Once Upon a Time

Disinformation:Robin Hood

Published on September 13, 2011 By stevendedalus In Politics

Once upon a Time the rich got richer and the poor got less poor because of enhanced productivity and its distribution. It was known as sharing in the efforts of capital and labor, NOT redistribution of wealth that today implies the Robin Hood system.

Granted, this country is still well off when contrasted with the emerging nations, but we have different standards and the current wealth gap makes the perception virtually amorally embarrassing—if not immoral—when juxtaposed to other industrial nations. Nor can it be denied that millions of the ostensibly lowlife are barely subsisting and normal opportunities diminishing. It is unfortunate that as wealthy grow to the point that it perceives itself as a blesséd aristocracy, they become callous to the realities of the nether world without ever considering that the disadvantages inherent in the DNA of too many deserve some sense of kindness. "Let them eat cake" should not be in the phrasing of a democratic capitalism struggling to recover from decades of economic subversion.

Comments

lulapilgrim

on Sep 13, 2011

Liberalism divides bigtime.

You can thank Obama for the class warfare. His latest JOBS Act is more of the same ol', same ol".

and the poor got less poor ......................

Granted, this country is still well off ..................Nor can it be denied that millions of the ostensibly lowlife are barely subsisting and normal opportunities diminishing.

It seems the poor in this country aren't as bad off as some would have us believe. Check out the latest from Heritage Foundation.

Surprising Facts about America’s Poor

Posted By Mike Brownfield On September 13, 2011 @ 11:00 am

In his address to the joint session of Congress last week, President Barack Obama called for $477 billion ^[1] in new federal spending, which he said would give hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people hope and dignity while giving their low-income parents “ladders out of poverty.” And today, the U.S. Census released its annual poverty report, which declared that 46.2 million persons, or roughly one in seven Americans, were poor in 2010. What President Obama didn’t tell America as he was pleading for more spending–and what the Census Bureau didn’t report–is what it really means to be poor in America.

In a new report, ^[2] Heritage’s Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield lay out what the U.S. government’s own facts and figures really say about poverty in the United States. The results might surprise you, especially if your view of poverty is the conventional one, perpetuated by the media–namely, destitute conditions of homelessness and hunger. In reality, though, the living conditions of those defined as poor by the government are much different than that popular image. The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau:

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player and 70 percent have a VCR
Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation
43 percent have Internet access
One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD television
One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo

As for hunger and homelessness, Rector and Sheffield point to 2009 statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showing that 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, and over the course of a year, only 4 percent of poor persons become temporarily homeless, with 42 percent of poor households actually owning their own homes. Want an international comparison? The average poor American has more living space than the average Swede or German. You can read even more of those facts in their report, “Understanding Poverty in the United States ^[2].”

None of this is to say that the poor have it easy. Sadly, one in 25 will become temporarily homeless during the year, and one in five poor adults will experience temporary food shortages and hunger at some point in a year. But exaggerating the conditions of poverty does not do America any good, as Rector and Sheffield explain:

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 should be an important concern to 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.

Those exaggerations about the symptoms of poverty don’t solve the root causes of the problem, either. As Rector and Sheffield write, “Among families with children, the collapse of marriage and the erosion of work ethic are the principal long-term causes of poverty.” In order to truly benefit the poor, they say, welfare policy must require able-bodied recipients to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. And it should strengthen marriage in low-income communities, rather than ignore and penalize it.

Poverty is a serious problem that requires serious solutions. But policymakers and the public need accurate information about what poverty in the United States really means. Only then can they implement the right policies to help those Americans who are truly in need.

Nitro Cruiser

on Sep 13, 2011

This little, yes admittedly simplified, example pretty much sums up how taxes in the US works:

"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving s).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that’s right, exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

Pretty much what this administrations supporters are whining about, with the DNC's blessing on class warfare tactics. Remember those stimulus rebate checks a few years ago? Remember the people that didn't pay taxes feeling how "unfair" it was that they weren't getting a check back (one had to file a tax return the prior year in order to get the check). Apparently zero is not enough of a break. Nobody should be paying zero in IMO, we are in this together.

stevendedalus

on Sep 14, 2011

You're using the same old Heritage argument from the Reagan years--the Welfare Queen. Even Aghans have VCRs, cell phones and BlueRays. My point is there's no excuse for imbalance of wealth when there's much to be done thereby creating jobs and casting more consumption. I'll grant you the exaggeraion principle of politics for effect, not unlike the right badgering voters with government is not the solution; it is the problem.

stevendedalus

on Sep 14, 2011

Nitro Cruiser

reply 2

Nobody should be paying zero in IMO, we are in this together.

I agree; I've said that many a time.

Some good examples, but when at a bar the wealthiest usually picks up the tab--but, hey, not everyone is like Ted Williams.

Dr Guy

on Sep 14, 2011

stevendedalus

reply 3

Even Aghans have VCRs, cell phones and BlueRays.

Who in Afghanistan has them? Not the poor. Our poor do. Do you advocate that our poor be as bad as Afghan poor?

The rich are not a class. People move into it and out of it, just like the poor. Some do not, but they are the minority. You are looking for a solution to no problem. The problem is the fact that Obama is killing the middle class. And that will be our downfall. not that some are poor at times.

stevendedalus

on Sep 14, 2011

Dr Guy

reply 5

The rich are not a class.

How true; it is a country club.

lulapilgrim

on Sep 14, 2011

stevendedalus

reply 3

You're using the same old Heritage argument from the Reagan years--the Welfare Queen.

Granted. So these facts about the poor aren't surprising to you?

I thought I was poor growing up in the 50s and 60s. While we had food on the table, we didn't have a television or a telephone. Most of my clothes were re-sown hand me downs. I had one pair of shoes for school and one pair of shoes for Church.

So what is your definition of the poor?

The US definition of poverty is an annual income of $22,314 for a family of four, and $11,139 for a single person in 2010.

Obama is out there keeping up the warfare trying to show his leadership by yelling "Pass my jobs plan". His pathetic jobs plan that even his own party wouldn't pass.

For him it's between keeping tax breaks for multi millionaires and billionaires or putting teachers back to work. Meanwhile the school year has just begun and the teachers are already striking!

"(Do) you want to keep tax loopholes for oil companies, or do you want to renovate more schools ... so that construction workers have jobs again?" he shouted, as a partisan crowd chanted "Pass this bill."

"We know what's right. We know what to do to create jobs now and in the future," Obama said.

Obama knows what's right? Oh, don't get me going on that? Fact is Obama is clueless. Absolutely clueless.

lulapilgrim

on Sep 14, 2011

Nitro Cruiser

reply 2

Nobody should be paying zero in IMO, we are in this together.

Agree.

Most agree our tax system needs a complete reform. That's why we should be discussing some kind of fair or flat tax.

lulapilgrim

on Sep 14, 2011

Dr Guy

reply 5

You are looking for a solution to no problem. The problem is the fact that Obama is killing the middle class. And that will be our downfall. not that some are poor at times.

BINGO!

CharlesCS

on Sep 15, 2011

Nitro said it all. Nuff said.

Dr Guy

on Sep 16, 2011

stevendedalus

reply 6

How true; it is a country club.

Whose membership is constantly changing.

stevendedalus

on Sep 17, 2011

Dr Guy

reply 11

Whose membership is constantly changing.

Indeed even let in Allen West when Colin Powell left. [in practice]

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!