Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?

Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.

Agreed.

This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to. He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time. Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.

When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores. They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home. When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.

He does pretty well turning in junk. All cash, no paper trail. Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them. He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List. When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.

They are early with the rent every month by at least one week. They both drive new vehicles. Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion. You don't see younger people like that anymore.

PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN



Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money

Look like again? Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week. Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week. It certainly isn't in our constitution.

True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?

Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.

Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.

Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.

I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Boy, it is Biden that conflated and misled dumbasses into believing that a $250K plumber does not exist: "I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year that are worried". A Subcontractor can easily gross $250K per year before overhead, taxes, regulations, and variable costs. Then, he's taking home $70k-$100K.

Should these types of subcontractors be included in what you people define as "rich"? Don't tell me they don't exist.....I know many tradesmen who are independent subcontractors that fit the profile I just described. Stop trying to move the goal past about Joe the Plumber. You people either consider independent tradesmen as wealthy and highest taxes.

LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!

You just made my point. Biden was misrepresenting gross as net. Boy, when you name call and insult, you have lost the debate.

MORE right wing nonsense. Stop projecting dummy. Joe (the non plumber) didn't even own the comp AND probably less than 10% of plumbers in the US gross MORE than $250,000 a year.

WHO WAS CONFLATING THE TAXES WERE THE CONS/GOPers SAYING SMALL BIZ ARE HIT WITH THE TOP TAX RATES!! lol

You are intent on focusing /shifting the conversation on Joe Wurzelbacher status as plumber or not.He proposed to the Presidential candidate what it would take to get himself set up and operate a plumbing company. If you know any tradesmen, regardless of whether they are a plumber, carpenter, painter, electrician, when they set out to go into business, it is usually as a subcontractor. Depending on what city you set up shop, your costs, fixed and variable, (Insurance, Licensing, Salary for helper, fixed equipment, variable costs associated with each project, vehicle, maintenance, etc.) can easily approach a required break-even point of $200k, $250k, maybe $500k in annual gross revenue including a target margin or profit of 5-10% so that the entity is not losing money and is healthy.

As is relevant then (2008), now, and in the future, the simple question is would you put a sub contractor based on the above scenario into the wealthy class to be taxed as such or would he be taxed as middle class?

GAWD YOU MORONS ARE DUMB AS FUKKKK



No someone GROSSING $250,000 a year IS NOT "wealthy" AND would NEVER be taxed near the top rates. EVER, if they are in the trades (as II have been for 30+ years, mostly self employed!) Gross $250,000 prob income of $75,000-$100,00 a year!

TAXES ARE NOT ON GROSS BUT ADJUSTED GROSS. Deduct right off the bat, EXPENSES such as materials, wages paid, insurance and bond costs, deductions for vehicles and expenses


THEN you get to use AMORTIZED deductions FINALLY you arrive at AGI



THE RIGHTS BIG LIE THAT TAXES WOULD INCREASE ON THE SMALL BIZ OWNERS WAS/IS A LIE.

... So why didn't Biden differentiate between a subcontractor plumber grossing $250k or netting $250k? Technically, both are $250k plumbers.

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.

Agreed.

This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to. He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time. Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.

When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores. They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home. When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.

He does pretty well turning in junk. All cash, no paper trail. Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them. He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List. When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.

They are early with the rent every month by at least one week. They both drive new vehicles. Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion. You don't see younger people like that anymore.

PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN



Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money

Look like again? Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week. Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week. It certainly isn't in our constitution.

True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?

Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.

Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.

Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.

I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.

I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol


Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work?

How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?


HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!

Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"

Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education, etc


GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!

 

[Dad2three]

LISTEN YOU DUMBFUKKKK WHO GIVES A FUK ABOUT GROSS? You taxed on gross? Grow a fukkn brain (unlike Jo the NON plumber) and get off talking points. TAXES ARE ON NET NOT GROSS!!

You just made my point. Biden was misrepresenting gross as net. Boy, when you name call and insult, you have lost the debate.

MORE right wing nonsense. Stop projecting dummy. Joe (the non plumber) didn't even own the comp AND probably less than 10% of plumbers in the US gross MORE than $250,000 a year.

WHO WAS CONFLATING THE TAXES WERE THE CONS/GOPers SAYING SMALL BIZ ARE HIT WITH THE TOP TAX RATES!! lol

You are intent on focusing /shifting the conversation on Joe Wurzelbacher status as plumber or not.He proposed to the Presidential candidate what it would take to get himself set up and operate a plumbing company. If you know any tradesmen, regardless of whether they are a plumber, carpenter, painter, electrician, when they set out to go into business, it is usually as a subcontractor. Depending on what city you set up shop, your costs, fixed and variable, (Insurance, Licensing, Salary for helper, fixed equipment, variable costs associated with each project, vehicle, maintenance, etc.) can easily approach a required break-even point of $200k, $250k, maybe $500k in annual gross revenue including a target margin or profit of 5-10% so that the entity is not losing money and is healthy.

As is relevant then (2008), now, and in the future, the simple question is would you put a sub contractor based on the above scenario into the wealthy class to be taxed as such or would he be taxed as middle class?

GAWD YOU MORONS ARE DUMB AS FUKKKK



No someone GROSSING $250,000 a year IS NOT "wealthy" AND would NEVER be taxed near the top rates. EVER, if they are in the trades (as II have been for 30+ years, mostly self employed!) Gross $250,000 prob income of $75,000-$100,00 a year!

TAXES ARE NOT ON GROSS BUT ADJUSTED GROSS. Deduct right off the bat, EXPENSES such as materials, wages paid, insurance and bond costs, deductions for vehicles and expenses


THEN you get to use AMORTIZED deductions FINALLY you arrive at AGI



THE RIGHTS BIG LIE THAT TAXES WOULD INCREASE ON THE SMALL BIZ OWNERS WAS/IS A LIE.

... So why didn't Biden differentiate between a subcontractor plumber grossing $250k or netting $250k? Technically, both are $250k plumbers.

YOU MORON, why differentiate between gross and net WHEN taxes are based on NET? Oh right the right wing MEME was Obama/Dems allowing the Dubya tax cuts expire would hurt "small Biz" despite the LIE it was





Tim Scott’s Misleading Tax Claims

A Bogus Tax Attack Against Obama

 

[Arizona Willie]

People generally talk Gross because they have no idea what deductions people have and what their AGI / NET would be.

Seven people who make $200,000 / year would all have different NET incomes.

So, to compare apples to apples we talk Gross not net.

So Biden was talking Gross.
===========================

< chatter removed for brevity >

... So why didn't Biden differentiate between a subcontractor plumber grossing $250k or netting $250k? Technically, both are $250k plumbers.

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.

Agreed.

This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to. He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time. Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.

When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores. They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home. When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.

He does pretty well turning in junk. All cash, no paper trail. Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them. He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List. When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.

They are early with the rent every month by at least one week. They both drive new vehicles. Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion. You don't see younger people like that anymore.

PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN



Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money

Look like again? Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week. Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week. It certainly isn't in our constitution.

True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?

Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.

Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.

Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.

I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.

Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory


If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.

On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.

This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. That doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.

How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker

 

[Dad2three]

People generally talk Gross because they have no idea what deductions people have and what their AGI / NET would be.

Seven people who make $200,000 / year would all have different NET incomes.

So, to compare apples to apples we talk Gross not net.

So Biden was talking Gross.
===========================

< chatter removed for brevity >

... So why didn't Biden differentiate between a subcontractor plumber grossing $250k or netting $250k? Technically, both are $250k plumbers.

No, no one with a brain "thinks" a plumber is making $250,000 a year NET. Very, very few do, ALL with MANY employees under them


Biden was talking NET like anyone with a brain does talking tax burdens!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Agreed.

This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to. He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time. Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.

When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores. They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home. When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.

He does pretty well turning in junk. All cash, no paper trail. Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them. He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List. When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.

They are early with the rent every month by at least one week. They both drive new vehicles. Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion. You don't see younger people like that anymore.

PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN



Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money

Look like again? Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week. Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week. It certainly isn't in our constitution.

True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?

Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.

Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.

Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.

I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.

Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory


If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.

On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.

This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. That doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.

How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.

Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.

Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.

With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.

A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Agreed.

This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to. He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time. Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.

When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores. They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home. When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.

He does pretty well turning in junk. All cash, no paper trail. Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them. He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List. When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.

They are early with the rent every month by at least one week. They both drive new vehicles. Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion. You don't see younger people like that anymore.

PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN



Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money

Look like again? Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week. Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week. It certainly isn't in our constitution.

True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?

Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.

Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.

Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.

I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.

I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol


Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work?

How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?


HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!

Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"

Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education, etc


GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!

Liberals ended slavery? I guess that makes Lincoln a liberal, huh?

Civil rights? A higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats. And SS is a system failing right before our eyes.

Union stores? You wouldn't shop at one if there was one near your home. You (like most all Americans) would rather travel farther and buy cheap Chinese junk than to support any American company that provides good wages and benefits. That's why Wal-Mart is still number one in America today.

 

[Dad2three]

PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN



Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money

Look like again? Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week. Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week. It certainly isn't in our constitution.

True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?

Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.

Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.

Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.

I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.

Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory


If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.

On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.

This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. That doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.

How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.

Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.

Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.

With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.

A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?

WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?

 

[ScienceRocks]

SSI and Medicare have done a lot for old people to add stability to their lives. Live is far easier and better for Americans for them. People that wish to take them away want to out ****** Africa and south Asia.

 

[Dad2three]

PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN



Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money

Look like again? Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week. Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week. It certainly isn't in our constitution.

True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?

Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.

Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.

Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.

I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.

I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol


Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work?

How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?


HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!

Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"

Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education, etc


GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!

Liberals ended slavery? I guess that makes Lincoln a liberal, huh?

Civil rights? A higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats. And SS is a system failing right before our eyes.

Union stores? You wouldn't shop at one if there was one near your home. You (like most all Americans) would rather travel farther and buy cheap Chinese junk than to support any American company that provides good wages and benefits. That's why Wal-Mart is still number one in America today.

Abe WAS A PROGRESSIVE Bubs, hint it WAS the CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKa we fought in the Civil warr remember?


BUT you keep conflating party label with ideology Bubs,


HINT IT WAS THE SOUTH WHO FOUGHT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BUBS, You know today's GOP base??? lol


By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN



Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money

Look like again? Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week. Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week. It certainly isn't in our constitution.

True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?

Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.

Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.

Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.

I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.

I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol


Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work?

How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?


HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!

Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"

Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education, etc


GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!

Liberals ended slavery? I guess that makes Lincoln a liberal, huh?

Civil rights? A higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats. And SS is a system failing right before our eyes.

Union stores? You wouldn't shop at one if there was one near your home. You (like most all Americans) would rather travel farther and buy cheap Chinese junk than to support any American company that provides good wages and benefits. That's why Wal-Mart is still number one in America today.

 

[francoHFW]

Obviously you buy Foxnewsaide by the semi-load so you seem to be a lost cause.
===========

Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class? Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
=============

Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).

Like OSHA
Like FDA
Like more highway maintenance
Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.

People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.

Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT

But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).

There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.

Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.

But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.

We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.

Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.

So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.

It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.

It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.

Follow the money.

ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY

The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.

Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?

ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE

They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".

So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger? I don't understand that. The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.

"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."
Dennis Prager

Let me give you an example here. Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.

You turn 18 years old. Now you are a legal adult. So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party. Oh no you don't. You live with your parents. Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.

Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment. Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live. Now you can have your party. Well yes, you can, but with major limitations. You have neighbors to consider. They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.

So now you move out of your apartment into your own house. Now you are the king of your castle. Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.

The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have. That's why relying on government for everything is servitude. Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?

I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.

You are so consumed with Fox news and dare say I'm a lost cause?

Absolutely- you believe a huge pile of Foxcrappe. Blaming the poor for the corrupt GOP world depression, for example, or our worst inequality ever.

I blamed the poor for world depression? I don't recall that. Maybe you can refresh my memory.

And yes, we have the worst inequity ever. Remember who's been your President for these last near seven years. But we really can't blame him now can we? Of course not. So who should we blame? Perhaps it's all those people that created the wealth inequity: the American consumer.

Now that we have more things to buy today, we have more wealth transfer. We willingly give our money to those at the top in exchange for products and services. How is that unfair? It's not really.

Yes, we have our I-phones, our cable/ satellite services, our internet, our video games, our pay-per-view stations, our computers, the gasoline in our automobiles, our automobiles and we trade our hard earned cash willingly.

Of course if you are so upset with how much inequity there is in this country, you can simply not buy anything unless it's a necessity. Charity starts at home as they say. Be a leader. Set an example. Turn off this internet right now and sell that computer. Don't you give those rich people one more dime of your money. And no more McDonald's or Burger King. You make your dinners at home and stay away from those multi-billion dollar companies. They will only trap you into giving them more of your wealth.

Everyone outside the Fox etc etc Pub dupe bubble blames mindless Pub obstruction. DUH. Then pure nonsense again...

 

[LeftofLeft]

Look like again? Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week. Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week. It certainly isn't in our constitution.

True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?

Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.

Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.

Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.

I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.

Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory


If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.

On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.

This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. That doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.

How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.

Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.

Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.

With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.

A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?

WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?

Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??

 

[Dad2three]

True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?

Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.

Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.

Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.

I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.

Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory


If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.

On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.

This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. That doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.

How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.

Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.

Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.

With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.

A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?

WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?

Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??

Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...

 

[turtledude]

What did I just write? Did you read my scenario with the neighbor that has many tenants and the water bill? Yes, when costs go up, your rental prices must go up. That's not only the case for apartments, it's that way with rental cars, rental party equipment, tool rental. Nobody has a business to lose money or not get ahead.

Dad2three thinks everyone else has a duty to pay for his offspring

 

[boedicca]

SSI and Medicare have done a lot for old people to add stability to their lives. Live is far easier and better for Americans for them. People that wish to take them away want to out ****** Africa and south Asia.

And SSI and Medicare have done a lot to destroy the future of the middle class. Just think how much wealth the average middle class person could have saved and infested if his payroll taxes remained in a private account.

 

[Dad2three]

What did I just write? Did you read my scenario with the neighbor that has many tenants and the water bill? Yes, when costs go up, your rental prices must go up. That's not only the case for apartments, it's that way with rental cars, rental party equipment, tool rental. Nobody has a business to lose money or not get ahead.

Dad2three thinks everyone else has a duty to pay for his offspring

Whereas the Turtle wants the US to run by plutocrats


Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?


The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster




Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/10/adam-smith-thomas-jefferson-and-other.html#ixzz3kFllWKY1
Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

 

[Dad2three]

SSI and Medicare have done a lot for old people to add stability to their lives. Live is far easier and better for Americans for them. People that wish to take them away want to out ****** Africa and south Asia.

And SSI and Medicare have done a lot to destroy the future of the middle class. Just think how much wealth the average middle class person could have saved and infested if his payroll taxes remained in a private account.

MORE right wing bullshit, shocking


READ A FUKKN HISTORY BOOK DUMMY, GET OFF RIGHT WING MEMES NOT BASED IN REALITY!!!