Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

Cursitor Doom thinks that anybody who doesn't share his simple-minded and largely incorrect worldview is a "total moron". He doesn't know enough about actual morons to realise that they can't manage deep commitment.

Cursitor Doom has yet to realise that it's his approval that rational people fear.

snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

ALL of these folks using stupid monikers like left and right, and lefty and righty and 'libs' and all the other stupid horseshit, usually mouthed by idiotic Trumpanzee retards... ALL of you are the problem with the nation. It is a bunch of goddamned adult aged idiots with ten year old mental ages and ten year old temper tantrum stupidity driving them to make decisions that are even more retarded than their baseline f***ed in the head behavior.

What America did was not put a person in place to make it great again. We put a person in that showed the rest of the world that we are a nation where well over half of the adults are complete idiots.

Recommended film to watch for this...

Frank Capra's "Meet John Doe".

Just like K says, always wrong. The definition of poverty used by the Census Bureau has not changed in the 50+ years since the war on poverty began.

And you just admitted you have no idea what it even is we're talking about.

That has nothing to do with the poverty rate, fool.

Like the libs don't do it just as much too?

ALL of you are the

Now, you would surely be the expert in that, given what we see here.

And you represent as one shining example.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Yeah, that's it dumbfuck.... suck up to another dumbfuck. You two should marry. You already gave the punk f*ck a reach around. The definition of poverty used by

Damn! You are an oblivious idiot, boy!

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:e0c7d262-a0cf-4881-96fd- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You use that f word a lot.

You do know that it decidedly makes *you* the fool.

Oh... it is obvious that you do not know. It is obvious that you do not know... so many things.

Your social cluelessness is glaring, child.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Nice try, putz. You are almost as good as The TrumpTard himself at that turn it around baby bullshit. Still, you failed.

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:09:47 PM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote :

The income level used to define the poverty line has been inflation adjuste d since it was originally introduced in 1964.

"In 2011, the Census Bureau introduced a new supplemental poverty measure a imed at providing a more accurate picture of the true extent of poverty in the United States. The SPM extends the official poverty measure by taking a ccount of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income fam ilies and individuals that are not included in the current official poverty measure. According to this new measure, 16% of Americans lived in poverty in 2011, compared with the official figure of 15.2%. The new measure also e stimated that nearly half of all Americans lived within 200% of the federal poverty line."

t.

And neither do you.

Talking about fools and clueless, why is it that you must turn one short post from me into two or more new posts when you reply, instead of just replying once?

No shit Sherlock. Did I say otherwise? I said the DEFINITION of poverty has not changed. Only a clueless lib would somehow take that to mean that the number has not been adjusted for inflation for 50 years. That would be remarkably stupid, even for a lib.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:1455f2a7-4d1e-4dba-8107- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Nope. There is a difference between saying "The very definition of poverty" and 'the very difinition of the word poverty". My statement was the former. Your stupid shit was the latter.

Your problem is not mere horse blinders. You are just simply dense, boy.

rote:

has

ty

usted since it was originally introduced in 1964.

y has not changed. Only a clueless lib would somehow take that to mean

Your claim was that "The definition of poverty used by the Census Bureau has not changed in the 50+ years since the war on poverty began." Inflation adjustment is a change, though not a particularly funda mental one.

I did go on to make the point - that you have snipped without marking the s nip - the Census Bureau has extended the definition of poverty.

"In 2011, the Census Bureau introduced a new supplemental poverty measure a imed at providing a more accurate picture of the true extent of poverty in the United States. The SPM extends the official poverty measure by taking a ccount of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income fam ilies and individuals that are not included in the current official poverty measure. According to this new measure, 16% of Americans lived in poverty in 2011, compared with the official figure of 15.2%. The new measure also e stimated that nearly half of all Americans lived within 200% of the federal poverty line."

That was stupid of you, if perfectly in keeping with all your other stupidi ties.

te:

ty has

the

erty

djusted since it was originally introduced in 1964.

rty has not changed. Only a clueless lib would somehow take that to mean

damental one.

It's not a change to the definition and only a silly lib would think that you would not adjust the NUMBER for inflation over 50 years.

snip - the Census Bureau has extended the definition of poverty.

aimed at providing a more accurate picture of the true extent of poverty i n the United States. The SPM extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income f amilies and individuals that are not included in the current official pover ty measure. According to this new measure, 16% of Americans lived in povert y in 2011, compared with the official figure of 15.2%. The new measure also estimated that nearly half of all Americans lived within 200% of the feder al poverty line."

dities.

You're obviously the stupid one, again taking things totally out of context . I cited the charts based on the US Census Bureau data on poverty. Then tha t nitwit DL chimed in, obviously ignorant of the fact that the poverty rate has been measured and recorded for 50+ years. He claimed that the definiti on of poverty is different today. Which isn't true, the data is still being reported the existing way, exactly as in the charts supplied. Hello? Charts? You libs can't read charts? And then you jumped on the nitwit bandwagon, arguing over nits, as usual. The fact that the Census Bureau very recently added an ADDITIONAL measure of poverty, doesn't change any of that. It's like claiming if the govt came up with an additional measure of unemploymen t, that somehow makes the existing data or definitions going back 50 years inv alid. Nor does the fact that they have adjusted the number each year for inflatio n. Wow, they use the same definition and adjust for inflation. I'm shocked! Absolutely shocked!

rote:

te:

he

erty

y the

adjusted since it was originally introduced in 1964.

verty has not changed. Only a clueless lib would somehow take that to mean that the number has not been adjusted for inflation for 50 years.

But you didn't spell out how "poverty" was defined. In fact it has been bas ed on family income, in dollars, since 1964, but the way that dollar thresh old has been calculated doesn't directly involve the inflation rate as such .

undamental one.

But it hasn't been adjusted for inflation. It's actually been adjusted on t he cost of a particular basket of basic foods, which tracks inflation to so me extent, but by no means perfectly.

he snip - the Census Bureau has extended the definition of poverty.

re aimed at providing a more accurate picture of the true extent of poverty in the United States. The SPM extends the official poverty measure by taki ng account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the current official pov erty measure. According to this new measure, 16% of Americans lived in pove rty in 2011, compared with the official figure of 15.2%. The new measure al so estimated that nearly half of all Americans lived within 200% of the fed eral poverty line."

pidities.

xt.

Dream on.

hat

tion

ge

You missed the point that additional measures of poverty don't seems to mak e much of a change to the percentage of the population counted as poor.

ployment, that somehow makes the existing data or definitions going back 50 years invalid.

Why? Official statistics aren't magically correct - they are always merely close enough for government work.

ion.

Except that they didn't adjust for the inflation that gets reported as the official inflation rate.

You are dumb - astonishingly dumb.

Yes, I figured since you claim to know so much about the US, you would know that the poverty rate has been measured for 50+ years by the Census Bureau. Or that if you didn't you could find out with an easy Google search that would show hit after hit, that it's the most common and widely used measure. Obviously I made an error in judgment, I should have known libs are helpless and need others to do things for them.

In fact it has been based on family income, in dollars, since 1964, but the way that dollar threshold has been calculated doesn't directly involve the inflation rate as such.

Well of course it does, fool. The number has been adjusted each year based on inflation.

WRONG. The Census Bureau adjusts it each year using the CPI. Rest of your BS deleted, you don't even comprehend the basics, which are readily available with a google search.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

The census bureau... right. ONCE every ten years.

We live in the information age, and you want to rely on numbers only gathered once every ten years, and only data where the respondents answered truthfully, which oh yeah... we know is never the case.

And you still have this obsession with calling folks disagreeing with you 'a lib'.

That decidedly makes you... "a child".

No, with rhetoric like that, 'with reason' is definitely out of the question. Congratulations, CD, you got one sentence right!

Not the fault of the Democratic party, though; the Byrd machine was referred to as 'Virginia Democrats' because they were completely OUT of touch with the rest of their party.

Byrd's son went to the Senate as independent, but always voted Republican.

Oh, stop the bullshit! The Democrats loved him.

Only a lefty could believe that the sins of the father are the sins of the son. You are some piece of work! ...but you are a Democrat.