The FACTS on Food Stamps

[Dad2three]

So I don't need to pay taxes for cops? killer...

That you think the taxes that fund cops are the same taxes that fund leeches proves you're an uneducated retard.

You left out municipal golf courses for sport leeches....

It still costs to play at those courses moron. It's not free like the handouts true welfare leeches get.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Your problem is that your dumbass doesn't get that no one is entitled to another person's money. If you think any of those groups deserves another person's money, feel free to support them with yours. You won't do that because your nature is to demand someone else be forced to do it.

Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

 

[Conservative65]

That you think the taxes that fund cops are the same taxes that fund leeches proves you're an uneducated retard.

You left out municipal golf courses for sport leeches....

It still costs to play at those courses moron. It's not free like the handouts true welfare leeches get.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Your problem is that your dumbass doesn't get that no one is entitled to another person's money. If you think any of those groups deserves another person's money, feel free to support them with yours. You won't do that because your nature is to demand someone else be forced to do it.

How'd the US look when we tried it YOUR way again? Oh right like a 3td world nation conservatives/libertarians are trying to take US back too!

We WASTED trillions on the war on poverty over the last 50 years to have roughly the same percentage on welfare now as we did then. We've tried it your way. Lets' try it where people like you fund programs like that through voluntary contributions. I know you won't because you're not man enough to do what you say needs to be done other than by demanding someone else fund it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

Weird, 1% of US have more wealth than nearly 60% of US, what do you think that means?

It means the 1% don't have taxable income.

Just magically got 'wealthy' without income huh? lol

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

 

[Conservative65]

If they aren't living poorly, that means they aren't truly poor. If they can buy items such as those I listed with cash, no one needs to buy their food. That money can be used to buy food rather than those other things.

Since leeches don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they receive, seems they avoid those taxes.

Got it, UNLESS someone lives dirt poor, like most Southern Staters, the Gov't shouldn't help them?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

My state is a red state but the only blue district in it drags the rest of us down.

Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

You take one area and apply it to the entire country. What percentage of voters in blue district backed Obama and fit that same bill. It applies to both.

Weird, 81% of a district votes for Mittens, and you think that means it goes both ways? lol

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

That's because more than 81% of districts voted for Obama while getting handouts.

The only blue district in my state, one that had to be gerrymandered because blacks whined about not getting elected, gets more in welfare than any of the red districts in the state.

 

[Dad2three]

You left out municipal golf courses for sport leeches....

It still costs to play at those courses moron. It's not free like the handouts true welfare leeches get.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Your problem is that your dumbass doesn't get that no one is entitled to another person's money. If you think any of those groups deserves another person's money, feel free to support them with yours. You won't do that because your nature is to demand someone else be forced to do it.

How'd the US look when we tried it YOUR way again? Oh right like a 3td world nation conservatives/libertarians are trying to take US back too!

We WASTED trillions on the war on poverty over the last 50 years to have roughly the same percentage on welfare now as we did then. We've tried it your way. Lets' try it where people like you fund programs like that through voluntary contributions. I know you won't because you're not man enough to do what you say needs to be done other than by demanding someone else fund it.

It’s high time to say the war on poverty was a success. A wild success, indeed, by nearly every meaningful measure.


The article noted that in terms of health and nutrition and numerous other factors, the poor in the United States are immeasurably less immiserated today than they were then. But it did lead by saying the overall poverty rate in all that time has dropped only from 19 to 15 percent, suggesting to the casual reader that all these billions for five decades haven’t accomplished much.

What’s wrong with thinking is that we have not, of course, been fighting any kind of serious war on poverty for five decades. We fought it with truly adequate funding for about one decade. Less, even. Then the backlash started, and by 1981, Ronald Reagan’s government was fighting a war on the war on poverty. The fate of many anti-poverty programs has ebbed and flowed ever since.

But at the beginning, in the ’60s, those programs were fully funded, or close. And what happened? According to Joseph Califano, who worked in the Johnson White House, “the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.” That’s a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.

Marco Rubio Is Wrong The War on Poverty Worked - The Daily Beast


Those are measured as income to poor families before we measure the poverty line. So back then the poverty line was a measure of people who were poor after the government had helped them. Today we measure before almost all of the help that people get (there’s still a couple ofsmall programs that dole out cash). So today’s measurement is more like the number of people who would be in poverty if government weren’t going to help them.

And when you realise how much this definition of poverty has changed over the decades that the headline rate is still the same is a pretty good result really.

Poverty is a simple lack of money and things: so giving poor people money and things does make them less poor. By that measure the US war on poverty has done very well. It’s only the system we use to measure it that makes it look like a failure.

US Poverty Rate is Still 14.5 But Yes The War On Poverty Worked - Forbes


War on Poverty: Large Positive Impact, But More Work Remains

Commentary War on Poverty Large Positive Impact But More Work Remains mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


But a new Columbia University analysis shows that politics aside, the Johnson-era programs did work.


The War on Poverty at 50 Did it Work BillMoyers.com

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, UNLESS someone lives dirt poor, like most Southern Staters, the Gov't shouldn't help them?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

My state is a red state but the only blue district in it drags the rest of us down.

Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

You take one area and apply it to the entire country. What percentage of voters in blue district backed Obama and fit that same bill. It applies to both.

Weird, 81% of a district votes for Mittens, and you think that means it goes both ways? lol

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

That's because more than 81% of districts voted for Obama while getting handouts.

The only blue district in my state, one that had to be gerrymandered because blacks whined about not getting elected, gets more in welfare than any of the red districts in the state.

Sure Bubba, sure

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, 1% of US have more wealth than nearly 60% of US, what do you think that means?

It means the 1% don't have taxable income.

Just magically got 'wealthy' without income huh? lol

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

REALLY? They don't have income? lol

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, 1% of US have more wealth than nearly 60% of US, what do you think that means?

It means the 1% don't have taxable income.

Just magically got 'wealthy' without income huh? lol

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

 

[Conservative65]

Those that truly need help are rarely noticed as they are very discreet in their use of such programs. However, those that abuse it don't seem to care who knows they're on it. Been in the grocery store many times when an EBT user buys food with their card only to purchase, in a separate transaction, things like beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. If they can't afford to buy their own food as indicated by their applying for food stamps, they shouldn't have money to buy those other things.

Yes, ONLY if the 'poor' live REALLY poorly, should they get help *shaking head*


Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans $3 Trillion Each Year
Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans 3 Trillion Each Year

If they aren't living poorly, that means they aren't truly poor. If they can buy items such as those I listed with cash, no one needs to buy their food. That money can be used to buy food rather than those other things.

Since leeches don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they receive, seems they avoid those taxes.

Got it, UNLESS someone lives dirt poor, like most Southern Staters, the Gov't shouldn't help them?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

My state is a red state but the only blue district in it drags the rest of us down.

Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

If they aren't living poorly, that means they aren't truly poor. If they can buy items such as those I listed with cash, no one needs to buy their food. That money can be used to buy food rather than those other things.

Since leeches don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they receive, seems they avoid those taxes.

Got it, UNLESS someone lives dirt poor, like most Southern Staters, the Gov't shouldn't help them?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

My state is a red state but the only blue district in it drags the rest of us down.

Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

You take one area and apply it to the entire country. What percentage of voters in blue district backed Obama and fit that same bill. It applies to both.

Weird, 81% of a district votes for Mittens, and you think that means it goes both ways? lol

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

My state is a red state but the only blue district in it drags the rest of us down.

Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

You take one area and apply it to the entire country. What percentage of voters in blue district backed Obama and fit that same bill. It applies to both.

Weird, 81% of a district votes for Mittens, and you think that means it goes both ways? lol

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

That's because more than 81% of districts voted for Obama while getting handouts.

The only blue district in my state, one that had to be gerrymandered because blacks whined about not getting elected, gets more in welfare than any of the red districts in the state.

Sure Bubba, sure

You not believing doesn't change it's fact. Run along boy.

 

[Conservative65]

It still costs to play at those courses moron. It's not free like the handouts true welfare leeches get.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Your problem is that your dumbass doesn't get that no one is entitled to another person's money. If you think any of those groups deserves another person's money, feel free to support them with yours. You won't do that because your nature is to demand someone else be forced to do it.

How'd the US look when we tried it YOUR way again? Oh right like a 3td world nation conservatives/libertarians are trying to take US back too!

We WASTED trillions on the war on poverty over the last 50 years to have roughly the same percentage on welfare now as we did then. We've tried it your way. Lets' try it where people like you fund programs like that through voluntary contributions. I know you won't because you're not man enough to do what you say needs to be done other than by demanding someone else fund it.

It’s high time to say the war on poverty was a success. A wild success, indeed, by nearly every meaningful measure.


The article noted that in terms of health and nutrition and numerous other factors, the poor in the United States are immeasurably less immiserated today than they were then. But it did lead by saying the overall poverty rate in all that time has dropped only from 19 to 15 percent, suggesting to the casual reader that all these billions for five decades haven’t accomplished much.

What’s wrong with thinking is that we have not, of course, been fighting any kind of serious war on poverty for five decades. We fought it with truly adequate funding for about one decade. Less, even. Then the backlash started, and by 1981, Ronald Reagan’s government was fighting a war on the war on poverty. The fate of many anti-poverty programs has ebbed and flowed ever since.

But at the beginning, in the ’60s, those programs were fully funded, or close. And what happened? According to Joseph Califano, who worked in the Johnson White House, “the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.” That’s a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.

Marco Rubio Is Wrong The War on Poverty Worked - The Daily Beast


Those are measured as income to poor families before we measure the poverty line. So back then the poverty line was a measure of people who were poor after the government had helped them. Today we measure before almost all of the help that people get (there’s still a couple ofsmall programs that dole out cash). So today’s measurement is more like the number of people who would be in poverty if government weren’t going to help them.

And when you realise how much this definition of poverty has changed over the decades that the headline rate is still the same is a pretty good result really.

Poverty is a simple lack of money and things: so giving poor people money and things does make them less poor. By that measure the US war on poverty has done very well. It’s only the system we use to measure it that makes it look like a failure.

US Poverty Rate is Still 14.5 But Yes The War On Poverty Worked - Forbes


War on Poverty: Large Positive Impact, But More Work Remains

Commentary War on Poverty Large Positive Impact But More Work Remains mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


But a new Columbia University analysis shows that politics aside, the Johnson-era programs did work.


The War on Poverty at 50 Did it Work BillMoyers.com

What do you expect from a bunch of Liberal academics.

If you invested that much of your personal money and it returned virtually nothing, would you call it a success? If you wouldn't, that shows why you support such foolish programs.

 

[RKMBrown]

It means the 1% don't have taxable income.

Just magically got 'wealthy' without income huh? lol

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

REALLY? They don't have income? lol

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

Bill Gates: Net worth 82billion. Bill Gates salary: ZERO Personal income tax paid on zero: is zero. Gates makes his money from investments. Which can be shielded because they are only taxed when you take the gains, and only then if they are not shielded.

 

[Dad2three]

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Contrary to Entitlement Society Rhetoric Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly Disabled or Working Households mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Your problem is that your dumbass doesn't get that no one is entitled to another person's money. If you think any of those groups deserves another person's money, feel free to support them with yours. You won't do that because your nature is to demand someone else be forced to do it.

How'd the US look when we tried it YOUR way again? Oh right like a 3td world nation conservatives/libertarians are trying to take US back too!

We WASTED trillions on the war on poverty over the last 50 years to have roughly the same percentage on welfare now as we did then. We've tried it your way. Lets' try it where people like you fund programs like that through voluntary contributions. I know you won't because you're not man enough to do what you say needs to be done other than by demanding someone else fund it.

It’s high time to say the war on poverty was a success. A wild success, indeed, by nearly every meaningful measure.


The article noted that in terms of health and nutrition and numerous other factors, the poor in the United States are immeasurably less immiserated today than they were then. But it did lead by saying the overall poverty rate in all that time has dropped only from 19 to 15 percent, suggesting to the casual reader that all these billions for five decades haven’t accomplished much.

What’s wrong with thinking is that we have not, of course, been fighting any kind of serious war on poverty for five decades. We fought it with truly adequate funding for about one decade. Less, even. Then the backlash started, and by 1981, Ronald Reagan’s government was fighting a war on the war on poverty. The fate of many anti-poverty programs has ebbed and flowed ever since.

But at the beginning, in the ’60s, those programs were fully funded, or close. And what happened? According to Joseph Califano, who worked in the Johnson White House, “the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.” That’s a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.

Marco Rubio Is Wrong The War on Poverty Worked - The Daily Beast


Those are measured as income to poor families before we measure the poverty line. So back then the poverty line was a measure of people who were poor after the government had helped them. Today we measure before almost all of the help that people get (there’s still a couple ofsmall programs that dole out cash). So today’s measurement is more like the number of people who would be in poverty if government weren’t going to help them.

And when you realise how much this definition of poverty has changed over the decades that the headline rate is still the same is a pretty good result really.

Poverty is a simple lack of money and things: so giving poor people money and things does make them less poor. By that measure the US war on poverty has done very well. It’s only the system we use to measure it that makes it look like a failure.

US Poverty Rate is Still 14.5 But Yes The War On Poverty Worked - Forbes


War on Poverty: Large Positive Impact, But More Work Remains

Commentary War on Poverty Large Positive Impact But More Work Remains mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


But a new Columbia University analysis shows that politics aside, the Johnson-era programs did work.


The War on Poverty at 50 Did it Work BillMoyers.com

What do you expect from a bunch of Liberal academics.

If you invested that much of your personal money and it returned virtually nothing, would you call it a success? If you wouldn't, that shows why you support such foolish programs.

Got it, you don't live in a reality based world

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, ONLY if the 'poor' live REALLY poorly, should they get help *shaking head*


Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans $3 Trillion Each Year
Tax Avoidance Saves Wealthiest Americans 3 Trillion Each Year

If they aren't living poorly, that means they aren't truly poor. If they can buy items such as those I listed with cash, no one needs to buy their food. That money can be used to buy food rather than those other things.

Since leeches don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they receive, seems they avoid those taxes.

Got it, UNLESS someone lives dirt poor, like most Southern Staters, the Gov't shouldn't help them?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

My state is a red state but the only blue district in it drags the rest of us down.

Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

Got it, UNLESS someone lives dirt poor, like most Southern Staters, the Gov't shouldn't help them?

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation


In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala New Republic

My state is a red state but the only blue district in it drags the rest of us down.

Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

You take one area and apply it to the entire country. What percentage of voters in blue district backed Obama and fit that same bill. It applies to both.

Weird, 81% of a district votes for Mittens, and you think that means it goes both ways? lol

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg

You take one area and apply it to the entire country. What percentage of voters in blue district backed Obama and fit that same bill. It applies to both.

Weird, 81% of a district votes for Mittens, and you think that means it goes both ways? lol

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know

That's because more than 81% of districts voted for Obama while getting handouts.

The only blue district in my state, one that had to be gerrymandered because blacks whined about not getting elected, gets more in welfare than any of the red districts in the state.

Sure Bubba, sure

You not believing doesn't change it's fact. Run along boy.

ONCE MORE THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE (ON INCOME DUMMY) WENT FROM 60%-70% FOR THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% 1960-1980 TO ALMOT HALF THAT TODAY

 

[Conservative65]

It means the 1% don't have taxable income.

Just magically got 'wealthy' without income huh? lol

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

Look at the skills required to do the jobs in each category. The education and skills required to do the top jobs has increased while the low end jobs have had to do nothing in the way of improving skills.

 

[Conservative65]

Your problem is that your dumbass doesn't get that no one is entitled to another person's money. If you think any of those groups deserves another person's money, feel free to support them with yours. You won't do that because your nature is to demand someone else be forced to do it.

How'd the US look when we tried it YOUR way again? Oh right like a 3td world nation conservatives/libertarians are trying to take US back too!

We WASTED trillions on the war on poverty over the last 50 years to have roughly the same percentage on welfare now as we did then. We've tried it your way. Lets' try it where people like you fund programs like that through voluntary contributions. I know you won't because you're not man enough to do what you say needs to be done other than by demanding someone else fund it.

It’s high time to say the war on poverty was a success. A wild success, indeed, by nearly every meaningful measure.


The article noted that in terms of health and nutrition and numerous other factors, the poor in the United States are immeasurably less immiserated today than they were then. But it did lead by saying the overall poverty rate in all that time has dropped only from 19 to 15 percent, suggesting to the casual reader that all these billions for five decades haven’t accomplished much.

What’s wrong with thinking is that we have not, of course, been fighting any kind of serious war on poverty for five decades. We fought it with truly adequate funding for about one decade. Less, even. Then the backlash started, and by 1981, Ronald Reagan’s government was fighting a war on the war on poverty. The fate of many anti-poverty programs has ebbed and flowed ever since.

But at the beginning, in the ’60s, those programs were fully funded, or close. And what happened? According to Joseph Califano, who worked in the Johnson White House, “the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.” That’s a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.

Marco Rubio Is Wrong The War on Poverty Worked - The Daily Beast


Those are measured as income to poor families before we measure the poverty line. So back then the poverty line was a measure of people who were poor after the government had helped them. Today we measure before almost all of the help that people get (there’s still a couple ofsmall programs that dole out cash). So today’s measurement is more like the number of people who would be in poverty if government weren’t going to help them.

And when you realise how much this definition of poverty has changed over the decades that the headline rate is still the same is a pretty good result really.

Poverty is a simple lack of money and things: so giving poor people money and things does make them less poor. By that measure the US war on poverty has done very well. It’s only the system we use to measure it that makes it look like a failure.

US Poverty Rate is Still 14.5 But Yes The War On Poverty Worked - Forbes


War on Poverty: Large Positive Impact, But More Work Remains

Commentary War on Poverty Large Positive Impact But More Work Remains mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


But a new Columbia University analysis shows that politics aside, the Johnson-era programs did work.


The War on Poverty at 50 Did it Work BillMoyers.com

What do you expect from a bunch of Liberal academics.

If you invested that much of your personal money and it returned virtually nothing, would you call it a success? If you wouldn't, that shows why you support such foolish programs.

Got it, you don't live in a reality based world

If you think those trillions was a good investment, you live in a fantasy world. If you want someone without something to have it, buy it for them. Better yet, be a man and come collect it from me on their behalf personally. Bet you don't have the balls boy.

 

[Conservative65]

It means the 1% don't have taxable income.

Just magically got 'wealthy' without income huh? lol

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

REALLY? They don't have income? lol

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

When the family of four with 2 adults and 2 children doesn't pay a dime of income taxes until the income is almost $48,000 you have no argument. It's sad when those that don't pay demand those that do pay have more taken.

 

[Taylee]

Eventually, we'll all be standing in lines waiting for the government to feed us.

That's probably just a small part of the American-hating leftists' plan for us. Enslavement includes much more than merely having to 'wait in line' for your meals.

 

[Dad2three]

Just magically got 'wealthy' without income huh? lol

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 Congressional Budget Office

Look at the skills required to do the jobs in each category. The education and skills required to do the top jobs has increased while the low end jobs have had to do nothing in the way of improving skills.

Got it, you can't follow along with the wing nuts premise, that the wealthy don't have INCOME

Yes, bottom 80% of US have done NOTHING to improve themselves but the top 1% has gotten more educated or work longer hours than the lazy bastards from 1945-1980 who only received 6%-9% of the pie, instead of the 23% the top 1% received in 2007?

 

[Dad2three]

Just magically got 'wealthy' without income huh? lol

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

REALLY? They don't have income? lol

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

When the family of four with 2 adults and 2 children doesn't pay a dime of income taxes until the income is almost $48,000 you have no argument. It's sad when those that don't pay demand those that do pay have more taken.

False premise, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have


Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

 

[Conservative65]

Yeah pretty much. You know of course that your chart does not dispute my claim, right?

You serious? It does NO such thing. Tax RATES have been cut in half WHILE the top 1% has nearly 300% MORE of the pie since 1979

Yes, I'm serious. And yes, you are clueless. What part of the rich don't have income is confusing you so much?

REALLY? They don't have income? lol

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

When the family of four with 2 adults and 2 children doesn't pay a dime of income taxes until the income is almost $48,000 you have no argument. It's sad when those that don't pay demand those that do pay have more taken.

False premise, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have


Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Are you saying that my income amount is false? A family of four with 2 adults and 2 children don't pay income taxes until the income is what I said. Willing to accept the proof? A better question is when I prove it are you man enough to admit I'm right and you're wrong?