1 in 6 Draw Welfare in Predominantly Red States

[Kondor3]

Where is it written the government is in charge of feeding the poor?

In a democracy, the electorate deserve the government policies they get.
In civilized countries, social programs are written in party manifestos.

That's great for democracies because we aren't one. We are a Republic.

Correct. Social programs are written in party manifestos, but not the Constitution or the responsibility of government in general. Our founders never wanted the people to be dependent on the federal government, and as we've seen, it's a terrible idea.

Yes, Ray, we are a democratic republic, meaning we elect representative to govern in our republican system. Your opinion about 'social program's is merely an opinion. And from the rise of the Progressive Age in 1912 the living standard of America rose to lead the world. The world is still trying to get here.

Yes it did, but had nothing to do with social programs. Social programs make people lazy and dependent on their federal government. Our founders never wanted that.

Without false premises, distortions and lies what would right wingers EVER have?




All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Ben
Franklin

Ya mean, like dee way you Dems keeps dem Darkies on dee Inner City Plantations wif dee Welfare Moneys and keeps da good Nigras votin' Democrat, dont'cha?

 

[initforme]

Yup...that bad. There were plenty of them yella bellies. Too lazy to do the work themselves.

 

[Kondor3]

Yup...that bad. There were plenty of them yella bellies. Too lazy to do the work themselves.

Know any slave-owners?

Know any ex-slaves?

 

[Eloy]

Republicans will do nothing for the poor.

It's not 'they will do nothing for the poor', it's what they will do TO the poor.

Republicans would agree with Benjamin Franklin.

 

[JonKoch]

And why is that Kondor3?

Also give us the economic profile of blacks in 1930, 1970, 2010? Tell us what you learn.

Unlike Democrats, I'm not in the business of making excuses for Under-Performers, 53 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act, and accompanying racial quotas for hiring and academic admissions, and 152 years after the end of the Civil War and complete Emancipation... Jim Crow, et al, notwithstanding... that was then, this is now... get over it.

Chronic Under-Performers gonna chronically under-perform...

It's long-past time for Black Folk to assume responsibility for their own destinies and condition, and to stop blaming others...

Then again, that would get them off the Democratic Inner-City Plantations, and voting their own minds and common sense and hearts, rather than for their Padrones...

Can't have that, now, can we?

No more excuses... no more whining... much of America is no longer listening...

Did you really think those accommodations were going to last forever?

In the nonprofit sector, it's called Donor Exhaustion... after 50+ years of increasing accommodation, and very little to show for it.

Comes a time, when the Benefactors get tired of the bull$hit and whining and excuses, and finally begin to turn a deaf ear.

It would appear that that time has finally come.

After 53 years... you're finally OUT of time, in that context... you've run-out the clock, and squandered the value of such accommodations while they lasted.

Fun Time is over.

You're on your own.

Enjoy the ride.

Yeah, because there ISN'T any type of systemic racism right Cupcake?

My, my, my... a non-Liberal destroys the LibTard deception of Raw Headcounts rather than Percentages of Population by Race, and LibProg Princesses are all a-flutter...

And the rightard doesn't understand systemic racism Shocking

Incorrect.

The Centrist simply doesn't give a rat's ass about systemic racism, and, after a lifetime of listening to whiny-bitch excuses, is tired of dealing with Chronic Under-Performers.

152 years after the end of the Civil War and Emancipation, and 53 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, you can forget about that 40-acres-and-a-mule $hit.

The time for excuses is quickly drawing to a close.

Very shortly, by all appearances, it looks as though you're going to be on your own, with very little help from the Gubmint.

That'll be fun, won't it?

Sure Cupcake, 152 years after slaves were free they could easily vote too right? NOT like GOPers are trying to restrict anyone's vote right Cupcake?

Supreme Court rules race improperly dominated N.C. redistricting efforts






WAPO
Supreme Court rules race improperly dominated N.C. redistricting efforts


WANT TO TRY AGAIN CUPCAKE?

 

[Markle]

The Republican Party today is unrecognizable as the party of Lincoln. It would even make Eisenhower turn in his grave.

Far closer than the Democrats of today and the day of JFK.

 

[JonKoch]

Again, I don't think anyone wants to deny a legitimately disabled person some benefits but when the government doesn't saddle up for any of the claims, it looks as though people are taking advantage. Especially in the red states.

My sister went legally blind when her retinas started detaching. It still took years for her get SS disability.

Are there people gaming the system? Maybe. But the real problem is that since the labor market is controlled by employer need and not workers needs, a lot of these people could work somewhere, it's just no one wants to hire them.

I am sincerely sorry for your sister and the years to get SS disability. Clearly a function of bureaucratic inefficiency. As per your comment on the labor market, the market is not controlled by the employer. The employer reacts to the market. Show me an employer devoid of egregious government regulation, unreasonable Union demands, and arbitrary wage demands that is choosing not to hire.

As long as a person's labor can be exploited by a company, he will get hired.

The Greatest Exploitation of Labor I have ever witnessed in my life is when a locked in 1% wealthy eliminates a middle class and then tells the masses that everything is now "equal". Many members of those masses choose to leave for the United States because US, while not perfect, perfectly executes the extension of equal OPPORTUNITY more than any other economic system in the World. I defy a Liberal to site a country or system that provides more equal opportunity vs. US.

Typical European Union countries have more social and economic equality than the USA. The largest EU economy is Germany where there is manifestly more equality than the USA.

True, BUT the US has the most billionaires

 

[initforme]

Yup....plutocracy USA.

 

[JonKoch]

The Republican Party today is unrecognizable as the party of Lincoln. It would even make Eisenhower turn in his grave.

Far closer than the Democrats of today and the day of JFK.

DEMAND SIDE WHEN TOP RATE WAS 91% AND HE CUT IT TO 70% AND THE RICH PAID A HIGHER EFFECTIVE RATE??

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.



For people whose income ranked between the top 1 percent and top 0.5 percent, the effective tax rate for individual, corporate, payroll and estate was 34.0 percent in 1960, 36.1 percent in 1970, 37.6 percent in 1980, 31.5 percent in 1990, 35.7 percent in 2000 and 31.3 percent in 2004.

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970,

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers


NOTE THE HIGHER EFFECTIVE RATES?

 

[Eloy]

A government which relies on church charities to feed the poor has abdicated its responsibility.

Malarkey, as you know, charities, churches are far better able to assess the truly needy from the fraudsters.

Churches are "far better" at judging people. Seriously. I thought they were not in the business of doing such things but for certain, if churches could inspire politicians to care then they would need less soup kitchens.

 

[JonKoch]

Yes, Ray, we are a democratic republic, meaning we elect representative to govern in our republican system. Your opinion about 'social program's is merely an opinion. And from the rise of the Progressive Age in 1912 the living standard of America rose to lead the world. The world is still trying to get here.

Yes it did, but had nothing to do with social programs. Social programs make people lazy and dependent on their federal government. Our founders never wanted that.

The Founders never wanted their slaves to vote either.

Some of our founders were for slavery and some were not. As for voting, that's a Constitutional issue that was remedied by the amendment process.

When liberals can change our Constitution so that the government is a cradle-to-grave institution, that's when the federal government can justify financially supporting the people.

I think slavery of Black people is an obscenity but it was tolerated by the Founding Fathers.

Slavery was tolerated around the world--not just by our founders. The Republican party was created because of slavery and the fight against it. There are still countries that have slaves even today.

"The Republican party was created because of slavery and the fight against it."


IT WAS STARTED BY PROGRESSIVES


I

 

[Markle]

Republicans would agree with Benjamin Franklin.

Absolutely! Far, far superior to the Democrat/Progressive denigrating policies of making people believe they are victims, unable to care for and support themselves and are inferior to those who promise them freebies. In doing so, Progressives rob these good people of their character and very soul. Of this they are proud.

 

[JonKoch]

The Founders lived centuries ago and designed a Constitution which can be amended and which permitted free and fair elections where citizens can choose the policies they want.

The federal government is limited by the US Constitution. That's why they created it. It was limitations on what the federal government could do to us.

What the federal government is to provide for it's people is listed in the Powers of Congress. And no, Cash for Clunkers or midnight basketball isn't in there.

Tough. Your opinion is all yours. The great majority of educated Americans disagree, including those in Congress, SCOTUS, federal judiciary, state governments, and so forth.

No, only liberals agree with that-not conservatives. Liberals hate the Constitution because of those limitations. Republicans are for a constitutional government.

No, you are in the very small minority with that belief. The GOP is a Big Government Progressive political party. It is not small government, less taxes oriented. The GOP legislation has shown that this year.

The big-governmet Republicans are the establishment, not the Tea Party or conservatives. The left is big-government no matter what.

The conservatives and Trump are pushing for lowering taxes. Trump is pushing for a smaller government.

HOW MUCH LOWER OF A TAX RATE SHOULD CHEETO BE PUSHING FOR HIS PEERS

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

...In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income.


WAPO


As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where is it written the government is in charge of feeding the poor?

In a democracy, the electorate deserve the government policies they get.
In civilized countries, social programs are written in party manifestos.

That's great for democracies because we aren't one. We are a Republic.

Correct. Social programs are written in party manifestos, but not the Constitution or the responsibility of government in general. Our founders never wanted the people to be dependent on the federal government, and as we've seen, it's a terrible idea.

Yes, Ray, we are a democratic republic, meaning we elect representative to govern in our republican system. Your opinion about 'social program's is merely an opinion. And from the rise of the Progressive Age in 1912 the living standard of America rose to lead the world. The world is still trying to get here.

Yes it did, but had nothing to do with social programs. Social programs make people lazy and dependent on their federal government. Our founders never wanted that.

Without false premises, distortions and lies what would right wingers EVER have?




All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. Ben
Franklin

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, Annals of Congress, 1794

 

[Markle]

A government which relies on church charities to feed the poor has abdicated its responsibility.

Malarkey, as you know, charities, churches are far better able to assess the truly needy from the fraudsters.

Churches are "far better" at judging people. Seriously. I thought they were not in the business of doing such things but for certain, if churches could inspire politicians to care then they would need less soup kitchens.

Not the government's job, especially our government.

 

[initforme]

The system is designed for the wealthy not the middle class. Fact.

 

[initforme]

The so called American stream is reserved for a select few. All the power to them. The rest are a burden in a way.

 

[JonKoch]

Again, I don't think anyone wants to deny a legitimately disabled person some benefits but when the government doesn't saddle up for any of the claims, it looks as though people are taking advantage. Especially in the red states.

My sister went legally blind when her retinas started detaching. It still took years for her get SS disability.

Are there people gaming the system? Maybe. But the real problem is that since the labor market is controlled by employer need and not workers needs, a lot of these people could work somewhere, it's just no one wants to hire them.

I am sincerely sorry for your sister and the years to get SS disability. Clearly a function of bureaucratic inefficiency. As per your comment on the labor market, the market is not controlled by the employer. The employer reacts to the market. Show me an employer devoid of egregious government regulation, unreasonable Union demands, and arbitrary wage demands that is choosing not to hire.

As long as a person's labor can be exploited by a company, he will get hired.

The Greatest Exploitation of Labor I have ever witnessed in my life is when a locked in 1% wealthy eliminates a middle class and then tells the masses that everything is now "equal". Many members of those masses choose to leave for the United States because US, while not perfect, perfectly executes the extension of equal OPPORTUNITY more than any other economic system in the World. I defy a Liberal to site a country or system that provides more equal opportunity vs. US.

ALMOST EVERY WESTERN EUROPE NATION

Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs


But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement “up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.” National Review, a conservative thought leader, wrote that “most Western European and English-speaking nations have higher rates of mobility.” Even Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who argues that overall mobility remains high, recently wrote that “mobility from the very bottom up” is “where the United States lags behind.”

Liberal commentators have long emphasized class, but the attention on the right is largely new.

“It’s becoming conventional wisdom that the U.S. does not have as much mobility as most other advanced countries,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution. “I don’t think you’ll find too many people who will argue with that.”

...At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints.


NYT

Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

 

[Markle]

Private landlords do well in capitalist countries.

 

[JonKoch]

Especially in the red states. Ooooh, that's positively orgasmic. How can they compete morally with the angelic beings dwelling in the heavenly blue states?

What's really weird is the fact that 1 in 5 get Welfare nationwide....so it has to be worse in Blue States like California. And a Red State like Texas has alot of illegals dragging down the numbers.

1 in 5? CONservative "math" huh Cupcake?

Slightly less than that. 21%.

Do the math., Libroid....

Link Cupcake? Because I don't accept SS which you pay into is welfare Cupcake