It’s absolutely mind-boggling. President Obama has decided to gut the single most successful public policy of recent decades-- the 1996 welfare reform.
Earlier this month he issued yet another executive order reversing congressional intent, this time by extending waivers to the work rules in federal welfare law for states that want them.
But the work rules are the heart and soul of welfare reform. Under the bill signed by President Clinton (he was under political duress and declined the first two chances to sign the bill, but brags about it to this day), the work rules were specifically designed to not be waivable. It was believed that the requirement to work would not only incentivize welfare recipients to leave the system, but would also provide them with a path to independence.
The definition of work was key. It meant engaging in gainful employment, not planning to work, not training for work some day or the “multi- year career pathways” and “comprehensive universal engagement system” that welfare bureaucrats are still pushing today.
In the 90s, the Left was outraged at the notion that welfare recipients should be required to work. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan termed the 1996 bill “the most brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction” and felt “those involved will take this disgrace to their graves.” The Children’s Defense Fund predicted a 12 percent increase in child poverty and more hungry children due to this “moral blot on our nation that will never be forgotten”.
Others chimed in. The National Organization for Women claimed that 12.8 million people on welfare would be “at risk of sinking further into poverty and homelessness.” There would be “more malnutrition and more crime, increased infant mortality and increased drug and alcohol abuse,” according to Peter Edelman, who resigned his post at the Department at Health and Human Services in protest.
They couldn’t have been more wrong. By 2001, 3.5 million fewer people were living in poverty than when the reform was enacted. The overall poverty rate fell by 15 percent while the child poverty rate declined 21 percent. Even better, the poverty rate among black children, which had not budged for a quarter-century, fell by more than a quarter.
There were also significant declines in poverty rates among children of single mothers, “hungry” children and of those living in “severe poverty” with incomes less than half the poverty level. Best of all, welfare dependence was sharply curtailed, with federal welfare caseloads cut by more than half.
Some have argued that it’s not fair to require work in today’s job market. But there’s a solution, short of pursuing policies that would stimulate economic growth and create more jobs (now there’s an idea!). Welfare recipients could be given public works jobs like child care, neighborhood revitalization, recycling and other needed tasks. It wouldn’t be ideal but it would preserve many of the benefits of reform and produce some goods and services useful to society.
Tellingly, Obama didn’t reference the job situation in his memo announcing the new policy. His administration is focused not on pragmatic concerns, like raising people out of poverty, but on “social justice.” They clearly want more, not fewer, people dependent on government programs like food stamps. They have marketed that program extensively, even going so far as to collaborate with the Mexican government in pitching it to Mexican nationals. They celebrate its quadrupling under Obama’s watch.
Many on the Left still see the poor as victims of an unjust society who are morally entitled to the fruits of the labor of their more fortunate countrymen. In their view, it is demeaning to require anything in return. That’s an attitude probably common among community organizers, President Obama’s previous occupation.
The president’s efforts to buck up his core support base is not only dreadful policy, it’s unconstitutional. Unfortunately this president has also unilaterally rewritten the law on immigration, marriage, religious freedom, education and energy policies recently. He’s discovered no one can stop him if he chooses to ignore Congress and the Constitution.
In the upcoming election, Americans will have the opportunity to restore policies that promote independence from government and save much needed funds in an era of spiraling debt. Here’s hoping they’re paying attention.
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
wangly posted at 7:26 pm on Tue, Nov 6, 2012.
want to have three. She thought she did. The kids kids cheap designer handbags kids would cry and it would frustrate her, and she
lose control, and she would bang their heads."She would take take cheap replica louis vuitton handbags take him from the car seat, and she would bang
head on the metal part of the bassinet," Coleman said.Walker said.Walker cheap replica louis vuitton handbags said.Walker was indicted last week on a murder charge and
counts of injury to a child.Coleman told ABC News today today cheap replica handbags today that a judge had issued a gag order in
case as of Tuesday.Angleton police investigating the June death of of cheap replica designer handbags of Walker's 6-month-old soon learned that in 2011 another
her sons had died in Freeport, Texas, the Associated Press Press louis vuitton alma Press reported. Investigators in Freeport closed the case after an
revealed the cause of death was undetermined."Hindsight was that there there cheap louis vuitton handbags there was more that we could have done, and from
and an interview we've done with a different detective, I I replica louis vuitton handbags I think there are things we could have done differently,"
Tyrone Morrow of the Freeport Police Department told KTRK.After the the cheap replica louis vuitton handbags the death of her first child, Walker moved to nearby
where police said she confessed to killing her 6-month-old, 6-month-old, cheap replica designer handbags 6-month-old, who was hooked up to a breathing monitor, the
year.According to Coleman, it was on June 20 when Walker Walker louis vuitton monogram Walker banged the 6-month-old's head. She didn't call for medical
Cas Lee posted at 7:56 pm on Sun, Oct 28, 2012.
Hello, my fellow American voters!
I watched the Oct. 3rd, 11th, 16th, and 22nd debates.
1st Romney-Obama debate covered 7 topics: jobs; budget deficit/debt; social security/entitlements; federal gov’t economic regulation and role; healthcare; partisan gridlock.
2nd Romney-Obama debate covered 11 topics: college graduate jobs; gas prices; taxes; equal pay; Bush policies; Obama’s record; illegal immigrants; Libya; assault weapons; jobs; candidate misperceptions.
3rd Romney-Obama debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Syria; Egypt; U.S. world role; military spending; Israel; Iran; Afghanistan; China; U.S. national security threats.
Ryan-Biden debate covered 10 topics: Libya; Iran; economy; medicare/social security/entitlements; tax reform/spending/budget cuts; military policy; Afghanistan; Syria; abortion; negative campaign tactics.
Romney and Ryan won all 4 debates, although Obama improved some in the 2nd debate and Romney slightly took the win both in the 2nd and 3rd debates.
In the 3rd debate (unlike in prior debates), Obama reflected his weakness and disrespect by interrupting Romney a lot and using too many “one-line quips” to try to denigrate Romney.
Ryan won despite Biden’s consistently rude behavior during the debate (often interrupted Ryan, laughed when Ryan talked, pointed his finger). Biden’s tactics to evade issues/truth disrespected Americans interested in facts, figures, forecasts, and solutions for real people with real problems.
Romney and Ryan won with substance, directness, integrity, respect, clarity, facts, commitment, inspiration, credibility, and leadership.
As an INDEPENDENT female feminist (egalitarian) voter, I support the Romney/Ryan ticket.
Romney and Ryan, with their no-nonsense and methodic approach to solving America’s problems, are the best persons in terms of qualifications and character to lead our country and make life better for all Americans.
I am inspired by Romney/Ryan, and I hope that you are too!
Best regards,
Cas Lee
davidflucier posted at 10:57 am on Thu, Aug 16, 2012.
Patterson is still swallowing the Republican baloney about how Obama is putting the welfare worker back on the dole...these were elements requested by Republican governors from around the US in order to make the admin of the program easier and more flexible...just ask Mitt Romney...he was one of those governors!
Centrist posted at 8:42 am on Fri, Aug 3, 2012.
MNJ,
It is a cop-out to suggest different ideologies mean we are both right. Not true. Think of it this way, if 2 football coaches come out on the field with 2 different strategies but at the end of the game the score is 63-0, then 1 strategy was vastly superior to the other. So, the only way to know if one ideology is stronger is to test them on the field head to head, not to claim, "Well, we think differently, so let's not even play." In the end, the score will either be lopsided your way, my way, or we wil be too close to call (then - and only then - is it appropriate to agree to disagree). You can't give up on the meeting of the minds before it begins. Iron sharpens iron, my friend.
If you say you agree with Patterson then you are not testing his conclusions. This guy is so one-sided he makes a 2 headed nickel seem fair. Let's start with this article. The tone and content would suggest to the reader that Obama has just removed the entire body of "work provisions" ofrom the welfare laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama's administration has simply notified states waivers may be considered in limited circumstances. And, by the way, he didn't just pull that out of thin air. There are policy reasons behind the well-thought out decision, namely the effects of the poor economic climate created over the past 5 years. But, will Patterson give you a fair reading of the Obama Administration's action? No. He would rather use inflamatory words like "mind-boggling" "gut" "yet another"... This guy is horrible because he is spinning the events so as to distract from the parts of the story he is misleading you about. But, hey, it works. In today's media world, that is how you get readers. It is a crying shame.
If you want more neutral and fact-centric reporting, check out the German publication Zeit (although I beleive their website is published in German and you might need google translate). There are also english printed materials. You may already read The Economist. I have a subscription. The french paper Le Figaro is a bit weird. I check it out only when I am bored.
mnjcpa posted at 7:48 am on Fri, Aug 3, 2012.
I hear where you're coming from Centrist, but you see I agree with Patterson and I don't find anything praise worthy of the Obama administration. So see we're right back to where we started we just have different ideologies. When Obama ignored the electorate of the Fall 2010 elections is when he lost me. I wanted him to be successful, but when you turn a blind eye to ALL of your constituents you're not a leader in my world.
You mentioned the BBC - any others?
Centrist posted at 6:02 am on Fri, Aug 3, 2012.
mnj,
You say that if someone agress with the policies they won't see it. I would suggest the opposite is true. Take this Patterson article for example. Obviously, this particular article is attempting to slam the Obama administration. Now, ask yourself if Patterson has ever written anything praising theadministration. The answer is NO. Now, ask why. Is itbecause theadministration has never done anything praise worthy. No, it is because by speaking out against the administration Patterson creates controversies and converts. Sneaky, or more importantly, slimmy when done through journalism.
I'm glad you recognize that impartiality is dead in journalism. Unfortunately, not everyone does. I give you the birther movement.
MNJ, I think we may have gotten past our inital reaction to be argumentative with one another and I thank you for leading that charge. I look forward to future thoughtful discussions. I'll drop the arrogant tone...Thanks again.
mnjcpa posted at 10:34 pm on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.
Hi centrist,
I couldn't disagree with you more about the media. I don't watch them, but whether I'm at the dentist, airport, restaurants, they dominate the airwaves. You're not going to see it if you agree with Obama's policies, but for me, they don't even try to pretend that they''re impartial. And I don't buy that when you have to go out of your way to get a different perspective when you don't agree with Obama's policies doesn't make it propaganda nor do I think that if you disagree that you should be supportive. Thanks for the foreign press suggestion - I will check it out.
Great discussion, and wish I had more time to respond. My business right now takes precedence over any hobbies.
Centrist posted at 4:29 pm on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.
Hey chuckles,
So, the real point is that both women's husbands make enough money that they can wear whatever they want, right?
Also, keep in mind that while you do not find the clothing they wear newsworthy, apparently others do. Not me. But, there must be someone reading this stuff or they would not print it. Oh, wait, you apparently are one of the ones reading it...
chuckles3 posted at 4:11 pm on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.
No news here. The Emperor issued another proclamation. Everyone bow and move on.
Congress is irrelevant. Can't you peasants get that?
Hey, didja see Michelle's $7k outfit? Stunning!. She is so beautiful.
Not like that "out of touch" rich girl Ann Romney, with here designer clothes and her two Cadillacs paid for with her own money.
Centrist posted at 2:03 pm on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.
VoR:
So, you have demonstrated 2 fundamental misunderstandings; 1 about taxes and the other about our education system. First, it is untrue to say 40% do not pay TAXES. The statistic you are quoting relates SOLELY to income taxes. More importantly, your local school system does not draw its revenue from INCOME taxes, rather it draws its revenue from PROPERTY taxes (among other things). So, that leads us to your second misunderstanding, that the school does not care if your parents pay the tax. The school very much cares and that is why we have school districts. The people who can go to that school are those living in the district. Now, let's move on to the idea that it is entirely the parents fault for not instilling a work ethic in their child such that the child succeeds. Does your theory leave room for those parents who do work -very hard - to instill that ethic but the child is unwilling or unable to receive it? Does your so called "basic fact" leave room for the fact that even successful students grow up and lose a job and then have a need for government assistance? You see, it is easy to say...it is all in the parenting..but the truth is we live in a highly nuanced world and you should take a level of comfort in knowing that those who study the problem and develop policies (eventually laws) to address the problem have thought about your so called "it is all a basic parenting problem" and decided that is only some portion of the problem.
VofReason posted at 1:51 pm on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.
Let's agree Education is not free to produce. The Government takes taxes from som (40%pay none) but school does not rely on whether the parent of the student paid taxes or not. That disconnect may be critical. Also, if the parents or environment around the child have not created the importance on the sole prospect of leaving the school system with a proper education, there in is the problem. Doesn't matter how much money anyone decries is needed for the education system, it would not fix the basic fact.
Centrist posted at 8:46 am on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.
MNJ -
Thanks for your contemplation. It appears we both share the same "interesting hobby" although you advocate a different position. I will say that you are promoting a false argument if you suggest that the "major" media outlets drool over themselves to "promote" Obama as a messiah. You profess not to watch major media television and you have suggested that you do not read the "fox-inspired" spin-offs, so let me tell you from someone who listens to both am-progessive radio and the conservative news-talk radio on the drive into work each morning and then watches NBC, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC at night while streaming this website and other right-leaning stes, the drooling is in the form of "stirring controversy" not in supporting the administration. Rush would have you believe that the "mainstream media outlets" (why he never considers himself in that group I'll never know since he always boasts about the size of his viewership) are Obama-centric. In truth and in fact, Fox always rails against him, sites like the one we are on now publish junk from Patterson and his like, and the rest of the mainstream (MSNBC excluded) merely echo what Fox and MSNBC spin. It would be fascinating (if it was not so terrifying) to read about the influence of the heritage foundation, the drudge report, fox news, ALEC, etc. For example, did you know that the drudge report actually published an article suggesting Romney would pick Condi Rice as his running mate. Everyone involved in the process will tell you that could never happen, but once The Drudge said it, everyone had to report it. So, please consider the fact that the media is not in Obama's pocket. There are those in the media who will tell you that and would love for you to believe it, but it just ain't so.
For people who want to look elsewhere, I suggest you go to the foreign press. They are way more neutral and fact correct. Try the BBC, try anything other than american based news which has become nothing more than propoganda. But, remember, in the end, it should not be about selecting a media outlet because you want to avoid Obama worship. Rather, you should be selecting a media outlet based on its veracity and integrity in reporting.
Not sure I understand your Germany reference, so I'll move on.
While I'll admit our ideologies differ and that neither of us need to be jerks, I do not accept that as a reason to "agree to disagree". Firs,t you say you want government out and I want it in. Wrong. For all the back and forth you still don't understand my position. I want government in only where it makes sense. Moreover, you likely do too. Even the strongest libretarians will concede that a free market does not mean a market with no rules. The US Libreterian Party defines libreterianism as "a voluntarily funded government limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence." So, you see our differing idealogies are not as simple as "government out" and "government in". Instead, it comes down to a degree of government involvement. And, I am sure that within that, there are areas which we can agree. Moreover, I suspect there are areas where we are aligned. For example, what is your position on boarder control?
mnjcpa posted at 7:40 am on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.
Okay Centrist - interesting `hobby` you've got pounding out `propaganda` from those right wing conspirators. Particularly when every major media outlet drools over themselves over their messiah Obama so your help really isn't necessary. For people that disagree with their worship of Obama obviously they look elsewhere. Does it make it propaganda or are we just in nazi Germany now?
Your comments to VofReason are really quite good but its our ideology that's different Centrist . There's no reason for either of us to be jerks when we understand that. I want the government out of everyone's business - you want the government in it so we'll never agree.
Centrist posted at 2:05 pm on Wed, Aug 1, 2012.
Reason:
Thanks for joining in. First, every child in the US does NOT get a free education. There is nothing free about our public school system. There are taxes used to pay for it and other sources of funding including private donations. Rather, what we have in the US is a government subsidized educational process. Can we agree on that?
Second, the idea that only some people "take the education as important" ignores the fact that there are differing degrees of what it means to be "important." The individual's perspective of how mush energy to expend in the classroom or at home studying or on extra-curricular activities will be greatly influenced by the socio-economic stratus of the parents, the tools and resources available to the child, the child's home-life, the micro-society the child is growing up in (inner-city vs. rural for example). So, there is no way to chategorize every child in the US as either a "serious" student using the system to its greatest advantage or a "non-serious" student electing not to do so. Can we agree that the situation is much more nuanced than that?
Knowing that state and federal budgets are stressed and that the needy are indeed growing, the solution is for incentivized private donations and programs to be combined with a renewed government interest in actually fixing the problems at home before going overseas to create new ones. If we collectively spent 1/2 the energy we spend on: (i) campaigning for public office or (ii) protecting the oil in the mid-east on working to solve our poverty and education problems here at home, we would be well beyond our problems.
In the final analysis, I am actually a proponent of the work rules in the federal welfate regulations. I do believe, however, that there is no such thing as a one-size fits all solution. There may very well be the need for waivers in special circumstances and (alkthough the author of the article refused to tell you) the present reform means to keep the waivers to a minimum.
VofReason posted at 12:46 pm on Wed, Aug 1, 2012.
OK Centrist I'll bite. Agreed that every human has struggles. Can we agree that every child in the US gets free education? Can we agree that some people take the free education as important (parents and child) and use it to the greatest advantage? And some don't. Further, there are generations of don't who then become a growing and larger group which must be supported for their lack of importance of education? So what is the right way to address this- knowing that State and Federal budgets are stressed and the neddy are indeed growing? Please, tell us from the center how society fixes this?
Centrist posted at 9:47 am on Wed, Aug 1, 2012.
MNJ,
Good to see you have come back to the comment board. And, thanks for the compliments. Although, I would not say you all "suppress" other's comments, you do fail to acknowledge the logic within them. As for my time, I have worked hard over the years to create a nest egg that affords me the ability to divide my time between work and my civic duty of ensuring right wing propaganda is properly confronted and addressed. I'm in good shape in both my practice and my recreational pursuits, but thanks for your concern. Finally, let's not pretend your message was directed at Leon. You intended me to recieve and review your comments. Next time, address them to me. Where I come from someone should be able to speak honestly about their intentions.
mnjcpa posted at 8:04 am on Wed, Aug 1, 2012.
Leon don't take centrist's comments personal. When you're the smartest guy in the room as he is, you'll always be in a place to be dismissed and chastised. Take comfort that we're used to it - opposing points of view are always dealt with in exactly this way to suppress others opinions. Self righteousness and arrogance are just typical with liberals. He's a brilliant lawyer.....but he's got plenty of time to belittle people in an east valley newspaper comment column. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Let it go......maybe he'll get back to doing what he continues to tell us he's so brilliant about.
Centrist posted at 6:54 am on Wed, Aug 1, 2012.
Leon,
I know it is hard, but try to do more than reciting the heritage foundation's spin. Your post demonstrates you know nothing about our government, our president, or the various philosophies you rectie. Clearly you are upset about the aid provided to the less fortunate in our society and, apparently, it is because you find them to be undeserving. Who taught you that? Was it some other bitter individual who failed to demonstrate compassion for those less fortunate?
All is not lost. You can become a better individual. The first step is to acknowledge that every human has struggles. Some struggle with their carrer and their ability to earn a living wage. Can we start there? Can you confirm that you understand not everyone is equally equipped to earn a livable wage?
Let's take baby steps together. Just tell me you are ready to turn in your "hate" card and live a more fulfilled and peaceful existence.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 3:10 pm on Tue, Jul 31, 2012.
YOU MEAN....."SOCIALIST JUSTICE"......LOL.
CHAIRMAN MAO TSE OBAMA AND HIS ..."RED GUARD" DEMOCRATS WON'T BE HAPPY UNTIL EVERY...."WORKING" OR ....."SOLVENT" ...AMERICAN IS SUPPORTING ...10 NON-WORKING (NEVER-DID WORK AND NEVER-WILL WORK) AMERICANS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM MEXICO.
IF YOU HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO LIVE IN CHINA, VIETNAM, CUBA OR VENENZUELA...........THEN BY ALL MEANS VOTE FOR.....BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.........OR ANY OTHER KENYAN-MUSLIM CANDIDATE THAT YOU WISH TOO.
CSalafia posted at 12:34 pm on Tue, Jul 31, 2012.
MN-
Congratulations on ducking every point in my comment.
I guess you do think the elderly, the disabled, students, and the working poor should pay more in taxes. Why don't you lead that charge? Start a campaign that all those "freeloaders" need to pay more while the wealthy need to pay less.
Oh, and if you have an issue with progressive taxation, take it up with Adam Smith.
Centrist posted at 1:31 pm on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
The Obama administration is not removing the bill’s work requirements at all. He’s changing them to allow states more flexibility. But the principle that welfare programs must require recipients to move toward employment isn’t going anywhere.
Here’s what’s happening. George Sheldon, the acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), sent states a memorandum inviting them to submit applications for waivers from certain aspects of the TANF law. The stated intention is to allow states more room to try programs that promote employment for welfare recipients in the face of the recession. The actual language is rather strict and rules out a number of potential waiver applications. For example, the memo states, “The Secretary will not use her authority to allow use of TANF funds to provide assistance to individuals or families subject to the TANF prohibitions on assistance.” Translation: people who aren’t on TANF because they didn’t meet the work requirements aren’t going to get bailed out here. Proposed waivers also must include concrete methods of evaluating performance, and set standards that the new programs must meet for the waiver to continue.
Everyone clear now.
VofReason posted at 12:55 pm on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
Wow. Lots of fire flying around. I think the question posed is an easy one- should people who accept money for nothing have to do something to get it. Seems pretty easy. I would say yes and it would seem to create the idea that money is not free and if you have to work to get it, you may as well work harder and make more of it. Forget about the public service jobs noted, how about have welfare reciepients make spatulas and other manufacteured things coming from China. Offset what they would be paid by what they recieve in welfare and sell them to Walmart at the price they pay for the China stuff. At very least, you will get some offset to what is being paid in welfare and allow people to get work experience
mnjcpa posted at 10:53 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
Love your question Dale - very thought provoking.
Centrist posted at 10:43 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
MNJ, I love it. You never have anything to peddle other than the following: "Leave the rich people alone! They own businesses."
MNJ, let me give you my address so that when you start receiving social security payments, you can send me the check because, you aren't actually thinking of cashing those checks are you? Wouldn't that go against your whole belief system?[wink]
Dale Whiting posted at 10:33 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
Willie,
Is it a misguided push for social justice, social justise itself, or the fact that Patterson is a career neo-con and the President is not that makes Patterson think things are misguided?
mnjcpa posted at 10:32 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
Actually what I'm doing is helping people right now. I guess your wife let you put your big man's pants back on and come out to display your smug arrogance again. Have fun!
Centrist posted at 10:18 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
Engaged, mnjcpa can't respond to you just yet. He is busy looking up his response at heritage.org.
All, I think we need to stop referring to mnjcpa as "mnjcpa" his accounting acumen is largely suspect. For me, from now on, he is just mnj.
Engaged Voter posted at 10:05 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
"My slimy lies Enraged? What exactly am I lying about?"
You lied about my stance on Obama's spending. You lied when you called me a liberal. You lied when claiming I brought religion into this when you were the one who brought up Romney's religious contributions. And that's just in THIS thread! ;)
Centrist posted at 9:42 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
Now he (mnjcpa) is just flayin' around. It is actually comical to watch. Oh dear!
Mnjcpa, as has been explained to you before, the top 40% (not 20 as you and the fox news folks say) are paying 70% of the taxes because that is where the money is. If you have a beef with that, you have a beef with the progessive tax system in place in America. That system was put in place in 1913. Prior to that only the top 2% of wage earners paid any tax. Are you suggesting we go back to the previous model? Or, are you just upset that someone making $21,000 a year pays $2,100 in taxes?
In any event, let's have it your way. Send a $1million tax bill to a McDonald's worker and let's see how that works...
mnjcpa posted at 9:25 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
Great, you again centrist. The arrogant, self appointed expert on all things liberal.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. You're talking about wage earners - I'm talking about business owners. It's not rhetoric - it's 20 years in the tax field. Fortunately for me I've got more important things to do this week than debate another ignorant liberal that believes in his superiority. Find someone else to harass.
mnjcpa posted at 9:16 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
You're pathetically misinformed CSalafia.
When 20% of the population pay 70% of ALL tax revenue - including boondoggle liberal policies that pay ILLEGAL citizens how much more do you want? Should we just socialize and confiscate ALL profits? I guess I'm going to continue to work 70+ hour weeks to make sure these things get paid.
I'll go on strike, and many others I know will do the same. Then where will Obama's `stash` come from?
CSalafia posted at 8:18 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
So the party of "federal gov't control = bad; state gov't control = good" is upset over a policy that gives states more freedom to administer their AFDC programs that the GOP asked for?
Oh, that's right, Obama did it so it's automatically bad.
p.s. Those that repeat the "50% don't pay taxes" meme are simply advocating for the elderly, the disabled, students, single parent households, and working poor families to pay more while giving the wealthy a free pass.
Centrist posted at 8:15 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
Is it just me or does mnjcpa like to argue with no facts to support his conclusions. (By the way, he once told me he does not get his arguments from Fox News....obviously a lie based on his quote of 50% abovewhich has been proven to be a fox news...faux news...statistic). See below.
According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 38 percent of "tax units" — which can be singles, couples, or families — are projected to have zero or negative income tax liability in 2009. About 60 percent of these households make $20,000 per year or less.
However, being exempt from income tax does not mean you’re exempt from federal taxes. Everyone who works is liable for payroll taxes, contributions to Medicare and Social Security that come out of every paycheck. There are also excise taxes on some goods and services, most notably the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline. The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes.
So, what doe we know from this. First of all, it is 38% not 50%. Second, 60% of those with no tax liability make less than 20,000 per year (Do you really think they are scheming to earn so little simply so they don't pay a tax???? Obviously they are not living large and partying like a rockstar on their $520 per pay check income). Next, many of the so-called freeloaders are wealthy individuals who have found tax shelters...but mnjcpa does not want to reveal that to you.
Mnjcpa, go home. No one believes your arguments anymore because they are based on rhetoric, not facts. It is sad that rich people have paid fox people to convince you that poor people are the problem. Now, you vote against your own self-interest. Sorry you have been so decieved.
mnjcpa posted at 7:49 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
For years I volunteered to help low income taxpayers prepare their taxes for free. I stopped doing it a few years ago when the crowd went from low income taxpayers to illegals and other ne'er-do-wells that knew how to game the American system to get `Obama stash`. Not my words liberals, it was the feedback from the crowd.
Each year these people showed up with an extra child, and fought between them on who was going to take whose child, just so they could get the earned income credit or poor family credit - or the other liberal boondoggle welfare state money. Free money - everyone sign up! And you wonder why we're broke? BILLIONS go out each year to these programs that my taxes support.
My slimy lies Enraged? What exactly am I lying about? That you're more concerned about what Mitt does with his own money than what Obama spends of YOUR money? Seems pretty clear to me. Your hateful rhetoric makes all that `compassion and tolerance` BS that liberals talk about meaningless.
Obama has worked hard to roll back the charitable deduction so in other words he's all about compassion - as long as he chooses for me where to be compassionate. It's none of his or your business how someone chooses to be charitable but it is my choice to vote for someone that will at least try to make a dent in the train wreck that we're experiencing with a radical liberal in office.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:35 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
hljmesa, the REAL welfare queens in this country are the defense contractors.
Just this morning I see where the military says they don't need a tank but the defense contractors lapdogs say ' yes you do ' and want to build tanks the military says they neither need nor want.
These congressmen are totally owned by the defense industry.
Problem is ... what little industry we have left is devoted to building military hardware or automobiles.
Stopping building military hardware would result in tens of thousands of layoffs when we already have a big unemployment problem.
So we have a quandary.
Should the taxpayers pay to build tanks that are not needed and will just sit and rust, or should the taxpayers pay for unemployment for ( possibly ) years for the laid off workers?
Either way the taxpayers are gonna take it in the shorts.
As Eisenhower forewarned years ago " Beware the military / industrial complex ".
I believe it would be better to re-tool the factory making those un-needed tanks and have them make trucks. The trucks can be used by civilian projects where the tanks can't. At least the taxpayer would see something rolling down the highway in return for their money instead of tanks sitting in the desert covered with cosmoline.
Or the factories could make high-speed trains and re-vitalize the rail system in the U.S.A.
A national project of building a bullet train from New York to L.A. would put tens of thousands to work and the tank factory could profitably make trains instead of tanks.
Why not pay for high-speed trains instead of useless tanks?
mwd2525 posted at 6:46 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
Welfare recipients could be given public works jobs????So what are we supposed to do with the people doing those jobs already? Sorry you need to be fired to make room for a welfare to work person.....dont think so.For all you people agreeing with Patterson(mnjcpa,just me,etc) why dont you all just quit working and join the ranks of all those people living the high life,getting food stamps,and their monthly check for a whole $1200. I am sure $1200 a month is a whole lot more then what you make now,I must be crazy.Why work and make $6000 a month when i can do nothing and collect a whole $1200,thats really going to support a family.What are you waiting for,quit complaining and join in(sarcasm intended)
k33j88 posted at 6:26 am on Mon, Jul 30, 2012.
I give up---you liberals win. Quit my job, apply for food stamps, go on ACCESS(AZ state funded health care). Let's start at the federal level, work our way to state benefits, then move onto city hand-outs. HMMM---SSI, now there's a great start, and real easy to get too! Maybe find a "welfare queen" willing to drop as many babies as necessary to afford the "good life". Child support is an additional perk as well. AND, if that baby machine is an illegal, aw man, the sky's the limit with all those federal programs and the bleeding-heart libs that will bend over back wards to offer assistance. With my SSI, this whole "normal family" can sure live it up! Or, there's the illegal approach, commit a crime, plead insanity, and get all those perks that the established liberal system offers. All this is just on the federal level. The State and local govt perks don't even come into play yet. Thanks, but no thanks. On second thought, I'll wave my capitalist flag, and go for the "AMERICAN DREAM". Thank you Mr. Patterson for another well-written article, exposing the lefts socialist agenda.
hljmesa posted at 8:31 pm on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
Mr. Patterson needs to go after the real welfare system in this country, which is the United States Department of Defense/Offense.
Engaged Voter posted at 7:47 pm on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
mnjcpa - Do you have another psuedonym you use on these forums? I ask because your slimy lies are indicative of another poster...
(I never made any claims on my position with Obama, and your attempt to smear me speaks volumes about your character...or lack thereof)
"Way to use critical thinking and bring religion in to the conversation where it never was."
Scroll up, genius...YOU brought up Romney's "charitable" contributions, not me.
mnjcpa posted at 3:47 pm on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
Hi again Enraged, ......Engaged.
So again you're more concerned about how other people spend their OWN money. But you're not concerned about how Obama spends YOUR money.
Way to use critical thinking and bring religion in to the conversation where it never was.
Engaged Voter posted at 3:32 pm on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
"Contrast that with Romney that gave 14-19% of his income in the same period – close to $4 million to charities."
Enough with this FARCE!
Romney's money went to a cult. The fact that it is a large, tax exempt cult does NOT MAKE IT A CHARITY. And before you try to defend this, please show me the headquarters of a reputible charity that looks ANYTHING like a Mormon temple.
mnjcpa posted at 2:56 pm on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
As contrasted with the people that pay ZERO tax and everything is FREE from the social systems? Patterson's group pays the majority of the taxes in the country right now anyway and to you that's not enough.
Yeah, he's a real evil profiteer.
onerebel posted at 2:49 pm on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
Why do Liberal animal rights groups tell us not to feed wild animals because it makes them dependent and unable to take care of themselves , yet those same Liberals preach just the opposite with people ? What's the difference? Animals can't vote Democrat !
aaarrrggghhh posted at 2:05 pm on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
I always feel quite sick when I hear rich, privileged people like Patterson, that have benefited from our social systems, start talking about how others in society shouldn't benefit from our societal wealth.
mnjcpa posted at 1:27 pm on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
Who’s greedy?
Obama gave $10,000 out of $1.2 million to charities– less than 1% of their income from 2000-2004. And in 05-06 on an income of $2.6 million they gave a measly 5%.
Contrast that with Romney that gave 14-19% of his income in the same period – close to $4 million to charities. And let’s not discuss the cheapskate Joe Biden that donated a measly 1.5% of his income.
On top of that Obama has tried now 5 times to reduce the amount of the charitable deduction for incomes over $250,000 from 35% to 28%. In other words, as long as it’s OTHER people’s money they’re quite happy to spend other people's money. But on their own they’re cheapskates.
It’s the good liberal way.
mnjcpa posted at 1:23 pm on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
I understand the pension you got quite well, thank you. That's why I can speak with confidence that you're all too happy blaming the rich when in reality you're just as bad as the people that expect to get something for nothing.
I never said you didn't work hard. But it's IMPOSSIBLE to put away a sufficient amount in a pension plan that would create a lifelong stream of benefits worth millions as a layperson in the jobs you speak of. They're no different than GM retirement plans that taxpayers paid for with stimulus funds. Customers or taxpayers pay these unreasonable benefits - not you.
Further, I wouldn't be caught dead in a union job. I was taught to think on my own, work hard, get a great education. I personify the American dream and so do the clients I serve. I bussed tables, didn't have a trust fund, and also put in 30 years, and have my retirement set.
What I call out are liberal hypocrites and you're one of them.
The statistics prove what Patterson points out that gutting the work requirement in welfare is a horrible plan. But not when you've got a president that seems intent on imploding the economy.
Arizona Willie posted at 12:03 pm on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
mnjcpa === I've told you over and over I don't get any taxpayer money ( other than Social Security ). My pensions are all private pensions that I paid X dollars per hour from my salary into. The money went into investment funds.
You keep ignoring that and claiming I'm retired on taxpayer money or " other people's dimes " when you have been told that isn't true.
My pensions were negotiated as part of my salary.
I get 3 of 'em in addition to my Social Security.
And I have a Cadillac health care plan.
Eat your heart out.
I was smart enough to get a union job so I got a fair deal from life.
You hate that, but admire people who were born with multi-million dollar trust funds.
I worked for mine and paid for every bit of it.
I did retire relatively young, but I had also started young and put in 33 years of working in conditions you wouldn't begin to put up with. You wouldn't last a day before you would quit whining that it's too hot and too hard.
You spend your life riding a chair and counting other people's money and complain because people like me who built nuclear power plants, and hospitals, and shopping centers get a decent retirement.
Actually, this post reveals that I am not perfect and I have a dark side.
I do enjoy rubbing it in. Especially with union haters like you. [tongue]
geekette posted at 11:43 am on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
"Welfare recipients could be given public works jobs like child care, neighborhood revitalization, recycling and other needed tasks. It wouldn’t be ideal but it would preserve many of the benefits of reform and produce some goods and services useful to society." Public works sounds an awful lot like government jobs, but since you argue that the government doesn't create jobs, then that can't be the answer. So please tell us, Tom, where do these jobs come from? How about the job creators creating those jobs? Or is that not their responsibility?
chatmandu002 posted at 11:31 am on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
Willie,
The reason the middle class is shrinking is that the government has turned the poor and middle class into the "Dependent" class. Dependent on the largess of a big government. When 47% don't pay federal income taxes they can vote themselves more and not have to pay for it.
When the president redefines the meaning of Millionaire/Billionaire/Uber-Rich to mean anyone making $200K or more then how long will it be before he changes the definition to $100K to be considered super rich. How long will it be before the government runs out of other peoples' money. The republican philosophy is that the government should help those that CAN'T not those that WON'T.
You moan about the republicans being only for the rich and corporations. But are the democrats really helping the middle class with all their dependency programs. How many poor or middle class folks have signed your paycheck lately? How many corporations have voted in an election? ZERO....
mnjcpa posted at 11:29 am on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
You're deluded Willie.
Close to 50% of the public pay ZERO in taxes, while enjoying all of the fruits of the labor of everyone else that does pay their way. Between tax credits, food stamps, and every other boondoggle liberal program that has created a dependent class in America - this gutting of welfare is the worst by far. There is zero motivation to attempt to be a productive member of society.
But for someone that retired exceptionally young on other people's dime, I expect nothing less - you're part of the problem.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:41 am on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
Just Me ... yes the conservative mindset is twisted WHEN it claims that poor people who receive public assistance are in that situation because they LIKE it and WANT to be there.
When conservatives claim the recipients are LAZY and refuse to work because they get SO MUCH MONEY from welfare --- yes indeed that is a twisted mindset.
The old concept of the welfare queen from the 70's is no longer valid.
There may be a few of them still in the system but by and large they have been forced out.
The people who are drawing unemployment / extended unemployment / welfare / ADC etc. would LOVE to trade places with most of us. They are NOT in that position because they are too LAZY to work.
Conservatives claim they are lazy in order to try to justify their own selfishness.
Every time I see a Republican politician spewing that garbage about how the poor are lazy and don't deserve assistance, I hope that my agnosticism is wrong and that there is a hell because those individuals ( politicians ) certainly deserve a prolonged visit there. That includes Limbaugh and his ilk.
Many conservatives do indeed have a twisted mindset -- their posts are full of bitter hateful verbiage. They seem to think they are the ONLY person who works for his money. Everyone else is a freeloader and scamming them. They preach personal responsibility and that everyone should pay their bills but demand tax cuts so they don't have to pay their share of societies debt. They put their greed and selfishness on display for all to see.
I completely fail to understand the Republican philosophy that cutting off social programs that help people and at the same time heaping more and more tax cuts on the super wealthy is going to somehow help people in the middle class. The people on top KNOW better.
The super wealthy have taken the tax cuts that they told the American people would result in more jobs and they did indeed create more jobs --- IN CHINA.
Not here.
Republican politicians LIED to you.
The conservative middle class keeps voting in Republicans and what have they gotten? A middle class than is shrinking and desperately trying to stay above water as their jobs have been exported by the millions ... in order to create greater and greater profits for the uber rich.
As individuals, the average conservative is a good person who has been duped into drinking the Republican kool-aid and they don't even realize it.
When someone who makes less than a million dollars a year votes Republican --- they are voting against their own interests --- because when push comes to vote the Republican politicians only try to get benefits for the already super wealthy. They do NOT serve the middle class.
downtownresident posted at 9:43 am on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
Tom,
You're so far right that you're wrong.
Just Me posted at 9:26 am on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
So Willy...Your basic opinion is that those of us who work, support ourselves, wait to have children until WE can provide for them are bad people? Really? We are the ones with the twisted mindset?
Arizona Willie posted at 8:53 am on Sun, Jul 29, 2012.
Well the fact that Patterson puts " social justice " in quotation marks and calls it misguided tells you everything you need to know about the Republican mindset.
They don't believe in the concept of " social justice ".
I don't believe in Republicans.