The purpose of the "war on poverty" was to keep people dependent on the government. Welfare reform has greatly reduced this problem.
1 posted on
05/30/2007 10:59:11 AM PDT by
grundle
To: grundle
Two points:
How much of this increase was from EITC?
How did the middle 60 percent do?
2 posted on
05/30/2007 11:00:44 AM PDT by
dirtboy
(A store clerk has done more to fight the WOT than Rudy.)
To: grundle
FACTS like this are the enemy of Democrats and the left. Without enslaved voting groups, who the hell would vote Democrat anymore?
3 posted on
05/30/2007 11:04:15 AM PDT by
tcrlaf
(VOTE DEM! You'll Look GREAT In A Burqa!)
To: grundle
This same pattern held through the “Decade of Greed,” the Reagan ‘80s. The lowest quintile showed the greatest gains. Both periods of prosperity fuelled by a round of tax cuts.
To: grundle
Hillary was just blaming the growing gap between the rich and the poor just yesterday. Facts truly are inconvenient things for the shysters..
5 posted on
05/30/2007 11:07:18 AM PDT by
IamConservative
(I could never be a liar; there's too much to remember.)
To: grundle
But now consider that the next-biggest increase in income for the bottom group was from the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a program that, in effect, supplements the wages of parents with low incomes. In addition, most of the children in these families had Medicaid coverage and received free school lunches and other traditional social benefits. In other words, this success story is one of greater efforts to work more and earn more backed by government benefits to improve living standards and, as President Bill Clinton used to say, "make work pay." Better living through government.
Unless you're a working stiff in the middle class and get taxed everywhere you turn. Including a higher marginal tax rate if you make $65K a year than if you make $130K a year.
7 posted on
05/30/2007 11:08:38 AM PDT by
dirtboy
(A store clerk has done more to fight the WOT than Rudy.)
To: grundle
Here's a question to mull during this spring of our conservative discontent:
Do you believe George Bush would have signed the bill to end welfare, given his current behavior?
8 posted on
05/30/2007 11:09:14 AM PDT by
Jagman
(I drank Frank Rabelais under the table!)
To: Toddsterpatriot; 1rudeboy; expat_panama
Bookmarking this for the next debate regarding the ‘wealth gap’and the alleged lack of upward mobility in this country.
9 posted on
05/30/2007 11:20:07 AM PDT by
Mase
(Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
To: grundle
bookmarking, thanks for sharing
10 posted on
05/30/2007 11:27:23 AM PDT by
Teflonic
To: grundle
It wasn’t its purpose, it was its result. The purpose was honest.. but good intentions and all. It certainly became that, as people tried to protect their cushy government jobs, but it wasn’t its original purpose.
Quinn’s Law: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
To: grundle
The purpose of the "war on poverty" ..
The Democrats declare war on everything but America's enemies.
To: grundle
so IOWS....the middle class is still getting the shaft from the ultra rich and now the "poor"...
I'll bet these "poor" get food stamps, free college, free bus passes, free summer camps for their kids, free medical or greatly discounted medical care, and then of course they all get a big chunk of tax money from people like me in the form or "earned income" credits..which means they never paid in this money yet they're getting it just the same.....
of course, TPTB want the middle class gone...they prefer a struggling working class that depends on the govt for survival and votes for DIMS every time...
21 posted on
05/30/2007 12:42:02 PM PDT by
cherry
To: grundle
25 posted on
05/30/2007 1:38:23 PM PDT by
KayEyeDoubleDee
(const Tag &referenceToConstTag)
To: grundle
Despite the recession of 2001, the bottom fifth had a 35 percent increase in income (adjusted for inflation), ...The bottom fifth increased its earnings by 80 percent, ...
So is it 35% or 80%?
To: grundle
Importing povertySince 1980 the number of Hispanics with incomes below the governments poverty line (about $19,300 in 2004 for a family of four) has risen 162 percent. Over the same period, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty rose 3 percent and the number of blacks, 9.5 percent. What we will have with amnesty is a policy of creating more poverty in the United States.
33 posted on
05/31/2007 10:40:29 AM PDT by
anglian
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson