How do the "poor" live so well in the US?

[PoliticalChic]

Don't worry... if you guys get your way... they'll be bloat bellied little skeletons... just like you like 'em.

Do you really have a steel plate in your noggin?
I mean, could I use my TV remote to make you dance?

Let's play a little game, Steelie,...if you're up to it.
Imagine that you actually incorporated the information in the OP into your psyche...

....then, would does it logically follow that folks with the accoutrements listed in the OP would exhibit "bloat bellied little skeletons..."???

Remember...we're pretending that you have the God-given ability to think....

Good, Steelie....I see you shaking your little head! Good boy.


Now, if the OP speaks truth, consider where you got the idea that large segments of the population would exhibit "bloat bellied little skeletons.."
Right! Those calculating Lefties had brainwashed you! Very good!

Now, go back and get that GED!

Perhaps you should RE-READ my post... notice that I said "IF YOU GUYS GET YOUR WAY" they will become bloat bellied little skeletons...

Get your OWN fucking GED you illiterate tramp.

Ohhhhh....did I hurt your little feelilngs?

Just because you have some trouble putting two and two together?

Well, then, let me do it again!

Let's see how accurate your understanding of, I assume you mean Republicans..."IF YOU GUYS GET YOUR WAY"



Let's see what actually happened when Republicans did get their way:

1. The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by a Republican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975.

a. EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975.

2. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase.

3. Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit - Bruce Bartlett - Townhall Conservative

4. “…the earned income tax credit ("EITC") that was enacted by Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... could it be, don't tell me, say it ain't so!... Ronald Reagan.” Paul Abrams: Reagan the Redistributor: Check Out the Earned Income Tax Credit

5. “…a child care tax deduction included in the immense Internal Revenue Code of 1954…” Child Care Subsidies in the United States: Government Funding to Families (2010)


So, Steelplate or not, you certainly are a bonehead, just the type of low-level IQ that the Left has so much success manipulating.

You are the kind of individual who thinks an innuendo is an Italian suppository…

Now, get back to work on that GED.

 

[WillowTree]

How do the "poor" live so well in the US?

Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.

Indeed, Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox

Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.​

Which explains why they bitch and moan that they need someone else to pay for their medical care.

 

[Neotrotsky]

This should be the thread title:

Breaking News: Poor in Richest Nation on Earth unsurprisingly doing better than Middle Class and Poor in Poorest Nations on Earth.

It should have been this

In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

Now wait a sec... I thought you guys said that over 50% of the people of the United States doesn't pay Federal Income tax... according to your graphic... either one OR the other is a lie... which is it?

neither, payroll tax or with holding is not income tax
the graph shows a sum of both

 

[LibocalypseNow]

What is "Poor" in America? It's an interesting & fair question. How many of these so-called "Poor" have their Big-Screen TV's,Cars,Computers,and Video Games? I would bet it's a very high percentage. I think the Socialists/Progressives are living in the past. Being "Poor" in America today is not what they like to portray it. Most of these "Poor People" have their nice Cars,TV's,Computers,and Video Games. Maybe it's time for Socialists/Progressives to start having more sympathy & respect for hard-working Taxpayers who pay for it all? Just a thought anyway?

 

[Modbert]

This should be the thread title:

Breaking News: Poor in Richest Nation on Earth unsurprisingly doing better than Middle Class and Poor in Poorest Nations on Earth.

It should have been this

In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

From Mississippi To

Problem is, the chart is full of errors. I traced it back to the man who made it, a newspaper publisher in Mississippi, and found that the math, methodology, and logic he used to generate the chart, as well as an op-ed he wrote to accompany it, are wholly unsound. To make matters worse, despite the chart’s cringe-worthy flaws, very few outlets on the Internet, from small-scope blogs to a handful of forums hosted by major national publications, bothered to fact-check it. The story of the chart is a distressing new Exhibit A for those who argue that, practically speaking, there’s no longer any such thing as objective reality in the digital age.

I sent the chart to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and its researchers replied with a lengthy dossier of the chart’s errors. For starters, Emmerich overestimated the federal tax liability of the $60,000 family by failing to distinguish between gross and taxable income (the $60,000 family only has $40,400 in taxable income, according to the CBPP) and by ignoring the child tax credit, which benefits wealthier families more than poorer ones. The family making $60,000 would actually pay only about $8,043 in payroll and income taxes, not $13,034. As for Medicaid, CBPP pointed out that a family making $14,500 wouldn’t actually be eligible in Mississippi, where the cutoff level of qualifying income for a family of three is a paltry $8,064 per year. Even if that family were eligible, however, Emmerich’s estimate of their benefits is way off. Medicaid is a relative bargain for Mississippi—the state spends, on average, $2,510 a year per adult beneficiary and $1,659 per child beneficiary, according to the most recent numbers.

So how did Emmerich arrive at the inflated $16,500 number? I put the question to him, and he told me that he got it by estimating what it would cost the family to buy private insurance on the open market if they did not have Medicaid, applying his own copays and deductible to the equation. (Although Emmerich lumped CHIP into the same category as Medicaid in his chart, he didn’t consider the two benefits separately in this calculation—which is just as well, since children on Medicaid aren’t eligible for CHIP in the first place.) Even if we accept this dubious methodology, however, Emmerich’s numbers are extreme overestimates. I went to ehealthinsurance.com, a website that provides information on various insurance plans, and got price quotes for a 24-year-old woman with two young kids living near Jackson, Mississippi, where Emmerich’s newspaper is located. The costs were substantially lower than I expected—for less than $500 a month, the woman could cover herself and her kids, pay no coinsurance, and have only a $3,000 deductible. The grand total? Far less than $16,500. But getting roped into analyzing the costs is also problematic, since a mere 6 percent of working adults get health insurance on the private market, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. An overwhelming majority get employer-sponsored insurance, which, because the government subsidizes it through the tax code, is cheaper: On average, according to Kaiser, Americans who get health care in this way paid just $3,997 for coverage in 2010.

And the rest of it is tore apart at the link. The article even makes mention of you posting it from Zero Hedge.

Indeed, the real story here isn’t necessarily Emmerich’s fuzzy math; as important is the fact that the chart was posted again and again with so little discussion of its accuracy. If those who pushed the chart along in its Internet journey cared about its content and the methodology, rather than its underlying political message, they could have done a little Googling. It wouldn’t have taken much to crack the surface, get below the presumption that poor people are coddled by the government, and find the beginning of a long list of problems with Emmerich’s work. But, perhaps because of ideological bent or maybe due to simple laziness, people decided that no fact-checking was required.

Emmerich, it turns out, was partially right. In Obama’s America, there are people who have little incentive to work: Internet pundits, particularly conservative ones—and especially those who think poor people are a threat to America.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

And then when retirement comes, SS will be all tapped out.

 

[kiwiman127]

this should be the thread title:

Breaking news: Poor in richest nation on earth unsurprisingly doing better than middle class and poor in poorest nations on earth.

bingo!!!!!

 

[Neotrotsky]

We covered this it should be...

In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indeed, some people do not know how to be charitable...


Obama’s Brother: “I Still Live In A Slum”

In November 2008, I stood in a bar in Kenya watching Barack Obama give his victory speech

Except Obama's brother doesn't want the President's money.

Furthermore:

Obama’s Brother in Kenya | FactCheck.org

George Obama: I was brought up well. I live well even now. The magazines, they have exaggerated everything … There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you [the reporter] come from, there are the same challenges.

Your "fact" does really shows nothing
It does not say he "does not" want it
Besides, it really is up to Papa Obama to offer it


He still lives in a hut


Perhaps he is doing better because

Obama’s Brother Arrested For Weed in Kenya


Side note
I do not say this to be mean

But the moving gif of the muppet is pretty gay
Maybe people are afraid to tell you...

When this story first became known, someone....might have been Dinesh D'souza, ...began a fund for the poor guy.
I actually sent a check for ten bucks.

Darn...I never took a tax deduction for it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I have nothing against helping out a family through gov welfare for a few months so they can get back on their feet. It's the generational welfare that I have issues with.

 

[Ravi]

This should be the thread title:

Breaking News: Poor in Richest Nation on Earth unsurprisingly doing better than Middle Class and Poor in Poorest Nations on Earth.

And actually, we should be thankful for this.

Well, unless you're a Republican.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Rut Ro! Struck a Nerve. Banished to "Move" Limbo.

 

[Ravi]

So Republicans, why does this news distress you?

Why do you want our poor to be living in fly infested conditions with extended bellies?

 

[Steelplate]

So Republicans, why does this news distress you?

Why do you want our poor to be living in fly infested conditions with extended bellies?

Because that's how they roll... they aren't one of "those people" So it doesn't matter.

 

[Neotrotsky]

So Republicans, why does this news distress you?

Why do you want our poor to be living in fly infested conditions with extended bellies?

Of course not

The real question is ....


But with Democrats in power and the way they spend money, this will all be all of our future


Why does the Left want all Americans to be living in fly infested conditions with extended bellies?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Many of the poor in the U.S. live far better than the middle class (if there is one) in the rest of the world.

It's time to declare victory in the War On Poverty, and to cancel the programs.

Now, see...you're not considering the results of your plan!

Just what do you suppose would happen to the Democrat Party??? Right...hanging on the street corners!

More unemployment!

And the Old Left Media! And all those Democrat 'strategists'- you know, the folks who remind the Boo Radley Brigade that "Republicans bad, Democrats good."

So...wanna rethink that?

 

[Moonglow]

So Republicans, why does this news distress you?

Why do you want our poor to be living in fly infested conditions with extended bellies?

Of course not

The real question is ....


But with Democrats in power and the way they spend money, this will all be all of our future


Why does the Left want all Americans to be living in fly infested conditions with extended bellies?

Then you could bytch about that.

 

[Ravi]

So Republicans, why does this news distress you?

Why do you want our poor to be living in fly infested conditions with extended bellies?

Of course not

The real question is ....


But with Democrats in power and the way they spend money, this will all be all of our future


Why does the Left want all Americans to be living in fly infested conditions with extended bellies?

They don't.

But nice dodge, too bad you are too much of a coward to be honest.

 

[Salt Jones]

Since American poor are living so well, why all the fuss about 9.2% unemployment?

 

[Neotrotsky]

So Republicans, why does this news distress you?

Why do you want our poor to be living in fly infested conditions with extended bellies?

Of course not

The real question is ....


But with Democrats in power and the way they spend money, this will all be all of our future


Why does the Left want all Americans to be living in fly infested conditions with extended bellies?

Then you could bytch about that.

Then you would have no more class struggle
Another progressive success