How liberals mislead about the tax history of the past 30 years

Thanks for the new buzzword/talking point Kyle.
Job Creator is now Higher Earner. Tired of defending that one I suppose…

• Link
• Report this comment

“anyone who disagrees with Obama’s position on taxes must lack intelligence, honesty or morals”…how many times have I heard versions of that line since 2008?

Liberals can’t win an argument based on reason…so they start in with the name-calling, as evidenced here by the comments directed towards Paul Ryan.

Liberalism is what’s wrong with this country today, not the tax rate.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle: “Certainly, lower tax rates have allowed higher earners to keep more of what they earn, which has compounding effects on wealth, but the tax code does not explain why those higher earners are earning more than did the higher earners of earlier generations. Which is where the “problem” Tomasky identifies really begins. If you agree that this is a problem, the tax code is not the place to “fix” it.”

It is not? Why not? It is exactly the progressive tax rate that corrects the excesses of the earning differences.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle,
Your critique of Tomasky’s piece would be more credible, if you did not use the same type of arguments, while pretending you do not. Tomasky writes that he did not claim cause and effect, while in effect he did. You have done exactly the same: “I’m not claiming direct cause and effect.” At the same time: “But which part of tax policy changed during this second term of Clinton’s? Not the individual income tax rate; that increase came in 1993. No, it was the tax rate on capital gains, which actually fell in 1997. Tax receipts and the economy soared.” In effect, you have claimed that it was the cut in the tax rate on capital gains that caused the tax receipts and economy to soar, not the individual income tax rate. You point is that the latter happened in Clinton’s first term, and the former in the second term. Are you so naïve that you think the economy reacts so fast to changes like tax rates?

• Link
• Report this comment

the reason that not everyone can use those tax breaks is in most cases because of laziness.

Written like someone who has never really lived around anyone who was truly poor. Oh, that’s right, there but for the grace of God and all that…..

• Link
• Report this comment

byteme, yeah you got me, coming up in east point in the early sixties was like living in country club of the south. What a fool.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, Obama’s plan is not a soak-the-rich idea. It is a pay-your-fair-share-of-taxes plan. Republicans have made it clear who funds their election and re-election campaigns and you may be certaing lobbyists for Big Business have made it clear to Republican politicians that NO tax hikes of any kind will be tolerated. None of your convoluted and arcane writings will hide these simple facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle @ 10:31 – why waste my time with rational, fact-based arguments when they don’t mean anything to you? you are completely blinded by your ideology and either too stupid or ignorant to even realize it. Ad hominem? You betcha but you really are that annoying and clueless

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Kyle, who wrote…”It turns out that the Clinton years were an anomaly in modern tax history.”

Indeed they were…here are some other things that were different,

For example:

Average GDP increase under Clinton was the highest in the last 30+ years

1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%

http: //www. davemanuel.com/historical-gdp-numbers-united-states.php

Clinton was the only President since LBJ to DECREASE national debt as a % of GDP and was responsible for the only balanced budgets in memory.

http: //uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/ig/Political-Economic-Measures/Debt-GDP-by-President.htm

As for Jobs…

23.1 million jobs were created during Clintons years, by far the most of any President. In fact more than during the terms of Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, and Ford COMBINED.

http: //blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

So Kyle, instead of blathering on about the unproven if not disproven theory of tax cuts for the wealthy creating jobs maybe the thing we should do in go back to WHAT ACTUALLY WORKED…but that would be an “anomaly” now wouldn’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

duder @10:36 am: “Would you rather he create the Marcus wing of Grady Hospital or the government?”

Why not the government?

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m going back a bit further than Kyle would…..but the nation experienced its greatest expansion of both the wealthy and middle class under the Eisenhower Administration when the optimum tax rate was 90%…and no one really complained!! The wealthy maintained their wealth…and the greatest expansion of the middle class occurred..and Eisenhower wasn’t a progressive!!

• Link
• Report this comment

junior- “Against all common sense, you choose to invest Your Money into rental property”
Don’t know about your approach to common sense but by investing in run down properties for the past twenty years, I’ve done pretty good with my common sense, better than it sitting somewhere waiting to be gobbled up by government unless of course I put it into municiple bonds, nope wait urkle wants to up the federal tax on that also in his new JOBS bill. I guess if I was in the market to sell some of them right now it might be a different story but why would I do that, I maintain almost a 100% occupancy rate year in year out. Not bad for a POOR boy from the eastside because I was unlucky enough to have been born POOR. So I’m pretty happy with my choice, good defending of little debbie though even if she wasn’t being attacked.

• Link
• Report this comment

I say we shouldn’t demonize anyone in America, even the wealthy. Instead we should pursue collective clarity by implementing the FairTax so wealthy people will pay a hefty tax on their luxuries. Even better, those luxuries would be considerably cheaper if produced in the U.S. Through that, we would make “made in America” more price competitive and bring home jobs, tax all retail consumption above the poverty line and take away the politicians tool to dole out favors. It’s a win win for the people.

• Link
• Report this comment

HW Bush presided over a recession that ended on his watch, you write. But when did it start? Back in the 1970s? Hell, no. That leaves Ronald Reagan and his 8 years of cutting taxes to the faithful as the only culprit.

• Link
• Report this comment

@MarkV

The government has a track record for its inability to deliver a better product at a better price than the private sector. The USPS and public schools jump to mind immediately. One is corrupt and the other bankrupt, you decide which is which.

• Link
• Report this comment

Better go charge a few ebt cards. Glad you are back Kyle.

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course liberals mislead, they can’t stand that facts aren’t on their side!

• Link
• Report this comment

@Kyle, wish I had time to fully thrash this out but here is the short version…

You wrote “Reagan inherited the deepest post-war recession we’d seen until the most recent one (deeper in some ways, though not as lengthy, as the most recent one…which says something about policy responses). ”

I don’t believe the situation Reagan inherited was anywhere close to the scope of the recent crisis. In fact the prime driving force behind that recession was the Iranian oil crisis. As that eased, so did the problem.

Kyle wrote “HW Bush presided over a recession that ended on his watch”

Which was created by Reagan.

Kyle wrote “leaving Clinton to benefit from a nascent recovery”

Which he supercharged by raising taxes and cutting deficits.

Kyle wrote “and leave office just as the tech bubble burst (which was of course compounded by 9/11). W Bush of course inherited the resulting recession.

Which he promptly made worse in the long-term by lowering taxes and raising deficits.

Kyle wrote “As for Obama, I don’t think any serious person disputes that he was dealt a bad hand, only that he’s responded to it well.”

I would not say bad but I would agree that he has not gone far enough with some things. In particular he should have moved to cut deficits by restoring tax rates, focused on creating jobs by revamping regulations and stimulating the funding of NEW businesses. He also lost his chance at impacting health care in a meaningful way and shot himself in the foot by allowing the deficit ceiling debate to even occur.

Kyle wrote, “In any case, you’re too smart to believe that economic and political cycles align so neatly.”

They don’t and government can’t control them only influence. That said small actions can have big impacts that play out over long times and underfunding the government and creating large deficits is one of those. Reagan, Bush, Cheney et al…allowed themselves to believe that “deficits don’t matter”…in a given year or two not so much…since 1980 in a big way.

• Link
• Report this comment

I would quote from a NYtimes article “Federal revenue comes primarily from taxes, including income, Social Security and excise taxes. This revenue total is projected to claim just 14.9 percent of gross domestic product in 2009. The last time federal revenue crept below 15 percent of G.D.P. was in 1950, when it fell to 14.4 percent. Since that time, federal revenue has averaged about 17.9 percent of the economy.”

• Link
• Report this comment

@Kyle, one more thing on this whole tax cuts thing. The entire theory is built on the idea that if people have more money they will spend it leading to higher demand for products thus jobs….problem in today’s world is twofold. First if the cuts go to people that don’t spend it they do no good. Nor does investing in the stock market do any good relative to direct job creation. Only money that is invested in NEW businesses or direct business expansion does any good and that turns out to be a very low percentage of the tax cut.

Conversely when taxes are increased and government borrowing is reduced then money that would have gone to buy government securities must find a new home. Lots of times that home is banks or bonds. Those are normally funding sources for either new businesses or business expansion and those do in fact lead to new jobs.

• Link
• Report this comment

One last thing, this couldn’t be true could it? Well that just blew a hole in urkles wealth envy plan.
“Data compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center show households pulling in more than $1 million pay about 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes. By contrast, households making between $50,000 and $75,000 pay about 15 percent.”

• Link
• Report this comment

The slowdown was already under way before the technical recession was began.

You did not however say that Bush inherited a “slowdown.”

You said he “W Bush of course inherited the resulting recession.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Liberals are misled about a lot of things…for example, take Greece’s economic/entitlement/pension/union problems. Liberals think that if we continue on the path we are on now, somehow Greece’s plight won’t take hold here. Hello, McFly!! Wake up people…

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle Wingfield
September 20th, 2011
11:29 am

Being a part of the tech bubble in 2001, it actually didn’t burst until September 15, 2001! Over 5M techies were laid off by Corporate America immediately after 9/11…and the IT market remained flooded for over 2 years with professionals who couldn’t work! (I was one of them!)

• Link
• Report this comment

joe
September 20th, 2011
11:33 am

If you are willing to note the obvious: Greece has little manufacturing structure, thereby a broadening tax base couldn’t occur. Because of the decline of the tax base, the austerity measures are having an adverse effect. Look at the US – Corporate America has offshored our manufacturing base….thereby a reduction on the tax base has occurred. If we DON’T revamp our manufacturing capability, THEN would the Greecian scenario occur here!!

• Link
• Report this comment

“So sorry you’re back, Kyle. Last week was wonderful without you. Your disingenuous, obfuscating blather is old, tired, worn and dead wrong.”–Comrade KyleKylegoaway

It looks like this Bolshevik/\/\/\\/\/\/\/\ can’t handle the truth.

Obama is turning to his Leftwing Liberal base for support as his Independent support is quickly eroding. This latest “Class Welfare” Bill from Obama is merely a campaign tactic for 2012.

Obama is toast in 2012

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe the Plumber,

I like your story. A strong independent man is worth hearing about.
—————–
SCOOTER,
I like your line “I say we should not demonize anyone in America, even the wealthy.” Right! They made their money and it is theirs just like everybody else. “Stealing” should not be legal.
—————

KYLE

I am glad you are back. I don’t know enough about tax history to comment on it. BUT I do know I don’t want my taxes raised and I doubt that anyone else does. Good planning and deletion of excess expense in government is much better. I wish our president could realize that. Obviously, he does not.

• Link
• Report this comment

USMC @ 11:48 – I absolutely cannot wait to see your and your comrades’ collective apoplexy when the President is reelected. Sooooooooooooooooooooooo excited, in fact!!!!!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Sad to see that in over 50 comments posted about this topic (excepting our host’s, of course), perhaps two of them contained something other than personal attacks or insults.

I know that some of you are capable of better performance. Step it up.

• Link
• Report this comment

“USMC @ 11:48 – I absolutely cannot wait to see your and your comrades’ collective apoplexy when the President is reelected. Sooooooooooooooooooooooo excited, in fact!!!!!!!!”
–Comrade Kylekylegoaway

Nice originality! I’ll be okay; seeing that the Republicans will take back the Senate and control both houses of Congress. Can you say LAME Duck?

• Link
• Report this comment

Latest Gallup poll regarding Obama’s jobs bill:
All 45:32%
Democrats 70:9%
Republicans 19:60 %.
Independents: 44:32 %

• Link
• Report this comment

SolyndraGATE, coming to a theatre near you!

Issa to launch probe of Obama actions on Solyndra, LightSquared
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182553-issa-to-investigate-government-loan-programs

• Link
• Report this comment

USMC
September 20th, 2011
12:08 pm

With Republicans like these, it’s no wonder why the GOP is part of the “theatre of the absurd”!!

Does It Really Cost This Tea Party Congressman $200,000 to Feed His Family?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/19/does-it-really-cost-this-tea-party-congressman-200-000-to-feed/?a_dgi=aolshare_facebook

• Link
• Report this comment

I think the Politburo is going to enter ANOTHER Left wing Liberal into the Presidential Race for 2012…

Liberals vow to challenge Obama in Democratic primaries
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/19/liberals-vow-challenge-obama-democratic-primaries/

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, give us some insight on how the automatic spending cuts will go down when the “super committee” fails to do its job.

• Link
• Report this comment

What a hypocritical, Intellectually Dishonest, morally Bankrupt “Crook”:

FLASHBACK: Obama Says You Don’t Raise Taxes In A Recession
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE

• Link
• Report this comment

“Does It Really Cost This Tea Party Congressman $200,000 to Feed His Family? ”

Possibly the dumbest article I’ve ever read.

Obviously, the Congressman is talking about whatever living expenses he shells out each year (food, clothing, housing, utilities, etc) and not just “food”. If he has grown children (and he does) he’s likely got college bills out the wazoo to pay as well.

But this moronic gotcha journalism focusing on a single word and blowing it all out of proportion has got to stop. On both sides.

• Link
• Report this comment

Only one word fits GT’s 1:11 post:

Oy.

• Link
• Report this comment

@USMC, generally – it is painfully obvious you wouldn’t know a socialist from a communist from a Marxist from a Bolshevik from a comrade even if one or all of them simultaneously slapped you upside the head. What’s truly frightening is that ignoramus’ such as yourselves are what pass for a good % of the voting public. Im beginning to fear that even the Lord himself couldn’t save the USA from its rabid right wing.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Can you name anybody in these posts, or in a position in the government, advocating this philosophy?”

MarkV, anyone who advocates taking more from the rich in order to fund our social programs, i.e. 99% of the elected Democrat representatives, you, and virtually every other liberal poster on this blog is advocating that philosophy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius @1:29 pm: “MarkV, anyone who advocates taking more from the rich in order to fund our social programs, i.e. 99% of the elected Democrat representatives, you, and virtually every other liberal poster on this blog is advocating that philosophy.”

Which shows how ignorant you are regarding the philosophy of communism and socialism.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ability? Aren’t we in love with ourselves? Go down to the Atlanta Fed. Pen. and you will find people with the same “ability”. Another thing we will find in common is neither one of these groups with great “ability” pay taxes. Ability is the small business owner that has ability to produced something and not the guy that steals the idea and has never produced anything. This country will not be great again until the fly over country becomes the country and all this other stuff is call out for what it is, slick unproductive white collar crime.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
1:29 pm

The direct QUOTE:

“Fleming’s taxes would rise under the Obama plan. This is because, in addition to his $174,000 congressional salary — which is far below the minimum threshold for Obama’s tax increases — Fleming also pulls in an impressive $6.3 million from his investments, including several Subway franchise restaurants and UPS stores.

However, Fleming was quick to explain that he only brought home a small portion of his $6.3 million gross income. As he told Jansing, “That’s before you pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment and food. The actual net income of that was only a mere fraction of that amount.” In fact, according to Fleming, he made a comparatively paltry $600,000.

While decidedly less than $6.3 million, Fleming’s $600,000 is still nothing to sneeze at: Given the $49,455 that the median American household brought home in 2010, the congressman’s yearly income equaled the take-home pay of more than a dozen average families. But, as Fleming noted, even that princely sum was not all it appeared. In order to create more jobs — and, not coincidentally, expand his business — Rep. Fleming needed to invest more money: “By the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment …”

So, let’s see: $600,000 minus $400,000 for reinvestment leaves $200,000 that Fleming has budgeted to “feed his family.” In other words, the congressman’s yearly food budget is more than the total take home salary for four average families. ”

Include his Congressional salary, the funding Congressmen get for staffing/offices/travel…….he shouldn’t be complaining!!

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/qNKdnm

• Link
• Report this comment

GT: I have a feeling I might agree with at least some of the things you have in mind, but with all due respect, would it be possible for you to write in a way that makes sense?

• Link
• Report this comment

In terms of government making sound business decisions, one word jumps to mind: Solyndra.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wouldn’t matter anyway, hell I can’t even type that straight, sorry.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV, we’ll break this down so that even YOU can understand it.

“From each according to his ability” = The rich can afford to be taxed more.

“To each according to his needs” = Funding social programs and entitlements.

Please tell me how this doesn’t equate to what you and your liberal buddies on this blog advocate on a daily basis, and then tell me I don’t understand the philosophy.

• Link
• Report this comment

carlosgvv @10:31 am

Please define “fair share”. Use as much space as necessary, but please be specific.

• Link
• Report this comment

“As a politician he claims raising taxes would lead to job loss but as a businessman, he refused to say he would lay off employees if his taxes were increased.”

Yeah, let’s make a business decision based on an increase that hasn’t been voted on, in a bill that hasn’t been written, and then let’s announce it on a national news show during an interview.

At some point, John, do you EVER stop to think?

• Link
• Report this comment

MPercy

“Please define “fair share”.”

They could pay based on the percentage of wealth owned. If the top 1% owns 85% of all the wealth in the US, they should pay 85% of all taxes collected.

• Link
• Report this comment

I am asking seriously if someone can tell me what “My Fair Share” is or should be if my family makes $120,000/yr?

I am serious here…

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!

September 20th, 2011
1:56 pm

To counter yur previous:

“I do not care what was said in the middle of a live interview.”
I’ve always been taught that the TRUTH comes out in the first thought….so whatever was said by the Congressman was what he thought was the truth. Since the context isn’t clarified by the Congressman, we must accept his statement on face value.

“Unlike most of you people on here, I can personally state that speaking on live TV and in front of crowds of dozens, if not hundreds of people is a daunting experience for even the pros.” Can agree with that from MY personal experiences (multiple)…..however, the Congressman should’ve been prepared to clarify his statement if he feared his context wouldn’t be understood at face value!

“And unlike many of you, I do not harp on one word in a collection of statements in order to play gotcha with the other side.” Not just one word…but the series of words which make the complete statement. If we do’t harp on the Congressman’s statement, how can we make informed decisions as constituents??

“Only the truly delusional out there would believe that a Congressman with a family of 6 would be spending $200,000 on food in one year’s time. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the Congressman was speaking of ALL his annual expenses, and not that of just his family’s meals.” It’s not delusional to take the statement at face value….but let’s expand upon that; isn’t it feasible that those of wealth DO spend exorbitant amounts in support of their lifestyle? $200K out of an income on $6M equals .0333333%…..whereas many in this nation spend over 20% to feed themselves!!

“But logic and intelligence is largely lost on the liberal mind, and usually on the fringes of both sides of the aisle.”

Let’s fix that…..”logic and intelligence is largely lost on the conservative mind in the desire to maintain the status quo while simultaneously suppressing the desires of the preponderance of the nation!”

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!

That’s their claim…yet he will not stand by his own claim. Didn’t we see businesses making claims well before Obamacare was written and voted on? Don’t businesses spend huge amounts of money on lobbyist and political ads making claims before things are passed? Why is this, all of a sudden, a new concept to you?

At some point, Tiberius, do you EVER stop to think or do research before making your claims?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Let’s fix that…..”logic and intelligence is largely lost on the conservative mind in the desire to maintain the status quo while simultaneously suppressing the desires of the preponderance of the nation!”

Let’s see . . . the “desires of the preponderance of the nation” just recently booted out the ruling party in favor of an alternative point of view in 2010 in the biggest electoral shift since the 1920’s, so what exactly do you mean by your provably inaccurate statement, HDB? See, hyperbole doesn’t work when one has facts to deal with.

And just what “status quo” is being maintained when the party in power right now wishes to reverse the deficit spending habits of the past 35 years?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Didn’t we see businesses making claims well before Obamacare was written and voted on?”

Yes, we did. In PREPARED statements based on prepared statistical analysis, not live interviews.

“Don’t businesses spend huge amounts of money on lobbyist and political ads making claims before things are passed?”

See above.

“Why is this, all of a sudden, a new concept to you?”

It’s not. It is, apparently, a concept lost on you however.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV @11:34 am “The evidence that the rich do not pay the fair share is that their after-tax income has been growing at a faster rate than that of the middle class.”

So what? My income is rising faster than my brother’s, too. We had the same parents, same home environment, are only 2 years apart, so we went to the same schools at pretty much the same time and had pretty much the same set of teachers. We’re both healthy, engaged in sports (he played football, I ran track) in school, etc. There’s no good reason why we should be dramatically different in terms of income.

Except that my brother was a bit of a slacker in school, whereas I excelled. He chose to become a school teacher, I chose to become an engineer. He married a school teacher and had kids. I married an IT professional who quickly moved into a VP slot with a Fortune 500 company and have not had children. My personal income has more than quadrupled in the last 15 years, his has gone up somewhat as he gains seniority. Our combined income puts us in the top 2% (and a target of Mr. Obama), their combined income puts them in squarely in the middle-class.

The tax code is not what created this “unfair” situation, nor was it a difference in environment. It was the decisions he and I made along the line.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
September 20th, 2011
2:32 pm

The problem is that the “party in power” (Democrats) HAD to inject capital into the economic system to ARREST the fall that REPUBLICANS got us into!! Note: TARP and Bank bailouts were primarily a Repblican idiom!! The stimulus DID work…but Republican propoganda has snowed many of the populace! Provisions of “ObamaCare” were based on REPUBLICAN ideology (Romney’s healthcare bill is Massachussetts)….and many of the provisions ARE desired by the preponderance of the populace (elimination of pre-existing conditions, for one!)

The status quo that is being maintained: The wealthy do not have to sacrifice whereas the preponderance of the nation MUST! If you WANTED to reverse the deficit spending, Republicans should NOT have stated that “deficits don’t matter”!!; Republicans should have embraced a repeal of the Bush tax cuts; Republicans should have embraces “pay-as-you-go”; Republicans should have voted AGAINST the war resolutions!!

THAT’s changing the status quo!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Jefferson @12:01 pm “The tax increases proposed by the president hurts no one and is benificial to debt reduction. It is just one of the sacrifies needed that were caused by the runaway budgets between 2000 and 2008. Cuts in spending will follow.”

No. We’ve played that game way too many times. The cuts never follow. How about this time we cut first, then after the cuts have been proven rather than promised, we talk about increasing taxes.

For example, I will gladly support a return the the Clinton’s tax code circa FY2000, for everyone, one year after we demonstrate having limited spending to the 18.2% of GDP it was in FY2000. Keep it at 18.2% for another year, and I’d be more than happy to talk about redefining carried interest and maybe even a new 38% rate for AGI over $1M.

And so on. But show the real cuts first, not a promise to pay me Tuesday for a hamburger today.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Guess we can do away with debates, town hall meeting, interviews, ect. Politicians can just release PREPARED statements.”

You are possibly the most bone-headed poster that has ever lived in cyber-space, John. If you wish to debate like a 2 year-old, the Bookman blog is next door. You’d fit right in there.

What INTELLIGENT people do is LISTEN to what is said, logically and dispassionately EVALUATE what is said, and make a determination whether that person said something believable or not.

Now, if you’re the type of voter who can turn “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska” into “I can see Russia from my house” and vote that way, then please stop voting.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!

“Quite possibly they do. Not that it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out.”

I’m sure they don’t. As soon as Obama or any Democrats open their mouths on anything, the Republican response is “job killing” including their own ideas. Obama Cares is jobs killing even though it’s modeled after Romneycare and was first introduced by Republicans during the Clinton administration. Bailouts are “job killing” even though the bailouts were started by Bush…John Boner cried (not unusual) on the House floor begging for it’s passage. Every government is “jobs killing” according to Republicans. The only thing Republicans seems to think is not “jobs killing” is tax reduction.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius @1:59 pm: “From each according to his ability” = The rich can afford to be taxed more. “To each according to his needs” = Funding social programs and entitlements.“ Please tell me how this doesn’t equate to what you and your liberal buddies on this blog advocate on a daily basis, and then tell me I don’t understand the philosophy”

Glad to oblige. You do not understand the philosophy. Why don’t you learn something first, before you start using labels and mottos, the meaning of which you are not familiar with?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!

“What INTELLIGENT people do is LISTEN to what is said, logically and dispassionately EVALUATE what is said, and make a determination whether that person said something believable or not.”

No, what INTELLIGENT people do is LISTEN to what is said and RESEARCH and find the facts in order to EVALUATE what is said is the truth. We don’t have to look far to see the FACTS. Bill Clinton raised taxes and during his administration and 23 million jobs were created. George Bush reduced taxes and only 3 million jobs were added. Those are the FACTS. Of course, tax policy alone doesn’t increase or decrease jobs but to say raising taxes reduces jobs, which is what the Republicans claim has proven to be false.

• Link
• Report this comment

John @3:01 pm

Good question, and one which has real-world implications. I have already assisted my brother in such circumstances. I also assisted my brother-in-law’s family during a transitional time (so we had them, including a 2-year-old kid, living with us). My 70+ mother-in-law has lived with us for several years. We also give thousands to charity every year, and my wife likes to do Habitat for Humanity.

Now, we did/do all this because it’s our moral understanding as a requirement. Having the government point a figurative and literal gun at our heads and force me to do the same for people I don’t know is a different question altogether.

I believe that I have absolutely no right to force you or anyone else to provide for my wants and needs; I likewise think that you have absolutely no right to force me to provide for your wants and needs. However, I believe that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow human beings and should do so voluntarily. If there is to be a punishment for my failure to heed my obligations, it is not the bailiwick of you or anyone else (government) to mete out that punishment.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Bill Clinton raised taxes and during his administration and 23 million jobs were created. George Bush reduced taxes and only 3 million jobs were added. Those are the FACTS.”

Those are conclusions without analysis, not facts.

“Of course, tax policy alone doesn’t increase or decrease jobs”

Yet you use those conclusions and call them facts.

“but to say raising taxes reduces jobs, which is what the Republicans claim has proven to be false.”

No, it has not in this type of economy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!

“Neither of your assertions above are true. Try facts next time.”

Where did, for instance, the individual mandate originate from? Even Newt Gingrigh admits it’s from Republican proposals. He also has said when Republican proposed it, they weren’t concerned with the Constitution enough to evaluate whether it was Constitutional or not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius @3:23 pm @ “That is your statement of opinion, and not backed up with factual data.”

It was a statement backed up with what you have written – a nonsense of comparing a safety net in a capitalist society with the communist motto.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’ll repeat, MarkV:

“From each according to his ability” = The rich can afford to be taxed more.

“To each according to his needs” = Funding social programs and entitlements.“

Please tell me how this doesn’t equate to what you and your liberal buddies on this blog advocate on a daily basis, and then tell me I don’t understand the philosophy.

Is not the advocating of taking more from the wealthy a government-mandated “From each according to his ability”? Of course it is.

And is not giving that money “to each according to his needs” not advocating the government-mandated creation / continuation / expansion of our social safety net? Are the people you and other libs wanting to catch in that net not needy?

Do you even understand the English language, MarkV?

• Link
• Report this comment

liberals bad..tea party good

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’m not back pedaling.”

Actually, you are.

“It is modeled after Republican plans.”

No, some Republican initiatives were built into it, but there was never any Republican “plan” that ever looked remotely like the abortion known as Obamacare.

“But there is one big difference between his plan and say, Medicare Part D passed by Republicans and signed into law by Bush”

Don’t you mean that was passed by both Democrats AND Republicans, John?”

…he has provisions to pay for it.”

No, he doesn’t. A new independent analysis AND your beloved CBO both show that Obamacare will end up increasing the deficit by over $80 billion per year due to double-counting savings in one side as income in another.

“Notice how Republicans want to blame Democrats for the deficit but Republican have been know to pass spending bills with no way to pay for it.”

Actually, many Republicans have admitted their complicity in increasing the deficit and debt in the past. But their blame of Democrats in the 2006-2010 years is certainly valid, as is your criticism of the GOP.

“Also noticed at the Tea Party debate while every candidate called for repealing Obamacare, when asked not a single one supported repealing Medicare Part D even though it will add more to the deficit than Obamacare.”

And . . . ? I might point out to you that this is an election season, and making blanket statements and admissions as you would like the GOP candidates to do would certainly open them up to direct criticism from you if they did. So which is it? Do you want them to get rid of it, or are you just cheesed off that you can’t rail against them for not wanting to get rid of it?

• Link
• Report this comment

the problem is media stoking the flame wars. of course rich want to be richer and everybody wants more money in their pocket. but the whole politic game is dumbed down by the media as some sort of football match – one side against the other. life ain’t that simple. people need to somehow get a better look at themselves and actually hear the dumb sh!t that spills out of their gourds as what they think they believe that some media boob pooped into it. sometimes government does good work – for both sides of the dollar. give and take is how it’s worked thus far.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!

What INTELLIGENT people do is LISTEN to what is said, logically and dispassionately EVALUATE what is said, and make a determination whether that person said something believable or not.

That’s the problem and not what INTELLIGENT people do. Remember the story about Obama’s trip to India?

The Drudge Report — a news aggregation website — linked to the Press Trust of India article, with the headline “REPORT: US to spend $200 million per day on Obama’s Mumbai visit…” Later that day, Rush Limbaugh claimed on his radio show that “Five hundred seven rooms at the Taj Mahal, 40 airplanes, $200 million a day this nation will spend on Obama’s trip to India.” He repeats the “$200 million a day” claim several times throughout the show without specifying its source.

The allegation has generated a great deal of Internet discourse over the past few days, including a Washington Times post that claims Obama’s entourage on the trip “will spend enough to bankrupt a small nation.” According to the Economic Times and The Daily Mail, Obama will take over the entire 570-room Taj Mahal Hotel for the trip.

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota repeated the claim Nov. 3 on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” attacking Obama for “over-the-top spending.” When Cooper countered that “no one really knows the cost, because for security reasons they don’t disclose the cost,” Bachmann responded, “Well these are the numbers that have been coming out in the press.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Your point being, John?

You will hardly ever see me defending what Rush Limbaugh or Michele Bachmann says, as I am not a Republican nor a conservative.

I am a Constitutionalist, which is why you consistently fail to make any headway in your debates with me. You’re not equipped to handle someone who is truly independent of the right/left, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat mode of restrictive thinking.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius @3:46 pm: You may understand English. What you do not understand is the meaning of what you have read.

“From each according to his ability” = The rich can afford to be taxed more.”
“Is not the advocating of taking more from the wealthy a government-mandated “From each according to his ability”? Of course it is.”

Of course it is NOT. Yours is a silly, ignorant and laughable misinterpretation of the communist manifesto, which refers to people doing their work as best as they could – so that the society gets from each of them the products of their work “according to their ability.”

“To each according to his needs” = Funding social programs and entitlements.

This part of the motto refers to a utopian stage of the society, in which technology is so developed that everybody can get what he/she needs. Again, it is a laughable nonsense to compare it with a safety net in a capitalist society. How many people get “what they need” from the social programs and entitlements? Would you like to have all you needs satisfied by what the people below the poverty line get from those programs?

• Link
• Report this comment

“I would hardly call it bipartisanship when in the House it passed with only 16 Democrats voting yes and in the Senate, it was 11.”

Well considering that without the 11 Democrat Senators it wouldn’t have passed the Senate (cloture rules, remember), then yes, it was very much bi-partisan.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV, you are now deflecting, rather than answering the question directly. You can state what was “intended” to be meant all day long, but the issue isn’t what was “intended” but what is occurring right now. That you continue to deflect shows your inability to defend the reality of the situation around you.

“How many people get “what they need” from the social programs and entitlements?”

Need? Almost everything the “need” to survive. Food, shelter, medical, etc.

“Would you like to have all you needs satisfied by what the people below the poverty line get from those programs?”

Do not confuse “needs” with “wants”, MarkV. What they “need” is to survive. What they “want” is not the purview of any Constitutional form of government ever devised.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius @4:39 pm:

You are now only trying to confuse issues to hide your ignorance. It was you who introduced the words of the communist manifesto without understanding its meaning. The expression of that philosophy does not refer to what is “needed to survive.” When you compare it with social programs and entitlements, you shown either an ignorance of the subject you introduced, or a deliberate falsification. And I am not confusing “needs” with “wants,” you are.

• Link
• Report this comment

“It was you who introduced the words of the communist manifesto without understanding its meaning.”

Uh, no, it wasn’t. I was merely expounding on the usage based on your original response to the original poster.

“And I am not confusing “needs” with “wants,” you are.”

Uh, actually, you did. Hence, your two statements responding to me: “How many people get “what they need” from the social programs and entitlements? Would you like to have all you needs satisfied by what the people below the poverty line get from those programs?”

• Link
• Report this comment

According to the IRS, taxpayers with incomes over $1 million paid an average rate of 23.3%, while those earning $50K-100K paid 8.9%, and of course lower incomes paid even a lower percentage.

Your Idiot Messiah is a liar.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good column Kyle. I’m sure your resident blog Marxists will defend their progressive tax – actually it’s a “compound progressive tax” – to no socialist end and their rob the Evil Rich mentality expressed by the current resident of the oval office: Who believes it is fair to rob the rich simply because they are wealthier than others that pay zero income or capital gains tax and receive taxpayer checks and/or benefits.

It’s the same old Karl Marx line Kyle no matter how they repackage, reword or – excuse the pun – “REDISTRIBUTE” it:

“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”

• Link
• Report this comment

Whatever, Kyle (rolling eyes)..the only revisionist theories offered here are the one’s under your tin foiled hat…

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! @6:11 pm: Make me happy! I can do without your weaseling.

• Link
• Report this comment

the red herring

Let all income (wages and investments) be taxed at the same rate.

• Link
• Report this comment

the red herring

And if that still doesn’t bring in enough revenue to pay the bills, I’m sure you would have no problem in your taxes being raised to 20 or 25 percent or more…just as long as the millionaires and billionaires pay the same percentage.

• Link
• Report this comment

Before raising ANYONE’s taxes, the Idiot Messiah’s un-American, obscene, job-killing spending problem must be fixed.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV 4:43 pm Mpercy @4:37 pm What you have written is a truly malicious, ignorant misinterpretation of “what progressive liberals mean when they say the words “what they need.” It deserves only contempt.

Why? It appears accurate to me. Allow me to explain, with references.

A Department of Energy Survey [www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/#undefined], includes a part of which breaks down appliance use in US homes by household Income.

For example it states that 16.9M households are below the poverty line, and of those 15.6M have microwaves, 8.6M have coffee makers, 10.6M have top-door (top freezer) refrigerators, 1.8M have a 2nd refrigerator, 3,9M have a separate freezer, 4.8M have a dishwasher, 10.9M have a clothes washer in their home.

For TVs, of the 16.9M households below the poverty line, only 0.3M had no TV, while 4.8M had one TV, 5.9M had two TVs, 3.5M had three TVs, 1.6M had four TVs, and 0.7M had five or more TVs. Some 8.9M had TVs between 21 and 36 inches in screen size, and 4.4M had “big screen TVs” of 37 inches or more, with 5.7M being LCD or plasma TVs. Some 6.1M had cable TV boxes connected to their primary TV, and 3.9M had a video game console, and 7.1M had a DVD player.

In addition 5.8M of the 16.9M households below the poverty line had computers, while 1.8M more had two computers (and nearly1M had three or more). Some 7.2M had internet access, of those 2.7M had cable broadband, 3.1 had DSL or fiber. And 5.2M had at least one printer.

8.0M (of 16.9M poverty-level) households have cordless phones, 5.2M have answering machines, 0.8M have fax machines, and 0.8M have photocopiers. 5.8M have stereo equipment.

“The Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, scheduled to be publically presented to Congress next week, may have something for everyone, but a new intriguing bauble is the suggestion by the FCC that Congress will be asked to “consider use of spectrum for a free or very low cost wireless broadband service.” [www.informationweek.com/news/government/enterprise-architecture/223500023]

Free cells phones are being provided, too. “The latest expansion of an already bloated federal government is a program aimed at putting free cell phones into the hands of low-income Americans.” [www.ibtimes.com/articles/198119/20110816/verizon-cell-phones-tax.htm]

There are certainly programs for reduced utilities, federal programs such as Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), plus a bevy of state programs.

Foodstamps provide at least some free food, even fast food. “Food stamps – known more formally as the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – have been in use for grocery staples, such as bread and milk, since 1934, but now, for the first time, they can be used for fast food in four states across the country.” [abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/09/fast-food-chains-getting-into-the-food-stamp-act/]

“Just last month the National Economic Development and Law Center (NEDLC) issued the findings of what must be the most comprehensive survey to date of low income car ownership (LICO) programs. The study gathered information from 110 different LICO programs across the country working to “improve access to cars for low-wage workers and their families.” [workforcedev.typepad.com/workforcedev/car_programs/]

I’ll call UI benefits, SSD, etc. “some walking-around money.”

Given the above, what is there about my characterization that is inaccurate?

• Link
• Report this comment

You do realize that typing is all capital letters is the equivalent of shouting, don’t you, STUPID?

And while I don’t agree with the Republican platform on abortion, I do know that there is a moral difference between an innocent life and a guilty criminal’s life.

Do you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry Kyle, you can’t cherry-pick years for your stats. 2001 revenue was 19.4% due to the tech bubble, higher tax rates, and Clinton budget where he worked with a R congress to keep spending under control (remember when compromise wasn’t a dirty word). Bush had nothing to do with it.
Better to take the 3 middle years where Bush had no-bubble/no-recession. (I am being kind, not including the later years)
2004-2006: 6+% GDP growth (well above his average), low unemployment, low tax rates, R congress so no gridlock/vetoes, basically everything the R’s could ask for. Revenue of 15.8, 17 and 18% – about 17% average. Unfortunately, they were spending over 19.5% including 2 stimulus (and up from 18% in 2001), and the R’s had created multiple unfunded liabilities that would last beyond Bush’s time (2 wars, Medicare Part D, the tax cuts themselves – around $300B/yr in unfunded spending). All passed by the R’s over the objections of D’s. That includes Yes votes from Bachman, Ryan, Boehner, et al. No funding, add to the deficit, no problem back then. Funny how they all became fiscal conservatives once they were out of power. That is where our spending problem came from, not from the D’s.

So, the sad fact is that people gave the R’s total control in 2000 and they did everything they said it would take to create an economic boom, plus a permanent R majority (per Rove). Cut taxes, put industry people in charge of regulations (repealed Glass-Steagall which directly led to ‘Too Big to Fail’; allowed mountain top mining that destroys mountains and streams, and many other industry wish list items), repealed laws that restrict businesses, etc. Instead, we had no job growth, a declining middle class, no regulation, a new class of uber-rich that produce nothing (hedge fund managers), and the worst recession since the 1930’s. And now we may actually give them control again. Why? Isn’t one deep recession enough?

As for the notion that raising tax rates back to the Clinton rates (when the economy boomed and 20M jobs were created) would stunt growth, you are talking about 3.6% difference on income above $250K. That’s it.
A simple example:
You make over $250K today. Great for you. You have a chance to earn a $100K bonus if you do really well. Today, you’d pay $36K in Fed taxes on that bonus. With the Clinton rates, you’d pay $39.6K, or $3600 more. So, the R’s would have you believe that you’d not try for the bonus (where you pocket over $60K) just to keep from paying $3600 in taxes. Why does anyone believe that? I’d be happy to make a $1M bonus and pay $40K in ‘extra’ taxes, if I get to pocket $600K. As an old broker told me, no one goes broke paying taxes on profits.

So, please stop preaching supply side, it has never worked. It’s just created huge deficits and led to bubbles. Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, and doubled the deficit. W doubled down on that and then some. He cut taxes and revenue below anything we’d seen, increased spending $150B a year with a R congress walking in lock-step (remember, no vetoes, not even a threat), they added over $3T to the deficit after taking over a surplus, left us with trillions in unfunded liabilities, and handed off the worst economy we’ve seen in 70 years. So, why I am supposed to turn things back over to the Republicans?

And, for those of you that say Obama has made things worse. He took over an economy that actually shrunk 1.7% in 2009, was shedding 100’s of thousands of jobs each month, and was on the verge of total collapse. In less than a year, growth was over 2% (a 4% turnaround), jobs were being created, and we were talking about how to get the deficit under control. He’s the first president to deal with state/local governments cutting lots of jobs in a recession (over 500K so far), and he has a global recession that has slowed exports, plus interest rates at 0%, which limits what can be done to stimulate the economy. All in all, he’s done better than anyone should expect, despite plenty of mistakes and having to work with idiots like Pelosi/Reid and a R party that openly says they will do nothing to help.

• Link
• Report this comment

MPercy @10:11 pm:
I guess you never heard about hunger in this country. How poor would you like the people in one of the richest countries to be to satisfy you?

You presented a lot of numbers. Have you given any thought to those numbers? For one thing, they do not tell you anything about the age and condition of the items. But even without that, let’s have a look at their meaning. Out of 16.9 million households under poverty line, 4.8 M have a dishwasher. That means that there are 12.1 million households without a dishwasher. How many of your friends have no dishwasher? 10.6M have a refrigerator- meaning that over 6 million households are without a refrigerator. Can you imagine your life without a refrigerator? Almost 9 million do not have a cordless phone. How many of you relatives or friends do not have a cordless phone? 13 million do not have a computer. You dare to cite a statistic of that as evidence that these people have no needs?

Given the above, what about your characterization is accurate?

• Link
• Report this comment

MPercy @10:53 am

Perhaps nothing can illustrate better your blindness than the following:” First of all, there is an extremely high correlation between poverty and obesity in this country, so it seems that most people are getting more food than they need.”

Had you done the slightest amount of research, you would now that the obesity of poor people is not due to more food than they need,” but because of the high cost of healthier foods, severe limitation of food sources poor neighborhoods, less time to cook meals, less money to join sports clubs, less opportunity to exercise outdoors, etc.

We do live like 75 years ago. Most people are not below poverty line because they do not want to work or to work hard. That is a conservative fantasy. They are poor because their jobs they do not pay enough, while incomes of people in upper brackets are often obscene and soaring.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than you expend. It’s a simple equation. All of the things you mention are irrelevant to the fact that they are consuming more calories than are necessary. You are simply trying to excuse the decision-making process. Rice & beans are cheap, an excellent source of nutrition and are sold in bodegas–and doesn’t the bus line in most urban areas reach a grocery store that lies outside the food desert? Cooking rice & beans is a no-brainer and doesn’t take any more time that going over to the junk food place for a burrito or cheeseburger. Most people eat for other reasons than being hungry; but if what you have is beans and rice that is less likely to happen–when I was a kind and whined that I was hungry, my mother would say, “There’s a can of corn in the kitchen, want me to warm that up for you?”. She had a point, I never did eat that can of corn.

Then there is your implication that we need to have a gym membership to be healthy? Shall we subsidize aerobics classes? And needing to go outside? You can exercise quite nicely in a very small area without any equipment–pushups, situps, for example.

While it is certainly easier for all the reason you list to be obese than to be healthy, barring some actual endocrine system failure, obesity is primarily lifestyle choice. And one that we enable in the poor by allowing foodstamps (EBT, SNAP, whatever they call it this week) to be used at convenience markets and fast food restaurants is simply enabling that lifestyle choice.

• Link
• Report this comment

MPercy @1:24 pm

All I can say is that you are painfully ignorant of the issues involved in the obesity of the poor people. It is the same attitude of superiority that you are displaying in all your writing. Poor people kids having a play station – what a travesty. People who get some help from the society – and they want to have a TV? How dare they?

I do not like my taxes to be used to support people who do not want to work hard either. But if I should make a list of things I do not like to be supported by my taxes, it would be a long one. I do not want my taxes to be used to build unneeded fighter planes. I do not want them used to pay contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan who cheat the government of billions of dollars. And so on. The money wasted because some of the poor people getting government support do not deserve it is way down on my list. What I found unacceptable in your writing is the broad brush with which you have painted those receiving support.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV

I”m sorry you think I’m painfully ignorant, but you have not provided any counterpoint other than your emotional personal attacks on me whereas I have at least provided some independent background supporting my thesis, which is that progressive liberals seem to believe that everyone is entitled to at least a lower-middle class lifestyle, through government redistribution programs and no effort of their own. This is in contrast to the dire “people will starve to death in the streets” hyperbole. You honestly done nothing to dissuade me from my thesis, and in fact have consistently furthered it.

Re: poverty vs obesity, how about this NIH conclusion? “The association between poverty and obesity may be mediated, in part, by the low cost of energy-dense foods and may be reinforced by the high palatability of sugar and fat. This economic framework provides an explanation for the observed links between socioeconomic variables and obesity when taste, dietary energy density, and diet costs are used as intervening variables. More and more Americans are becoming overweight and obese while consuming more added sugars and fats and spending a lower percentage of their disposable income on food.”

How else can I read that but to think that people are simply choosing to eat low-cost food that are high in fat and sugar (energy-dense) because they like it and it’s cheap? And that given people in poverty a “chose any food you want” card is a bad idea? People in poverty are not starving, they are eating too much of the wrong food, by choice. Or maybe they just don’t know any better, I have to admit that, but really how stupid must you be to not know that Big Macs make you fat?

You seem to think that I am incapable of distinguishing between someone who is milking the system (please do not claim there are none) and those who simply could not survive without it (and I never claimed there are none). I am not painting with a broad brush either. I believe I was quite clear in distinguishing between the truly needy and those who use the programs but do not truly need them, where my distinction involves their ability to choose to spend their money on luxury items or “wants” (and yes, big-screen TV and Playstation are some examples) rather than food, rent, or bills or “needs”.

• Link
• Report this comment

MPercy @3:55 pm

I am not going to discuss such a complex issue as poverty/obesity in these posts. I do not believe you are competent to do that, and neither am I. I have no quarrel with the NIH conclusions you have cited. It is enough to quote your one sentence: How else can I read that but to think that people are simply choosing to eat low-cost food that are high in fat and sugar (energy-dense) because they like it and it’s CHEAP?” (My emphasis) Would you expect them to eat food that is expensive? I could go on and on, picking up your arguments: For instance: “…but really how stupid must you be to not know that Big Macs make you fat?” You really expect the usually less educated poor people to be less “stupid” than those in upper classes who get fat by eating Big Macks?

I think I have expressed clearly enough that there are people milking the system, and that I have no sympathy with that. What you failed to explain is what you want to do about it? Deny the help to all because of some are milking the system? Double the size of the government to watch every one who receives support whether he/she buys a big screen TV or a Playstation?

And yes, you have painted with a broad brush, which was the reason for my original response. Just read your post at 4:37 pm yesterday.

• Link
• Report this comment

You’re right, I did use a broad brush…to paint progressive liberals. You seem to think I’m attacking people in poverty. I’m not. I’m attacking progressive liberals who do not clearly distinguish between wants and needs. There could possibly be progressive liberals who will use the words “want” vs “need” in a forthright and honest fashion, and my broad brush did not allow for that prospect. Apologies.

I tried to support that statement using evidence from a number of sources. In essence, I was arguing that progressive liberals regularly and with malice aforethought attempt to portray poverty in the most negative possible way, when in reality the standard of living among the poor in the United States has steadily increased to the point where a US person living in poverty has a standard of living similar to middle-class Europeans, and would be the envy of much of the world’s truly poor.

These folks did a nice job capturing this idea…

[Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor]

“For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests near destitution: an inability to provide nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter for one’s family. However, only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity.

“Although the mainstream media broadcast alarming stories about widespread and severe hunger in the nation, in reality, most of the poor do not experience hunger or food shortages. The U.S. Department of Agriculture collects data on these topics in its household food security survey. For 2009, the survey showed:

* 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
* 83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat.
* 82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.

“Other government surveys show that the average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and is well above recommended norms in most cases.

“Television newscasts about poverty in America generally portray the poor as homeless people or as a destitute family living in an overcrowded, dilapidated trailer. In fact, however:

* Over the course of a year, 4 percent of poor persons become temporarily homeless.
* Only 9.5 percent of the poor live in mobile homes or trailers, 49.5 percent live in separate single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments.
* 42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom.
* The vast majority of the homes or apartments of the poor are in good repair.

“By their own reports, the average poor person had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs and to obtain medical care for family members throughout the year whenever needed.

“Of course, poor Americans do not live in the lap of luxury. The poor clearly struggle to make ends meet, but they are generally struggling to pay for cable TV, air conditioning, and a car, as well as for food on the table. The average poor person is far from affluent, but his lifestyle is far from the images of stark deprivation purveyed equally by advocacy groups and the media.

“The fact that the average poor household has many modern conveniences and experiences no substantial hardships does not mean that no families face hardships. As noted, the overwhelming majority of the poor are well housed and not overcrowded, but one in 25 will become temporarily homeless during the year. While most of the poor have a sufficient and fairly steady supply of food, one in five poor adults will experience temporary food shortages and hunger at some point in a year.

“The poor man who has lost his home or suffers intermittent hunger will find no consolation in the fact that his condition occurs infrequently in American society. His hardships are real and must be an important concern for policymakers. Nonetheless, anti-poverty policy needs to be based on accurate information. Gross exaggeration of the extent and severity of hardships in America will not benefit society, the taxpayers, or the poor.

“Finally, welfare policy needs to address the causes of poverty, not merely the symptoms. Among families with children, the collapse of marriage and erosion of the work ethic are the principal long-term causes of poverty. When the recession ends, welfare policy must require able-bodied recipients to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. It should also strengthen marriage in low-income communities rather than ignore and penalize it.

The rest of the essay cites provides plenty of government surveys, studies, etc.

[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor]

• Link
• Report this comment

“What you failed to explain is what you want to do about it? Deny the help to all because of some are milking the system? Double the size of the government to watch every one who receives support whether he/she buys a big screen TV or a Playstation? ”

I believe I addressed that, at least with respect to foodstamps: “I’m thinking more like a 10lb bag of rice, 10lb bag of beans, and a bottle of multi-vitamins (adjust as needed for # people and time period covered). I.e., you won’t starve or be malnourished, but you won’t be too happy about your diet either. You want chips & beer? Get a job.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Well you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.

• Link
• Report this comment