And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

>>Barack Obama: Poverty Pimp (Need to read)

Posted on: March 11, 2010

As my readers know I am not above using someone else’s post when they have something to say I think is important.  That is the case today.  I just met Mr. Rob waterson, a fellow blogger and Patriot.  Rob emailed me today and  after a couple “back and forth” I  ask for his url and went to his site. I sincerely feel this is a post  you should read.  Glenn Beck spoke of  this topic yesterday and I was planning to do some research before writing,  but Rob has already done it and done it well.  You too should log onto: http://waronsocialism.com/
BB

**********************************

[Hat tip to Mark Levin for this story]

Writing in NRO, the well respected Robert Rector describes fundamental changes to the way that the government will measure poverty in America.  The current method of measuring poverty deals with purchasing power (“how much steak and potatoes you can buy”) whereas the new measure will  “count comparative purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people.”

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.

Another paradox of the new poverty measure is that countries such as Bangladesh and Albania will have lower poverty rates than the United States, even though the actual living conditions in those countries are extremely bad. Haiti would probably have a very low poverty rate when measured by the Obama system because the earthquake reduced much of the population to a uniform penniless squalor.

This change is nothing less than a move to ensure that regardless of any economic realities or statistics there will always be a fixed percentage of Americans living in so-called poverty.  I argue that by world standards there is very little poverty in America.  I am reminded of an anecdotal story told by Dinesh D’Souza in his book What’s So Great About America.  He was listening to an immigrant talk about America, including some criticisms of racism and other problems.  D’Souza asked the individual why he wanted to come to America when he knew of all of these perceived problems and without missing a beat the guy said “I want to live in a country where the poor people are fat.”  Rector provides a similar argument:

What has the Obama measure to do with actual poverty? Not much. For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 40 million per­sons classified as poor under the government’s current poverty definition fit that description. Most of America’s poor live in material conditions that would have been judged comfortable, or even well-off, two generations ago.

The government’s own data show that 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. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the stark images conveyed by the mainstream media and liberal politicians.

So if this is not about genuine poverty, what is this all about?  I think that you already know.  It is about justification for income redistribution, the main raison d’etre of the American Left.

In honest English, the new system will measure income inequality, not poverty. Why not just call it an “inequality” index? Answer: because the American voter is unwilling to support massive welfare increases, soaring deficits, and tax increases to equalize incomes. However, if the goal of income leveling is camouflaged as a desperate struggle against poverty, hunger, and dire deprivation, then the political prospects improve. The new measure is a public-relations Trojan horse, smuggling in a “spread the wealth” agenda under the ruse of fighting real material privation — a condition that is rare in our society.

Barack Obama is a poverty pimp, but because there is not enough poverty in America to justify his rhetoric he has to warp the measurement scale.  Rector correctly concludes that “the new poverty measure will use deception to promote a much larger welfare state.”

Would you expect anything less from an empty suit community activist?

2 Responses to ">>Barack Obama: Poverty Pimp (Need to read)"

I understand leveling out the playing field. I understand redistributing the wealth. It’s late and I’m tired, but for some reason and this is not normally my problem, I can’t figure out why Obama or those in power want to level out the playing field by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. What’s the purpose? I mean when you think about it it’s really stupid. We already have a system where the poor, uneducated, and even homeless get all kinds of government money to subsidize their lives. What is the purpose of giving them more? Really what is the benefit and for whom?

I mean let’s face it, you keep giving poor people more and more so that what, they can feel good? The more you give them the less they do in trying to get it for themselves. So, is this the purpose, to have a bunch of lazy, poor Americans, that can afford to buy 2 flat screen TV’s, instead of just color TV’s all because of redistribution of wealth?

Again what is the purpose of taking from the rich and giving to the poor? Are we trying to make them feel good about themselves, and so we give them more? I guess my question should be what is the end goal here? If overnight, as you said earlier, everyone’s worth tripled, the poor would still be the poor, but only if the price of goods, were to also go up in price. If they did not, then the poor would be at the very least, better off because they could afford to buy more. Also, our poor will not be the same as let’s say Hait’s poor, therefore in the global community, our poor would be rich compared to Hait, or Bangladesh. And if this were the case then, were is the Global redistribution or leveling of the playing field?

Did you see the homeless man coming for free food at the “soup Kitchen” where Michelle Obama was doing her thing and he took a picture of her on his cell phone? Only in America can a homeless person have a cell phone!

Now with this latest so called Jobs Bill of $140 billion Congress passed this week the unemployed now have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. Would you break your buns going out to get a job if you have almost two years to do what you want with your days and still get a government check?

The idea of helping the poor was to get them out of poverty. To give them a hand up so to speak. The only thing it was done all wrong from the get go. first of all help[ only went to women and children. If there was a man in the house there was no welfare. What happened? Husbands left home so their wives and children could get help. This lead to the current problem of 70%+ of Black children being born out of wedlock and all the problems created for these children. It totally destroyed lower class Blacks as a viable group. They are a permanent underclass whose children have three strikes against them from birth. But instead of fixing the problem and helping poor families the politicians did the usual thing and threw more money at the problem.

Whites are also on welfare but usually for no more than a year whereas Blacks are often there for life and the children grow up to repeat the process.

It is a fact that when Clinton cut welfare benefits millions got out of the programs and somehow survived! That is a fact. Where did these millions go? They went to work or got married. They didn’t die or disappear or even become homeless. They found when they were thrown out on their own that they could make it on their own. I can not understand why the politicians do not understand this solution./

AS for Obama this is just goes along with his agenda to destroy America. Take from the rich and middle class to give to the poor and we will all be poor. Who then will invest in businesses and companies to create jobs? Obama’s agenda is quite transparent and he isn’t even concerned with hiding his agenda. Then again the Progressives did not foresee the Tea Party Patriots Movement. They expected to sail right in and make all their changes with no one bothering to look. BB

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

%d bloggers like this: