[tweriaroats]

Um, it's "there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics." At least, that's how I remember it going. And you might want to provide a link to an unbiased source for the change in poverty definitions.

[Kolokireo]

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.”

Dude, Patty, do you think we're all idiots?

Find a real source. This article only serves as a propaganda tool in the National Review's endless quest to "**** the poor."

[zzarratusstra]

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.”

Dude, Patty, do you think we're all idiots?

Find a real source. This article only serves as a propaganda tool in the National Review's endless quest to "**** the poor." The National Review is a peer reviewed and academically sound source. Are you denying that the change is taking place?

[NodePark]

National Review is a raving partisan source.

[hansen384cbh]

Why the **** are you channeling Ben?

No, I just gagged reading the first paragraph and stopped. Don't pretend like The National Review is a credible source.

Look at the ****ing photoshop on their front page:


Look at the ****ing language in the opening paragraph.

It describes itself as:
"America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion."

Don't ****ing patronize me.

They probably are changing the poverty line, which is a pretty normal thing to do over the years. I'm asking for a real source, not a fearmongering right-wing opinion piece which plays fast and loose with the truth in the opening sentences. If Patty wants to live in the fantasy world that National Review is unbiased, that's within his right to do so.

[hygtfrdes]

Patty. Not Ogie.

Yelping from the sidelines is a hard job. Sometimes you get mixed up about who you are supposed to be insulting. He is trying his best.

[Rounteetepe]

It's as if they trying to deny decades of debate over the definition of poverty in this country.

[galaktiusman]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-86008962.html

WASHINGTON, March 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Commerce Department's U.S. Census Bureau is preparing to develop a Supplemental Poverty Measure that will use the best new data and methodologies to obtain an improved understanding of the economic well-being of American families and of how federal policies affect those living in poverty. The initiative to create the new statistic is included in the President's FY2011 budget proposal.

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090226/CENSUSLOGO)

The official poverty measure, which has been in use since the 1960s, largely estimates poverty rates by looking at a family's or an individual's cash income. It will remain the definitive statistical measure. The supplemental measure will be a more complex and refined statistic, including such additional items as tax payments and work expenses in estimating family resources. Unlike the official administrative measure, the supplemental measure will not be the measure used to estimate eligibility for government programs. Instead, it will be an additional macroeconomic statistic, providing further understanding of economic conditions and trends.

The Supplemental Poverty Measure will be released in the fall of 2011, at the same time that the official income and poverty measures for 2010 are released by the Census Bureau.

"The new supplemental poverty measure will provide an alternative lens to understand poverty and measure the effects of anti-poverty policies," Department of Commerce Under Secretary for Economic Affairs Rebecca Blank said. "Moreover, it will be dynamic and will benefit from improvements over time based on new data and new methodologies."

An Interagency Technical Working Group has provided a roadmap to the Census Bureau on how to develop the Supplemental Poverty Measure, drawing on the recommendations of a 1995 National Academy of Science report called Measuring Poverty, and the extensive research on poverty measurement that has been done over the past 15 years. Additional details can be found at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povme...servations.pdf. The Census Bureau's statistical experts, with assistance from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and in consultation with other appropriate agencies and outside experts, will be responsible for the measure's technical design.


SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau

[aburva.org]

One more article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/nyregion/03poor.html

And that's about all that's out there on this. So it seems to have been pioneered in NYC, by/for the Bloomberg Administration. Bloomberg is a R, formerly a D, and he doesn't like term limits. That about sums up my knowledge of him. I doubt he's interested in class warfare, though.

-Arrian

[Hdzcxqoi]

National Review is a raving partisan source. Well that's the greatest advertisement for them that I've seen.

Thanks Oerdin!

[JJascaxal]

I only read the very best.

[j2Y6Ysmb]

Like most threads, if I just let things run their course Asher's objections evaporate of their own accord.

Asher and Mr. Fun, a match made in heaven

[GlarlraTpople]

The republicans perpetuate social and spiritual poverty, if not economic.

[Tw1anJOO]

Really, what did I try to portray it as other than a source for an Obama policy from a national and well known publication? As any sane person would instantly recognize it was just a vehicle to introduce the very real announcement of Obama on Tuesday.

Whatever problems you have with the article, which you have conveniently not bothered to share with us, is your problem. I would hope that you have something to contribute regarding the actual alteration of the poverty measurements proposed and the results they will yield instead of just whining uncontrollably (and inaccurately) about a source that has no relevance to the topic at all.

If you wish to make intelligent objections to anything in the article specifically, I am more than willing to listen. However, I am more concerned about what people think about the proposed changes themselves.

[OpVJokl8]

The National Review is a peer reviewed and academically sound source.

So you don't know what peer review is, nor the difference between an opinion magazine for commentators and true Academic journals.

[Paybeskf]

So you don't know what peer review is, nor the difference between an opinion magazine for commentators and true Academic journals.

"peer review" means you have one of your peers look over a publication for typos.

[Zenthachall]

No you're not. You just wanted to spread propaganda. Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted a blatantly biased and ignorant article. Or you just massively retarded to not realize.

When one of you can actually point out something in the article you disagree with and support why, let alone point out something that is wrong, then you can pretend to have a point.

I guess we made progress now that you guys have moved on from declaring that pointing out the factual announcement was nothing but propaganda and can accept Obama actual said something on Tuesday. Small steps.

[leahjhburton]

Poor Patty - getting PWNed from several people in one thread.

[mGUuZRyA]

It's his fault for letting himself get into such a silly source arguement rather than simply ignoring such sniping and laying out why he agreed with the analysis it out foward.

[Dpkefsuf]

It's his fault for letting himself get into such a silly source arguement rather than simply ignoring such sniping and laying out why he agreed with the analysis it out foward.

Yeah, he's acting like. . .you.