Beck absurdly claims that alternative poverty measurement would classify him as poor
Glenn Beck claimed that President Obama was drastically changing the poverty scale in a way that would effectively classify Beck as "in poverty" because other people in his community are wealthier than he is. In fact, the measurement would supplement, not replace, the poverty measurement currently in use, and it would not count Beck as poor.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the March 10 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: Barack Obama has announced he's changing that scale. It's no longer how many potatoes -- how many potatoes you can buy. Can you buy a roof over your head, potatoes, gasoline, the basic necessities to stay afloat? No, no, no. It's now a comparative scale. So how much money do you have compared to others in your area?
PAT GRAY (co-host): Again, that's Marxist.
BECK: I would be -- I'd be in poverty. I'm probably the poorest guy that lives in my town. I live in -- I mean, New York has great concentrations of wealth.
[...]
BECK: I'm the poorest guy. I'd be on the poverty scale because I don't have as much as they have. You see what they're doing? What he's doing is constantly compare yourself to someone else. We don't do that in America. That's what got us here. What got us into this trouble is, well, they've got one. I want a flat screen. I want that. They have one. How come I don't have one? It's keeping up with the Joneses, period.
And look what they're creating. They are creating a cage that you'll never be able to get out of. And I'm not talking about -- you know, I'm not talking about a literal cage, I'm talking about a cage, a prison of laws and concepts. We're already -- we've already built a cage for our kids. We've already told them, ah, don't worry, everybody gets a trophy. No, they don't. Now, how are our kids going to get out of that cage that we all built for them? The cage that says you don't have to compete, you don't have to worry about it -- you'll get it, you're owed it, you deserve it. Well, they're not going to get what we've promised them. They're going to get what they deserve and what we deserve.
[...]
BECK: We are not living our personal lives in a way that we deserve anything better than what we're getting or are about to get. That's what must change. Not a new scale on how to measure poverty. And a poverty scale that has you compare yourself to your neighbors. Oh, my gosh. I mean, what are we doing? How do people with eyes not see it? How do people with ears not hear it? How many -- how many people got out of Cuba, got out of the Soviet Union, Poland, that are now looking at it and going, "America, wake up"?
Alternative measurement not replacing poverty measure in effect since 1960s
Commerce Dept.: Current poverty measure will "remain the definitive statistical measure." A March 2 press release by the U.S. Department of Commerce about the "Supplemental Poverty Measure" stated that the official poverty measure used since the 1960s "will remain the definitive statistical measure." It added that the alternative measure "will not be the measure used to estimate eligibility for government programs. Instead, it will be an additional macroeconomic statistic, providing further understanding of economic conditions and trends."
Alternative measurement would not classify Beck as poor
Wash. Post: Alternative measure would "consider expenses such as housing, utilities, child care and medical treatment." From a March 3 Washington Post article about the Supplemental Poverty Measure:
The old definition, developed in the mid-1960s using data from a decade earlier, was based on the cost of food and a family's cash income. The new one, acknowledging that food has become a smaller share of poor families' costs, will also consider expenses such as housing, utilities, child care and medical treatment. In gauging people's resources, the new method will include financial help from housing and food subsidies, in addition to money from jobs and cash assistance programs.
CAP: Alternative measure's "geographic adjustments" would "present a more realistic relationship between cost of living and what it takes to meet basic needs." A March 2 report by the Center for American Progress states that a flaw of the current poverty measurement is that it "includes no adjustment for geographic disparities in cost of living. This means that two families with the same income -- one in Tate County, Mississippi and the other in Seattle, Washington -- are considered equally as well off despite the fact that fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $574 per month in the former and $987 per month in the latter." The report notes that the alternative measurement would address this by including "some form of geographic adjustments that present a more realistic relationship between cost of living and what it takes to meet basic needs."
Beck makes good points in his rant here, like > "What got us into this trouble is, well, they've got one. I want a flat screen. I want that. They have one. How come I don't have one?", and this > "The cage that says you don't have to compete, you don't have to worry about it -- you'll get it, you're owed it, you deserve it"
Worse, it's a very shallow, unthoughtful point. After all, how would you classify people who can afford 3 potatoes a day and one t-shirt that they wash out every night? Well, if they live in a country where most people are starving, then those people are doing OK. But, if they live in a country like ours, where most people can afford 3 square meals a day and several sets of clothes, then they are poor.
Like it or not, what is rich and poor is always somewhat comparative.
This is an analysis that will judge what people have to spend to get the basics in differing areas, which is relevant and necessary.
CAP: Alternative measure's "geographic adjustments" would "present a more realistic relationship between cost of living and what it takes to meet basic needs." A March 2 report by the Center for American Progress states that a flaw of the current poverty measurement is that it "includes no adjustment for geographic disparities in cost of living. This means that two families with the same income -- one in Tate County, Mississippi and the other in Seattle, Washington -- are considered equally as well off despite the fact that fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $574 per month in the former and $987 per month in the latter." The report notes that the alternative measurement would address this by including "some form of geographic adjustments that present a more realistic relationship between cost of living and what it takes to meet basic needs."
I don't disagree in whole with your argument. Certainly, the cost of living is different in different places. But there are also flaws even in that. For example, typically where the cost of living is lower so are incomes. In other words, these people have to pay less for things but they have less to pay with, so it evens out.
Defining poverty is a difficult issue, but I think on a level it should be pretty clear when people are poor. Its not about income, or cost of living-- its about what people have anad have not, more about what they do not have. And what they do not have is not a comparison-- its a true and complete lack of resources.
Those that have and can afford, for instance, cable and cell phones and internet may well not be in poverty. When people struggle to pay for food and electricity etc who also do not have cell phones and cable have a better chance to called poor. But today, people seem to want these luxury items in lieu of the necessities and to still be considered poor.
I am not attacking the truly poor, but rather the task of defining poverty. Its not about income nor cost of living alone.
BTW, the Center for American Progress seems a biased organization, so it would be interesting to see what some more conservative sources, or unbiased ones talk about the issue.
Unless you're a rightwing troll, that is.
Here is the quick rundown-- statistics can be said to mean anything by manipulation. They are affected by bias in putting them together. So, a left leaning organization can and will form arguments by manipulating some statistics to fit their aim.
The claim is not unusual or radical. It happens.
Underlying the class warfare is an assumption that all poor are liberal, whereas all conservatives are conservatives.
Congrats on combining an extreme assertion with a tautology. Your parents must be proud.
Randy
Thanks.
The report notes that the alternative measurement would address this by including "some form of geographic adjustments that present a more realistic relationship between cost of living and what it takes to meet basic needs."
He has more than enough money to meet ANYONE's basic needs in any community.
What got us here are all the parents who simply find it easier to buy the latest laptop, the Nikes, the latest cell phones, etc. to stop their kids' whining.
How nauseating to listen to this fool preach. Reminds me of why I haven't been to church in YEARS. Sheesh!
You have no credibility when you ignore the known facts.
When Beck is wrong, MMFA points it out. They don't point out when he's right, because this site points out when rightwingers like Beck are WRONG. MMFA doesn't point out EVERYTHING about every rightwinger!
This is not rocket science!
The cost of housing should ideally comprise no more than 1/3 of your income. NYC has insane rents and even more insane mortgages. Not to mention the federal, state, and city taxes. I vote in the affirmative for this adjustment.
Call me what you want, and Beck, just move to Bed Stuy or the Bronx where you can be the big fish in a small pond.
But he wasn't. There is NEVER anymore to this man than what screams at you from the surface. Attempting to "fact check" him is pointless because he goes and contradicts himself every other day anyway.
He's going to alienate everyone around him, then claim it's actually a conspiracy against him because he "knows" too much.
Getting your "worldview" and "facts" from Beck is like going to the nuthouse for Church. (sorry about all the quotations...)
Beck is a divider. His intentions are NOT good. I really pity anybody who comes to the defense of this guy. He KNOWS there will be a portion of people that take him literally and he relies on their mental weakness to perpetuate himself.
It's physically disgusting to me, as I've seen a few elderly people fall victim to Publishers Clearing House. The only way Beck differs is instead of winning money, he uses fear, falsified facts, and implies (deniability) gov't is rounding people up for their money and guns...unless you've got the power of Beck in your heart...