We all know it was in the intrest of Democrats to perpetuate poverty...

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm torn by this thread. On the one hand, the National Review is the sober conservative magazine (the counterpart of The New Republic on the left) and I have no problem with citing it as a source. Attempts to portray is as a raving partisan magazine are retarded; that's the Weekly Standard's role.

On the other hand, Patty is a ****ing idiot and his comment about the National Review being "peer-reviewed" is one of the dumbest things he's said in an already illustrious career of dumb****ery.

Hmm. I guess I have to say have at him. I really despise ignorance.

[Elok]

Ah, forgot. Added.

No, that's not an unbiased source. An unbiased source would go something like, "The Obama administration announced that it is adjusting its definition of poverty to mean [x], [y] and [z]. Critics say this, proponents say that [or vice versa]. The end."

While there's some merit IMO to the idea that no source is 100% unbiased, and there are ways to follow that format and still "lead" the reader, an article that heavily criticizes its subject is by definition biased; you've got to be able to do better than that.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd rather have what we have here. Fiercely partisan folks slugging it out, rather than some article that attempts to be 'neutral' while inculating their own bias.

All sources are biased. It's simply impossible to be completely neutral.

[Asher]

There's an attempt at being neutral, and there is rabid partisanship. This was the latter.

It helps no one.

[Ben Kenobi]

And it's a bad thing? I only see you complain when arguments are articulated which disagree with you.

I'm glad Patty posted this article. It makes for good discussion here.

[Asher]

And it's a bad thing? I only see you complain when arguments are articulated which disagree with you.

That's 'cause you don't pay any ****ing attention.

In just another thread I took Oerdin to task for his **** about Fox News.

And you know I'm no fan of Fox News.

Hyperpartisan bull**** from both sides is pointless and distracting. And for children.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, but you never indulge yourself in hyper-partisan bull****?

You're one of the worst offenders here.

[Asher]

Oh, but you never indulge yourself in hyper-partisan bull****?

You're one of the worst offenders here.

Tell me, which party am I a hyper-partisan of and provide me an example of it.

[Patroklos]

So I see we are still left with an OP that accruately describes the anouncement of the White House, and a group of posters still ineffectively attacking the National Review instead of the relevant issues the article brings up.

[Arrian]

the National Review is the sober conservative magazine

Which is pretty sad, given the tone of the article (did you read it?). That's what passes for "sober" in Conservative opinion. Yikes.

So I see we are still left with an OP that accruately describes the anouncement of the White House, and a group of posters still ineffectively attacking the National Review instead of the relevant issues the article brings up.

There are two things going on here: 1) your ridiculous position on the National Review's bias; and 2) the substance of this new additional poverty metric the WH is going to use.

1 is obvious to most of us, and hardly requires further commentary.
2 is something I actually tried to get at, but everyone ignored.

Take out the hysterics and what do we have? A secondary poverty metric that: 1) has been updated to account for the costs people face here in the 21st century (as opposed to the old, 1960s version) - changes that seem good to me; and 2) moves the poverty line when living standards rise.

2 is the one the National Review is freaking out about, because it makes "poverty" relative. I agree that it's a questionable change. I am glad they are not using this new metric to decide who gets government assistance.

That said, the articles I posted noted that the overall impact of the new metric isn't as clear-cut as the NR paints it. In some areas, the number of people deemed poor will rise. In others, it actually will fall. Maybe due to #1, as opposed to #2, though.

Since this thing seems to have started in NYC, it might be instructive to look at NYC's experience with it. Hence the Times article I found. Unfortunately, I didn't find much else on it.

-Arrian

[MikeH]

Asher effectively demolished the opening post early on in the thread. Once that was over it descended into bickering.

[Patroklos]

The NR article also pointed out that this would not be used to meter out benefits.

However, the point that this is substituting a measure of income disparity for an actual measurement of poverty is valid. This in many instances divorces the actual purchasing power of an individual from determining who is in poverty and who is not.

There is nothing wrong with adapting what constitutes poverty based on a contemporary standard, but that is not all these new measurements do. Whether or not person A is impoverished should have no relation to whether or not person B is rich.

[Arrian]

Mike,

Asher's post, while good, addressed change #1. It ignored change #2, which is the very thing the NR was frothing at the mouth over.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

http://www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/PressReleases_FactSheets/PROD01_008963

Department of Commerce Announcement

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4759

The National Acadamies report

[Asher]

'bout time, Patty.