7 votes

Trump Administration Considering Changes That Would Redefine The Poverty Line

10 comments

  1. MimicSquid Link
    Congratulations! You're not poor anymore! You still can't eat properly or pay your rent, but the government thinks that everything's swell! Being less sarcastic about the whole thing... This is...

    Congratulations! You're not poor anymore! You still can't eat properly or pay your rent, but the government thinks that everything's swell!

    Being less sarcastic about the whole thing... This is really shitty, and yet another sad example of how the Trump administration will do everything it can to show a good face even as nothing happens that would actually benefit the common man.

    7 votes
  2. [2]
    pocketry Link
    This isn't anything unique to Trump or Republicans.

    This isn't anything unique to Trump or Republicans.

    Some economists argue that this is a more accurate way to measure inflation, and both Barack Obama's and George W. Bush's administrations tried, without success, to introduce the use of the chained CPI in federal programs.

    4 votes
    1. MimicSquid (edited ) Link Parent
      Ok, so it's been a hated idea for the last two decades, and Trump is pushing it anyway. Changing to using a chained CPI would necessitate upward corrections in the benefits provided in order to...

      Ok, so it's been a hated idea for the last two decades, and Trump is pushing it anyway.

      Changing to using a chained CPI would necessitate upward corrections in the benefits provided in order to match current (and in my opinion, already woefully inadequate) levels of government assistance. Given the surety that the Trump administration would not make those corrections, there's no reason to like this potential change unless you want to decrease government assistance to the poor.

      EDIT: Reading up on the Obama administration's attempt to institute chained CPI: Republicans played bait and switch with it. They pushed for its inclusion in the budget and when Obama conceded the point they then left it out of their own proposed budget so they could point to Obama as wanting to tax your poor grandma. Not to say that it wasn't shitty for Obama to concede on this point in the first place, but it wasn't as simple as him having this as a legislative priority on his own.

      3 votes
  3. [7]
    Somebody Link
    I'm in favor is eliminating welfare by requiring employers pay a living wage.

    I'm in favor is eliminating welfare by requiring employers pay a living wage.

    1. [2]
      NaraVara Link Parent
      Children, the disabled, and the elderly are all not covered by this.

      I'm in favor is eliminating welfare by requiring employers pay a living wage.

      Children, the disabled, and the elderly are all not covered by this.

      6 votes
      1. alyaza Link Parent
        not to mention the fact that welfare programs also include things like housing benefits, pell grants and other educational funds, child nutrition programs, and healthcare programs among many other...

        not to mention the fact that welfare programs also include things like housing benefits, pell grants and other educational funds, child nutrition programs, and healthcare programs among many other things. it's a lot more than just giving people money to give them money--welfare is what allows a lot of people to do things in this country they literally would not be able to do if welfare didn't exist. if you were going to abolish welfare, you'd basically need to have alternatives for all of that in place or you'd be fucking tens of millions of people.

        4 votes
    2. [4]
      alyaza Link Parent
      i mean, this might be alright for people who can work, but i don't see how you could completely eliminate welfare and not basically kill people. there are a lot of people who are not able to work...

      i mean, this might be alright for people who can work, but i don't see how you could completely eliminate welfare and not basically kill people. there are a lot of people who are not able to work jobs for one reason or another who would then not be able to provide for themselves in any way if you eliminated welfare.

      5 votes
      1. Loire Link Parent
        Giving the other poster the benefit of the doubt, he may have been applying a sarcastic sense when saying "eliminate", to mean the government pays less into welfare because those capable of...

        Giving the other poster the benefit of the doubt, he may have been applying a sarcastic sense when saying "eliminate", to mean the government pays less into welfare because those capable of working are being paid enough to live, as they should be, effectively "restricting" welfare.

      2. [2]
        Somebody Link Parent
        There are always going to be some people that are unable to work, but that's what disability is for. If you can put in 8 hours a day doing anything then you should be able to support yourself.

        There are always going to be some people that are unable to work, but that's what disability is for. If you can put in 8 hours a day doing anything then you should be able to support yourself.

        1. alyaza Link Parent
          the idea that you can support yourself/make a living off of 8 hours of doing anything is really not correct, but in any case SSDI is a form of welfare, since it's a social program managed through...

          the idea that you can support yourself/make a living off of 8 hours of doing anything is really not correct, but in any case SSDI is a form of welfare, since it's a social program managed through the SSA, so if you're eliminating welfare, that would by definition have to include disability payments and would still fuck many people who cannot work over.

          3 votes