Kamala's Karrot--$25,000

Is that $25,000 wealth transfer for first time home buyers making any traction for Democrats to choose Harris instead of Trump? Only if they know nothing about real estate. Of course, the entire housing industry has a stake in that, from the land developer to the builder to the home furnishing industry. The best down payment break is a thriving economy instead of raging inflation, and Harris' plan is inflationary. It just inflates the cost of a low end house $25,000 and moves up from there. The original first-time home buyer tax credit was created by Congress in 2008 during the burst housing bubble and ended in 2010. And that bubble too was created by government money. Remember the bundled sub-prime mortgages for people who were a poor credit risk? Your government did that.

Does it make sense to offer $25,000 for a first home credit if there aren't any being built in your price range? It's local and "green" regulations that are driving up the cost of acreage and building--and for that we can thank Harris' party and the scare tactics about global weather cycles. Where we live used to be under a glacier, so we know about that warming stuff in Ohio.

 
We bought our first home (of 5) when we were 22 and 23. We haven't had a home mortgage since our 40s. If you talk to other people our age (80s) most bought homes in our 20s instead of 35 because we married younger in those days, and parents are more willing to chip in if the couple isn't just living together. We also didn't have college loans to pay off. We also didn't have nice cars, didn't live in apartment buildings with "amenities," didn't have manicures, didn't have vacations, we didn't even have shopping malls. We all had parents who had lived through the Great Depression and WWII, knew a few things about saving money and were more than willing to tell us about it!!

That Kamala-carrot on the stick is rotten to the core. She'd better come up with something other than spending money the government first has to take from someone else.

Underserved actually means overserved by government

What Democrats and their bureaucracy call "underserved" means under the heavy thumb of government programs. They are so "overserved" by the various 120+ wealth transfer programs, they can't afford to work, buy or rent in a better neighborhood, or take a promotion at work in fear of losing their "benefits." That word "underserved" may be one of the most deceptive in government-speak.

Here are the "underserved" amounts: Federal spending programs that are "designed to transfer income ... to individuals or families" are set to hit a record $3,223,943,000,000 in fiscal 2020, according to projections published by the Office of Management and Budget.

These so-called "payments for individuals" (as the OMB calls them) are projected to account for 67.9% of all federal spending  [fiscal year 2020] and consume 14.4% of the nation's gross domestic product.

$3.22 Trillion: Federal Programs That 'Transfer Income' Projected to Hit Record in FY20 | CNSNews

"More government benefits result in less private wealth, especially for the non‐​rich. It is not just Social Security and Medicare that displaces private saving, but also unemployment insurance, welfare, and other social spending. Some social programs have “asset tests” that deliberately discourage saving.

Total federal and state social spending as a share of gross domestic product soared from 6.8 percent in 1970 to 14.3 percent in 2018. That increase in handouts occurred over the same period that wealth inequality appears to have increased. Generations of Americans have grown up assuming that the government will take care of them when they are sick, unemployed, and retired, so they put too little money aside for future expenses." How the Government Creates Wealth Inequality | Cato Institute

Poverty, then and now

"The problem of the poor is not the availability of jobs, for the economy has generated so many new jobs during the past decade that anyone who can't find a job just doesn't want to work. And the problem isn't taxes because most poor folks don't pay taxes, and many actually receive checks from the government in the form of the earned income-tax credit. No, to close the income distribution gap, the next president will have to have the courage to say that the path to upward mobility for the nation's least-well-off begins at the marriage altar." Joseph Perkins, Jan 26, 2000, black columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune (now retired)

And 19 years after this column and 55 years after the trillions spent on the War on Poverty, politicians don't want to believe it because they need the issue for votes, money and power.

There are 92 major government programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care and social services to poor and low-income people at a cost of $1.1 trillion per year [2017 figures]. But only 4 of those programs have work requirements, and even those have gaping holes. Yet to listen to Democrats running for the highest office in the land and Socialists in government, honest work has no dignity (i.e. doesn't buy votes). Only give a-ways matter. Let me give you free stuff and keep you poor. Vote for me.

https://www.heritage.org/welfare/commentary/encouraging-work-lifts-people-out-poverty-the-green-new-deal-wont-do

Why does the left lie about poverty? Because they can. It's like lies that police shoot blacks and women earn less than men. We don't have a responsible media to call them out, to research it or correct the lies.

This report on the results of welfare reform is from 2016--before Trump was elected. But they were screaming lies then too, just like now. They were probably preparing for a Big Clinton Win and raising taxes for another battle in the 50+ year War on Poverty, our most expensive war in history. Politicians, non-profits, churches, authors and academics all "need" the appearance of poverty so they can make more. The wealthier got richer due to increased regulations and over sight by their friends in government, the poor got more transfers and paid no taxes, and the middle class got screwed.

https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/did-welfare-reform-increase-extreme-poverty-the-united-states

Since 50% of Americans don't pay federal taxes (they are too "poor" unless you add supplemental sources transferred from others, then they are too well-off to be poor), you can see why Democrats have to shout out "free stuff" and "raise taxes" to the middle class in order to get votes. Thus, they plan to impoverish about 3/4 of the nation so politicians can be the only ones with wealth.

The Middle Class Yarn spun to frighten you

It's not exactly fake news, but it's misleading--the story you hear that the middle class is shrinking and so many more people are using government benefits because of the gap between the very wealthy and the "others." There are three things to consider:

1) demographics/age,

2) marriage or the lack of it, and

3) expansion of federal benefits from the poor and deserving to the middle class.

Rejoice, patriots. It's not true. The middle class is only shrinking because so many people have moved up to the next quintile! Have you ever driven to the suburban areas of Columbus (or the city where you live)--I can't believe the homes, schools, shopping centers, churches, gyms, parts, etc. And the new high rise housing in the central city for all those millennials willing to pay the apartment costs.

Also, as the boomers retire, they are now living on their pensions and investments (the very wealth Elizabeth Warren wants to go after), plus they are drawing Social Security. And guess what, a two parent household with both adults working has a much higher income than a one parent household who is most likely a woman. Two adults in a home have more time to distribute to the children to see to it they are educated and well-fed. It's amazing how many "experts" in socialist think tanks switch to "household" to show poverty rates and don't factor in $30,000 in transferred benefits like EITC, SNAP and Section 8.

We've been in 4 of the 5 quintiles in our 58 years together, as have many our age. We have 5 streams of income, as do many our age--some if they have military benefits have 6 or 7. We're certainly not suffering, but as retirees, we have less INCOME than when we were DINKs, but more WEALTH because we have lived frugally and invested or lived on one income. Warren wants to punish us for living on less when we were in our 40s.

Left of center think tanks crunch the numbers and in horror say, the sky if falling. There's a gap that wasn't there in 1979. We need a more "progressive" system--higher taxes. Well, duh. You mean when we lived in an upper middle class neighborhood of the 70s in a home with 1.5 bathrooms, 2 TVs, 1 phone, 1 car, 1 income, and lived month to month with 2 growing children in our home? Do you mean when we had 1 week vacation, which we spent at Mom's farm, and paid our own health insurance? Do you mean when we had a mortgage and a car payment, but no credit card or college debt (never had that because we never borrowed). Do you mean when FICA withdrawals from our 1 check ended at $22,900 and there was no Medicare tax (now is $127,200 FICA + 1.45% for Medicare)? And the personal exemption? Much higher then. Don't have the exact figure for 1979, but if the 1913 rate (year of modern income tax) of $3000 were adjusted for inflation it would be about $72,000--anyone getting that?

So what has the government done for the poor and low income with all the tax money and safety net money we've sent in the last 40 years? Well, the so-called safety net expanded so much that the middle class now qualifies for many entitlement programs meant for the poor. The middle class voter now screams if there's no COLA for Social Security (which originally was for the poor widows and orphans) and Medicare.

Now 55% of the U.S. population are receiving some sort of entitlement--and it's not because we're poor, it's because we're middle class and wealthy. It's because for every election the politicians dangle an increase for the population served by Social Security, or one of our 5 health insurance programs. Government programs NEVER get smaller--they always expand, and since there are so few poor people in America, they expand into the middle class. There are people earning over $100,000 who qualify for government benefits--even Obamacare.

What exactly are the Democrats’ policies?

The Democrat policies you say you care about are:  “Most are in the area of social issues: common-sense gun control, affordable health care for all (can't wrap my head around the fact that gun ownership is a right, but healthcare is a privilege), increase in federal minimum wage so it at least matches the poverty level minimum, pro-choice.”

They all sound rather vague, but that’s not what the Democrat party means with those words.

1.  We all know the issue isn’t “gun control,” because some of the worst disasters have happened in cities that have that.  The goal is confiscation for all except the government and private security guards to protect entertainers and politicians.  It’s never been anything else.  Democrats are almost as patient as terrorists—and it is always incremental.

2.  Healthcare—we already had 5 federal/state medical plans before Obama decided to make NOT having it a crime punishable with a fine or jail time. Native Americans have had cradle to grave health care for many years, and they are the least healthy and poorest of American minorities—at least if they live on the reservation. My brother-in-law was a full blood Indian who grew up in Huntington Beach, CA, and used all the rights and privileges the rest of us have, plus a few from his tribe. He had a public employee pension, but died at 73, not for lack of health care, but lack of agreeing to a colonoscopy.  I think it was the take over of one of the largest industries that Republicans objected to.  If he had begun without the mandate, or not forcing religious groups to buy contraception/abortion, he would have had no problem growing it to single payer. But it was never about healthcare, it was always about power.  Also, the government no matter who is in the White House is eyeing the deductions or credits for medical care by employers and employees—they (it) believe that is rightfully their money.

3.  We already have 123 federal wealth transfer programs, and many started out to help the sick, poor, elderly, etc., (those who tug at our heart strings), but as time goes on more people are added as they expand, until now we’re at the point that 62% of the people who receive entitlements or assistance are well above the poverty line. Nonpoor households received 48% of the $2.4 TRILLION distributed in 2015.  And about 31% were in the upper half. There’s just something about a government entitlement plan that is like our waist sizes (at least mine) and expands as we age.  These programs don’t necessarily reduce poverty, but they certainly employ a lot of middle class bureaucrats in state and federal government.  If poverty were to disappear tomorrow, on Thursday we’d have a new class of poor—all those folks who work upstream from the poor. (figures from “The high cost of good intentions” by John F. Cogan, 2017)

4.  As far as minimum wage goes, that’s another feel-good, guilt trip.  A tiny fraction of wage earners are at minimum—I think  it’s 2.9% of all workers.  And even at the old $7.50/hr figure, if a 2 adult earner household was working 40 hours a week at $7.50, that household has gone beyond the level for qualifying for most important benefits like SNAP, Medicaid, Section 8, WIC, etc. Low income doesn’t mean stupid, so if it were me at that job, I’d cut my hours or refuse a promotion so I could continue qualifying for about $22,000 a year in benefits. It’s quite possible for EITC for a man with a family to have a stay at home wife and 3-4 kids who is better off than the man earning $60,000/year because the government pays him to earn below $50,000 and it’s non-taxable. The average family income of a minimum wage earner is $53,113 and they are more likely to have some college than the average American worker. Why?  They are not the primary earner of the family!

5.  And pro-choice.? Well, there goes your concern for the weakest and most vulnerable in society. Again this is incremental.  All the talk these days from the left is that abortion is OK right through the full 9 months—it’s legal to poke a hole in the skull to make sure the baby’s dead on arrival, and the more radical Democrats have moved that to 2 years out from birth. It will come.  Soon the Democrats’ drive for euthanasia of the elderly and severely ill will meet up in the middle with their desire to end the lives of children who are not perfect or who come at an inconvenient time.  At the age of my readers and family, it might be wise to have your EOL documents stated clearly, because the Democrat party is coming for you.

https://www.cathmed.org/assets/files/LNQ59%20FINAL.pdf 

A response:

Norma;

I really like the point that you are making about the slow incremental loss of freedoms, rights and government intrusion in every facet of our lives.

And I share your concerns that will be happening to the old folks and agree that you need to work on a plan.

There is always this argument about being reasonable and accepting of progress and small changes but when you look at it over time the impact on the American Way of Life is significant.

While not directly germane to the border security discussion, it is relevant to the issue of slowly stripping law abiding citizens of their rights and putting government in control over every aspect of our lives, whether it is healthcare, education, physical movement, gun ownership, property ownership, etc. etc.

I see this with my two youngest kids in elementary school. We live in Maryland.   The school supplies that we buy become community property – property ownership is one of the hallmarks of capitalism and freedom (and communism the opposite).  The result is that the kids go through 100 pencils, 10 erasers, … a head per year and the teachers beg for more before the school year is over because they have run out.   Sounds like the Kolkhoz (State owned Farm) in the Sowjet Union that could never succeed of making a fraction of their crop plan and had to import most their grain from the USA.       

The kids and parents are highly discouraged to pay for lunch with cash out of their wallet – learning the use of money is fundamental to a capitalistic society.  Result, the kids have a lunch account and have no concept of what stuff costs and how to make choices. Sounds like Obamacare for the low income people.

  A month ago, I learned that the children are no longer taught cursive writing. I was told that WE ONLY TEACH PRINTED LETTERS for the last 5 years now.  When I raised the issue that they would never be able to attain a decent speed of writing, I was told, that the direction is that at some point the kids would only be typing.

DOES ANYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SETS UP A TOTAL SURVEILLANCE STATE?

  The children are undergoing mandatory behavioral testing annually which was part of common core legislation under Obama.   What does this look like. It’s frightening. It reminds of how the Communists identified those who were potential dangers for the dictatorship regime.

The kids read a story about some animal pet that will be put to death UNLESS a child is willing to say some lies. Only with these lies could the pet animal be saved.  The testing involves asking the children various questions about their opinions on this story.

I wrote a letter to the school that I am opting my kids out and they don’t have permission to be testing. They told me there is no ‘opt out’ allowed.  I met with the principal and was redirected to the assistant principal who is in charge of testing.  To my surprise, he confided to me that he as 4 children that will be tested soon and he has been thinking about how he gets around this because knowing what he knows he thinks it’s very dangerous too.  After he explained all of the rules to me we found a loophole around it and it has worked now for the last 3 years. Although I would not be surprised if the authorities will show up at my door step one day.  If you look at the parent group websites in protest of this testing, they have been largely unsuccessful protecting their children.

We had hoped that with a Republican governor this nonsense would stop, but it hasn’t.

So while I don’t own guns, don’t shoot, I have to completely sympathize with the people who want to uphold their constitutional gun rights.

But those rights have been slowly eroding piece by piece and have been converted to hunting rights and gun ownership. The Constitution was not about guns for hunting. It was about safeguards against an oppressive regime.

So it is important to recognize that there are consequences when you allow the forfeiture of citizens rights and you are not paying attention.

Democrat party values

I do wonder about the values of the Democrats. They say Republicans are awful, vicious, and uncaring for wanting to undo Obamacare, the only federal social plan that didn't get a single Republican vote. The social safety net is ca. 70% of the federal budget and it's bi-partisan--about $60,000 for a family of 4. The 123 wealth transfer programs support huge bureaucracies (part of the deep state) and if Trump suggests streamlining (as did Obama and Bush) the media call it taking a hatchet to the safety net, starving people and putting them on the street.

But what is worse than forcing the poor to buy a product which makes millions for the wealthy investors and face a fine and jail if they don't buy it? What is worse than destroying the health and safety network of millions just so everyone can have a form of Medicaid? Strange values indeed. All yammered by the media to mislead and get Democrats another term in office.

The Democrats' idea of helping the poor is to take as much from you in the form of taxes--income, excise, death, phone, gasoline, sales, pass through (in over under around and through), VAT, etc. then pass it back to you in grants to your states, your educational institutions, your non-profits, your interstates, your transportation bailouts and subsidies, even your churches, all with handsome salaries along the way.

The #1 way to reduce childhood poverty in the U.S.A. is marriage, and not the reinvented kind. With married parents, a child has only about 8% chance of being raised in poverty. A better house, or a better education doesn't do it. Lunch programs from USDA distributed by church volunteers doesn't make a dent. Social justice workshops and summits at your church don't either, except maybe to tamp down a little liberal guilt if the Bible falls open to Matthew 25. You can address guns, cuts in food stamps for illegals, hunger, obesity or education. Where is your concern about marriage, the number one solution?

Only jobs reduce poverty

The percentage of children in middle childhood (6 through 11) living in low-income families (both poor and near poor) increased from 42% in 2009 to 44% in 2015. The Obama years. Even one parent employed or having married parents reduces childhood poverty. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_1173.html

Let's get on to the jobs, Mr. President. It's for the children. 

National Center for Children in Poverty chart

Why is this important to know? Because after one month, President Trump and Congressional Republicans are being blamed for the failures of the last 8 years. More breakfast and lunch programs do not solve this problem. Regulations that tied up small businesses (our job creators) and insurance that prevented businesses from hiring created the slowest recovery since the Depression of the 1930s, which was also slowed down by ineffective government rules and regulations. The percentage of the population in poverty hasn't changed since the "War on Poverty" began over 50 years ago. One reason is the government continues to raise the bar because middle class bureaucrats and state poverty employees who earn very good salaries would lose their jobs if poverty were actually reduced or eliminated.

Although the "about us" at the NCCP website reports it is a nonpartisan, public interest research organization, its affiliation is with Columbia. Left of center like all university policy centers. The reports for 2015 children are divided by age beginning with infants and toddlers, but the overall poverty rate reported is 45%. I personally think this is exaggerated because NCCP would have no reason to get grants or publish or influence policy if they actually succeeded in making a difference. Also, most of these policy centers do not report the transferred (from us--there are 123 programs) income like SNAP, section 8, TANF, EITC, school meal programs, home repair and heating, scholarships, Medicaid, etc. which for non-employed or low-income parents can add anywhere from $20,000-$60,000 value to their non-incomes. If these make no difference in the lives of poor children, why does Congress continue to raise it or lose their elections? 

Be prepared for "mean old Republican" memes floating around the internet and pumped up on Washington Post or NYT. Be prepared for liberal churches to open the NT to Matthew 25 and club you with it.