# AS DEFICIT EXPLODES, GOP DEMANDS EMERGENCY TAX CUT FOR THE RICH

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Poverty can be defined as an absolute measure (as the WHO) or as a relative measure. It is no comfort to those at the bottom run of the USA that they are not poor by the standards of the WHO because they live in the USA not Moldova or Borneo or Mali. And IMO, a wealthier country ought to aspire to raise the standard of living of its neediest citizens to the general standard of living of its population.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
More debunking Half-Life's claim of Bill Gates's superior genius.

I'd mention that operating systems consist of three main parts: a kernel, app support, and utility apps. There may not be a clear line between the second and third one, and parts of the second one may be merged into a kernel.

Now to OS kernels.

First, does a computer need an OS? The first ones were programmed without one, and OS-less programming has continued to be done for lower-end embedded systems and lower-spec game consoles. For instance, a microwave oven doesn't need very fancy programming. It has a rather simple program that it always runs.

But when one wants to do several things in sequence, or several things at the same time, that's what an OS is for. The first ones were for batch duty, and thus single-tasking. Multitasking developed from that. A simple kind is cooperative multitasking, where each active app runs for a big, then gives up control to another one. That's only used in special cases, because the most generally useful kind is preemptive multitasking, where the OS kernel forces an active app to pause and then makes another active app resume. That can be guaranteed to keep an app from hogging the CPU, something difficult in cooperative multitasking. Preemptive multitasking is essentially universal except for some special cases.

Turning to memory, the first computers used nothing special - every memory access was translated into a real-memory location. That's done on the lower-end embedded systems and lower-spec game consoles. But trying to fit an app into available memory can sometimes be difficult, so that's why overlays were invented - one specifies which parts of an app can be swapped into and out of the same areas of memory. That's rather awkward, and the next step is the move the overlays to behind the scenes: virtual memory. Each memory access's address is translated into a real-memory address by the memory-management hardware, and if it isn't present, then it's copied in from a "pagefile" or "swapfile". To make room, anything not used in a while is copied out into that file.

For multiple active apps in a single memory space, they can allocate memory from inside of it either mixed together or in partitions, one for each active app. Going further, one can give each app its own memory space -- protected memory. That means that an app cannot trample on another app's memory contents.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
You need to show figures from WHO to see what their criteria is. If they are claiming that there is no poverty in the U.S, they are delusional.

WHO is concerned with world standards not relative wealth of people within specific countries. Their standard of poverty is US$1.25 per day (in 2011 dollars). Most people in the U.S. live in such luxury (by world standards) that they have no concept of what poverty is. A trip to India, Bangladesh, or Africa isn't needed to see what real poverty is... A short hop to Haiti will do. This is why there are millions/year trying to migrate to the U.S. They see even our minimum wage jobs as allowing them to live in luxury compared to their current situation. A look at another country's not poor but average family, the average family income in Mexico (that is average not lowest) is$843/month so a minimum wage job in the US would be a nice raise for the average Mexican family (that would be highly insulted if you called them poor).

Comparing income rates between the U.S and third world countries is not a measure of poverty within the U.S....cost of living, etc. It's a piss poor metric, as I'm sure you know.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
It's the impression I get based on what you say, not something I make up, or my interpretation of your remarks.

Read what you are saying. Look at the narrative that you present. The impression it gives is that many if not most businesses cannot afford to pay their employees decent wages.

I'm not saying this to upset you, just pointing out the image that your argument paints.

The "image" he paints is reality. You're living in leftist fantasyland where there's tons of money to pay for social causes.

The stats don't support the image that most businesses cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage or better. You need to support what you claim, not just state it. You have been asked to do that numerous times.

Reality: In a competitive industry (which is most industries) competition drives profit margins as low as they reasonably can be. Anything that drives them lower results in fewer companies entering the field to replace those that die, this persists until the lack of competition drives prices up to restore the profit margins. (The reverse also occurs--if the profit margins are too high more companies enter, driving down profits.) This is a slow process but inherent in market forces, you will not see a long term deviation from this except in non-competitive industries. (For example, the oft-cited example of Apple. Nobody else can sell iPhones and iPads, they can charge a premium.)

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
You didn't read what I said. I pointed out that a living wage is calculated on the basis of CPI. The cost of housing, food, travel, clothing, etc. Therefore income for full time work should at least meet the cost of living. Ideally more because something needs to be put away for emergencies. This has nothing to do with me.
And according to the World Health Organization, there is no poverty in the U.S. so no one who does not at least meet the basic cost of living. After that point it amounts to who is deciding what minimum level of life is desirable. Personal taste is that the WHO sets the bar far too low, but hey that is personal opinion. However, I have no idea who's scale you are using. If you are basing in on someone having difficulty making ends meet then there are people making six figures that haven't been able to do that and have to declare bankruptcy.

You need to show figures from WHO to see what their criteria is. If they are claiming that there is no poverty in the U.S, they are delusional.

The data that show poverty ignore benefits. Once you count welfare and the like the only ones below the minimum are those who aren't within the system--mostly criminals and homeless.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Looking at computer history, by 1980 or so, the big computers - mainframes and minicomputers - all had OSes with preemptive multitasking and protected memory. So Bill Gates had no part in the development of the two PM's, let alone the hardware that they ran on.

Microsoft got into OSes with DOS, an imitation of a common OS of desktop computers back then, CP/M. It was single-tasking with a command-line user interface. However, an app could make its own GUI. Its memory management was "real mode", meaning that it had no memory-address translation in it. So it was a throwback to the early days of computers, though a necessary one from the sort of hardware that was easily affordable.

By the mid-1980's, PC CPU chips were made capable of "protected mode", memory-address translation, something that made possible virtual memory. But DOS continued to support having only one memory space. Also by then, MS started working on a GUI shell for DOS: Windows. The first two versions were awful, but the third one caught on. Windows 3.x ran as a DOS app, with its apps being hosted by it. Those apps were cooperatively multitasked relative to each other.

In the early 1990's, MS hired someone who helped develop a big-computer OS called VMS, and he got to work on Windows NT - WNT = VMS with letters advanced. WinNT had both preemptive multitasking and protected memory, but it was rather high-end at first.

A sort of half-DOS-half-NT was released in 1995 as Windows 95, and it had successors Windows 98 and Windows ME. NT itself had successors Windows 2000 and Windows XP, and XP became all of MS's desktop-OS line.

Since around 2000, all three main desktop OSes, Windows, MacOS, and Linux, have had both PM's.

One may give credit to Bill Gates for his business strategies, but not much else about MS -- if anything.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
The stats don't support the image that most businesses cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage or better. You need to support what you claim, not just state it. You have been asked to do that numerous times.

Reality: In a competitive industry (which is most industries) competition drives profit margins as low as they reasonably can be. Anything that drives them lower results in fewer companies entering the field to replace those that die, this persists until the lack of competition drives prices up to restore the profit margins. (The reverse also occurs--if the profit margins are too high more companies enter, driving down profits.) This is a slow process but inherent in market forces, you will not see a long term deviation from this except in non-competitive industries. (For example, the oft-cited example of Apple. Nobody else can sell iPhones and iPads, they can charge a premium.)

You are just restating your claim. You need to back your claim with evidence. The sector you mention is doing well enough to pay a decent wage to their employees, exorbitant salaries for management and sill turn a healthy profit.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
Poverty can be defined as an absolute measure (as the WHO) or as a relative measure. It is no comfort to those at the bottom run of the USA that they are not poor by the standards of the WHO because they live in the USA not Moldova or Borneo or Mali. And IMO, a wealthier country ought to aspire to raise the standard of living of its neediest citizens to the general standard of living of its population.

Your "relative measure" is inappropriately adopting the term "poverty". Someone being less wealthy than someone else is a very different thing than being poor. Calling it "poverty" is just for emotional appeal.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Poverty can be defined as an absolute measure (as the WHO) or as a relative measure. It is no comfort to those at the bottom run of the USA that they are not poor by the standards of the WHO because they live in the USA not Moldova or Borneo or Mali. And IMO, a wealthier country ought to aspire to raise the standard of living of its neediest citizens to the general standard of living of its population.

Your "relative measure" is inappropriately adopting the term "poverty". Someone being less wealthy than someone else is a very different thing than being poor. Calling it "poverty" is just for emotional appeal.
can be viewed as an absolute measure or a relative measure. Your argument is based on your ideological biases, not on accepted views or usage or logic.

Really, the WHO definition is basically arbitrary. There is no compelling reason why their standard is more appropriate than a higher or lower absolute value.

#### skepticalbip

##### Contributor
Poverty can be defined as an absolute measure (as the WHO) or as a relative measure. It is no comfort to those at the bottom run of the USA that they are not poor by the standards of the WHO because they live in the USA not Moldova or Borneo or Mali. And IMO, a wealthier country ought to aspire to raise the standard of living of its neediest citizens to the general standard of living of its population.

Your "relative measure" is inappropriately adopting the term "poverty". Someone being less wealthy than someone else is a very different thing than being poor. Calling it "poverty" is just for emotional appeal.
can be viewed as an absolute measure or a relative measure. Your argument is based on your ideological biases, not on accepted views or usage or logic.

Really, the WHO definition is basically arbitrary. There is no compelling reason why their standard is more appropriate than a higher or lower absolute value.

Then, by your definition, any attempt at elimination of poverty is a futile exercise. There will always be people with more than others no matter how wealthy the bottom becomes.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
can be viewed as an absolute measure or a relative measure. Your argument is based on your ideological biases, not on accepted views or usage or logic.

Really, the WHO definition is basically arbitrary. There is no compelling reason why their standard is more appropriate than a higher or lower absolute value.

Then, by your definition, any attempt at elimination of poverty is a futile exercise. There will always be people with more than others no matter how wealthy the bottom becomes.
I am sorry, but I cannot follow your reasoning at all. A relative measure of poverty usually involves a minimum standard of living as the threshhold. There is no logical reason that such a measure would necessarily mean that there would have to be poor people.

I am not sure why a wealthy country would stop its efforts to improve the standard of living of its neediest people because they have more than the equivalent of $1.46 per day in 2019 dollars (=$1.25 per day in 2011 dollars).

BTW, an absolute measure of poverty based on living standards in 200 AD would mean the virtual elimination of poverty in the modern world.

Last edited:

#### DBT

##### Contributor
A living wage is related to CPI in any given region. If income is lower than CPI in any given region, a worker who lives in that region struggles to make ends meet, which is the start of poverty.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Poverty in the United States:

Poverty:
The official poverty rate in 2018 was 11.8 percent, down 0.5 percentage points from 12.3 percent in 2017. This is the fourth consecutive annual decline in poverty. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 3.0 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 11.8 percent.

In 2018, for the first time in 11 years, the official poverty rate was significantly lower than 2007, the year before the most recent recession.

In 2018, there were 38.1 million people in poverty, approximately 1.4 million fewer people than 2017.

Between 2017 and 2018, poverty rates for children under age 18 decreased 1.2 percentage points from 17.4 percent to 16.2 percent. Poverty rates decreased 0.4 percentage points for adults aged 18 to 64, from 11.1 percent to 10.7 percent. The poverty rate for those aged 65 and older (9.7 percent) was not statistically different from 2017.

From 2017 to 2018, the poverty rate decreased for non-Hispanic Whites; females; native-born people; people living in the Northeast, Midwest, and West; people living inside metropolitan statistical areas and principal cities; people without a disability; those with some college education; people in families; and people in female householder families.

Between 2017 and 2018, people aged 25 and older without a high school diploma was the only examined group to experience an increase in their poverty rate. Among this group, the poverty rate increased 1.4 percentage points, to 25.9 percent, but the number in poverty was not statistically different from 2017.

The Wages of Poverty in America

"A third of Americans have no savings at all and another third have less than $1,000 in the bank." So effectively has the Beltway establishment captured the concept of national security that, for most of us, it automatically conjures up images of terrorist groups, cyber warriors, or “rogue states.” To ward off such foes, the United States maintains a historically unprecedented constellation of military bases abroad and, since 9/11, has waged wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere that have gobbled up nearly$4.8 trillion. The 2018 Pentagon budget already totals $647 billion -- four times what China, second in global military spending, shells out and more than the next 12 countries combined, seven of them American allies. For good measure, Donald Trump has added an additional$200 billion to projected defense expenditures through 2019.

Yet to hear the hawks tell it, the United States has never been less secure. So much for bang for the buck.

For millions of Americans, however, the greatest threat to their day-to-day security isn’t terrorism or North Korea, Iran, Russia, or China. It’s internal -- and economic. That’s particularly true for the 12.7% of Americans (43.1 million of them) classified as poor by the government’s criteria: an income below $12,140 for a one-person household,$16,460 for a family of two, and so on... until you get to the princely sum of $42,380 for a family of eight. Savings aren’t much help either: a third of Americans have no savings at all and another third have less than$1,000 in the bank. Little wonder that families struggling to cover the cost of food alone increased from 11% (36 million) in 2007 to 14% (48 million) in 2014.

The Working Poor

Unemployment can certainly contribute to being poor, but millions of Americans endure poverty when they have full-time jobs or even hold down more than one job. The latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that there are 8.6 million “working poor,” defined by the government as people who live below the poverty line despite being employed at least 27 weeks a year. Their economic insecurity doesn’t register in our society, partly because working and being poor don’t seem to go together in the minds of many Americans -- and unemployment has fallen reasonably steadily. After approaching 10% in 2009, it’s now at only 4%.

Help from the government? Bill Clinton’s 1996 welfare “reform” program, concocted in partnership with congressional Republicans, imposed time limits on government assistance, while tightening eligibility criteria for it. So, as Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer show in their disturbing book, $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America, many who desperately need help don’t even bother to apply. And things will only get worse in the age of Trump. His 2019 budget includes deep cuts in a raft of anti-poverty programs. Anyone seeking a visceral sense of the hardships such Americans endure should read Barbara Ehrenreich’s 2001 book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. It’s a gripping account of what she learned when, posing as a “homemaker” with no special skills, she worked for two years in various low-wage jobs, relying solely on her earnings to support herself. The book brims with stories about people who had jobs but, out of necessity, slept in rent-by-the-week fleabag motels, flophouses, or even in their cars, subsisting on vending machine snacks for lunch, hot dogs and instant noodles for dinner, and forgoing basic dental care or health checkups. Those who managed to get permanent housing would choose poor, low-rent neighborhoods close to work because they often couldn’t afford a car. To maintain even such a barebones lifestyle, many worked more than one job. Though politicians prattle on about how times have changed for the better, Ehrenreich’s book still provides a remarkably accurate picture of America’s working poor. Over the past decade the proportion of people who exhausted their monthly paychecks just to pay for life’s essentials actually increased from 31% to 38%. In 2013, 71% of the families that had children and used food pantries run by Feeding America, the largest private organization helping the hungry, included at least one person who had worked during the previous year. And in America’s big cities, chiefly because of a widening gap between rent and wages, thousands of working poor remain homeless, sleeping in shelters, on the streets, or in their vehicles, sometimes along with their families. In New York City, no outlier when it comes to homelessness among the working poor, in a third of the families with children that use homeless shelters at least one adult held a job. The Wages of Poverty The working poor cluster in certain occupations. They are salespeople in retail stores, servers or preparers of fast food, custodial staff, hotel workers, and caregivers for children or the elderly. Many make less than$10 an hour and lack any leverage, union or otherwise, to press for raises. In fact, the percentage of unionized workers in such jobs remains in the single digits -- and in retail and food preparation, it’s under 4.5%. That’s hardly surprising, given that private sector union membership has fallen by 50% since 1983 to only 6.7% of the workforce.

Low-wage employers like it that way and -- Walmart being the poster child for this -- work diligently to make it ever harder for employees to join unions. As a result, they rarely find themselves under any real pressure to increase wages, which, adjusted for inflation, have stood still or even decreased since the late 1970s. When employment is “at-will,” workers may be fired or the terms of their work amended on the whim of a company and without the slightest explanation. Walmart announced this year that it would hike its hourly wage to $11 and that’s welcome news. But this had nothing to do with collective bargaining; it was a response to the drop in the unemployment rate, cash flows from the Trump tax cut for corporations (which saved Walmart as much as$2 billion), an increase in minimum wages in a number of states, and pay increases by an arch competitor, Target. It was also accompanied by the shutdown of 63 of Walmart’s Sam’s Club stores, which meant layoffs for 10,000 workers. In short, the balance of power almost always favors the employer, seldom the employee.''

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
The stats don't support the image that most businesses cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage or better. You need to support what you claim, not just state it. You have been asked to do that numerous times.

Reality: In a competitive industry (which is most industries) competition drives profit margins as low as they reasonably can be. Anything that drives them lower results in fewer companies entering the field to replace those that die, this persists until the lack of competition drives prices up to restore the profit margins. (The reverse also occurs--if the profit margins are too high more companies enter, driving down profits.) This is a slow process but inherent in market forces, you will not see a long term deviation from this except in non-competitive industries. (For example, the oft-cited example of Apple. Nobody else can sell iPhones and iPads, they can charge a premium.)

You are just restating your claim. You need to back your claim with evidence. The sector you mention is doing well enough to pay a decent wage to their employees, exorbitant salaries for management and sill turn a healthy profit.

It's basic logic, not something that needs numbers. It's just a slow process so you can stick your head in the sand and not blame meddling with the market for the problems. We see the same thing with rent control--new construction stops, the existing units turn to shit over time. (That's assuming the landlords aren't able to avoid the rules.)

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
can be viewed as an absolute measure or a relative measure. Your argument is based on your ideological biases, not on accepted views or usage or logic.

Really, the WHO definition is basically arbitrary. There is no compelling reason why their standard is more appropriate than a higher or lower absolute value.

Then, by your definition, any attempt at elimination of poverty is a futile exercise. There will always be people with more than others no matter how wealthy the bottom becomes.
I am sorry, but I cannot follow your reasoning at all. A relative measure of poverty usually involves a minimum standard of living as the threshhold. There is no logical reason that such a measure would necessarily mean that there would have to be poor people.

I am not sure why a wealthy country would stop its efforts to improve the standard of living of its neediest people because they have more than the equivalent of $1.46 per day in 2019 dollars (=$1.25 per day in 2011 dollars).

BTW, an absolute measure of poverty based on living standards in 200 AD would mean the virtual elimination of poverty in the modern world.

You are attempting to avoid accidents on stairs by removing the top and bottom stairs because that's where most of the accidents are.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Poverty in the United States:
Poverty:
The official poverty rate in 2018 was 11.8 percent, down 0.5 percentage points from 12.3 percent in 2017. This is the fourth consecutive annual decline in poverty. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 3.0 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 11.8 percent.

The problem with this is that it doesn't count the various forms of welfare. Once you count them it's more like half a percent.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
I am sorry, but I cannot follow your reasoning at all. A relative measure of poverty usually involves a minimum standard of living as the threshhold. There is no logical reason that such a measure would necessarily mean that there would have to be poor people.

I am not sure why a wealthy country would stop its efforts to improve the standard of living of its neediest people because they have more than the equivalent of $1.46 per day in 2019 dollars (=$1.25 per day in 2011 dollars).

BTW, an absolute measure of poverty based on living standards in 200 AD would mean the virtual elimination of poverty in the modern world.

You are attempting to avoid accidents on stairs by removing the top and bottom stairs because that's where most of the accidents are.
I have no clue what you are talking about. Are you trying to say that you accept the absolute standard approach? Are trying to criticize the relative measure approach based on some unstated assumptions or values? Or is it just reactionary babble?

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Poverty in the United States:
Poverty:
The official poverty rate in 2018 was 11.8 percent, down 0.5 percentage points from 12.3 percent in 2017. This is the fourth consecutive annual decline in poverty. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 3.0 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 11.8 percent.

The problem with this is that it doesn't count the various forms of welfare. Once you count them it's more like half a percent.
Not according to the Census Bureau's alternative measure - the supplemental poverty measure (SPM) - that accounts for those various gov't benefits and some other things. In 2018 it was 12.8% (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-268.html). This article explains the SPM https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-268.html)

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Poverty in the United States:
Poverty:
The official poverty rate in 2018 was 11.8 percent, down 0.5 percentage points from 12.3 percent in 2017. This is the fourth consecutive annual decline in poverty. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 3.0 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 11.8 percent.

The problem with this is that it doesn't count the various forms of welfare. Once you count them it's more like half a percent.

Welfare payments raise living standards above poverty level? The poverty level bar must be set quite low.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I am sorry, but I cannot follow your reasoning at all. A relative measure of poverty usually involves a minimum standard of living as the threshhold. There is no logical reason that such a measure would necessarily mean that there would have to be poor people.

I am not sure why a wealthy country would stop its efforts to improve the standard of living of its neediest people because they have more than the equivalent of $1.46 per day in 2019 dollars (=$1.25 per day in 2011 dollars).

BTW, an absolute measure of poverty based on living standards in 200 AD would mean the virtual elimination of poverty in the modern world.

You are attempting to avoid accidents on stairs by removing the top and bottom stairs because that's where most of the accidents are.
I have no clue what you are talking about. Are you trying to say that you accept the absolute standard approach? Are trying to criticize the relative measure approach based on some unstated assumptions or values? Or is it just reactionary babble?

If you define poverty in a relative fashion you inherently make it impossible to solve the problem because you automatically move the goalposts. I was referring to the joke about the computer trying to reduce accidents by removing the most dangerous stairs, not seeing that they just get replaced. You're doing the same thing with poverty.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Poverty in the United States:
Poverty:
The official poverty rate in 2018 was 11.8 percent, down 0.5 percentage points from 12.3 percent in 2017. This is the fourth consecutive annual decline in poverty. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 3.0 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 11.8 percent.

The problem with this is that it doesn't count the various forms of welfare. Once you count them it's more like half a percent.
Not according to the Census Bureau's alternative measure - the supplemental poverty measure (SPM) - that accounts for those various gov't benefits and some other things. In 2018 it was 12.8% (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-268.html). This article explains the SPM https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-268.html)

Something's strange there--EITC is 3x the effect of SNAP?? And almost as much as all government benefits? And Medicare and Medicaid aren't even on the list?

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Not according to the Census Bureau's alternative measure - the supplemental poverty measure (SPM) - that accounts for those various gov't benefits and some other things. In 2018 it was 12.8% (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-268.html). This article explains the SPM https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-268.html)

Something's strange there--EITC is 3x the effect of SNAP?? And almost as much as all government benefits? And Medicare and Medicaid aren't even on the list?
I have no idea what you are posting about. I do know that an official gov't estimate that includes noncash benefits and the EITC disputes your handwaved estimate. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim. This article explains it https://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9337041/supplemental-poverty-measure.

PS - Medicare is not a form of welfare.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Poverty in the United States:
Poverty:
The official poverty rate in 2018 was 11.8 percent, down 0.5 percentage points from 12.3 percent in 2017. This is the fourth consecutive annual decline in poverty. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 3.0 percentage points, from 14.8 percent to 11.8 percent.

The problem with this is that it doesn't count the various forms of welfare. Once you count them it's more like half a percent.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Not according to the Census Bureau's alternative measure - the supplemental poverty measure (SPM) - that accounts for those various gov't benefits and some other things. In 2018 it was 12.8% (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-268.html). This article explains the SPM https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-268.html)

Something's strange there--EITC is 3x the effect of SNAP?? And almost as much as all government benefits? And Medicare and Medicaid aren't even on the list?
I have no idea what you are posting about. I do know that an official gov't estimate that includes noncash benefits and the EITC disputes your handwaved estimate. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim. This article explains it https://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9337041/supplemental-poverty-measure.

PS - Medicare is not a form of welfare.

I was looking at the link you provided. It's supposed to include non-cash benefits, yet does not include Medicaid.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
I have no idea what you are posting about. I do know that an official gov't estimate that includes noncash benefits and the EITC disputes your handwaved estimate. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim. This article explains it https://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9337041/supplemental-poverty-measure.

PS - Medicare is not a form of welfare.

I was looking at the link you provided. It's supposed to include non-cash benefits, yet does not include Medicaid.
Even if that is true, unless you are claiming that Medicaid would reduce the estimate from around 12% to 0.5%, you need to provide some actual support for your claim.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I have no idea what you are posting about. I do know that an official gov't estimate that includes noncash benefits and the EITC disputes your handwaved estimate. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim. This article explains it https://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9337041/supplemental-poverty-measure.

PS - Medicare is not a form of welfare.

I was looking at the link you provided. It's supposed to include non-cash benefits, yet does not include Medicaid.
Even if that is true, unless you are claiming that Medicaid would reduce the estimate from around 12% to 0.5%, you need to provide some actual support for your claim.

I'm saying that the data at the link doesn't make sense. I'm not finding an exact definition of what it includes and it doesn't list something it should.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Even if that is true, unless you are claiming that Medicaid would reduce the estimate from around 12% to 0.5%, you need to provide some actual support for your claim.

I'm saying that the data at the link doesn't make sense.
It makes sense to the people at the Census bureau and to many others. It is an alternative measure that disputes your unsubstantiated claim. Rather than evading the issue of substantiating your claim, you are concentrating on "trying to understand" the SPM. Whether you understand it or not is irrelevant to my point that your claim about the poverty rate is unsubstantiated. It remains so, even though you have had plenty of time to provide documentation. Two posters have repeatedly asked you for it, and yet, nothing. Why is that?
I'm not finding an exact definition of what it includes and it doesn't list something it should.
This is not hard to find. Google Supplemental Poverty measures. This publication - https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2018/09/what_is_the_suppleme.html- does provide information in the technical appendices. Medicare premiums as well as medical expenses are included.

More to the point, whether you like or understand the well-documented SPM is irrelevant to the fact that you have been unable to provide any link or data to support your outlandish claim that including all gov't benefits and services reduces the poverty rate to half a percent or less.