Why do Liberals Spread Poverty?

Question

Why Liberals Spread Poverty

Liberals would prefer more people to experience poverty. Their actions demonstrate their massive desire to see more people unemployed, and under paid. One of their chief political goals is to cripple the chance for the impoverished from improving their lot in life and thus become even more dependent upon entitlements that only they (liberals) will dole out. Thus the greatest con in elective politics begins again.
It's called a "surcharge."
You and I would call it a tax increase. One more way and reason for the political class to take even more of the money that you and I slave for by slugging it 9 to 5 everyday.
In their funny little semantic sideshow this "surcharge" would be their answer to resolving the problem of the "alternative minimum tax." This year the "AMT" (another hostile attempt for elected leaders to pick-pocket us) will hit 23 million people. Some making as little as $50,000. The original idea of the AMT was to purposefully inflict pain upon 155 wealthy people a gazillion years ago. But it has never been adjusted for inflation - and you know liberals - they've never found a tax no matter how ill conceived that they've ever had a desire to do away with. So now the liberal congress is about to unload a ghastly holocaust of earnings redistribution on many working class families if the leadership in Congress doesn't take action to care for the AMT.
Their idea?
A 4.3% "surcharge" on "rich people." Particularly those who make $250,000 or more. And one important note - the plan, since it is a "surcharge," would be in addition to the tax rate you already paid last year.
Why they do it makes absolutely no sense - especially to the poor. The data speaks clearly to this matter. When you place uber-taxes on the rich you create higher unemployment, greater poverty, and most importantly for people like me who care about the poor - less money in the treasury to provide the important safety nets for those who truly need them.
When you do the opposite - you get an opposite result. Cutting the top marginal tax rates - particularly on the upper middle, and upper class tax brackets has a stimulus effect. Jobs are created, poverty turns into ownership, and the treasury takes in oodles of dollars.
The liberals' motivations, if impure, make perfect sense. If liberals are in charge of the public sector programs that people become dependent on for day to day living - then liberals can always campaign on the issues of "not taking food out of school children's tummies." Thinking people understand that while offering a hot lunch for a child at school is a wonderful thing for those children who need it. How much more wonderful would it be if that family grew their own economic ability to not be dependent upon the government issued lunches. A family that has the ability to send its own children to school with lunch boxes packed full of Mom's special goodies doesn't need liberals to force feed them the high-carb, mediocre nutrition that one can only get from government processed lasagna.
But Mom and Dad seeing Sally and Johnny off everyday fully independent of state aid - is bad political business for liberals. If liberals can't be the family's provider, then they won't be as likely to need such politicians in place and government might actually begin to address what is best for said family.
If you haven't noticed - this didn't used to be such a partisan issue. It was a Democrat who in fact first demonstrated the soundness of the fiscal propriety of reducing taxes and increasing revenues - John F. Kennedy. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush followed in his steps and the results have always been the same. Each of them lowered, and in Reagan's case - greatly reduced, the top marginal rates - and the following year revenues poured into Washington in record numbers.
I know... some of you educated in public schools are scratching your head wondering, "How’d they do that?"
Follow the simplicity. Top marginal rates are reduced on the people earning the most - many of whom own businesses. Many of them take the savings and reinvest it - in business, in the market, in expansion, in additional services, franchises, or product lines. Every time they do they are giving work/employment to advisors, consultants, contractors, assembly line workers, systems analysts, and the list goes on. Many of those people have employees, or have to hire additional employees to complete the work that they are hired for. And every employee that they hire, earns a little more than they would have - had that company, small business, etc - not been able to grow.
And one other thing... all those employees pay taxes. (At least those who are here legally.)
Liberals see the economic pie as something that is static, does not grow, and must always be redistributed. Of course they fancy the idea that they know best how to redistribute it all - and in doing so they buy into the Marxian idea: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." An utterly immoral viewpoint!
Conservatives see the economic pie as something that is somewhat unlimited and can be grown and that when it is grown - people will actually pay MORE in taxes - but will do so off of greater earnings.
And the lesson of Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush confirm that it is true.
If liberals truly cared about helping people - especially the poor - they wouldn't try to thieve more tax dollars from the only sector of the tax base that can help grow the pie. Instead they would abolish the AMT all together, and give increased tax reduction incentives for those who would use their reductions to further expand their business ventures. They should also give the greatest incentives to those who could demonstrate that they had grown their employment base by more than 4% - since that is roughly the record low rate of unemployment we are now experiencing thanks to the "grow the pie" economy now in place.
But they won't.
As long as liberals will live they will attempt to take more of what does not belong to them, even if it means growing the rate of unemployment, seeing the number of Americans who live below the poverty line increase, and reduces the amount of dollars Washington can use to help those who truly do fall through the cracks.
Just remember - raising taxes lays people off, cause poverty to increase, and reduces the resources that are available for government to help those who are in desperate need. Reducing taxes increases jobs, moves people from poverty to ownership, and fills the federal coffers with help for those in need.
Can it be said any more plainly?

Answer 1

hmmm the Liberal party was in power here for 13 years in Canada, they balanced our books, made surplus budgets, paid down debt, and elevated our standard of living. perhaps this is not what your looking for, but its the truth.

Answer 2

Liberals actually want to eliminate poverty. It's just that the ideological tools they prefer to do so can have the opposite effect. The basic anti-poverty weapon of any liberal program as the transfer payment - you take money or some other resource from people who have an excess of wealth, and you bestow it upon those with too little.

It's an obvious and straightforward way to deal with the problem of some have too much and others too little. If wealth were redistributed, rather than income, it might even work some of the time.

However, most anti-poverty measures have been in the form of income redistribution. What they do, in effect, is to pay people to be poor - to be unemployed, disabled, or a single mother with children, for instance. To the extent that the payment recieved vs the prerequisites to recieve payment seems more desireable than other alternatives, that could create an incentive for more people to 'become' (or fake being) 'poor.'

Such 'perverse incentives' are nearly unavoidable when it come to any form of income redistribution.


Now, the supply-side argument you put forth is true but factors like offshoring and foriegn investment can blunt the effect. In the 80's it was still true, for instance. Today, however, there is an increasing tendency for job creation fueled by the 'rich' here in America to manifest in other parts of the world. A tax cut for a rich investor in America can give him more money, which he invests - in India. Contrarily, there is substantial foriegn investment in the US - including indirect investment via loans to private equity firms - and that investment is not substantially impacted by taxes on individual Americans.

Answer 3

Disagree on so many levels. There is no one in this country that pays no taxes. Even if a family is too poor to pay any federal income tax they pay taxes on every gallon of gas, every telecom service they use, the pay property taxes through their rent, and sales taxes on most things they purchase. You may think that is peanuts, but then so is the cost of the services that go to the poor. Food stamps and welfare was trending down for 15 years until the recession hit, but even still there are fewer people in poverty and fewer people in the program than 20 years ago. The middle class is paying dearly, but not for social welfare programs - for defense and for service on an enormous debt that only exists because we have been corporations and the wealthy enormous tax breaks for the last 11 years. Besides, the middle class is enjoying the lowest federal tax burden in Post WWII America (as is the rich). But what is happening is that tax, trade and federal policy is favoring the rich and corporate interests at the expense of the middle class. Where as levels of poverty were trending down and then spiked up with the recession, the middle class is shrinking - not from tax burdens (again they are paying the lowest taxes in modern times) but from policies that concentrate 100% of the income gains of the last 30 years with the top 5%. The pie got bigger. But the all of the extra pie went to the the smallest group that already had the biggest slice.

Answer 4

Your idea of a trickle down theory is nothing more than the rich pissing on the poor. How come the republican controlled congress for the past eleven years did not raise the minimum wage while they could? Is it because they care so much, or so little? I think republicans like to keep telling themselves they do good, but their actions seems to me like they could care less.

Answer 5

Your question is based on a false assumption thus all the lies and drivel that followed was a waste of your time.

Facts prove that poverty always increases during conservative rule and decreases during liberal rule. Extreme poverty can not exist without extreme wealth.

Answer 6

Odd question. Red states are by far the poorest states in the Union. This contradicts the premise of this bogus question.

Answer 7

Because Liberals DO NOT work for a living.
They live on Welfare.
They can't stand us Working People working and getting ahead.
That's why they HATE Tax Cuts.

Liberals want Everyone Down, Poor, In Their Place, and Voting Democrat, on the old Democrat Plantation.

I ESCAPED THE DEMOCRAT PLANTATION!
I wish everyone would. But.... you have to WANT to!!!!!

Work hard, save, invest, and vote against Democrats.
Don't let the Liberals & Democrats keep you DOWN & POOR!!!!!!!!!

Answer 8

In a socialist world, the value of a person is defined by their want. If everyone was happy and successful, there wouldn't be any need for a ruling political elite to guide them. The greater the want, the greater the value to a Bolshevik. So, by that definition, it’s imperative to our socialist liberals that we MUST fail. I don’t see how they can accept any of this intellectually unless terribly blinded by self absorption and ambition.