"House Republicans are home now decrying the “War on Christmas,” their houses festooned with lights and pretty red bows. It’s hard not to wonder if their Christmas spirit is blunted at all by the big lump of coal they recently gave America’s poor and working families. Republicans have wished the nation’s least privileged citizens a "Merry Christmas" by whacking our already anemic social safety net system."- Karen Dolan, Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies
[TomPaine.com - Tiny Tim v. Scrooge]
______________________
Cheney Breaks Tie to Pass Spending Cuts
"Bah Humbug!"
_____________________
"Our basic moral principles tell us that caring for the vulnerable should be our first order of business before we provide more to the wealthiest."- Rev. Jim Wallis, Sojo.net
Senate Roll Call Vote on Deficit Cut
No Democrats voted "YES".
Kudos to Republicans who voted their moral conscience: Lincoln Chafee, R.I.; Susan Collins, Maine; Mike DeWine, Ohio; Gordon Smith, Ore.; Olympia Snowe, Maine, along with one Independent: Jim Jeffords, Vt.
The truth from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorites:
Assessing the Effects of the Budget Conference Agreement on Low-Income Families and Individuals
LATimes.com: Spending Cuts Would Barely Trim Deficit
With Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) slamming the package as "a bill Scrooge would love," all 44 Democrats and one independent were expected to [and did] oppose it......Much of the criticism of the measure came from groups speaking for the poor, the elderly and college students.
"The provisions … would cause considerable hardship among low-income families and people who are elderly or have disabilities," said the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Medicaid recipients, particularly those just above the poverty line, would have to pay more for their healthcare or accept fewer medical services. Some could be forced to pay as much as $100 for services that now cost $3, the center said.
For elderly and disabled Medicare recipients, the premium that covers visits to the doctor would be increased.
Heckuva job, Dick 'n Dubya.
The American public shares the blame for this immoral budget.
Our political leaders talk a good talk about allevating the conditions that lead to poverty, but after election day, we see little action. Poverty increases in our communities by the year.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Maurice
The premise of your post IMO is that government can somehow alleviate poverty.
I would counter that government has created poverty by funding it. The Great Society (of poverty) is a failure.
2 - Jon Sobel
Maurice: so you're saying that, while "people" should care for the vulnerable and needy, "government" (which represents the people and consists of people) shouldn't. Hmm... there must be some universe where that kind of "logic" makes sense...
3 - RedTard
Your right Maurice. They pay single mothers to have children and then wonder why there is an explosion in single parent families. They pay and give benefits to the poor and then wonder why we can't get rid of them.
We subsidize poverty just enough to allow people to survive, trapped inside of it. This is a step up from the usual budget, at least there are some cuts.
There are plenty of soup kitchens and city shelters to ensure people survive. That is all we owe the poor. If they want more they should go out and get a JOB like everyone else.
These lame emotional appeals are effective though. You make out as if anyone that doesn't want to hand over their entire paycheck to the government is some kind of asshole who wants to see little kids starve to death.
What you are advocating is theft. Your side sends the IRS out backed up by law enforcement to take money away from working Americans so you can buy votes among the drug addicts, felons, and other failures in our society for the Democratic machine.
4 - No Longer On Welfare
What about the working poor? Why has the Republican party refused to raise minimum wage? That might encourage some people to go find work. I don't know if you've noticed but the number of poor people has increased steadily ever since dipshit took office. Being someone who was recently on welfare (yesterday) I'm offended that you consider everyone on assistance lazy or looking for a handout. Working at Walmart and paying for daycare and medical insurance is impossible. They don't just need jobs, they need good jobs, which have become increasingly harder to find in the last five years.
5 - Nancy
Living wage levels are not something those in congress (most of whom are super-wealthy) or the GOP (the party of the super-rich) concern themselves about, as we all know by now. And from the votes & action taken on the budget so far, it seems the Dems don't, either. They're all fat, happy, & comfy with all sorts of outrageous permanent perks for life, so why should they care?
6 - RedTard
"Working at Walmart and paying for daycare"
Having a kid when the only job you qualify for is at WalMart is not very intelligent and demonstrates the same lack of judgement that probably landed a person in the poor house originally. Should I be punished for that? Why should we punish those who make wise decisions and reward (welfare, free medical, etc.) those who make poor ones?
It may make us feel better for having 'helped' someone but it only results in more people making bad choices to receive the reward.
7 - No Longer On Welfare
That's great that you consider welfare and medical care a "reward". You trully are a kind a decent human being. Only geniuses such as yourself should be able to procreate. I'm sure with your winning personality there is a line outside your bedroom. Were you aware that we spend more on interest on the national debt than we do on the welfare system? You are a REdTARD, but Jesus still loves you.
8 - chancelucky
RedTard,
just wondering, as one of the working or non-working rich, could you share with the rest of us your secrets to moral superiority?
I've actually known a lot of poor people who worked very hard. Not all of them got rich or even became middle class. Sometimes, it is bad luck, accident, disability, family situations, illness, and even being discriminated against or illegal action by a bigger company that sends folks into poverty.
9 - lumpy
The world where this kind of policy makes sense is my world - the real one. It's different from the fantasy world where Bush didn't cut taxes almost twice as much for the middle class as for the rich and where he didn't raise the income cutoff to relieve the working poor from all taxes. It's also different from the fantasy world where anyone actually earns minimum wage so that raising the minimum wage would make a difference.
Here in the real world the role of government is to help the poor with handouts for the short term, but to give them real longterm help by creating opportunities to work and advnce themselves.
As for god, he helps those who help themselves.
10 - Bliffle
Red: " They pay single mothers to have children and then wonder why there is an explosion in single parent families. They pay and give benefits to the poor and then wonder why we can't get rid of them."
Even when welfare to the poor is reduced they don't go away.
Most welfare goes to corporations. The Senate/House Joint Tax Committe says $170billion per year. People welfare is about $35billion.
The Welfare Moms aren't in the streets they're in the suites.
Welfare IS a big problem. It distorts economics and competition. If your corp (like mine) gets no government subsidy but the competitor does then you are at an economic disadvantage. Think about that next time somebody in congress says "this subsidy (to my good friends over here) will mean more jobs!" It really just means his Good friends are going to steal my customers with lower prices subsidized by the government.
11 - Bliffle
Red: "Having a kid when the only job you qualify for is at WalMart is not very intelligent and demonstrates the same lack of judgement that probably landed a person in the poor house originally."
Joe Sixpak was really dumb when he went and had that kid ten years ago during the bad old Clinton days when he had a high paying tech job. He should have foreseen the Bush crash that would wipe out his high tech job and his 401k and reduce him to working at walmart. He should be punished. Or maybe he can send the kid back. Or maybe he can send the kid to Dick Cheney, who has a lot of money and an empty nest.
12 - No Longer On Welfare
lumpy, I would have to agree with you on the short term part. No one should stay on welfare longer than they absolutely have to. Everything else you wrote is bullshit. Peace.
13 - RedTard
I agree completely. It sickens me whenever my city gives tax breaks to lure new business in when there are well established competitors already in town.
I think many of governments attempts at 'help' are misguided. Think about subsidized housing. Who would put in apartments to meet the low cost housing market with their own money when someone else with a government connection could build subsidized units right across the street?
I believe not only in freedom and competition, but also in a level playing field and rules that apply to all.
Chance,
I'm certainly not CA or NY rich but I do OK. I realize that meny people are forced into poverty by forces beyond their immediate control and I do feel for them. I believe that most people have the potential to take care of themselves and chip in for others.
Although I don't really think you wanted any advice I'll tell you what I think. The reason many people get knocked into poverty for the reasons you listed are because they were living outside of their means.
Consumerism has caught hold so much that even people with good incomes have no money set aside for emergencies. Never in my life has my income been considered high but I gained wealth by living on less than I made and investing the rest. Anyone could do as well or probably better than I have if they would just break the spell of the advertisers.
14 - RedTard
"Joe Sixpak was really dumb when he went and had that kid ten years ago during the bad old Clinton days when he had a high paying tech job. He should have foreseen the Bush crash that would wipe out his high tech job and his 401k and reduce him to working at walmart. He should be punished. Or maybe he can send the kid back. Or maybe he can send the kid to Dick Cheney, who has a lot of money and an empty nest."
See last paragraph above.
15 - Nancy
It's true consumerism is out of control here in the US, but it's also true marketers & the corporations spend big bucks finding all the psychological buttons to push to condition people to be that way, too. Plus, face it - most humans aren't as smart as we like to think we are, and the past few generations are conditioned to instant gratification & very short sound bites.
16 - Jude
Having a kid when the only job you qualify for is at WalMart is not very intelligent and demonstrates the same lack of judgement that probably landed a person in the poor house originally. Should I be punished for that? Why should we punish those who make wise decisions and reward (welfare, free medical, etc.) those who make poor ones?
You are blaming the poor for making "wrong decisions" - not taking into consideration that their decision-options are very few - and getting fewer by the day. I could write you a book in response. We can't keep blaming the victims of poverty for being in poverty without DOING anything other than giving hand-outs and lip-service, and we can't continue to support stereotypes and prejudices about the poor. You live in the same society I do, but we obviously do not share similar values.
You begrudge someone else's freedom to enjoy a family because of their life's economic circumstances. That's a sentiment that is emptied out of so many American common values!
And what if a WalMart job is all a person is qualified for, as you say? Is every person on earth going to be a rocket scientist? Why should that preclude a person from marrying or procreating and having a family? Would you suggest a sterilization program for the working poor? Where is your sense of empathy, values and human rights?
And if you're going to tell a woman to get married to get out of poverty, you'd better tell her not to marry another one of the millions of the working poor in America. There are so many married couples both working and getting nowhere - hoping an illness doesn't devastate them. They're one or two paychecks away from the homeless shelter.
Education? Heh! Education is something that is alien to the poor - they cannot get access to education like the middle class and the rich are privileged to have access to. Instead of saving for college, parents in poverty are spending all their time planning on how they'll manage when the next thing goes wrong - when the old car breaks down, when the heating bill comes due, when the pink slip comes, when the kid gets a toothache and there's no dental insurance. Does that mean they are not entitled to experience a family life? Who are you, Scrooge?
In a nation where so many people pride themselves on an American dream of opportunity, on their Christian principles, and on freedom, this entire statement reveals your ideas about being "punished" as nothing more than resenting to have to pay your fair share to enable you to live in a productive nation where freedom and human rights are respected.
This isn't some starry-eyed far left vision - we need to sit down and take a good look around us and find out where the hell our common moral values have gone! The longer you keep driving around the bad neighborhoods or averting your eyes from the problems in urban schools and city streets, you'll be "punished" - and we'll all be "punished" - in ways we'd never expected for our neglect and our anti-social/anti-value preference of government.
The middle class is shrinking - and the gap between haves and have-nots is widening more every day. Poverty has worsened each year since 2001. Now, with these spending cuts, we are saying that we do not care.
17 - Jude
I believe that Jon is has a great point. Since when are we NOT a government "of the people" - "for the people" - "by the people"??
If it's the people's common value to pull the poor from their poverty, how on earth do you morally separate our Representatives, in a democratic representative Republic, from the common values of the people?
Even if the people are selfish mammons who do not share the value or appreciate the social responsibility of lifting others from poverty, their public Representatives should understand the serious responsibility of acting for the public good. Republicans in the Senate abandoned responsibility and morality today. What will come next? In January, there will be a request for $100 billion of your tax dollars for a war In Iraq that was never necessary.
Is God pro-rich?
Is God pro-war?
18 - RedTard
Jude,
I am all for providing opportunities. I just don't think cash payments or government entitlements qualify as an 'opportunity'. Education is an opportunity, those other things seem more like rewards to me.
Your compassion is great but, like most on your side, you seem to believe that people in poverty are incapable of raising themselves out without handouts. I believe exactly the opposite. Humans are incredibly adaptable and capable of so much more than most of us are willing to believe.
You see subsidies as a way to help them up, I see them as an enabler that traps and keeps them down. Government gives just enough to trap people in poverty. Without the government assistance people would be forced to solve the underlying problems and, in the process, would become more capable Americans.
19 - Maurice
Well written, RedTard.
That was my point about The Great Society. LBJ enslaved many by enabling them to fail.
20 - Maurice
BTW I really tire of people claiming Corporations don't pay taxes.
Please look up any company using YAHOO and look at their Income Statement. I just looked up aapl and noticed that they made $1,815,000,000 for the year of 2005. They paid $480,000,000 in taxes.
21 - chancelucky
what a fine argument for having a 100% inheritance tax so all Americans can show how adaptable and capable they are.
it might even make sense to make everyone start over financially every ten years regardless.
re: the corporate tax thing, income statements don't tell the whole story. I'm glad that aapl paid at a 24% rate, it's slightly lower than say a family earining 100k/year. a pretty good deal when you have income close to two billion dollars/year. It would also help to look at pre-deduction income (revenues) to get a better feel for how AAPL's tax payments compare to regular people.
22 - Maurice
Let me help you with the math.
480/1815 = %26.45
Tax computation for 100k/year:
12K at 10% = $1200
52K5 - 12K at 15% = $7575
100K - 52K5 - 12K at 26% = $9230
total = $18,005
$18,005/100K = 18%
So with no deductions:
Corporation pays %26.45
Person pays %18
23 - chancelucky
I assume you're accounting for a person in a state with no income taxes. Normally when we calculate average burden we include state taxes as well so it compares to other countries in some meaningful way.
In my state, we pay 9.3 percent when you get into the more serious brackets. The Apple income statement on yahoo doesn't indicate if that included state and federal or just federal. Corporate Income tax is 8.4 percent or so.
one of the interesting things about Apple is that their 1.8 billion in income comes after close to 14 billion dollars in revenue. Obviously much of that really is the cost of doing business, but how much "corporate welfare" comes into the 12 billion dollars in expenses and pre-income deductions?
Most of us who make 100k or so do it on a much smaller gross.
As I mentioned the income statement often only tells part of the story.
24 - RedTard
"what a fine argument for having a 100% inheritance tax"
See, there is some middle ground we might agree on. Although 100% may be excessive I think shifting the tax burden from workers to the estates of those who have passed is a step forward.
No one needs or deserves a $10 mil inheritance for winning the genetic lottery. I don't hold anything against those who have been successful and earned their money and I hope they enjoy every bit of it. When they die the majority of their fortune should go back to the society from which they created it to provide opportunities for others.
25 - anti-liberalhippies
So your saying that if your dear old Grandma had her house for 40 years. She paid for off the loans and all of the taxes and left the house to you. So even though this estate has been taxed over and over again you feel that more taxes should be added.
How about we do away with welfare :)