It's, "No Shit Sherlock", Time

The Census Bureau says the term "poverty" no longer MEANS what it used to "mean". I'll buy that, if poverty in the Depression meant they had a car, a house phone, three Philco radios, an ice box full of food and lots and lots of name brand clothing for that era. Because the bottom line NOW is that very thing, but updated to cell phones, flat screen TV, etc, etc, etc.
.
We learned Tuesday that a record number of Americans are living in poverty, and that the poverty rate--15.1 percent--rose for the fourth straight year.

But those raw numbers leave out some key details that can help us understand the fuller implications of how poverty affects individual Americans. For instance, how is poverty defined? What specific hardships do the poor suffer? And what does it mean to be poor in America today?

So from the outset, we lack a fully accurate way of gauging Americans' true economic well-being. That's why the Census Bureau said in its report that it plans to unveil preliminary findings next month, derived from a new measurement that addresses some of the shortcomings in the current system.

Some argue that even if poor Americans are doing OK by some standards, that's no reason not to be concerned by a rising poverty rate. "If you compare the U.S. with people in the developing world, even Americans living in poverty are well off," said Isabel Sawhill, also of Brookings. "But I think the standards of your country matter."

.
He thinks the standard of the country matter. Seriously? So poor people SHOULD have cell phones, Nikes, low riders, Lakers gear, blah, blah, blah?! Or am I too HARD hearted?

It's definitely me!! I simply do not think you can call people 'poor' when they own what, or better stuff than, the average citizens own!! Websters defines "poverty" this way,
.
.

a : the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

b : renunciation as a member of a religious order of the right as an individual to own property

.
.
So the very definition goes to money AND POSSESSIONS. We have, in fact like we do everything in our PCascist states, redefined poverty. It's all about number of heads vs income. But if that income is augmented by Food Stamps, Rent Assistance, Medicade, et al, the 'poor' wind up with more disposable income than some daily working, lower level, no-eligible, NON-poor people. I can tell you it works that way because a few years ago I was in that group.
.
After the Dot.Com bubble burst, and I could no longer work, Mrs Schteveo and I literally lost everything we owned save the (worthless to anyone but us) contents of our home. We had no car. home, MONEY, or anything worth selling. But we made too much 3 years ago to qualify for ANY assistance.
.
But people who had never worked, had cars, cell phones, big TVs, Lakers / UNC clothing, etc. I know it happened because we lived in my wife's family home for a while, and the house was near some State / Federal Housing Units and Section 8 Housing. The instance that always comes to mind was a family we called, 'The Queen Family ". This was two older ladies, in a Cadillac, with one of their grandsons in tow. The grandson was a wide open, flouncing, flamer. Ergo, two older ladies, gay grandson, The Queens.
.
The women were always well dressed, "Sonny" was always dressed too. Oddly, usually in team sports wear. But when they paid for their groceries, out came THREE EBT Cards!!
.
Just how damned poor are you if you can afford new cars, new clothes and all the stuff that goes with it?. No, we've redefined poor as,
.
.
" anyone with enough balls to convincingly lie to the gub'ment so they can get $$$$$"
.
.
It has nothing to do with need or right and wrong. It's about creating government jobs, it's about number crunching to get a desired set of answers and it's about buying votes on one hand and creating a constant new set of under-class of voters on the other.
.
.
Schteveo