Err, no, that isn’t what was reported at all. Yes, what was reported was that 12.6% of the population was below the Federal Poverty Line. This is not, not at all, the same as saying that 12.6% of the population were living below the poverty line.
The poverty rate as reported is calculated before the impact of both the tax system and in kind benefits. Given that the major programs of poverty alleviation in the US are via the tax system (the EITC) and in kind benefits (Medicaid, housing vouchers and food stamps) the number below that poverty rate is not a guide to the number living in poverty.
It is a guide to the number of people who need help in order not to live in poverty, but it does not measure most of the help that they do receive.

Whether people should receive more help (as I’d guess most people here would insist they should) is an entirely different question. But to talk about poverty we should at least be talking about how much there is after whatever alleviation has been done, not about how much there is before, otherwise, how would we know how much more alleviation we ought to do?

For example, the US could use the same measurements of poverty as most of Europe (and I think codified by the OECD): post-tax, post-benefit, less than 60% of median income, adjusted for household size.

I didn’t think so. Following Henry’s lead, we can ignore the merits and safely conclude that you aren’t any better than Pence.

Of course, just like the “data” cited in the article, the new “data” didn’t resolve the merits of Pence’s claims at all, as anyone can see.

Thomas, Pence is claiming that tax cuts will help the poor. Five and a half years into the Bush administration, the poverty rate is higher than it was when Bush took office.

Please…no joking this time…just what kind of data would “resolve the merits of Pence’s claims”? I’m struggling as much as Henry to see what, if any, point you’re trying to make here. My sneaking suspicion is that as long as the poverty rate kept going up, or remained stable, you’d be telling us that it’s “too soon to tell” whether the tax cuts are going to work. Am I getting warmer?

Anyway, there’s an even weirder thing about this anectdote. I dunno about “Old Europe”, but a lot of people seem to think a pipefitter is a plumber.

They are not, at least not the plumbers you find in the consumer Yellow Pages:

http://www.ua449.com/home.htm

They are a heavily unionized group of people that tend to work on big projects and have a very long historical lineage (hence the “Steamfitters”). I guess one of the “Reagan Democrats” could have said that, but it’s a little strange to think so.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/522916/?sc=dwhp

Data is is parsable into more than anecdote.

via Ezra Klein:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/

The standards for argument are certainly very broad when your framing up Pence’s response counts as an argument in itself. I thought my initial response—which focused on the concept of “data” you were using—was right on point. If it’s “evidence” that’s the core of your argument, have you reconsidered the argument’s merits today, in light of the Census report? How has your reaction differed from Pence’s?

Mr. Pence argued that tax cuts help the poor by revving the economy. That may eventually prove true, but despite large tax cuts the poverty rate has risen in each of the last four years. “That’s (anecdotal/a conclusion based on the best statistical evidence we have available),” Mr. Pence said in an interview last fall. Then he offered an (anecdote/self-sufficiently persuasive economic argument in convenient homily form) — a story President Reagan told about a pipe fitter pleased to see the rich prosper, “because I’ve never been hired by a poor man.”

This would at least help us suss out whether Pence is genuinely treacherous in his term-twisting or merely ignorant.