Poor America

(National Review-Obama’s New ‘Poverty’ Measurement)

(By Joanne Galloway)

According to this article, the term “poor” means never having less than two television sets.

Sighs. In an ever-mounting pile of evidence that Barack Obama is a Socialist hell bent on redistributing the wealth, here is yet one more travesty to the American taxpayer.

According to this article, the current government definition of “poor” in this country isn’t really “poor” by any other standard on the globe.

…the typical American defined as poor (according to the traditional, pre-Obama poverty measure) has two color televisions, cable or satellite service, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He also has a car, air conditioning, a refrig­erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had suf­ficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs.

Under the Obama Administration, this definition is going to change:

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.

I think that’s pretty darn scary.  As one who’s made the choice to work two jobs at once to insure paying my own way, I suppose I was considered poor as well.

I once qualified for WIC (Women Infants and Children), for food stamps (370$/month) , HUD benefits, free healthcare and a utilities stipend.  My household was making about $35,000 per year when I qualified for this.  How do I know?  I found all this out when I had my first child.  My husband had lost his job which carried our medical benefits.  When I went for my 6 month maternity checkup, the staff was so courteous, telling me not to worry – if we didn’t have coverage it would all be paid for.  And it was.  100% of it.  What I didn’t realize, is that when this happens to you, the hospital case workers automatically register you for all that free stuff I mentioned earlier.  I was mortified.  I’d had a high risk pregnancy, and had no preconceived notion that we’d go suddenly from a two income professional family, to a one income poor family – one which was offered welfare.  We declined.

When my first born was five weeks old, I took a job as a server in a restaurant – this way, I could work when my husband was home, and vice versa – eliminating day care costs.  We rented a meager two bedroom house in a suburb or a major city.  We had one car, one TV with DISH Network (a luxury available to us since Dish was what my husband was peddling at the time for his job) But we had no stove in this house.  It wasn’t rented with one – so we cooked on hot plates and electric plug in skillets.  We paid all our own bills, but often had to pay electric one month, then gas the next month, etc.  Finally, when my first born was one, I took a job in my profession – a nine to fiver – but kept my position at the restaurant on nights and weekends.  My husband got a better paying job, and “re-upped” with the Army Reserve to keep us generating as much income as we could muster.  Within 3 years, we worked our way back to a better life, nicer home (with a stove *big plus*), and were able to pay our bills on time, and in full.

What the heck is my point?

Facebook’s “Soldiers Are Not Heroes”

Generally, I refrain from entertaining radical bottom-feeders whose only intention is to ‘stir the pot’. In the case of “Soldiers Are Not Heroes” however, I will make exception. The diseased group on Facebook has roughly 12,000 nut-jobs after the backwards cause. The picture you are looking at nearly caused me to fall out of my seat. I am curious, how do you feel?

As I read through comments on the site (a non-Facebook version is found HERE) I can’t help but recognize how small, radically liberal groups are actually gaining traction from social networking sites like Facebook. While I firmly support our first amendment right to freedom of speech, ignorant hate-speech falls not in such a group.

From what I gather, many of the site’s main contributors seem to be children (21 and under). However, the man responsible for adding the picture in this post, Elliot Waters, seems a bit older. Here’s a small example of what you will find on the group’s page:

“We are currently looking at suggestions by beautiful people that SANH is a religion. Environmentalism as a religion is a current strand of spiritual consciousness widening and deepening throughout the world. Which brings up the fact that war is bad for the environment and the planet. (That is a whole new discussion – lets start it).”

Facebook's "Soldiers Are Not Heroes"

Generally, I refrain from entertaining radical bottom-feeders whose only intention is to ‘stir the pot’. In the case of “Soldiers Are Not Heroes” however, I will make exception. The diseased group on Facebook has roughly 12,000 nut-jobs after the backwards cause. The picture you are looking at nearly caused me to fall out of my seat. I am curious, how do you feel?

As I read through comments on the site (a non-Facebook version is found HERE) I can’t help but recognize how small, radically liberal groups are actually gaining traction from social networking sites like Facebook. While I firmly support our first amendment right to freedom of speech, ignorant hate-speech falls not in such a group.

From what I gather, many of the site’s main contributors seem to be children (21 and under). However, the man responsible for adding the picture in this post, Elliot Waters, seems a bit older. Here’s a small example of what you will find on the group’s page:

“We are currently looking at suggestions by beautiful people that SANH is a religion. Environmentalism as a religion is a current strand of spiritual consciousness widening and deepening throughout the world. Which brings up the fact that war is bad for the environment and the planet. (That is a whole new discussion – lets start it).”

Facebook's "Soldiers Are Not Heroes"

Generally, I refrain from entertaining radical bottom-feeders whose only intention is to ‘stir the pot’. In the case of “Soldiers Are Not Heroes” however, I will make exception. The diseased group on Facebook has roughly 12,000 nut-jobs after the backwards cause. The picture you are looking at nearly caused me to fall out of my seat. I am curious, how do you feel?

As I read through comments on the site (a non-Facebook version is found HERE) I can’t help but recognize how small, radically liberal groups are actually gaining traction from social networking sites like Facebook. While I firmly support our first amendment right to freedom of speech, ignorant hate-speech falls not in such a group.

From what I gather, many of the site’s main contributors seem to be children (21 and under). However, the man responsible for adding the picture in this post, Elliot Waters, seems a bit older. Here’s a small example of what you will find on the group’s page:

“We are currently looking at suggestions by beautiful people that SANH is a religion. Environmentalism as a religion is a current strand of spiritual consciousness widening and deepening throughout the world. Which brings up the fact that war is bad for the environment and the planet. (That is a whole new discussion – lets start it).”