Friday, September 16, 2011
Americans Are 'Poor' Like Tom Cruise Is Fat
Americans Are 'Poor' Like Tom Cruise Is Fat
by Kevin Jackson
How about this new slogan for Obama: Spread the Poverty! We are told in a new report that last year even more people dropped below the poverty line since the 1980s. My question is, who sets the line? Like we don’t know the answer to that. Government bureaucrats set the lines on everything. That’s what they are good at. The government defines you and assigns you a box. Then government does everything it can to keep you in the box, where you are convenient, and most importantly, predictable.
This is why the government keeps lots of data on things like ethnicity, religion, gender, income, and so on. You never know when you need to use that data to let people know how bad they have it.
If you have a BMI (Body Mass Index) of 25, you are overweight (a statistic that includes actor Tom Cruise), but at 24.9 you are not? If $19,200 is poor, it’s obvious that one extra dollar makes you suddenly not poor, at least according to the logic used by government.
How childish. It’s like saying, “I’m 49-and-a-half.” Not surprising, however, when you consider that the government treats us like children, and not even smart children. But the government is right to do so, because for the most part America is too stupid to realize that all these factors are simply a state of mind.
If you have a BMI of 27 and you feel good, then who cares what the government thinks? The same is true in evaluating rich and poor. Wealth is a state of mind. Rich and poor are dictated by lifestyle choices, not numbers. Some people make a small amount of money, but live like kings. Then there are those who earn outrageous incomes, but are one house payment from financial devastation.
Rich or poor is defined by the individual, and government can’t stand the individual. The individual won’t live in the box. This new report on poverty is supposed to tell us that poverty is problematic. I disagree. The problem America has with poverty is America’s definition of poverty, then its fascination with rewarding it.
There are far too many corrupt poor, i.e., the poor who take advantage of American taxpayers. And telling us that we are creating more of them is the problem.
It’s not like they are trying to work. Three million jobs available in America, but according to this report, America doesn’t have the talent pool to fill these jobs. Given the state of education in America, I can’t say that I’m surprised.
Another report says what I believe may be more true, and that is that many of the unemployed prefer not to work because unemployment provides a better alternative.
“Many people walk through our doors looking for a job. We’re offering them a job, and what they do is, they turn around and give us a date. [They say,] ‘I’m only available here’ and that’s when their unemployment runs out. [They say,] ‘Before that, I’m not interested in the job, but if you would keep me in mind for that date, then I’d be interested in the job.’ ”
I guess America is supposed to feel guilty that, according to the government, America has more poor. Who do we blame for this? The Tea Party? The taxpayer? Or do we blame the policies of the skinny half-black guy who has run roughshod over America for three years?
Of course the increase in poverty is Obama’s fault. It’s not like more poverty during the Era of O sneaked up on us. A 2010 report showed us the trend line, and it wasn’t very promising.
The year 2009, Obama's first in office, saw a record jump in the poverty level, from 13.2% to 15%. The poverty level is defined as living at $22,025 or below for a family of four.
Obama and his ilk have literally invested in poverty. And as a Heritage Foundation article points out, Obama actually wanted to reconstruct the definition of poverty. His innovation was to tie the definition of poverty in relative terms to what others earned. Think of it this way: If an achiever earns more money and a poor person doesn’t, then the gap in poverty gets wider.
Truth be told by the Left, poverty helps Obama. It allows him to implement his redistribution of wealth and have the statistics to back it up, at least with a stupid populace. Poverty allows Obama to say we should be grateful to him. Without Obama imagine where the real poverty line would be? Who knows what America’s poor might have had to give up, had Obama not been at the helm. I’d hate to see America’s poor give up their manicures or flat-screens, and what poor person should have to survive without an Xbox?
I’m not sure what the poor of Africa or Asia have to look forward to, but it looks like Christmas this year will be a little light for America’s “poor.”
Posted by Brett at 11:38 AM