The Lie That Obama Keeps Repeating

[BluesLegend]

"To imply that those less fortunate don't work hard..."

DON'T WORK AT ALL!!!!
Can't you read, you moron???

"The finding that six out of 10 poor households have no one working at all is disturbing. Since they have no income from work, is it a surprise they are poor?"
The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America

Good example of how you distort facts. Single mothers make up a large portion of those households. The largest percentage of them are white teenage girls. Having babies in the home makes it difficult to get or hold a job for these girls who are kids themselves.

White teenage girls, then their parents can take care of them, riiiight? Why do I have to work overtime and give the money to take care of other peoples kids?

You are making an assumption that the parents are in the position to take care of their kid and grandchild or grandchildren.

Nice try but you stepped in it deep with your excuse mongering post. You said, "the largest percentage" are white teenage girls. Maybe a small percentage don't have parents but in the vast majority of cases it is their parents responsibility not mine to provide for them. Otherwise where does it end? I may as well just hand over my freaking paycheck to the liberal communists.

You have no way of knowing what percentage of parents are able to support their teenage mother and child. You have no idea if it is even legal to do so. For all you know the teenage mom's daddy might be $15,000 in debt to the state in back child support and the girls mom might be a minimum wage worker at Walmart.
As far as why do you have to pay, well, we don't as individuals get to choose how are taxes are spent. That is just the way it is. I didn't much like the idea of my taxes paying for Mrs. Romney to play with a horse, but I paid my taxes anyhow. The fact is my cost of the horse was a fraction of a cent and your contribution to supporting teenage mom's and their kids is probable only a few cents a day if not a few cents a week.

What I know is its not my damn financial responsibility, eat it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Bono: 'Capitalism Takes More People Out of Poverty Than Aid'
U2 frontman Bono, who is also an investor, philanthropist, and Christian told students at Georgetown University that real economic growth, not government aid, is what lifts people and countries out of poverty long-term, emphasizing that "entrepreneurial capitalism" is the key to prosperity."

Bono made those remarks on Nov. 12, 2012, but they were not widely reported by the so-called mainstream press, which is largely liberal, pro-big government, and anti-capitalist."
Bono Capitalism Takes More People Out of Poverty Than Aid CNS News

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course they were better off.


OK.....let's stipulate that your posts are formed from equivalent dollops of ignorance and lies.



1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were given a guaranteed income,a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.

Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given,low income recipients reduced their laborby 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf

a. Furtherresults: dissolution of families:
“This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons.First, increased marital breakupsamong the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments. Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanyingabsence of fathersfrom households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.”http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf


2. But....none was entitled to receive any material provision:
"If any poor person shall refuse to be lodged, kept, maintained and employed in such house or houses, he or she shall not be entitled to receive relief from the overseers during such refusal."
Salmon P. Chase, "The Statutes of Ohio and the Northwest Territory," vol.I, p. 176.

1. Why do your cut and pastes always end up drifting so much from the topic?

b. Of course, none of them demonstrate that poor people ever do better when you slash their benefits

Liar.

Thief

My claim that you lie is correct.

Your response is an attempt to save face that you never had to begin with.

My claim you are a thief is correct

I even highlighted the word "thief" to prove it

Well...we seem to have an example of the classic "liar-truth teller puzzle"

You, the former, I the latter.

So...when you say 'thief,' one can draw but one conclusion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

- George Carlin

I've listed FACTS in this thread.

Care to try to dispute any of 'em?



Or, for everyone's amusement.....go back to claiming that George Bernard Shaw wasn't a totalitarian who wanted to annihilate all those who 'couldn't justify their being alive.'

I get such a kick out of that one.

I know you get a kick out of lying. Tell me something I didn't already know.

That George Bernard Shaw was a Stalinist?

Like that?



OK...another one you 'don't, already know:'
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead: it's only a reality for others. And that relates to you: it's the same when you're stupid.

You're proof of that!

OH, NO!!!!

The oh-so-brilliant 'I know you are but what am I' post!!!!



I do soooooo need a higher level of opponent.

 

[edthecynic]

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

- George Carlin

I've listed FACTS in this thread.

Care to try to dispute any of 'em?



Or, for everyone's amusement.....go back to claiming that George Bernard Shaw wasn't a totalitarian who wanted to annihilate all those who 'couldn't justify their being alive.'

I get such a kick out of that one.

I know you get a kick out of lying. Tell me something I didn't already know.

That George Bernard Shaw was a Stalinist?

Like that?



OK...another one you 'don't, already know:'
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead: it's only a reality for others. And that relates to you: it's the same when you're stupid.

You're proof of that!

OH, NO!!!!

The oh-so-brilliant 'I know you are but what am I' post!!!!

I do soooooo need a higher level of opponent.

You prove it again.
Thank you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've listed FACTS in this thread.

Care to try to dispute any of 'em?



Or, for everyone's amusement.....go back to claiming that George Bernard Shaw wasn't a totalitarian who wanted to annihilate all those who 'couldn't justify their being alive.'

I get such a kick out of that one.

I know you get a kick out of lying. Tell me something I didn't already know.

That George Bernard Shaw was a Stalinist?

Like that?



OK...another one you 'don't, already know:'
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead: it's only a reality for others. And that relates to you: it's the same when you're stupid.

You're proof of that!

OH, NO!!!!

The oh-so-brilliant 'I know you are but what am I' post!!!!

I do soooooo need a higher level of opponent.

You prove it again.
Thank you.

What's really scary is that the work of a third-grader is really the best you can do.

 

[edthecynic]

I know you get a kick out of lying. Tell me something I didn't already know.

That George Bernard Shaw was a Stalinist?

Like that?



OK...another one you 'don't, already know:'
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead: it's only a reality for others. And that relates to you: it's the same when you're stupid.

You're proof of that!

OH, NO!!!!

The oh-so-brilliant 'I know you are but what am I' post!!!!

I do soooooo need a higher level of opponent.

You prove it again.
Thank you.

What's really scary is that the work of a third-grader is really the best you can do.

That is still 2 grades better than you, no wonder you are so jealous.

 

[WelfareQueen]

False.
Are you ignorant or simply lying???

Franklin Roosevelt, bosom-buddy of Joseph Stalin, removed it from the private to the public.

Remarkable lack of success has been on display since.


1. "[Hoover] was heartened by the work of private charities in handling the overwhelming number....As of the fall of 1931, and into 1932, Americans raised over $100 million for charity..."
"Federal Aid for Relief (Columbia University Studies in the Social Sciences), "by Edward A. Williams, p. 33.
2. The pressure from Congress to federalize relief- by the summer of 1932 almost 16 million were unemployed! But charities, like the Red Cross, opposed federal intervention, because they knew that it would result in the end of support by citizens for private charities. In 1932, Hoover and the Congress sharply raised the income tax, leaving citizens with less ability to aid the needy.
a. The result was Hoover ended the American tradition of private relief. " The Emergency Relief and Construction Act(ch. 520, 47 Stat. 709, enacted July 21, 1932), was the United States's first major-relief legislation, enabled under Herbert Hoover and later adopted and expanded by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal." Emergency Relief and Construction Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....adopted and expanded by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal."

You get your so called facts so disjointed and confused you didn't even notice that you supported my post. The legislature in Washington DC did exactly as I claimed under Republican Hoover and Democrat Roosevelt and all legislatures and Presidents since that time have endorsed and propagated the idea that the nation has an obligation and duty to the poor and vulnerable.

This is 2015.
You claimed welfare was a federal endeavor for 100 years.
That makes you a serial liar.

""....adopted and expanded by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal."

Now you are getting desperate and making up stuff. I said the country took on the responsibility for assisting the vulnerable almost a century ago. You confirmed this in your own post with the comments about Hoover and Roosevelt actions in the early 1930's. That was 85 years ago, almost a century

How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain.

They are not and this is a major problem. Some states have ways of handling the problem while others ignore it. The most successful way of solving the problem is by forcing these able bodied persons to either take a job that is offered or loose assistance. Even culling through the list and sending these workers to temporary work tends to lower the rolls as some will simply not show up for two week temporary job without missing days without valid excuses. The problem is that not all states have these programs and those that do don't have even enough temporary jobs to use the method effectively.

Thank you for you kind response. I happen to agree with you completely.

 

[WelfareQueen]

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

- George Carlin

Nowhere in the US or anywhere in the world have the poor done better when you take away benefits

Only conservatives believe this

Benefits....from who? Who decides who benefits and who loses? Define precisely please.

And how can they be "benefits" when they have not been earned. Again...please explain?


Oh....and I'll ask again....How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain.

Easy...We the People elect representatives to decide who benefits and who loses

There is no requirements that benefits be earned in any way. Essentially, you earn them by being a citizen of the United States

How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain
Way too open ended question, you have to clarify

So you are tacitly admitting our elected officials are corrupt and they are buying votes by robbing peter to pay paul. I agree with you. The fact you seem to have no problem with this is not surprising but it is very disturbing.

I also agree there is no requirement that benefits be earned (except in the case of some SSN benefits).

Should not any benefit be earned by able-bodied adults? Or do you support a looter/freeloader State?

 

[rightwinger]

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

- George Carlin

Nowhere in the US or anywhere in the world have the poor done better when you take away benefits

Only conservatives believe this

Benefits....from who? Who decides who benefits and who loses? Define precisely please.

And how can they be "benefits" when they have not been earned. Again...please explain?


Oh....and I'll ask again....How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain.

Easy...We the People elect representatives to decide who benefits and who loses

There is no requirements that benefits be earned in any way. Essentially, you earn them by being a citizen of the United States

How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain
Way too open ended question, you have to clarify

So you are tacitly admitting our elected officials are corrupt and they are buying votes by robbing peter to pay paul. I agree with you. The fact you seem to have no problem with this is not surprising but it is very disturbing.

I also agree there is no requirement that benefits be earned (except in the case of some SSN benefits).

Should not any benefit be earned by able-bodied adults? Or do you support a looter/freeloader State?

How did you deduce that based on what I posted?

In an ideal society there are plenty of jobs for anyone that wants one, the workers are all well trained and motivated and employers look out for the people who work for them

There are no ideal societies

 

[WelfareQueen]

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

- George Carlin

Nowhere in the US or anywhere in the world have the poor done better when you take away benefits

Only conservatives believe this

Benefits....from who? Who decides who benefits and who loses? Define precisely please.

And how can they be "benefits" when they have not been earned. Again...please explain?


Oh....and I'll ask again....How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain.

Easy...We the People elect representatives to decide who benefits and who loses

There is no requirements that benefits be earned in any way. Essentially, you earn them by being a citizen of the United States

How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain
Way too open ended question, you have to clarify

So you are tacitly admitting our elected officials are corrupt and they are buying votes by robbing peter to pay paul. I agree with you. The fact you seem to have no problem with this is not surprising but it is very disturbing.

I also agree there is no requirement that benefits be earned (except in the case of some SSN benefits).

Should not any benefit be earned by able-bodied adults? Or do you support a looter/freeloader State?

How did you deduce that based on what I posted?

In an ideal society there are plenty of jobs for anyone that wants one, the workers are all well trained and motivated and employers look out for the people who work for them

There are no ideal societies

There never has been. But you avoid the central question: Should benefits be given to able-bodied adults who have not earned them?

 

[rightwinger]

Nowhere in the US or anywhere in the world have the poor done better when you take away benefits

Only conservatives believe this

Benefits....from who? Who decides who benefits and who loses? Define precisely please.

And how can they be "benefits" when they have not been earned. Again...please explain?


Oh....and I'll ask again....How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain.

Easy...We the People elect representatives to decide who benefits and who loses

There is no requirements that benefits be earned in any way. Essentially, you earn them by being a citizen of the United States

How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain
Way too open ended question, you have to clarify

So you are tacitly admitting our elected officials are corrupt and they are buying votes by robbing peter to pay paul. I agree with you. The fact you seem to have no problem with this is not surprising but it is very disturbing.

I also agree there is no requirement that benefits be earned (except in the case of some SSN benefits).

Should not any benefit be earned by able-bodied adults? Or do you support a looter/freeloader State?

How did you deduce that based on what I posted?

In an ideal society there are plenty of jobs for anyone that wants one, the workers are all well trained and motivated and employers look out for the people who work for them

There are no ideal societies

There never has been. But you avoid the central question: Should benefits be given to able-bodied adults who have not earned them?

In a word ....yes

We are not Calcutta throwing our human refuse in the streets.
Modern societies take care of their people. It may be three hots an a cot but some basic level of subsistance should be guaranteed regardless of whether you think they have earned it

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hard to believe.....the hand-wringers shedding tears for the hard workers who are forced.....forced, mind you......to accept government largess....or face starvation.

But the central point is that so very few of the poor actually work at all!!!!


6. ".... for rich households, 75 percent have two or more workers. For the poor households, that percent is less than 5 percent.

One of the more pernicious concepts is the notion of “dead-end jobs.” No, the surefire economic dead end is no job at all. There’s no climbing the economic ladder if you’re not even on the first rung."
The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America




7. President Clinton was forced to signed the Republican Welfare Reform Bill, that proved successful in moving the poor off welfare.

a. "What happened when conservative forced a change in welfare to workfare?

“It has been 10 years since the welfare reform law was signed by President Clinton amid predictions of disaster from the left….about 60 percent of the adults leaving welfare are employed at any given moment and that, over a period of several months, about 80 percent hold at least one job.

Even more impressive, national data from the Census Bureau show that between 1993 and 2000, the percentage of low-income, single mothers with a job grew from 58 percent to nearly 75 percent, an increase of almost 30 percent. Moreover, employment among never-married mothers, the most disadvantaged and least-educated subgroup of single mothers, grew from 44 percent to 66 percent, an increase of 50 percent, over the same period. Again, these sweeping changes are unprecedented.” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PCD/is_1_64/ai_n24986762/




So....what did Barack Obama, Liberal-in-Chief, do when he saw folks actually leaving the welfare plantation????

Yup...he killed it.....closed the way out, just as he ended vouchers for poor children in Washington.


b. "Obama kills welfare reform
The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.

.... HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. The regs say that “vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs” “count as well” in meeting the basic condition that recipients work in order to receive welfare benefits.

Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee Jim Jordan (Ohio) rightly protested that the action is a “blatant violation of the law,” and Mitt Romney has attacked it, saying “the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.”
Obama kills welfare reform TheHill



Both illegal, and counter to prosperity for the poor.....but, of course, the reliable Democrat voters supported this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Benefits....from who? Who decides who benefits and who loses? Define precisely please.

And how can they be "benefits" when they have not been earned. Again...please explain?


Oh....and I'll ask again....How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain.

Easy...We the People elect representatives to decide who benefits and who loses

There is no requirements that benefits be earned in any way. Essentially, you earn them by being a citizen of the United States

How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain
Way too open ended question, you have to clarify

So you are tacitly admitting our elected officials are corrupt and they are buying votes by robbing peter to pay paul. I agree with you. The fact you seem to have no problem with this is not surprising but it is very disturbing.

I also agree there is no requirement that benefits be earned (except in the case of some SSN benefits).

Should not any benefit be earned by able-bodied adults? Or do you support a looter/freeloader State?

How did you deduce that based on what I posted?

In an ideal society there are plenty of jobs for anyone that wants one, the workers are all well trained and motivated and employers look out for the people who work for them

There are no ideal societies

There never has been. But you avoid the central question: Should benefits be given to able-bodied adults who have not earned them?

In a word ....yes

We are not Calcutta throwing our human refuse in the streets.
Modern societies take care of their people. It may be three hots an a cot but some basic level of subsistance should be guaranteed regardless of whether you think they have earned it

Of course your mouth is writing checks that your situation won't be able to pay.

If you are truthful....I look forward to the day you walk into the local supermarket and announce "put your money away....the steaks are on me today!!!"

 

[rightwinger]

Easy...We the People elect representatives to decide who benefits and who loses

There is no requirements that benefits be earned in any way. Essentially, you earn them by being a citizen of the United States

How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain
Way too open ended question, you have to clarify

So you are tacitly admitting our elected officials are corrupt and they are buying votes by robbing peter to pay paul. I agree with you. The fact you seem to have no problem with this is not surprising but it is very disturbing.

I also agree there is no requirement that benefits be earned (except in the case of some SSN benefits).

Should not any benefit be earned by able-bodied adults? Or do you support a looter/freeloader State?

How did you deduce that based on what I posted?

In an ideal society there are plenty of jobs for anyone that wants one, the workers are all well trained and motivated and employers look out for the people who work for them

There are no ideal societies

There never has been. But you avoid the central question: Should benefits be given to able-bodied adults who have not earned them?

In a word ....yes

We are not Calcutta throwing our human refuse in the streets.
Modern societies take care of their people. It may be three hots an a cot but some basic level of subsistance should be guaranteed regardless of whether you think they have earned it

Of course your mouth is writing checks that your situation won't be able to pay.

If you are truthful....I look forward to the day you walk into the local supermarket and announce "put your money away....the steaks are on me today!!!"

You underestimate what a humanitarian I am.....

In my town I am known for helping old ladies to cross the street and rescuing kittens from trees

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you are tacitly admitting our elected officials are corrupt and they are buying votes by robbing peter to pay paul. I agree with you. The fact you seem to have no problem with this is not surprising but it is very disturbing.

I also agree there is no requirement that benefits be earned (except in the case of some SSN benefits).

Should not any benefit be earned by able-bodied adults? Or do you support a looter/freeloader State?

How did you deduce that based on what I posted?

In an ideal society there are plenty of jobs for anyone that wants one, the workers are all well trained and motivated and employers look out for the people who work for them

There are no ideal societies

There never has been. But you avoid the central question: Should benefits be given to able-bodied adults who have not earned them?

In a word ....yes

We are not Calcutta throwing our human refuse in the streets.
Modern societies take care of their people. It may be three hots an a cot but some basic level of subsistance should be guaranteed regardless of whether you think they have earned it

Of course your mouth is writing checks that your situation won't be able to pay.

If you are truthful....I look forward to the day you walk into the local supermarket and announce "put your money away....the steaks are on me today!!!"

You underestimate what a humanitarian I am.....

In my town I am known for helping old ladies to cross the street and rescuing kittens from trees

"In my town I am known for helping old ladies to cross the street and rescuing kittens from trees"....and eating them.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Benefits....from who? Who decides who benefits and who loses? Define precisely please.

And how can they be "benefits" when they have not been earned. Again...please explain?


Oh....and I'll ask again....How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain.

Easy...We the People elect representatives to decide who benefits and who loses

There is no requirements that benefits be earned in any way. Essentially, you earn them by being a citizen of the United States

How are able-bodied adults "vulnerable?" Please explain
Way too open ended question, you have to clarify

So you are tacitly admitting our elected officials are corrupt and they are buying votes by robbing peter to pay paul. I agree with you. The fact you seem to have no problem with this is not surprising but it is very disturbing.

I also agree there is no requirement that benefits be earned (except in the case of some SSN benefits).

Should not any benefit be earned by able-bodied adults? Or do you support a looter/freeloader State?

How did you deduce that based on what I posted?

In an ideal society there are plenty of jobs for anyone that wants one, the workers are all well trained and motivated and employers look out for the people who work for them

There are no ideal societies

There never has been. But you avoid the central question: Should benefits be given to able-bodied adults who have not earned them?

In a word ....yes

We are not Calcutta throwing our human refuse in the streets.
Modern societies take care of their people. It may be three hots an a cot but some basic level of subsistance should be guaranteed regardless of whether you think they have earned it

Thank you for your honesty. Should Government require some form of work for those benefits? Maybe help repair infrastructure....work with the homeless....clean parks or roads?

Or should we keep things the way they are?

 

[Londoner]

In 1917 Ayn Rand's family business (a pharmacy) was confiscated by the heavy handed Vladimir Lenin.

This type of thing was par for the course in Russia, where freedom was virtually non-existent.

Ayn Rand immigrated to the U.S. in 1925, during a time when concentrated wealth still ruled this nation. Then she witnessed the Great Depression and the formation of FDR's New Deal government, which imposed higher taxes and regulations on business, as well as expanding what government did for the poor and middle class.

Rand created the narrative that Political Chic is using, one where the world is divided into hard working capitalists (one one side of the aisle) and lazy-parasite-welfare-recipients (on the other) - along with a class of well paid Laborers (who, because of their higher wages, had more money to spend on Main Street).

By the 40s & 50s Rand watched as Labor grew to the apex of its power, and Republican Presidents like Eisenhower maintained a 90% tax rate on the upper bracket (and government exercised considerable control over the economy while also providing more safety nets to the poor).

At this time Rand wrote her classic Fountainhead, followed by Atlas Shrugged, which described a world where Government destroyed the incentives of the earners/producers by over taxing and over regulating and redistributing wealth to the lazy.

Conservative Think Tanks have kept this narrative from the 50s alive.

But here is the problem with this narrative, and its Cut & Paste apparatchiks like political chic. The relationship between government and business is no longer what it was like in the 50s. Today, after 30+ years of Reaganomics, business, through lobbying and election funding, owns the politician (not the other way around, as Political Chic would have you believe).

A question emerges. Why doesn't political chic talk about the other kind of welfare (i.e., subsidies/bailouts/regulatory favors/no-bid contracts/state protected monopolies) which goes to corporations? Why does political chic only tell one side of the story?

Answer: she has either been fooled by the propaganda of the corporate-welfare-class or she is lying on their behalf.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In 1917 Ayn Rand's family business (a pharmacy) was confiscated by the heavy handed Vladimir Lenin.

This type of thing was par for the course in Russia, where freedom was virtually non-existent.

Ayn Rand immigrated to the U.S. in 1925, during a time when concentrated wealth still ruled this nation. Then she witnessed the Great Depression and the formation of FDR's New Deal government, which imposed higher taxes and regulations on business, as well as expanding what government did for the poor and middle class.

Rand created the narrative that Political Chic is using, one where the world is divided into hard working capitalists (one one side of the aisle) and lazy-parasite-welfare-recipients (on the other) - along with a class of well paid Laborers (who, because of their higher wages, had more money to spend on Main Street).

By the 40s & 50s Rand watched as Labor grew to the apex of its power, and Republican Presidents like Eisenhower maintained a 90% tax rate on the upper bracket (and government exercised considerable control over the economy while also providing more safety nets to the poor).

At this time Rand wrote her classic Fountainhead, followed by Atlas Shrugged, which described a world where Government destroyed the incentives of the earners/producers by over taxing and over regulating and redistributing wealth to the lazy.

Conservative Think Tanks have kept this narrative from the 50s alive.

But here is the problem with this narrative, and its Cut & Paste apparatchiks like political chic. The relationship between government and business is no longer what it was like in the 50s. Today, after 30+ years of Reaganomics, business, through lobbying and election funding, owns the politician (not the other way around, as Political Chic would have you believe).

A question emerges. Why doesn't political chic talk about the other kind of welfare (i.e., subsidies/bailouts/regulatory favors/no-bid contracts/state protected monopolies) which goes to corporations? Why does political chic only tell one side of the story?

Answer: she has either been fooled by the propaganda of the corporate-welfare-class or she is lying on their behalf.

In order for your post to be true, this must be false:


.... Census Bureau data on household incomes document the importance of work. Census sorts the households by income quintile, and we will label those in the highest quintile as “rich,” and those in the lowest quintile as “poor.”The average household in the top 20 percent of income have an average of almost exactly two full-time workers. The average poor family (bottom 20 percent) has just 0.4 workers.

This means on average, roughly for every hour worked by those in a poor household, those in a rich household work five hours.

The finding thatsix out of 10 poor households have no one working at allis disturbing. Since they have no income from work, is it a surprise they are poor?" The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America



It isn't false.....so you must be a liar, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. "...one of the best ways to reduce poverty is to get people in low-income households working—and hopefully 40 hours a week. By the way, one reason raising the minimum wage won’t help lower poverty much is that it will help far fewer than half of the poor who have no job at all. And if it destroys jobs at the bottom of the skills ladder, it may lead to fewer people working and exacerbate poverty.

This data also reinforces the case for strict work requirements for all welfare benefit programs. When welfare takes the place of work it actually contributes to long-term poverty. It isn’t cold-hearted to be in favor of work programs. It is providing a GPS system to help the poor find a way out of poverty.
[Attention Barack Obama!]


....there are way too many non-working poor in America. That’s a problem liberals seem to want to do nothing about."
The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America



If 'the poor' had the same work ethic of 'the rich,' it's clear that there wouldn't be as many poor.

But Liberal welfare policy results in less work, and more poverty.

Curiouser and curiouser.