War on Poverty and government efficiency

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by tater

Sorry, that's not the bigger problem. TARP was a limited thing ( I was against that, too, I wanted the market to sort out the bad companies and have them fail).. We spend more than TARP every single year on the poor and still have poor, which is mathematically impossible, even at 50% efficiency.

If you think TARP mitigated the recession, then you need to give that whatever value to access it. Still, in a 10 year period, it's chump change compared to poverty programs that have been on ineffective autopilot since the 1960s.

Also, the rich guys at the large companies actually pay taxes. To properly weigh the bailouts on those guys, you need to first characterize their tax contributions. The poor are grossly net "takers" from the system (heck, the bottom 40-50% of taxpayers are).

Not saying the bailed out aren't net takers, they likely are. But no "per person" cost of a bailout is meaningful since 50% of tax payers don't remotely pay a share of taxes, so it in effect costs them nothing at all. The "rich" (top 20%) alone pay for ALL bailouts. So TARP and poverty programs both "soak the rich" virtually alone.

Hmm, you haven't added your taxes lately. The rich will gladly pay a higher tax, doesn't bother them as long as they can write regulation.

I make a lot less now, but still pay an average of 40% tax when I add all government taxes, property, sales, gas....any bill you got has a tax. Even a person making 50K that owns a home pays in around 35% in totat taxes.

The rich pay lots of taxes, but then should we go over the tax shelters they're given, but it's not about taxes, it's regulation.

In 20 years or less they say about 9% will hold over 80% of total wealth. Polls very, but it's always near there. Eventually you'll figure it out why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
I assume you believe in trickle down economics in a global economy?