• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Income Inequality Hypocrisy Of Obama And Clinton

Critter7r said:
First, $17k to $30k is a $23,000 raise, and in both cases, health insurance covers the $60k surgery to fix Johnny's tibia, one under Medicaid, the other under a subsidized ACA policy.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

$13,000, not $23,000
 
Gimmesometruth said:
What? A person applying for SNAP....is required to apply for MEDICAID too.....even if they don't need it?

Interesting.
Click to expand...

No, he's lying

Most social programs use the same form. It asks about the person's household, it's members, income, expenses, etc and then the state uses that info to determine which forms of assistance the person is eligible for.

He is suggesting that people fill out the same form multiple times.
 
jaeger19 said:
[


Well sort of.. because they then get notified of all the services the are eligible for... so in a sense.. they ARE applying for all services.

Sorry if my post is confusing.. its hard to have a civil discussion when folks (not you) that have no clue what they are talking about yell "liar" every chance they get and at the most inane stuff..
Click to expand...

And so, when confronted with the truth, your "have to apply" becomes "in a sense"

It's laughable that you think you gain something by telling such obvious lies
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, the current line is the level of decline in welfare for those wanting to work, the reich-wing meme is that welfare causes recipients to not leave which you have been implying along with yer brethren, but the facts don't hold that lie up.
Click to expand...

Once again, we're not talking about people earning zero and then getting a job. We're talking about doubling the minimum wage. You can't compare the two. They are two completely different things. Liberals always connect dots to draw their own picture. Look at qualifications for various social programs. I mean the EITC all by itself will decrease considerably when you double your earnings, and that's just one thing. Many people who qualify for section 8 housing may not qualify anymore. That's just a second thing. There are many other.
 
Moderate Right said:
Once again, we're not talking about people earning zero and then getting a job. We're talking about doubling the minimum wage. You can't compare the two. They are two completely different things. Liberals always connect dots to draw their own picture. Look at qualifications for various social programs. I mean the EITC all by itself will decrease considerably when you double your earnings, and that's just one thing. Many people who qualify for section 8 housing may not qualify anymore. That's just a second thing. There are many other.
Click to expand...

the graph shows that even at it's steepest slope, benefits are decreased at only half the rate that earning increase

IOW, at no time do the poor end up "no better off" from an increase in income. You're lying about that
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, the current line is the level of decline in welfare for those wanting to work, the reich-wing meme is that welfare causes recipients to not leave which you have been implying along with yer brethren, but the facts don't hold that lie up.
Click to expand...

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? We weren't talking about that at all. We were talking about when you get double the wages you used to, there will be several programs you got help from before that you will no longer get help from and the increased wages you receive will be offset by the decrease in benefits, so that the poor won't be much better off than they were before. That's what we're talking about.
 
Moderate Right said:
Do you make this stuff up as you go along? We weren't talking about that at all. We were talking about when you get double the wages you used to, there will be several programs you got help from before that you will no longer get help from and the increased wages you receive will be offset by the decrease in benefits, so that the poor won't be much better off than they were before. That's what we're talking about.
Click to expand...
That is never true

Do you make that stuff up as you go along?
 
Critter7r said:
Hardly ...


At $17k, the value of benefits shown on that chart is $23k.
At $30k, the value of benefits shown on that chart is $14k.


Income + benefits at $17k = $40k
Income + benefits at $30k = $44k

My horse is a truck.



See above.
Click to expand...

That doesn't take into account all of the decreased benefits.
 
Moderate Right said:
You're in denial, even when slapped in the face with the facts.
Click to expand...

Here are the facts
67204274d1468606700-income-inequality-hypocrisy-obama-and-clinton-maximum-available-tax-and-benefit-programs-jpg


Please tell us at what income range does the decrease in benefits match or exceed the increase in income
 
Moderate Right said:
Once again, we're not talking about people earning zero and then getting a job.
Click to expand...
Neither was I
We're talking about doubling the minimum wage. You can't compare the two.
Click to expand...
I wasn't comparing anything, I was providing you with something other than "graphs" to show that increases in wages far exceed any declines in welfare, the cliff is a myth for the most part that reich-wingers use to argue as a "reason" why recipients won't leave welfare. It is a nice story, it just doesn't hold up.
They are two completely different things. Liberals always connect dots to draw their own picture.
Click to expand...
There is yer cherry picking meme again.
Look at qualifications for various social programs. I mean the EITC all by itself will decrease considerably when you double your earnings, and that's just one thing. Many people who qualify for section 8 housing may not qualify anymore. That's just a second thing. There are many other.
Click to expand...
It is so funny watching a reich-winger argue against wage increases.....because a worker.....will see declines......welfare benefits.
 
Moderate Right said:
Once again, we're not talking about people earning zero and then getting a job. We're talking about doubling the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

Most of us want $10.10. That's been stated repeatedly. Yer an inveterate liar.

>>Look at qualifications for various social programs. I mean the EITC all by itself will decrease considerably when you double your earnings, and that's just one thing. Many people who qualify for section 8 housing may not qualify anymore. That's just a second thing. There are many other.

It just hit me what a lot of this is about. GST reminded me but I keep forgetting. As he observed, there's a "reich-wing meme that welfare causes recipients" to stay on income support programs. The Right's concern isn't for low-income households who are forced to trade off lost benefits for increased employment income, although their feigned compassion sure is touching. No, their point is that these porch monkeys don't want to work, and the evil, librul nanny state is the reason they don't — welfare checks handed out by Demecrats to buy votes create too much of a disincentive. It might be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Moderate Right said:
the poor won't be much better off than they were before.
Click to expand...

There it is, as he keeps saying. Liberals have created poverty and dependency, either in their own political self-interest or because "they think with their hearts." I know which body part the Right thinks with, the same one it talks out of.
 
Critter7r said:
Yes it does. They decrease from $23k to $14k as one's income goes up from $17k to $30k.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Does it take into account section 8 housing and the EITC?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Neither was II wasn't comparing anything, I was providing you with something other than "graphs" to show that increases in wages far exceed any declines in welfare, the cliff is a myth for the most part that reich-wingers use to argue as a "reason" why recipients won't leave welfare. It is a nice story, it just doesn't hold up. There is yer cherry picking meme again.It is so funny watching a reich-winger argue against wage increases.....because a worker.....will see declines......welfare benefits.
Click to expand...

We have never doubled the minimum wage, therefore the stats you present are totally worthless. You need to look at income guidelines for various programs.
 
Moderate Right said:
We have never doubled the minimum wage, therefore the stats you present are totally worthless. You need to look at income guidelines for various programs.
Click to expand...
Yer phantom "doubling" was not being discussed, I don't know what thread you are on, this was the central point being destroyed:



WELL.. the RW jerks as you called them.. point out that difficulty the poor having in getting off welfare because of the risks involved with things like the welfare cliff which punishes you at an arbitrary amount for doing better.... and you disagreed that there even was such a cliff.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Neither was II wasn't comparing anything, I was providing you with something other than "graphs" to show that increases in wages far exceed any declines in welfare, the cliff is a myth for the most part that reich-wingers use to argue as a "reason" why recipients won't leave welfare. It is a nice story, it just doesn't hold up. There is yer cherry picking meme again.It is so funny watching a reich-winger argue against wage increases.....because a worker.....will see declines......welfare benefits.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an admission to me that you can't see the forest through the trees. Just like the left wing to double down on the very same programs that didn't work the first time because they didn't think them through. When this doesn't put much more in the hands of the poor the solution will be tripled down in saying that $25 per hour is actually the living wage.
 
It takes a second swing....
Moderate Right said:
Sounds like an admission to me that you can't see the forest through the trees.
Click to expand...
Analogy fail, you are not referencing any forest....or "tree".

Just like the left wing to double down on the very same programs that didn't work the first time because they didn't think them through.
Click to expand...
It's late, yer making incomprehensible references to nothing, you can't even name one "program".

When this doesn't put much more in the hands of the poor the solution will be tripled down in saying that $25 per hour is actually the living wage.
Click to expand...
Double! Triple! Quadruple! GAZILLION! Where your imagination will lead is anyone's guess.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yer phantom "doubling" was not being discussed, I don't know what thread you are on, this was the central point being destroyed:



WELL.. the RW jerks as you called them.. point out that difficulty the poor having in getting off welfare because of the risks involved with things like the welfare cliff which punishes you at an arbitrary amount for doing better.... and you disagreed that there even was such a cliff.
Click to expand...

You changed it to that because you could not defend the fact that doubling the minimum wage will decrease many benefits to the point that the increased wages will be offset by similar decreases in benefits, leaving the poor pretty close to where they were. It's not my fault you went off course by getting your panties in a wad over one post out of an entire thread.
 
Moderate Right said:
You changed it to that because you could not defend the fact that doubling the minimum wage will decrease many benefits to the point that the increased wages will be offset by similar decreases in benefits, leaving the poor pretty close to where they were. It's not my fault you went off course by getting your panties in a wad over one post out of an entire thread.
Click to expand...
Good grief, over and over all of us are using all sorts of (CHERRY PICKED!) data to show you the error of your ways, pictures, texts.......all sorts......from folks that have studied the issue.....and you keep coming back to the same point.....which is again why I added in the link, hoping you could comprehend the facts presented. No, it makes no difference, and you keep arguing to not help people get off welfare because you don't want increases in wages. It has to be one of the most bizarre arguments I have seen, but then these days, this week in particular, I'm seeing the full force of insanity brewing from the right wing....so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your insane posts.
 
Moderate Right said:
Does it take into account section 8 housing and the EITC?
Click to expand...
Do you see housing and EITC on the chart? Have you even studied the chart a little? Or are you shooting in the dark?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It takes a second swing....Analogy fail, you are not referencing any forest....or "tree".

It's late, yer making incomprehensible references to nothing, you can't even name one "program".

Double! Triple! Quadruple! GAZILLION! Where your imagination will lead is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

LOL LOL LOL. I stand corrected. I said you couldn't see the forest through the trees but it is now apparent that you can't see the forest or the trees. The liberal world is even worse than I thought!
 
Critter7r said:
Do you see housing and EITC on the chart? Have you even studied the chart a little? Or are you shooting in the dark?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

OK. Let's say that the graph includes absolutely everything (which it doesn't). According to MMI's own graph, a full time minimum wage worker would go up from $7.25 per hour to $9.65 per hour (with the graph's reduction in benefits considered), assuming the MW was increased to $15 per hour. That doesn't even reach Obama's proposed level of $10.10 per hour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom