Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[edward37]

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

And yet that has never happened anywhere in the world. There is no single payer system on the planet that let's the average person get the same healthcare as the government official. As a matter of fact a lot of these government official's get to come to the US for treatment at their tax payers expense. Everyone paying in simply means you get to pay for something you will never receive. You're paying for anyone but you.

Only if they're independently wealthy...so much bs misinformation... All other modern countries have better life spans than us and we spend 18% of GDP on health care. France is closest with 11%- UK is less than 8%. That's why our premiums and deductibles have to be so high- or we can do it the old GOP way, with scams, cut-offs, a half million bankruptcies a year, and 40k deaths a year.

In socialism nobody is independently wealthy you moron. The government took all of that. The only rich people are government officials who obviously didn't create their wealth they just stole it form the people they claim to be helping.

There are plenty of rich people in socialist EU, Canada, OZ, NZ, dupe. Just not on the backs of the non-rich like here...

You're right that there are rich people in socialist countries.

They are the politicians and their friends.

Politicians never get rich in government except on the backs of the people

all russian politicians are million and billionaires

 

[Markle]

Have you ever considered not insulting others when you communicate? You might find you can get people to listen more if you stopped

Francois doesn't believe what he posts, he just enjoys stirring the pot. He has nothing more to do and if you told him the sky is blue he would call you names, insult your knowledge and swear it is green!

 

[hadit]

Nobody is cruel to the poor, these lefty morons just need something cry about.

What is taking their health insurance away in order to provide a tax cut for the wealthy?

Most engineers know nothing about history and politics, so are usually GOP dupes. Their creativity and knowledge is limited to engineering, like yours, dupe. So many accountants, doctors, lawyers, marketers, DITTO.

Have you ever considered not insulting others when you communicate? You might find you can get people to listen more if you stopped

He can't. He is simply one more whiny ass who needs to make himself feel better about putting down others. Classic really.
He is also a hypocrite, he has never sent a dime extra to help his precious "poor".

They don't want your once in a blue moon charity, dupe. They want good jobs, cheap training and ed, and a good safety net for the next corrupt GOP world economic meltdown and day to day misfortune.

My point stands, you are a hypocrite. You don't do anymore than anyone else does. Grow up old man.

I'm not the dupe of greedy idiots megarich GOPers, dupe. You and your New BS GOP brainwashers have ruined the middle class and the country the last 35 years. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

Bubba and Obama, Reaganites. Who knew?

 

[Avatar4321]

There is one thing we've never tried (at least in my lifetime) to end poverty, and that is to end the handouts.

If you get hungry enough, you'll take one of those jobs posted at every corner of every street in the US. If your income is not enough, you will work more hours to bring in that income. If there is nothing incentivizing you to not work more hours, you may end up working 60 plus hours a week.

I would love to see all handouts stopped for a period of two years just to see the end results. I'd bet a months paycheck we would reduce poverty more that way than giving people money they didn't work for. I bet with no handouts, less people would enter poverty in the first place. Like I said, it's never been tried. The closest we came to that was in the 90's with welfare reform, and that was a huge success.

But why look back at what worked? Just listen to liberals to solve poverty.

Take away food from the poor and you have a lot hungry people.
Take away housing from the poor and you have a lot more homeless people.
Take away healthcare from the poor and you have more sick people.

In the US you have 9 million single parent families on welfare which includes 19 million kids. Take away government support and you'll have more runaways, child prostitution, and juvenile crime. With very rare exception, a single mother in poverty can not make enough money to support a family and care for the kids.

I'm quite aware of that, and do you know why? Because these are the same promises liberals made to us before welfare reform began. Between the time the law passed until it's implementation, we were promised riots in the streets, decomposed bodies of people from starvation, children running naked with no place to live, stores closed down and boarded up so nobody got any food.............. It never happened.

What will hungry people do with no food? Earn money to buy food.
What will people do with no HUD home in the suburbs? Seek shelter in the inner-city

How do we know most people would react this way? Because it's a basic law of electricity which also applies to people.

Electricity will take it's least path of resistance to travel. People do the exact same to survive.

You need food, and you have two choices A) government giving you food, or B) Go out and work for food. Now, what's is that path of least resistance to obtain food? What about shelter? What about utilities?

You on the left don't give people enough credit. If forced to, people would rather live another day to fight than to give up, crawl into a corner and die just because government isn't there to take care of them.

First off, 50% of those receiving government welfare have jobs, mostly par time and temp jobs.

Secondly, the majority of those that do not work at all either have to care for a number of children, have drug or alcohol addiction problems, mental problems, physical disabilities, lack of education, lack of any job training, or a criminal background. They are poor candidates for even minimum wage jobs. I have worked around these people in food banks and a homeless shelter. Believe me you would not even consider hiring most of them.

My major concern with a proposal to stop all goverment assistance to the poor is not so much for the poor but for the effect it would have on all society. However, the chance of this happens is about zero so it's hardly worth discussing.

So you spend/waste all of your time doing all you can for people you don't think are even capable of standing on their own. Actually you never said you did that. You just want all of us to pay for someone else to do it.

How 'bout making the rich and giant corps pay some for a change?

For a change? They always pay

 

[Markle]

All poor folks are 'Evil Lazy Welfare' Boogeymen to the average white Republican. They generalize and demonize. It makes them feel justified in hating and abusing the least fortunate among us. It's exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught. Yet most of them truly believe the pearly gates await them. They're lost hateful souls.

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

Republicans give more to their churches
Means money goes to Pastors, church maintenance, a new organ, robes for the choir

Doesn't mean the money is going to poor families

Tithe goes to salaries...offering to charity.

Still deducted on their taxes

Your point being?

 

[Markle]

Whereas every modern country beside us has 4 weeks at least after 1 year. So by the time provincial ugly Americans have time to see the world, they're married off bloody tourists who learn nothing....

Just curious how many dozen times you have thrown up that very post on this thread alone.

Rather pointless is it not?

 

[Markle]

29%.

Not your tax bracket but rather your effective tax rate.

That would be the total tax you paid divided by your net income.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whereas every modern country beside us has 4 weeks at least after 1 year. So by the time provincial ugly Americans have time to see the world, they're married off bloody tourists who learn nothing....

Just curious how many dozen times you have thrown up that very post on this thread alone.

Rather pointless is it not?

Unless I actually work for the government, the government has and should have nothing to say about how much vacation time I have.

 

[Markle]

What's up with the strawman, bee-otch?

 

[thanatos144]

A healthy diet consists of protein, antioxidant rich foods, some healthy carbs, and adequate time to prepare it in a healthy manner. Bread is a shitty food.

List it out. I bet I can buy a weeks worth for less than $60, cheaper than fast food.

I dont have to. Read this and educate yourself.

Why Poverty Leads to Obesity and Life-Long Problems | Scholars Strategy Network

Poor families have limited food budgets and choices, and must often stretch supplies toward the end of the month, before another check or allocation of Food Stamps arrives. This leads to unhealthy behaviors in several ways:

• Families choose high-fat foods dense with energy – foods such as sugars, cereals, potatoes and processed meat products – because these foods are more affordable and last longer than fresh vegetables and fruits and lean meats and fish.
  
  
• Poor families often live in disadvantaged neighborhoods where healthy foods are hard to find. Instead of large supermarkets, poor neighborhoods have a disproportionate number of fast food chains and small food stores providing cheap, high-fat foods.
  
  
• Economic insecurity – such as trouble paying bills or rent – leads to stress, and people often cope by eating high-fat, sugary foods.

Options for regular physical activity can also be restricted for poor people:

• Families cannot usually afford to pay for organized children’s activities outside of school – and schools in impoverished areas are less likely to run sports or physical activity programs than schools with more resources.
  
  
• Due to inflexible work schedules, lack of transportation, or unmet needs for child care, poor parents, especially single mothers, may find it hard to support extra activities for their children. Leaving kids in front of the TV is often all stressed poor parents can manage.
  
  
• In many poor neighborhoods, parks, playgrounds, trails, and free public gyms are often not available or safe. Neighborhoods may be crime-ridden, and there may be no nearby indoor places for play or exercise. Ironically, parental efforts to keep kids safe and indoors may increase encourage sedentary behaviors such as watching TV and playing video games.

So you can't make a list of a healthy diet?
I don't need your bullshit socialist study, let's work with hard facts.

List the grocery items and lets go shopping and see what a healthy diet costs versus fast food .

You won't because you know you're full of shit.

I made a list. You want to play games so I sent you to educate yourself.

I can eat healthy for $60 a week.
Fast food is around $150 a week for cheap stuff.

So your entire theory is blown to hell of which it came from.

It is not just price. It is also time. In a house of two people working paying bills it is hard to find time to prepare a good meal or sometimes you are just to damn tired to do it. While it is true that food bad for you is not really cheaper it is not labor intensive. Think about it this way. Who the hell wants to debone a chicken after working 12 hours? Also I hate the fact that people ever care what I eat... I giant chunk of my pay check goes to food. ALL FOOD. none of it is really cheap any more. I am sure if I was on food stamps I could eat steak and shrimp but I am not on welfare I work for a living and cant afford those things. I also dont just feed myself. Two people work in my household of 4 . We pay our bills and buy food and sometimes we have something extra to buy for ourselves which isn't very often.

You want to know a expense I have??? My daughters school. She goes to public school and is a honor roll student. Yet there isnt a week that goes by that the school doesn't seem to have a hand in my pocket for something or another. 80 dollar calculator, Lap top, uniform for cheer leading or sports or what ever activity she is at that time.... Now I could say no you cant be in that activity and no I dont care if you work hard to get a scholarship to a university I know me of my wife cant afford. I am not a liberal I cant do that.

 

[Markle]

And he's paying far less than what he should be.

According to what law and why?

 

[jc456]

I'm quite aware of that, and do you know why? Because these are the same promises liberals made to us before welfare reform began. Between the time the law passed until it's implementation, we were promised riots in the streets, decomposed bodies of people from starvation, children running naked with no place to live, stores closed down and boarded up so nobody got any food.............. It never happened.

What will hungry people do with no food? Earn money to buy food.
What will people do with no HUD home in the suburbs? Seek shelter in the inner-city

How do we know most people would react this way? Because it's a basic law of electricity which also applies to people.

Electricity will take it's least path of resistance to travel. People do the exact same to survive.

You need food, and you have two choices A) government giving you food, or B) Go out and work for food. Now, what's is that path of least resistance to obtain food? What about shelter? What about utilities?

You on the left don't give people enough credit. If forced to, people would rather live another day to fight than to give up, crawl into a corner and die just because government isn't there to take care of them.

First off, 50% of those receiving government welfare have jobs, mostly par time and temp jobs.

Secondly, the majority of those that do not work at all either have to care for a number of children, have drug or alcohol addiction problems, mental problems, physical disabilities, lack of education, lack of any job training, or a criminal background. They are poor candidates for even minimum wage jobs. I have worked around these people in food banks and a homeless shelter. Believe me you would not even consider hiring most of them.

My major concern with a proposal to stop all goverment assistance to the poor is not so much for the poor but for the effect it would have on all society. However, the chance of this happens is about zero so it's hardly worth discussing.

So you spend/waste all of your time doing all you can for people you don't think are even capable of standing on their own. Actually you never said you did that. You just want all of us to pay for someone else to do it.

How 'bout making the rich and giant corps pay some for a change?

How about finding out who pays most of the taxes in this nation and stop posting such utter crap for a change?

the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all income taxes
The bottom 50% pay zero %

but that's still not "fair" I guess

I've never gotten an answer to what is fair like you just pointed out. They pay nothing and someone pays 25% and they yell it isn't fair. hahahahahahaha

 

[jc456]

List it out. I bet I can buy a weeks worth for less than $60, cheaper than fast food.

I dont have to. Read this and educate yourself.

Why Poverty Leads to Obesity and Life-Long Problems | Scholars Strategy Network

Poor families have limited food budgets and choices, and must often stretch supplies toward the end of the month, before another check or allocation of Food Stamps arrives. This leads to unhealthy behaviors in several ways:

• Families choose high-fat foods dense with energy – foods such as sugars, cereals, potatoes and processed meat products – because these foods are more affordable and last longer than fresh vegetables and fruits and lean meats and fish.
  
  
• Poor families often live in disadvantaged neighborhoods where healthy foods are hard to find. Instead of large supermarkets, poor neighborhoods have a disproportionate number of fast food chains and small food stores providing cheap, high-fat foods.
  
  
• Economic insecurity – such as trouble paying bills or rent – leads to stress, and people often cope by eating high-fat, sugary foods.

Options for regular physical activity can also be restricted for poor people:

• Families cannot usually afford to pay for organized children’s activities outside of school – and schools in impoverished areas are less likely to run sports or physical activity programs than schools with more resources.
  
  
• Due to inflexible work schedules, lack of transportation, or unmet needs for child care, poor parents, especially single mothers, may find it hard to support extra activities for their children. Leaving kids in front of the TV is often all stressed poor parents can manage.
  
  
• In many poor neighborhoods, parks, playgrounds, trails, and free public gyms are often not available or safe. Neighborhoods may be crime-ridden, and there may be no nearby indoor places for play or exercise. Ironically, parental efforts to keep kids safe and indoors may increase encourage sedentary behaviors such as watching TV and playing video games.

So you can't make a list of a healthy diet?
I don't need your bullshit socialist study, let's work with hard facts.

List the grocery items and lets go shopping and see what a healthy diet costs versus fast food .

You won't because you know you're full of shit.

I made a list. You want to play games so I sent you to educate yourself.

I can eat healthy for $60 a week.
Fast food is around $150 a week for cheap stuff.

So your entire theory is blown to hell of which it came from.

It is not just price. It is also time. In a house of two people working paying bills it is hard to find time to prepare a good meal or sometimes you are just to damn tired to do it. While it is true that food bad for you is not really cheaper it is not labor intensive. Think about it this way. Who the hell wants to debone a chicken after working 12 hours? Also I hate the fact that people ever care what I eat... I giant chunk of my pay check goes to food. ALL FOOD. none of it is really cheap any more. I am sure if I was on food stamps I could eat steak and shrimp but I am not on welfare I work for a living and cant afford those things. I also dont just feed myself. Two people work in my household of 4 . We pay our bills and buy food and sometimes we have something extra to buy for ourselves which isn't very often.

You want to know a expense I have??? My daughters school. She goes to public school and is a honor roll student. Yet there isnt a week that goes by that the school doesn't seem to have a hand in my pocket for something or another. 80 dollar calculator, Lap top, uniform for cheer leading or sports or what ever activity she is at that time.... Now I could say no you cant be in that activity and no I dont care if you work hard to get a scholarship to a university I know me of my wife cant afford. I am not a liberal I cant do that.

sorry pal, just excuses. make five meals on the weekend while you have time and freeze them. then pop them in the oven when you get home after your 12 hour shift. excuses are just that, excuses.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why are much of the poor in The United States fat?

They eat cheap high caloric food loaded with starch, fat, and sugar.

they CHOOSE to eat that garbage

Choices are often made based on what people know. If you educated people badly, they'll then eat bad food at lot.

But then you'll have excuses for why people shouldn't be educated, just so you can blame them for making bad choices.

Government can't educate. Only people can educate themselves

 

[jc456]

Why are much of the poor in The United States fat?

They eat cheap high caloric food loaded with starch, fat, and sugar.

they CHOOSE to eat that garbage

Choices are often made based on what people know. If you educated people badly, they'll then eat bad food at lot.

But then you'll have excuses for why people shouldn't be educated, just so you can blame them for making bad choices.

that's bullshit too

ask anyone if a salad is healthier than a Snickers bar and tell me what they say

Yeah sure, and ask anyone which they'd prefer to eat, and many would say Snickers Bar simply because they don't know what the snickers bar will actually do to them.

Again, it's about making choices and having reasons to make those choices.

If the salad tasted better because they'd been taught how to do it, taught how to enjoy salad, then maybe they'd eat it. If they'd been taught what sugar does to their brains then maybe they'd have reasons no to eat the snickers. Some would, some wouldn't.

But education is how you change people's attitudes. Maybe if a snickers wasn't cheaper than a salad, then maybe people would also choose to eat salad.

But hey, you keep them there excuses rolling.

so now you're saying the public schools don't educate the kids on what nutrition is? LOL.

 

[jc456]

capital gains are not considered regular income

never have been

Capital gains is where these rich pricks get most of their money. And it is income.

no it isn't friend. it's gains off of the income invested. if I sell my house and make 100k off the sale, you're saying that's my salary? Hahahahahahaahaha, dude you're lost.

 

[thanatos144]

To answer the question in the OP, it's because conservatives are selfish pieces of shit, almost across the board, and they are only concerned about themselves. They don't hate the poor as much as libertarians, but they come close. Everything they say about "giving" is bullshit, their childish Christian religion breeds a bizarre sort of hypocrisy that permeates into every aspect of their self-centered, materialistic lives. They really are the worst of humanity.

You are full of it!

I feed my next door neighbors three time a week and I am white and they are Tejano.

You just want the government to do what you refuse to do!

You don't "feed" anyone anything, except US a bunch of bullshit. Who in the hell is DUMB enough to believe you? Hilarious how when discussing charity or the poor, the lying conservative scum come out of the woodwork claiming to be profesional do-gooders.

You are SO fucking full of shit. Shame on you for lying throught your inbred, redneck crooked teeth, you fucking fraud.

You are projecting

 

[Markle]

My point stands, you are a hypocrite. You don't do anymore than anyone else does. Grow up old man.

I'm not the dupe of greedy idiots megarich GOPers, dupe. You and your New BS GOP brainwashers have ruined the middle class and the country the last 35 years. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

You are an old hypocrite. You do no more than anyone else and yet you constantly point fingers and cry.

Your party is a lying cheating disgrace, and you're an idiot. LOL

China is cruel to the poor by switching to Republican capitalism and eliminating 40% of the poverty on the planet!!

It's

So 30 years of progressive policies has produced exactly no progress. Some may call that even more years invested in the poverty prevention system. You have accomplished exactly nothing in helping people with your generous donations of other peoples money. When do you think you will learn this?

Never. Be careful, he is a 6'4" 215 lb mean fighting machine.

I had no idea pure fucking stupid could stack that high. 6'4"? Pretty impressive.

Not stupid, dupe. 35 YEARS of Reaganism= After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole? Progressivism was BEFORE that. The rich taxed fairly, investment in the people and our infrastructure. THEN: Anything for the rich and giant corps DUHHHHH...

100+ years of the progressive policies have brought us to this point. How is that great society working out? Reagan give us a few years reprieve from the failures of progressives but of course they didn't like it. Only an idiot wouldn't be able to see that so...

See if you can spot when we went to hell, dupe:
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...lity-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

How many times are you going to post this misinformation which doesn't even cover the relevant years?

As for your lie about moving from one income bracket to another:

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

THE POVERTY HYPE

Despite claims that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, poverty is nowhere near the problem it was yesteryear -- at least for those who want to work. Talk about the poor getting poorer tugs at the hearts of decent people and squares nicely with the agenda of big government advocates, but it doesn't square with the facts.

Dr. Michael Cox, economic adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm, a business reporter for the Dallas Morning News, co-authored a 1999 book, "Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think," that demonstrates the pure nonsense about the claim that the poor get poorer.

The authors analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991.

Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

Cox and Alm's findings were supported by a U.S. Treasury Department study that used an entirely different data base, income tax returns. The U.S. Treasury found that 85.8 percent of tax filers in the bottom income quintile in 1979 had moved on to a higher quintile by 1988 -- 66 percent to second and third quintiles and 15 percent to the top quintile. Income mobility goes in the other direction as well. Of the people who were in the top one percent of income earners in 1979, over half, or 52.7 percent, were gone by 1988. Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don't exceed single digits.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why people who are poor in one decade are not poor one or two decades later. First, they get older. Would anyone be surprised that 30, 40 or 50-year-olds earn a higher income than 20-year-olds? The 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "Average income tends to rise quickly in life as workers gain work experience and knowledge.

Households headed by someone under age 25 average $15,197 a year in income. Average income more than doubles to $33,124 for 25- to 34-year-olds. For those 35 to 44, the figure jumps to $43,923. It takes time for learning, hard work and saving to bear fruit."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report listed a few no-brainer behaviors consistent with upward income mobility. Households in the top income bracket have 2.1 workers; those in the bottom have 0.6 workers. In the lowest income bracket, 84 percent worked part time; in the highest income bracket, 80 percent worked full time. That translates into: Get a full-time job. Only seven percent of top income earners live in a "nonfamily" household compared to 37 percent of the bottom income category. Translation: Get married. At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in McAllen, Texas, was 17.5 percent, while in Austin, Texas, it was 3.5 percent. Translation: If you can't find a job in one locality, move to where there are jobs.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas report concludes, "Little on this list should come as a surprise. Taken as a whole, it's what most Americans have been told since they were kids -- by society, by their parents, by their teachers."

Your stunning ignorance is duly noted!

 

[thanatos144]

Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

Interesting article and much of it chimes with what we see in the UK.

It has to be coated with a thin veneer of religion to make it acceptable but in essence right wing politics is based on a selfish me me me doctrine. DISCUSS

if you actually thought about it, it is dems keeping them dependent and holding them back. The repubs want them to be successful. Not sure how you get where you got. your facts are messed up.

If Republicans wanted them to be successful, they'd educate them better and allow them to have decent healthcare. But they don't... in fact they don't want them doing better, if they do better they'll take the jobs they think their children are entitled to.

Educate them more??? I have to teach my kids after they come back from school because it seems schools are to busy teaching about homosexuals and social justice. regessives dont educate they indoctrinate.

 

[Markle]

f I sell my house and make 100k off the sale, you're saying that's my salary?

Not a very good example. If you are single and have owned the personal residence you reside in, the first $250,000 of gain is not taxed. If you are married and sell your person residence, the first $500,000 in gain is not taxed. Over the years, I've done quite well with that little detail.