Trump Admin Plans to Decrease Poverty

By changing the way we measure poverty.

They plan to switch to chained cpi for the poverty line measure which raises the threshold slower than the core inflation rate. The result is that, over time, fewer people would qualify as poor even if they earn the same inflation adjusted income.

It seems fitting that in an era of increasing wealth and income gaps, we're increasing the amount flowing to the wealthy by giving them more and decreasing the amount flowing to the poor by decreasing the threshold at which they qualify for benefits.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-06/trump-poverty-line-inflation

It'd be cheaper to just nuke the poor people.

Oh, but that's Trump land.

@br0kenrabbit: Don't give them ideas.

Yeah but the entire south would be gone....lolololololololol

So glad the billionaire president is looking out for the poor people.

And yet people will STILL continue to vote against their own interests.

Trump could strip his poor voting block of their welfare benefits and they would still support him, they'd simply blame their loss of government revenue on immigrants or something similar. Poor dumb bastards.

Not bad

Also, do not see a problem with the way Trump wants to do it.

@HoolaHoopMan: it's Obama or anyone else that's brown.

lmao what...

I understand why you have a problem with lower poverty. More poor people would mean more votes for the democrats.

"i'm with her"

@zaryia: You have something to say or was it just a random mispost?

Harming the poor is an effective way of harming the economy, isn't it?

I don't think you two read or understand the OP + article.

This proposal doesn't actually lower poverty, people aren't going to be making more money and be lifted out poverty due to these specific changes. It just changes the classification of it so less people can get aid.

The Trump administration may alter the way it determines the national poverty threshold, putting Americans living on the margins at risk of losing access to welfare programs.

The possible change appears to be the latest effort by the Trump administration to make it harder to access welfare programs.

Quite ironic though, as Red States have the most poverty (on average) and use the most in federal aid programs (on average).

Reminds me of this subplot from The West Wing:

Except instead of finding a way to make bad news seem less bad while still taking care of the poor; they are literally trying to cut the poor off for political gain.

Ehmm, please point to the place where i ever mentioned that it would decrease anything else than a number on a piece of paper?

You don´t have to be a brain surgeon to know that this thread is not about people getting more actual money in their hands, but about how you look at something in a statistic.

Trump could single handedly find a cure for cancer and Dems would still find something to complain about it.

You are the 3rd person in this thread who didn't read the OP.

Trump's definition of curing cancer in this case would be simply removing it from being diagnosed rather than treating it.

Bleh. Why not deal with the actual problem... instead of this make-belief bookkeeping?

Is there any good reason for this, or is it just about lying to the people?

@KungfuKitten: "Is there any good reason for this, or is it just about lying to the people?"

There are some genuine effects, if that's what you're asking. It lowers aid to the poor. Whether that's a "good" reason is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

This is not a good idea. It's going to harm people not help. The only people he has thus far helped are the wealthy.

What a lazy ass president, just sweep it under the rug.

Why do you think this is a good thing?

@LJS9502_basic: ‘The only people he has thus far helped are the wealthy.’

Wrong.

It's like the failing schools. We'll just lower the standards and everyone passes.

True, he hasn't even helped them either. Lol.

And all 3 are the top MAGA hats on these forums. What a surprise.

Because more accurately stats are more accurate than a false narrative that Sanders can use to portray America worse than it is.

@Jacanuk: So basically, the people who claim to be struggling financially are actually lying in your opinion.

Well, first nice moving of the goal post.

So considering your move, what is poverty? is someone who lives paycheck to paycheck but have a roof over their head, have food on the table, have internet and tv and a computer comparable to people who live on the street and have to beg for scrabs? No?

Yet the statistics seem to lump those together and people like old man colonel Sanders seem to be of the idea that people should have a lot more for free. So having a stat that looks at actual poverty and not perceived "western poverty" is and can only be a good thing.

Moving the goal posts? I just read this

"Because more accurately stats are more accurate than a false narrative that Sanders can use to portray America worse than it is."

And thought it must be that you don't believe the people who say they are struggling financially. Is that conclusion incorrect? If so then how? Because I'm lost.

Hmm, either you are moving the goal post or your use of struggling is a massive understatement of people who are actually poor.

So which is it? are you referring to struggling as people who have means but live paycheck to paycheck like normal or did you slap that label on anyone even the homeless who have to beg for scrabs?

I think it fits the MO perfectly. It doesn't actually solves anything but it will look like it does.