#22 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR

I wasn't saying it was fair, I'm saying that that fake family at 35K a year isn't any better off than any other family that makes 35K a year, which is still POOR. Besides, you would make more than 10K a year washing dishes at Denny's so that would signifigantly reduce the actual benefits the fake family would get.They may still average out at 35K a year, but does anyone know a family of 4 that lives well on 35K a year? Seriously, that's less than 3K a month and once you deduct the expenses that are paid by the assistance and the the rest of the expenses they have, how much of that is left as disposable income?

Let's say $3000
-900 rent
-668 food
-333 medical insurance
-83 for utilities
-100 for the rest of the utilities that they didn't get assistance with
-200 month for childcare
-1000 a month for the the rest of the childcare they would have to pay even if we are cheaping out here

ooops, we appear to have a negative flow of cash here and we still haven't accounted for clothes, transportation, diapers, or even so much as a paltry newspaper subscription, so the reality is no one can live on 35K a year, no matter how the hell they get it, can they?

Besides, the family of 4 that actually earns the 35k a year is still eligible for benefits such as tax credits, child care assistance, medicaid for the children, and foodstamps which would boost their income as well.

The point here is that there is a poverty line for a reason--it's supposed to be the line that separates people living a subsistence life from those who are making it. If that line were accurate, where do you think it would fall and how many millions more would realistically fall below it?

no shit (pun not intended): like soap, toilet paper, and toothpaste.

I have worked for the welfare department in the past. Let me tell you the biggest dodges.

1) Welfare person (usually the mom) reports she is single and has no clue who/where the dad is. Funny, he shares the bed every night... but HIS income is not counted... so she makes nothing, he lives in the sec 8 housing and she drives his car.

2) Dad is out of the picture, but mom always has a replacement handy... and the replacement pays a lot of the bills.

3) Although getting less common (computer records have slowed some of this down)... the welfare person reports kids that aren't their kids... like a pair of sisters with 3 kids each will claim their nieces and nephews and such... then has them all piled around when the case worker shows up. Especially common in border areas where 1 case is in NY and 1 in NJ or something... sisters can each have 1 case in each state and claim all of their children. So both are collecting for 6 kids in NY and 6 kids in NJ.

4) More common with hispanic families... one non-working person (mom) has a case and her 12 family members are not reported on the lease... so the income they make does not count against the household income. This is harder to track as the extended family members usually do not have SSN's and nothing for the computers to detect.

The "welfare department"?

uh-huh

In multiple states, actually. In one, it was called Department of Human Services, and in another it was Department of Health Services. In both cases, it was "welfare" related [issuance of food stamps, liheap, etc.] and Dead-beat dad [child support enforcement].

I see it all the time too. I figure that many people are committing fraud, not sure though, but how else can they drive new cars while living in Section 8 housing?

#11 | Posted by danni at 2009-09-05 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

------------

Danni agrees with one of America's three greatest presidents:

------------

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names."

--Ronald Reagan, 1976



"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names."
--Ronald Reagan, 1976
#29 | Posted by vernon

Interesting Ronnie Raygun could never quite come up with this woman's name.

Interesting, too, that she never seems to have actually existed.

Welfare fraud? Yes. Reagan? Hyperbolic nonsense, entirely consistent with his hash of a presidency.

Behold Vermin: Product of a faith-based, untethered-from-reality, Loony Toons of a world.

Seriously, fat boy, lay off the chemicals. They're destroying what little is left of your pea-brain.

Some more quotes from the great Beirut Bonzo.


"Ketchup is a vegetable."

"Trees cause more pollution than cars."

"I helped liberate the concentration camps at the end of World War II."

On beating a hasty retreat from Lebanon - "We're not bugging out."


My all-time favorite Reganism is still his account of a heroic B-17 bomber pilot who, during World War II, ordered his crew to bail out when the aircraft was hit over France. Everyone obeyed, except the wounded belly gunner. "The kid in the turret cried out with tears," said that old warhorse Reagan. "And so the pilot sat down on the floor of the plane and said: 'We'll ride it down together, son." And that's why, Reagan explained, that p;ilot recieved the Congressional Medal of Honor (posthumously).

What a hoot! There are, as Reagan related the tale, only two witnesses to the events he described -- the pilot and wounded belly gunner -- and both of them died, leaving no one to provide an account of what happened.

(I'm a little surprised Reagan didn't recommend presenting a posthoumous Medal of Honor tothe mother of the Unknown Soldier.)

Reagan's source appears to have been the movie "Wing and a Prayer."

Make 21,204 though and you don't need any help.

#12 | Posted by TaoWarrior

If that is your reported income, you probably got a tax refund that amounted to as much as you paid. But, that isn't help because it was your money in the first place.

"If that is your reported income, you probably got a tax refund that amounted to as much as you paid."

How do you figure that?

if you are making 21,204 supporting a family of 4 you got a tax refund back significatnly larger than what you paid. My guess would be in the ballpark of 5k.

You could probably still get food stamps since that is based on 2x poverty line. I was kinda making a point though. Although the 2x poverty line is probably just as eloquent a point. If food stamps program accepts that 21204 is still poor then why doesn't the rest of the government.

Because the assholes in government spend more on their martinis at lunch in a week than the average family spends on groceries in a month and they have NO clue and could care less. That's why. The middle class is a myth. In this country today, to live in the "American Dream," costs somewhere in the neighborhood of a half a million a year. Your average working joe, who considers himself to be middle class, is actually a member of the growing group called the working poor.
If he lost his job tomorrow, he would lose everything. and because of what has been done to this country by politicians on all sides--rich, educated, clueless charlatans--the chances of that happening increase exponentially everyday.

An elite few have built empires on the backs of the little man and now, when it is all going to shit, they hide out in their houses at the Hamptons and claim they didn't do it and that they need the government to help them. Fuck the little guy who did all the work. They need to make the payments on their private jets and pay for the trophy wife's plastic surgery. While the millions of people whose blood sweat and tears made all that money for them get hung out to dry.

And .... Danni still agrees with Reagan

--Ronald Reagan, 1976
#29 | Posted by vernon

Well, at least Reagan still has an asshole to use for a mouthpiece.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable