The Lie That Obama Keeps Repeating

[edthecynic]

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?

Not only is the highlighted false, it is sooooooo obviously false it is a testament to your complete stupidity!!!!!

Only the most ignorant of morons is unable to understand that the hourly pay is rarely the same for the top 20% as the bottom 20%. But equal hourly pay would be required for equating income to hours worked. What a stupid SUCKER you have to be to not only fall for that bullashit, but also to mindlessly parrot it on a public forum.

I do soooooo need a higher level of opponent.

 

[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?

Not only is the highlighted false, it is sooooooo obviously false it is a testament to your complete stupidity!!!!!

Only the most ignorant of morons is unable to understand that the hourly pay is rarely the same for the top 20% as the bottom 20%. But equal hourly pay would be required for equating income to hours worked. What a stupid SUCKER you have to be to not only fall for that bullashit, but also to mindlessly parrot it on a public forum.

I do soooooo need a higher level of opponent.

See....you didn't have to drop back to document how stupid you are.
It's like gilding the lily.

You see....the operative quote says nothing about rate of pay....
It points out the dearth of hours worked at actual jobs.

Doesn't seem to me to be so difficult to fathom....but, I suppose...to a blithering idiot like you, the simple quantitative fact is hard to grasp: hour of work...not rate of pay.



"... 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


You do so make me yearn for a higher level of opponent.

Don't hesitate to drop by the next time you need another spanking.



Oh....and, you do know what an hour is, don't you?

hour
(our)
n.
1. One of the 24 equal parts of a day.
2.
a. One of the points on a timepiece marking off 12 or 24 successive intervals of 60minutes, from midnight to noon and noon to midnight or from midnight to midnight.
b. The time of day indicated by a 12-hour clock.
c. hours The time of day determined on a 24-hour basis
hour - definition of hour by The Free Dictionary


Let me know if you require any other definitions.


How's Shaw's attempts to murder 'lesser beings' going?
Still poison gas?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You are Chinese not me

 

[Camp]

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.

Geez, how do you cook the old ladies, and what do they taste like?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Get that???


9. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give 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 labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf


The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year.
Overview of the Final Report of the SIME DIME Report]


a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax [read: Liberals] that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among 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 accompanying absence of fathers from 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



b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.


Did I mention: Liberal welfare policy results in less work, and more poverty.


10. A key to why ‘poverty’ ceased to decline almost as soon as the ‘War on Poverty’ began, is that the poor and lower-income population stopped working, and this led to the other deteriorating social conditions Murray cites. In 1960, almost 2/3 of lowest-income households were headed by persons who worked. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-080.pdf

a. By 1991, this number was down to only one third….and only 11% working full time. Nor was this due to being unable to find work, as the ‘80’s and ‘90’s were boom times.




"The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America
...he continues to repeat a falsehood over and over. This is the claim that the poor work just as hard as the rich do. .... the average poor family doesn’t work nearly as much as the rich families do.

And that’s a key reason why these households are poor."

 

[Socialist]

I'm sorry, I fully support a strong welfare state like that in Scandinavia, with strong labor unions, maternity leave, universal healthcare, wages... I will never understand the narrative against "redistribution." Honey, we've had redistribution of wealth happening for decades now, wealth going upwards from those who produce it.

 

[Socialist]

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

Get that???


9. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give 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 labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf


The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year.
Overview of the Final Report of the SIME DIME Report]


a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax [read: Liberals] that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among 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 accompanying absence of fathers from 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



b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.


Did I mention: Liberal welfare policy results in less work, and more poverty.


10. A key to why ‘poverty’ ceased to decline almost as soon as the ‘War on Poverty’ began, is that the poor and lower-income population stopped working, and this led to the other deteriorating social conditions Murray cites. In 1960, almost 2/3 of lowest-income households were headed by persons who worked. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-080.pdf

a. By 1991, this number was down to only one third….and only 11% working full time. Nor was this due to being unable to find work, as the ‘80’s and ‘90’s were boom times.




"The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America
...he continues to repeat a falsehood over and over. This is the claim that the poor work just as hard as the rich do. .... the average poor family doesn’t work nearly as much as the rich families do.

And that’s a key reason why these households are poor."

"
...he continues to repeat a falsehood over and over. This is the claim that the poor work just as hard as the rich do. .... the average poor family doesn’t work nearly as much as the rich families do.

And that’s a key reason why these households are poor."
"
Oh get the fuck out of here, you can never back this up no matter how much you try to, most poor people are thrown into poverty or are born into poverty without any reasonable way to escape, many work 2-3 jobs, work more then 40 hours a week to try to take care of their kids, and yes, they do use food stamps to help supplement themselves, so what? Do you honestly think the walton family, who inherited their vast amounts of wealth, worked for it? Or do you think the poor fast food worker in the inner city who inherited absolutely nothing who struggles to provide for his family is a leech? Fuck you.

 

[edthecynic]

You see....the operative quote says nothing about rate of pay....
It points out the dearth of hours worked at actual jobs.

Doesn't seem to me to be so difficult to fathom....but, I suppose...to a blithering idiot like you, the simple quantitative fact is hard to grasp: hour of work...not rate of pay.

"... 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.

You keep milking that perpetual dumb act.

As your pull quote clearly stated, the number of hours is calculated from "DATA ON HOUSEHOLD INCOMES." The Census data says nothing about sorting the data by hours, only income. Stephen Moore, not the Census Bureau, is the idiot who calculated hours based on income which has to stupidly assume the same hourly rate of pay.

 

[Socialist]

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

Get that???


9. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give 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 labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf


The results for husbands show that the combination of negative income tax plans tested in SIME/DIME — which, as already mentioned, represents on average a relatively generous cash transfer program with a guarantee of 115% of the poverty line and a tax rate of 50% — has a significant negative effect on hours worked per year.
Overview of the Final Report of the SIME DIME Report]


a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax [read: Liberals] that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased marital breakups among 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 accompanying absence of fathers from 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



b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.


Did I mention: Liberal welfare policy results in less work, and more poverty.


10. A key to why ‘poverty’ ceased to decline almost as soon as the ‘War on Poverty’ began, is that the poor and lower-income population stopped working, and this led to the other deteriorating social conditions Murray cites. In 1960, almost 2/3 of lowest-income households were headed by persons who worked. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-080.pdf

a. By 1991, this number was down to only one third….and only 11% working full time. Nor was this due to being unable to find work, as the ‘80’s and ‘90’s were boom times.




"The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America
...he continues to repeat a falsehood over and over. This is the claim that the poor work just as hard as the rich do. .... the average poor family doesn’t work nearly as much as the rich families do.

And that’s a key reason why these households are poor."

" By 1991, this number was down to only one third….and only 11% working full time. Nor was this due to being unable to find work, as the ‘80’s and ‘90’s were boom times."
You do realize businesses are responsible for this, not working people? How stupid are you? Businesses don't want to have to provide full time benefits, more profit.
Then again, a study on a tiny group means nothing to factual reality.

 

[Wry Catcher]

PoliticalChic's threads have the same originality as a form letter.

1. Trolls with purloined bait;
2. Lies in wait for someone to disagree \
3. Defends self as perfect and always honest and straightforward
4. Call distractors stupid, morons or mendacious
5. Claims victory.

 

[Socialist]

PoliticalChic's threads have the same originality as a form letter.

1. Trolls with purloined bait;
2. Lies in wait for someone to disagree \
3. Defends self as perfect and always honest and straightforward
4. Call distractors stupid, morons or mendacious
5. Claims victory.

It usually involves grabbing a bunch of irrelevant nutty conspiracy theories and bolding text to claim someone is a retard.

 

[rightwinger]

PoliticalChic's threads have the same originality as a form letter.

1. Trolls with purloined bait;
2. Lies in wait for someone to disagree \
3. Defends self as perfect and always honest and straightforward
4. Call distractors stupid, morons or mendacious
5. Claims victory.

You forgot the cut and paste

 

[Wry Catcher]

Assistance is given to the poor because almost a century ago the nation made a decision that the whole of the country had an obligation and duty to help the vulnerable. The decision has been re-affirmed and reinforced ever since. It is what the American people decided to do in the 20th Century. There have always been imperfections and complaints about how the system works or doesn't work, but the only solution that has ever been found is related to access to jobs. That is the only solution that works to relieve the assistance rolls and lists.

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.

• Fine Print
• Propaganda
• Appeals to Authority
• Fuzzy Math (voodoo economics)
• Fuzzy Math (interest rates)
• Fuzzy Math (Flat tax)
• Fuzzy Math (Fair tax)

 

[Wry Catcher]

PoliticalChic's threads have the same originality as a form letter.

1. Trolls with purloined bait;
2. Lies in wait for someone to disagree \
3. Defends self as perfect and always honest and straightforward
4. Call distractors stupid, morons or mendacious
5. Claims victory.

You forgot the cut and paste

Number 1 seemed to cover it.