Obama's class warfare on a Grand Scale

[jreeves]

Obama has proposed hand outs for 40% of the population that doesn't pay federal income taxes. Then criticizes Mccain for giving tax breaks to people who actually fund these type of programs through their federal income taxes.

Earned Income Credit (EIC)
The Earned Income Credit (EIC), also known as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), is an important anti-poverty and work incentive program that is run by the federal government. The EIC is targeted to individuals and especially families who earn low to moderate wages. If a worker qualifies, the EIC will lower or eliminate any taxes owed. If a worker is not obligated to pay any taxes or if the credit is larger than any taxes owed, the worker will receive a cash payment ("refund") from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) after filing a tax return. In such instances, the government is providing low-income workers additional money beyond what they get paid at their jobs to encourage work and to reduce poverty.
WIC
WIC provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.
FNS Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

We help put healthy food on the table for 28 million people each month.


As of Oct. 1, 2008, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the new
name for the federal Food Stamp Program.

The new name reflects our focus on nutrition and putting healthy food within reach for low income households. Changes have been made to make the Program more accessible.
Although SNAP will be the national name, your State may use a different name.
SNAP helps low-income people and families buy the food they need for good health. You apply for benefits by completing a State application form. Benefits are provided on an electronic card that is used like an ATM card and accepted at most grocery stores.
Through nutrition education partners, SNAP helps clients learn to make healthy eating and active lifestyle choices.
National Low Income Housing Coalition - National Housing Trust Fund
President George W. Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Among the bill’s numerous provisions is the establishment of a national Housing Trust Fund. This is a major victory for low income housing advocates and the lowest income people in our country with the most serious needs.


and etc....

Who should receive the tax breaks/handouts the people funding these programs or the recipients?

 

[dilloduck]

Obama has proposed hand outs for 40% of the population that doesn't pay federal income taxes. Then criticizes Mccain for giving tax breaks to people who actually fund these type of programs through their federal income taxes.

Earned Income Credit (EIC)
The Earned Income Credit (EIC), also known as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), is an important anti-poverty and work incentive program that is run by the federal government. The EIC is targeted to individuals and especially families who earn low to moderate wages. If a worker qualifies, the EIC will lower or eliminate any taxes owed. If a worker is not obligated to pay any taxes or if the credit is larger than any taxes owed, the worker will receive a cash payment ("refund") from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) after filing a tax return. In such instances, the government is providing low-income workers additional money beyond what they get paid at their jobs to encourage work and to reduce poverty.
WIC
WIC provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.
FNS Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

We help put healthy food on the table for 28 million people each month.


As of Oct. 1, 2008, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the new
name for the federal Food Stamp Program.

The new name reflects our focus on nutrition and putting healthy food within reach for low income households. Changes have been made to make the Program more accessible.
Although SNAP will be the national name, your State may use a different name.
SNAP helps low-income people and families buy the food they need for good health. You apply for benefits by completing a State application form. Benefits are provided on an electronic card that is used like an ATM card and accepted at most grocery stores.
Through nutrition education partners, SNAP helps clients learn to make healthy eating and active lifestyle choices.
National Low Income Housing Coalition - National Housing Trust Fund
President George W. Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Among the bill’s numerous provisions is the establishment of a national Housing Trust Fund. This is a major victory for low income housing advocates and the lowest income people in our country with the most serious needs.


and etc....

Who should receive the tax breaks/handouts the people funding these programs or the recipients?

I don't think logic is allowed in here .

 

[del]

I don't think logic is allowed in here .

it may be allowed, but its use is rare.

 

[dilloduck]

Obama has proposed hand outs for 40% of the population that doesn't pay federal income taxes. Then criticizes Mccain for giving tax breaks to people who actually fund these type of programs through their federal income taxes.

Earned Income Credit (EIC)
The Earned Income Credit (EIC), also known as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), is an important anti-poverty and work incentive program that is run by the federal government. The EIC is targeted to individuals and especially families who earn low to moderate wages. If a worker qualifies, the EIC will lower or eliminate any taxes owed. If a worker is not obligated to pay any taxes or if the credit is larger than any taxes owed, the worker will receive a cash payment ("refund") from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) after filing a tax return. In such instances, the government is providing low-income workers additional money beyond what they get paid at their jobs to encourage work and to reduce poverty.
WIC
WIC provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.
FNS Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

We help put healthy food on the table for 28 million people each month.


As of Oct. 1, 2008, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the new
name for the federal Food Stamp Program.

The new name reflects our focus on nutrition and putting healthy food within reach for low income households. Changes have been made to make the Program more accessible.
Although SNAP will be the national name, your State may use a different name.
SNAP helps low-income people and families buy the food they need for good health. You apply for benefits by completing a State application form. Benefits are provided on an electronic card that is used like an ATM card and accepted at most grocery stores.
Through nutrition education partners, SNAP helps clients learn to make healthy eating and active lifestyle choices.
National Low Income Housing Coalition - National Housing Trust Fund
President George W. Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Among the bill’s numerous provisions is the establishment of a national Housing Trust Fund. This is a major victory for low income housing advocates and the lowest income people in our country with the most serious needs.


and etc....

Who should receive the tax breaks/handouts the people funding these programs or the recipients?

Well--it's sort of tough to give tax breaks to people who aren't paying any, isn't it ?
(was that too logical? )

 

[jreeves]

Well--it's sort of tough to give tax breaks to people who aren't paying any, isn't it ?
(was that too logical? )

GD tax the wealthy/taxpayers....

 

[Chris]

The class war is over.

The rich won.

 

[dilloduck]

The class war is over.

The rich won.

How come so many poor are still living so high on the hog then ? Shouldn't they at least be in jail ?

 

[jreeves]

The class war is over.

The rich won.

Rich/Taxpayers...so the taxpayer has won? That shows how clueless you really are....

 

[Chris]

Rich/Taxpayers...so the taxpayer has won? That shows how clueless you really are....

The gap between rich and poor has been growing for years. This is not sustainable.

 

[jreeves]

The gap between rich and poor has been growing for years. This is not sustainable.

What's not sustainable is class warfare...

Taking from one and giving to a non-taxpaying 40%....

How does giving more handouts to non-taxpayers grow the economy?

 

[Chris]

The BBC reported startling economic equality figures in a recent documentary: the top 200 wealthiest people in the world control more wealth than the bottom 4 billion. But what is more striking to many is a close look at the economic inequality in the homeland of the "American Dream." The United States is the most economically stratified society in the western world. As THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reported, a recent study found that the top .01% or 14,000 American families hold 22.2% of wealth — the bottom 90%, or over 133 million families, just 4% of the nation's wealth.

Bill Moyers Journal . Steve Fraser on Gilded Ages | PBS

 

[del]

The BBC reported startling economic equality figures in a recent documentary: the top 200 wealthiest people in the world control more wealth than the bottom 4 billion. But what is more striking to many is a close look at the economic inequality in the homeland of the "American Dream." The United States is the most economically stratified society in the western world. As THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reported, a recent study found that the top .01% or 14,000 American families hold 22.2% of wealth — the bottom 90%, or over 133 million families, just 4% of the nation's wealth.

Bill Moyers Journal . Steve Fraser on Gilded Ages | PBS

sucks to be you.
better luck next time.
loser

 

[Modbert]

How come so many poor are still living so high on the hog then ? Shouldn't they at least be in jail ?

Oh yes, all those poor people won while the gap between CEO and the average worker widens now more then ever.

06-08-2007 - Pay Gap Between CEOs and Workers Now a Chasm : Senator Carl Levin: News Release

Think Progress Average CEO makes 430 times

The Gap Between Rich and Poor

Poverty Has Returned to the Public Agenda by Jack Kemp and George Mitchell - Spotlight On Poverty

 

[jreeves]

Oh yes, all those poor people won while the gap between CEO and the average worker widens now more then ever.

06-08-2007 - Pay Gap Between CEOs and Workers Now a Chasm : Senator Carl Levin: News Release

Think Progress Average CEO makes 430 times

The Gap Between Rich and Poor

Poverty Has Returned to the Public Agenda by Jack Kemp and George Mitchell - Spotlight On Poverty

Thanks for admitting the war on poverty is a complete failure, even more reason why a redistribution of income will only lead us to more failure.

What evidence is there to support President Reagan’s contention that we lost the War on Poverty? If we take a careful look at the statistical data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, we find ample evidence that the incidence of poverty remains disturbingly large, both as a percentage of the population and in absolute numbers. To document the point, we will have to struggle through a few paragraphs of statistical data, but the numbers are important if we are to state the case correctly.

The Census Bureau reported in August 2005 that the poverty rate in 2004 had actually increased since 2003, up to 12.7 percent in 2004 from 12.5 percent in 2003. This translated into an additional 1.1 million people in poverty, with some 37 million Americans living in poverty in 2004. The progress eliminating poverty in the forty years since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty is negligible. In 1964 the Census Bureau estimated that 19 percent of the U.S. population lived in poverty, approximately 36 million people. In that forty-year interval, poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton’s presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor.

Putting the best possible face on the War on Poverty, we should note that in 1959 and 1960, before the War on Poverty began, poverty was measured at approximately 22 percent of the population, some 39 million Americans. We can argue that a reduction from 22 percent in 1959 to 12.7 percent in 2004 means that the incidence of poverty has been reduced by roughly half over the last forty-five years. Yet some 39 million Americans were counted as poor in 1959, nearly the same number as the nearly 37 million Americans counted as poor in 2004. Despite all the money and effort expended by government, a core group of poor persists, resistant to any and all efforts to remove them from the poverty rolls. It is this core group of “underclass” Americans that the War on Poverty and the political Left has failed. If the War on Poverty was meant to eliminate poverty, rather than merely reduce poverty, then a new strategy is needed.

In addition, attributing causal effects is very difficult in social science. How can one prove that the reduction in the incidence of poverty since 1959–60 is a direct result of the Great Society’s War on Poverty programs? A reasonable alternative explanation is that the U.S. economy has experienced a world-historic expansion since 1958–60, a time when the country was emerging from an economic recession. In 2004 the World Bank measured the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) at $11.7 trillion, up from $9.8 trillion in 2000.4 A historical database maintained by the U.S. Department of Commerce shows the dramatic straight-line rise of the GDP from $526 billion in 1960 to $10.9 trillion in 2003 and $11.7 trillion in 2004.5 The U.S. economy remains the largest in the world. U.S. job growth has also more than doubled since 1960. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports total nonfarm employment at 54 million jobs in 1960, a number that has expanded to an estimated 131 million jobs in 2005.6 This dramatic economic expansion, plus an aggressive federal War on Poverty, should have eliminated poverty, that is, if eliminating poverty through government programs alone were possible. Still, in 2004 we have 37 million poor Americans among us.

The War on Poverty has spanned the terms of eight different Democratic and Republican presidents: Lyndon B. Johnson (D, 1964–69), Richard M. Nixon (R, 1969–74), Gerald R. Ford (R, 1974–77), Jimmy Carter (D, 1977–81), Ronald Reagan (R, 1981–89), George H. W. Bush (R, 1989–93), Bill Clinton (D, 1993–2001), and George W. Bush (R, 2001–present). These presidents seriously took on the hard question of poverty; their administrations did their utmost to apply techniques they honestly believed to be politically sound methodologies designed to eliminate poverty. We have tried both conservative and liberal solutions to the problem, all without realizing success. If anyone could have eliminated poverty, these gentlemen should have accomplished the task, especially since they commanded the full resources and authority of the U.S. government and were backed by multiple Congresses willing to pass countless antipoverty laws.

On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, announcing that he had fulfilled his promise to “end welfare as we know it.” Looking critically at the legislation, we could see that a liberal Democrat was trying to take ground that had traditionally been the preserve of conservative Republicans. Clinton was trying to change welfare into work-fare, devising a plan to get welfare recipients off the public dole and onto the private sector’s payroll. Perhaps by 1996 the political Left had come to the conclusion that the American public was so tired of funding antipoverty programs that the only way to save the governmental welfare programs was to redefine them as work programs. Welfare bureaucrats were being redirected to get welfare recipients into the private workforce or lose their welfare jobs. Clinton legitimately considered this a major redirection of the poverty program. Still, poverty persisted. Thus, even a Democrat president willing to embrace proposals that were typically advanced by conservative Republicans could not solve the problem.

Nor is the problem that we have failed to spend money generously. The public expenditure on the variety of governmental schemes devised in the last forty years to eliminate poverty has been extraordinary. Since 1964 we have spent $8–10 trillion on antipoverty programs. In 1996, at the midpoint in the Clinton administration, the federal government expended $191 billion on poverty programs, fully 12.2 percent of the federal budget. President George W. Bush actually increased the effort. The 2006 budget, at the midpoint of Bush’s administration, calls for a massive increase in poverty programs, increasing the expenditure $368 billion to 14.6 percent of the federal budget.7 The Bush administration oversees a host of continuing poverty programs that includes Medicaid, food stamps, supplementary security income, temporary assistance to needy families, child day-care payments, child nutrition payments, foster care, adoption assistance, and health insurance for children.

The conclusion is virtually inescapable: if the availability of nearly an unlimited amount of money and the determination of countless government bureaucracies were the necessary and sufficient conditions to eliminate poverty, then in 2004 we should not still have more than 12 percent of the U.S. population—nearly 37 million people—in poverty.

Even though the political Left wants to make all biblical references suspect, we are led to affirm the admonition of Jesus in the New Testament: “For ye have the poor always with you” (Matthew 26:11). Some two thousand years ago, one of the wisest teachers suggested that the problem of poverty was truly intractable. Is there any governmental poverty program left that we have not implemented one way or another in the literally hundreds of antipoverty laws Congress has passed since 1964? Maybe we should just take another $10 trillion and hand it out as a lump-sum payment to the 37 million Americans who are poor. The expenditure might be cheap if a one-time massive payment would make poverty disappear. Apparently, there are dimensions of poverty that money alone cannot solve. That is our first important conclusion.

Yet there is a more subtle point that we will want to consider. As we noted, President Johnson followed the liberal tradition of Democratic Party politics founded by his mentor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Central to Roosevelt’s New Deal thinking was the assumption that massive governmental intervention in what before had been considered a largely private economy was needed to solve the problems of the Great Depression. When Johnson initiated the Great Society, he almost intuitively reasoned that governmental action would be required if we were to end poverty. Alternatives to government intervention and spending were never seriously considered by his administration. Conservative opponents, who at the time opposed the creation of a massive new government bureaucracy, were a minority whose views seemed out of step if not downright dangerous. Even today, the political Left is hard pressed to consider that we have no choice but to persist and fine-tune government antipoverty programs. How many more years of failure will it take before the political Left is finally willing to admit that the approach to eliminate poverty through massive government programs has fundamentally failed to meet the originally stated goal of the Great Society?

Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[Chris]

Reagan failed.

He and Bush have put us $9 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt....

ReaganBushDebt.org

 

[jreeves]

Reagan failed.

He and Bush have put us $9 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt....

ReaganBushDebt.org

Congress controls spending, spambot. Additionally, entitlement spending(democratic proposals) have led us to this....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE]YouTube - Glenn Beck - The Real Story, Touching the Third Rail[/ame]

 

[jreeves]

Reagan failed.

He and Bush have put us $9 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt....

ReaganBushDebt.org

So the recipients should receive handouts huh?

 

[editec]

How come so many poor are still living so high on the hog then ? Shouldn't they at least be in jail ?

Are you fucking nuts?

The poor are living high on the hog?

 

[editec]

Okay, so we lost the war on poverty.

Apparently poverty won because there's more poor people now than ever

So given that, I have a suggestion

I propose that we declare a war on affluence.

Maybe by doing so, affluence will win that war, too, and then we'll have more affluent people than ever.


editec
(thinking different for 58 years and counting)

 

[PeterS]

Obama has proposed hand outs for 40% of the population that doesn't pay federal income taxes. Then criticizes Mccain for giving tax breaks to people who actually fund these type of programs through their federal income taxes.

Earned Income Credit (EIC)
The Earned Income Credit (EIC), also known as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), is an important anti-poverty and work incentive program that is run by the federal government. The EIC is targeted to individuals and especially families who earn low to moderate wages. If a worker qualifies, the EIC will lower or eliminate any taxes owed. If a worker is not obligated to pay any taxes or if the credit is larger than any taxes owed, the worker will receive a cash payment ("refund") from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) after filing a tax return. In such instances, the government is providing low-income workers additional money beyond what they get paid at their jobs to encourage work and to reduce poverty.
WIC
WIC provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.
FNS Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

We help put healthy food on the table for 28 million people each month.


As of Oct. 1, 2008, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the new
name for the federal Food Stamp Program.

The new name reflects our focus on nutrition and putting healthy food within reach for low income households. Changes have been made to make the Program more accessible.
Although SNAP will be the national name, your State may use a different name.
SNAP helps low-income people and families buy the food they need for good health. You apply for benefits by completing a State application form. Benefits are provided on an electronic card that is used like an ATM card and accepted at most grocery stores.
Through nutrition education partners, SNAP helps clients learn to make healthy eating and active lifestyle choices.
National Low Income Housing Coalition - National Housing Trust Fund
President George W. Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Among the bill’s numerous provisions is the establishment of a national Housing Trust Fund. This is a major victory for low income housing advocates and the lowest income people in our country with the most serious needs.


and etc....

Who should receive the tax breaks/handouts the people funding these programs or the recipients?

So is McCain going to eliminate the EITC? If not how is he not guilty of the same class war?