Poverty in America

[Heffernan]

You ain't gonna solve poverty is necessary for a stable capitalist system like the one USA has, especially at the gates of a new industrialization era brought by robotics. In a few years you will need to ditch almost half of the working society or emigrate, that won't have a job because robots.
Given that poverty and unemployment are a must to have precarious job conditions there are many ways to dump the worthless population (wars, epidemics,etc)
Claeyt is a top class troll to collect so much hot air towards him( Its really hard don't want to punch him while reading him) kinda of a gift.
What's the point in knowing what poverty or being the victim of society is? Quality or quantity poverty? Its kinda cool to see a lot of personal experiences, but at the same time gave the feeling of “i/him had a worse life than you so you cannot give your opinion“
In my country we have social plans called “working plan“ in which you have to do public services for x amount of hours as a condition, it works pretty bad since there's no possible control over those people and mostly the just sit in a park bench for some hours.
The current society gave the feeling that's lost mostly because young generations don't have a life philosophy( check the old greece schools) and have really low tolerance to failure. I found that the values of estoicism( especially Lucius Seneca) can give a way to most people that feels empty with just blinded consuming stuff that you don't need and want to make a better of the situation even in front of your biggest fears.

yeah dem robots, i heard Cyberdyne System works on some big ones

[RobertoKarlos]

The moment you are too young to understand heff movies references, but to old to like him. Why live?

[Flame]

People that can't use money to buy capitalist products, aren't "necessary for a stable economy". They are usually a problem for a stable economy.
The economy of a country usually drops when the poverty grows too much. Rich ones tend to keep the money in a safe place and buy only certain products. The middle ones are the bigger economy movement, but when they fall in the poverty range, they can't move the economy as previous. The cash doesn't move enough to create a healty economy.
The economy need the wish of buy new things, so a level of "poverty" that can still fulfill the need.

But not the total poverty, that can't get any product.

What you're talking about is a large view of how the first world needs the third world to survive, but for that i have no solution and i agree that, as it is now, is a need. Is a dirty need that i disagree, but is a fact.
On the small size, though, country have lots of freedom about how handle their inner poverty and that's what we can help a bit. (Not the help of "give them my money and make charity". That's... .. folk culture. Not really a solution in the long term.)

[TotalyMeow]

there's always something worse out there so using your own stories of woe to discount the general woe of poor Americans is not recommended.

No one was doing that, just sharing some stories. You jumped in and started yelling at everyone to get over it, there's children starving in Africa. Which brings us back to:

"Poverty is not the absence of money. Poverty is the absence of the feeling of a comfortable assurance of 'enough'." - Franklin Roosevelt

Which, if you believe this, just demonstrates that you came here to belittle everyone and the hardships some of us went through.

Your "libertarian views" are well known. Those generally don't include universal healthcare.

You've hinted several times here that you want to change the benefits programs and that there are too many people on the them.
...and you've hinted that there are too many people using the benefits, including your own sister and that somehow they're gaming the system to get benefits they don't need.

I don't know why Libertarian is in quotes, but yeah, I'm told my views align pretty well with Libertarian in most cases.

I didn't think it was hinting.

GOVERNMENT BENEFITS ARE NOT CHARITY.

They were not created to be charity by the politicians of the time they were created. They were created to be a floor where we could not see anyone falling further than or living under and because of them desperate levels of poverty have been eliminated and our society and economy are better for it. Social Security is not a charity, even for people living on it with disabilities. Unemployment, Medicare, Disability, WIC and SNAP are not charities. They are for people who payed taxes, or FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY SOMEDAY PAY TAXES or for people who are raising kids by themselves or people who have a disability, mental illness or health issues. They are for people who may need short or long term or permanent help depending on their situation and as determined by an effective and competent government and overworked and under-payed social worker. This is what government benefits, social programs and assistance are for. They are not charities.

Government social programs, benefits and assistance are not about "getting back on your feet" this is a Republican dog whistle tag line to define benefits as time limited.

Many, many people with disabilities and special needs permanently use benefits to maintain a normal living standard. Some benefits such as unemployment and SNAP are time limited because they are resource limited but that does not mean that they are not sometimes needed for a long time for whatever reason.

Okay, I agree. Having looked it up, the definition of charity stipulates that the giving is voluntary while welfare is coerced. Welfare is actually almost the opposite of charity.

You mention disabilities and special needs again and imply that such people permanently need welfare. I heartily disagree and think your attitude regarding this is awful. Most just need a little extra help to become independent.

A much simplified progressive tax like what we use to have in this country would fix not just some but all the issues I keep bringing up, unfortunately the Republicans keep fighting this and regressing the taxes of the rich.

Hmmmm, I'm skeptical that it needs to be progressive, but if you want to talk about tax reform, let's start a new thread, okay?

Well you may spend 100% of what you earn and then yes, you'd be paying as much as your sister, but I'm guessing you may own a home and have a savings account or retirement account. In that case she'd be paying more. The point is that the wealthy are not buying stuff with 100% of their income while the poor are. They are saving, hiding overseas and retiring on their wealth and that income is un-sales-taxed.

But even the richest still spend it all eventually, or they die and now there's inheritance tax. No, it seems fairly obvious that the vast majority of people are paying about the same % to non-income taxes based only on math and the inevitability of death and taxes. But then with the snarl our tax system is in, I suppose the truth could take some research. If you have proof of your regressive tax claim, I'd love to see it.

[Long rant about how Claeyt knows my sister better than I do] Are you sure she's on WIC or sure of her situation?

I am sure. And to be clear, it's not illegal either, it's a loophole.

[Flame shares a story about falling on hard times and how it was difficult to find the motivation to recover from despair and get help.]

At this point i think there is an overestimating of the human species.

A few years ago i was a firm person, following my big ideal. Nothing bad or impossible, just a "plan to create a place where me and my friends can live happily".
In order to follow my path without swerve around, i had a strict set of rules to avoid any kind of dependance. No drug, alchool or tobacco. I can't waste my time and money on something that ask me more than i can gain from it.
But also, i was completely unable to understand the weaker ones. To me they were weird animals doing weird and stupid things. Surrended people complaining about everything, without the will to fight. "How can they call themselves alive if they don't have a plan?"
Society sucks, i agreed on this, since society let me dream something that i can't achieve. It is a struggle, a sort of society torture. Even so, i had plans to get near what i wanted and improve my condition.
I had no pity for the ones that don't fight. I could not understand them, their presence harmed my feeling and so i was hating them as a defence. Too weird for me to suffer them.

Then i failed.
My "plan" crumbled, my dream did too and all my strict rules fell in the same pit. I literally saw them fall in a foggy evening, leaving me with nothing. A day i can't forget.
I take into count the option to surrender phisically, since the battle was lost. Somehow, i was too much pride to suicide. Even so, i harassed a lot of people, in the attemp to find myself again.
There, i saw what humans are.
Humans.

The human i trusted most was myself. But even myself betrayed me. I was weak, i was illogic and i was a problem. I was aware of this and this was what i hated most, but there were no plan and no firmness to guide my mind and my body into something usefull.
I was able to see all the errors i was doing. I've lost friends for this and messed up with my family.

I know exactly all the reasons why i did this, and i know exactly how weird is to be unable to avoid it. When you have no hope, you just can't force yourself into something vague like "plans" or "job" or "future". That's impossible to do.
Think that a human can survive the weight of a huge fail and fight to rebuild a whole life, is overstimating.

The reason why i'm fine now and i have a future, a new plan and new resources, is because i had friends. Sure, i lost them at some point, because they was So Much involved that get hurt as well. But one by one, all the friends that had care of me, gave me a place where heal my wounds. I wasn't "easy" to handle, at that time, so i suppose that loose them is an inevitable conseguence.
Once the major wounds in my mind were sort of sealed, i were able to walk by myself. Fall here and there, like a wounded man, but that help was enough to regain some integrity and use my brain in the good way.


If the society was offering me many solution, i wasn't phisically and mentally able to get any advantage from it. I would rather refuse it, in an emotional anger and hate, just like how much is illogic a wounded animal.
So that's it. We are just animals.

Like all the animals, some of them can't be helped at all. But most of them are just weakened and doesn't need "possibilities". Possibilities are too much vague.
That's why you'll see people harm themselves in pride and stupid choises. A few of them wish that for real. Many of them though, are wounded animals.

The ones that fight, usually have something to fight for. But is also common that, if you're out of the society, you're alone. So not much left to fight for.


This was an attempt to explain why those people are so "dumb" and "illogic". The fact that they are sitting there, doesn't mean that they deserve to sit there.
Since we can't know if those are sitting there for real or are surrended to sit there, is better to totally ignore this fact and act like if all of them are there as wounded animals. So the society and the rules have to act like if they are unable to move themselves at first.
Give them chances to work is... a step too much above the reach.

I could get that job now, easily.
Before, that was totally impossible for me.
I'm the same human in two different step of my life. I can't find hard anymore to guess why others can't move that easily, now.
My only plan about this, for now, is to understand. I will not fall into a hating attitude for the poor ones with words like "they steal my money and do nothing to improve their condition", because that's a blind view of the problem.
But i see that the society itself doesn't take the problem in the psicologic way. Doing so, the majority of those human animals are unable to raise themselves.

A step is missing and the way the society "fix" the poverty problem, is too much mechanic and not adapted to the real situation.
Is not an easy step, though. Even so, i think is important that people start to see what the "surrended poor man" really is, and how it is a broken human that can be repaired.


Edit: Oh. Anyway, since i was completely ignorant about how to find drug, in the end i didn't found any and i went out that black period without dependencies. Strict rules worked in a silly way, but they worked somehow. Good for me. XD
WOw. This was long. Yay, wall of text! \o/

Did I understand? Is this a fair summary? I have a serious question: You say you had a hard time getting the motivation to get government help but that you eventually got help from your friends. If, instead of government institutions, you could have gone to a local charity that helps people get their lives back together, someplace that seemed more personal, that you had maybe even donated to yourself, would you have had an easier time getting help?

[Paradoxyc]

Merica
https://youtu.be/D3J90-uVlhI

[Claeyt]

there's always something worse out there so using your own stories of woe to discount the general woe of poor Americans is not recommended.

No one was doing that, just sharing some stories. You jumped in and started yelling at everyone to get over it, there's children starving in Africa. Which brings us back to:

"Poverty is not the absence of money. Poverty is the absence of the feeling of a comfortable assurance of 'enough'." - Franklin Roosevelt

Which, if you believe this, just demonstrates that you came here to belittle everyone and the hardships some of us went through.

Your "stories" all read as if you guys were trying to say how poor you were and thus you knew how benefits should be cut.

I am belittling your beliefs but you've misinterpreted the quote. He's clearly talking about how the opposite of poverty is having 'enough'. That's all.

Your "libertarian views" are well known. Those generally don't include universal healthcare.

You've hinted several times here that you want to change the benefits programs and that there are too many people on the them.
...and you've hinted that there are too many people using the benefits, including your own sister and that somehow they're gaming the system to get benefits they don't need.

I don't know why Libertarian is in quotes, but yeah, I'm told my views align pretty well with Libertarian in most cases.

I didn't think it was hinting.

So you hold beliefs that universal healthcare that could help thousands of people with undiagnosed lyme's disease, like your dad is wrong?

GOVERNMENT BENEFITS ARE NOT CHARITY.

They were not created to be charity by the politicians of the time they were created. They were created to be a floor where we could not see anyone falling further than or living under and because of them desperate levels of poverty have been eliminated and our society and economy are better for it. Social Security is not a charity, even for people living on it with disabilities. Unemployment, Medicare, Disability, WIC and SNAP are not charities. They are for people who payed taxes, or FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY SOMEDAY PAY TAXES or for people who are raising kids by themselves or people who have a disability, mental illness or health issues. They are for people who may need short or long term or permanent help depending on their situation and as determined by an effective and competent government and overworked and under-payed social worker. This is what government benefits, social programs and assistance are for. They are not charities.

Government social programs, benefits and assistance are not about "getting back on your feet" this is a Republican dog whistle tag line to define benefits as time limited.

Many, many people with disabilities and special needs permanently use benefits to maintain a normal living standard. Some benefits such as unemployment and SNAP are time limited because they are resource limited but that does not mean that they are not sometimes needed for a long time for whatever reason.

Okay, I agree. Having looked it up, the definition of charity stipulates that the giving is voluntary while welfare is coerced. Welfare is actually almost the opposite of charity.

You mention disabilities and special needs again and imply that such people permanently need welfare. I heartily disagree and think your attitude regarding this is awful. Most just need a little extra help to become independent.

First off, Government social programs (such as Social Security and Medicare) and benefits (such as Disability, Medicaid, SNAP, and Unemployment) are NOT welfare. Government assistance (such as WIC, Rent assistance) used to fall under welfare but are now called assistance. People pay into Social Security and Medicare throughout their working life. If they are injured or disabled they may qualify for early use of these programs. People also pay taxes for benefits (even people on benefits pay taxes) and they are designed as temporary or long term adjustable programs to help people who need them because they have fallen into poverty or lost their job or whatever situation has happened. Assistance are programs to directly help people who have a social worker or government employee assisting them with benefits. They are assigned that social worker through contact with the government. If a woman comes into DAIS with her kids a social worker will help her immediately and get her signed up with a permanent social worker who will use this assistance over time to get her a place to live and food. If a homeless person comes into an ER he can accept an ER social worker who will set him up with a more permanent social worker situation.

Second, Welfare is not coerced. Taxes are part of living in a democracy they are not coerced payments. You get to vote on the politicians who make tax law and who define benefits. Saying they are coerced means that you are fundamentally opposed to living in a democracy and don't want this democracy to exist. We as a society have determined these social programs, benefits and assistance. If you don't like that then vote for someone who you think will change it but don't dismiss the views of the rest of the electorate because you think the majority is wrong.

Third, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country with permanent need of programs, benefits, and assistance. I've worked with hundreds of them. They are the people with mental illness, and disabilities and handicaps that live in your town. These programs, benefits and assistance help parents with down's syndrome take care of and feed their kids. These benefits help people in wheel chairs find and pay for the more expensive housing options. This assistance goes to help people in permanent health crisis and yes, goes to single moms just trying to raise their kids by themselves. This is part of our democratic society, that is what our taxes go for, to help them live as good a life as possible. TO HAVE 'ENOUGH' FOR LIFE. These people are more productive within society because of our shared tax burden that helps them. This is how society has a soul.

Well you may spend 100% of what you earn and then yes, you'd be paying as much as your sister, but I'm guessing you may own a home and have a savings account or retirement account. In that case she'd be paying more. The point is that the wealthy are not buying stuff with 100% of their income while the poor are. They are saving, hiding overseas and retiring on their wealth and that income is un-sales-taxed.

But even the richest still spend it all eventually, or they die and now there's inheritance tax. No, it seems fairly obvious that the vast majority of people are paying about the same % to non-income taxes based only on math and the inevitability of death and taxes. But then with the snarl our tax system is in, I suppose the truth could take some research. If you have proof of your regressive tax claim, I'd love to see it.

Mitt Romney's 10.4 percent on hundreds of millions in profits is proof. That is a regressive tax rate. You and I pay more than that. Hell, the 200,000+ working homeless in this country pay more than that as a percent of their income.

[Long rant about how Claeyt knows my sister better than I do] Are you sure she's on WIC or sure of her situation?

I am sure. And to be clear, it's not illegal either, it's a loophole.

Well, if she's been on it more than a year she probably has a social worker and a reason.

[TotalyMeow]

Your "stories" all read as if you guys were trying to say how poor you were and thus you knew how benefits should be cut.

No one was talking about welfare until you showed up. The original topic under discussion was whether or not the US has poverty and how long that's been going on, and/or how long it's been really bad. As I recall, the worst of it started around 2001-2 in which manufacturing experienced a collapse caused in large part by moving those jobs overseas. There followed the mortgage fiasco and several other things and I think there was also that .com bubble thing which popped around the turn of the millennia too. Things are still bad for a lot of people because of all that and the economy has really not fully recovered; the media just got tired of reporting it, though it is getting better now, I think.

Your "libertarian views" are well known. Those generally don't include universal healthcare.

I don't know why Libertarian is in quotes, but yeah, I'm told my views align pretty well with Libertarian in most cases.

So you hold beliefs that universal healthcare that could help thousands of people with undiagnosed lyme's disease, like your dad is wrong?

I repeat, having someone else pay for my dad's doctor visits wouldn't have changed anything. It's the lack of a proper diagnosis from any of the doctors he visited that was the problem.

Government social programs (such as Social Security and Medicare) and benefits (such as Disability, Medicaid, SNAP, and Unemployment) are NOT welfare. Government assistance (such as WIC, Rent assistance) used to fall under welfare but are now called assistance.

No, governmental assistance is welfare. Welfare is financial support or other social effort designed to promote the well-being of people in need. That's why we use the word 'welfare', which also means to fare well.

People pay into Social Security and Medicare throughout their working life. If they are injured or disabled they may qualify for early use of these programs.

Actually, it's a common misconception that Social Security and other such programs are like a savings account for people to pay into and then be able to use later. In fact, it's straight up a redistribution of wealth. Here is a nice explanation of how it works:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/08/14/social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/#511724367f85

Welfare is not coerced. Taxes are part of living in a democracy they are not coerced payments. You get to vote on the politicians who make tax law and who define benefits. Saying they are coerced means that you are fundamentally opposed to living in a democracy and don't want this democracy to exist. We as a society have determined these social programs, benefits and assistance. If you don't like that then vote for someone who you think will change it but don't dismiss the views of the rest of the electorate because you think the majority is wrong.

Welfare absolutely is coerced in that I have absolutely no control over who gets the money I pay into it nor any say in how much of my taxes go to welfare or which programs get funded. Sure, I can try to vote for a politician that will, I hope, vote the way I want assuming my politician actually wins, but that's not at all the same as having the power to decide who I help and how much. It does not follow that I think we should have a different form of government. Rather, I think we should have a different form of welfare. I'm not sure what you think I'm disagreeing with the majority about though. I guess I'm disagreeing with you in that you don't seem to think that taxes are mandatory.

Third, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country with permanent need of programs, benefits, and assistance. I've worked with hundreds of them. They are the people with mental illness, and disabilities and handicaps that live in your town.

I guess I have more faith in the abilities of these people than you do, but I don't think they all need to be permanently supported or that "Disability = Helplessness" is an attitude that we should foster.

Mitt Romney's 10.4 percent on hundreds of millions in profits is proof. That is a regressive tax rate. You and I pay more than that. Hell, the 200,000+ working homeless in this country pay more than that as a percent of their income.

You're basing your entire argument on a single anecdotal reference. You're also talking about income tax suddenly. We were talking specifically about taxes that are NOT income tax such as sales tax. We've already established that the rich, on the whole, pay a much higher percentage of their income towards taxes than the poor to the point where many low or no income people pay no income tax at all after refunds. And people like Mitt Romney are exactly why I say we need a flat tax.

Well, if she's been on it more than a year she probably has a social worker and a reason.

Yes. Yes. Selfishness, though she did have a need at one point years ago.
I find your continued argument of this laughable. It's a specific example of the system not working as it should and you can't even deal.

[Dallane]

I'm really starting to doubt cleaty has a degree in this field nor did he work in something outside of a church function.

[Claeyt]

Your "stories" all read as if you guys were trying to say how poor you were and thus you knew how benefits should be cut.

No one was talking about welfare until you showed up. The original topic under discussion was whether or not the US has poverty and how long that's been going on, and/or how long it's been really bad. As I recall, the worst of it started around 2001-2 in which manufacturing experienced a collapse caused in large part by moving those jobs overseas. There followed the mortgage fiasco and several other things and I think there was also that .com bubble thing which popped around the turn of the millennia too. Things are still bad for a lot of people because of all that and the economy has really not fully recovered; the media just got tired of reporting it, though it is getting better now, I think.

Just a simple glance at this thread shows that both you and Darwoth were hating on poor people on assistance and benefits before I ever posted.

So you hold beliefs that universal healthcare that could help thousands of people with undiagnosed lyme's disease, like your dad is wrong?

I repeat, having someone else pay for my dad's doctor visits wouldn't have changed anything. It's the lack of a proper diagnosis from any of the doctors he visited that was the problem.

Universal Healthcare isn't "having someone else pay for your doctor", it's everyone as a society democratically creating through progressive taxation, Healthcare laws, and local administration an effective healthcare system that works for everyone, including people like your dad.

Government social programs (such as Social Security and Medicare) and benefits (such as Disability, Medicaid, SNAP, and Unemployment) are NOT welfare. Government assistance (such as WIC, Rent assistance) used to fall under welfare but are now called assistance.

No, governmental assistance is welfare. Welfare is financial support or other social effort designed to promote the well-being of people in need. That's why we use the word 'welfare', which also means to fare well.

Welfare also means that a person is unable to support themselves without the welfare and have not and are not contributing to it. Thus, the legal terms within the laws creating Social Security and Medicare which are not considered support but rather social programs which people pay into, and then use later in life or in case of injury. Also things like unemployment and SNAP are not welfare because they are also payed into through unemployment insurance and continuing taxation. These are all legal definitions through the laws creating them.

People pay into Social Security and Medicare throughout their working life. If they are injured or disabled they may qualify for early use of these programs.

Actually, it's a common misconception that Social Security and other such programs are like a savings account for people to pay into and then be able to use later. In fact, it's straight up a redistribution of wealth. Here is a nice explanation of how it works:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/08/14/social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/#511724367f85

I never said it was like a savings account. I know exactly how social security works. It is not redistribution of wealth as it is actually a regressive payment with limited top end amounts to balance it out. Social security is not payed on income above 150,000 (I believe) and it is not taken from capital gains income. Yet, there are maximum amounts that you can collect on Social Security so it is both a regressive and progressive program.

Welfare is not coerced. Taxes are part of living in a democracy they are not coerced payments. You get to vote on the politicians who make tax law and who define benefits. Saying they are coerced means that you are fundamentally opposed to living in a democracy and don't want this democracy to exist. We as a society have determined these social programs, benefits and assistance. If you don't like that then vote for someone who you think will change it but don't dismiss the views of the rest of the electorate because you think the majority is wrong.

Welfare absolutely is coerced in that I have absolutely no control over who gets the money I pay into it nor any say in how much of my taxes go to welfare or which programs get funded. Sure, I can try to vote for a politician that will, I hope, vote the way I want assuming my politician actually wins, but that's not at all the same as having the power to decide who I help and how much. It does not follow that I think we should have a different form of government. Rather, I think we should have a different form of welfare. I'm not sure what you think I'm disagreeing with the majority about though. I guess I'm disagreeing with you in that you don't seem to think that taxes are mandatory.

Welfare is absolutely not coerced and you have absolutely all control over who gets the money because you can vote for the people who decide that. Welfare is as coerced as anything that is payed for through taxes. I hated and protested against both Iraq wars but I don't consider my taxes that payed for them "coerced" war profiteering. If you think that Welfare = Coercion then you are either a fascist who believes in the power of the minority elite over the general population or a non-democratic libertarian (like the Oregon anti-government ranchers) who believe in justifiable armed revolt against the democratically elected and created government they were born and live within. Either way you do not believe in the social contract that is Democracy and instead believe in a non-democratic system of government.

Third, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country with permanent need of programs, benefits, and assistance. I've worked with hundreds of them. They are the people with mental illness, and disabilities and handicaps that live in your town.

I guess I have more faith in the abilities of these people than you do, but I don't think they all need to be permanently supported or that "Disability = Helplessness" is an attitude that we should foster.

There are many ways these people need to be permanently supported and if you had ever worked with one or knew someone with a permanent disability you would realize that. The degree to which they count on support from the government varies but it is absolutely necessary and their lives have changed radically in places like Kansas, Indiana and here in Wisconsin with those state's new massive Republican cuts to benefits and programs.

[

Mitt Romney's 10.4 percent on hundreds of millions in profits is proof. That is a regressive tax rate. You and I pay more than that. Hell, the 200,000+ working homeless in this country pay more than that as a percent of their income.

You're basing your entire argument on a single anecdotal reference. You're also talking about income tax suddenly. We were talking specifically about taxes that are NOT income tax such as sales tax. We've already established that the rich, on the whole, pay a much higher percentage of their income towards taxes than the poor to the point where many low or no income people pay no income tax at all after refunds. And people like Mitt Romney are exactly why I say we need a flat tax.

I'm basing my argument on a fully representative example of how capital gains, corporate taxes and overseas profits are hidden, written off and denied from the U.S. tax code. THE RICH ABSOLUTELY DO NOT PAY A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME TO TAXES THAN THE POOR this is a lie. As I've pointed out, putting aside corporate tax loopholes, capital gains loopholes and overseas profit loopholes, The richest Americans pay more in regular paycheck income taxes as a percentage of their income but less in everyday taxes such as sales tax, tax on gas and oil, and property taxes AS A PERCENT OF THEIR INCOME. They are more likely to instead put their untaxed income into savings, retirement and frozen assets thus lowering their TOTAL taxes as a percent of their TOTAL income. Poor people eat and buy gas at the nearly the exact same rate as a rich person and so their taxes on those purchases are a much higher percent of their income.

Well, if she's been on it more than a year she probably has a social worker and a reason.

Yes. Yes. Selfishness, though she did have a need at one point years ago.
I find your continued argument of this laughable. It's a specific example of the system not working as it should and you can't even deal.

If it's not working then report her to the county assistance programs she's on. You keep saying she's doing something illegal by getting these benefits but you do nothing about it. I say if she's getting specific stuff like WIC then she has a social worker who is determining her needs, contacting her husband's employer about his salary and doing home visits to see how the kids are. It can't be both. If she's doing something illegal, lied to her social worker or lied on a benefits application then she has broken the law and has committed fraud. As I've shown on that Census study I posted this is not the norm when it comes to benefit use and I found it to be pretty rare when I was that social worker I just described.

[DarkNacht]

Mitt Romney's 10.4 percent on hundreds of millions in profits is proof. That is a regressive tax rate. You and I pay more than that.

Unless you have a fairly high income if you tend to pay more than around 10% income tax it likely just means that you are very bad at doing your taxes.