XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.atheism, alt.home.repair
XPost: rec.arts.tv

John Smyth wrote:

'How the Bottom 20% Lives – On Your Taxes'

<https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/how-bottom-20-lives-your-taxes/>

'Despite Democrat claims about the rich not paying their fair share, IRS
data shows that the top 20% of earners pay more than 65% of all federal >income taxes, while the bottom 20% pay effectively nothing, receiving
more in benefits than they are paying in taxes.

According to data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the
U.S. Census Bureau, the bottom 20% of U.S. income earners (households in
the lowest income quintile) receive a significant portion, often the >majority, of their income from government transfers such as Medicaid,
SNAP (food stamps), housing subsidies, and refundable tax credits like
the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

Roughly 80% of Americans are taxpayers, while the remaining 20% are net
tax consumers. To put it in simple terms: taxpayers eat what they kill,
while tax consumers live off what others have hunted. They rely on the
labor and productivity of the working class to sustain their standard of >living.

Although liberals often portray welfare recipients as disabled or unable
to work, the reality is that most could work, but choose not to.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 60% of working-age adults
in the welfare-dependent population did not work at all during the year,
and many were not officially classified as disabled.

Among recipients of SNAP alone, roughly 28% are classified as
able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). Data from the Census
Bureau and the Department of Health and Human Services show that roughly >40–50% of these individuals are able-bodied adults of working age. And
yet, they have somehow managed to game the system and continue receiving >benefits.

The controversy over the “Big Beautiful Bill” was, as usual, >misrepresented. The media framed it as cruel cuts, as if benefits were
being stripped from some old, crippled woman born with her heart on the >outside, raising several mixed-race children. A “10% cut,” for example, >is always portrayed as meaning a disabled or aged person living on
$2,000 a month will now get $1,800.

But that’s generally not what a budget cut means. In most cases, it
simply means the bar is being raised to qualify for benefits, so that >healthy, working-age people are encouraged to go back to work.

And proof of this is that Democrats are always quick to say, “With the
new cuts, 12 million people could lose their benefits.” Yes, that’s >exactly what a cut is supposed to do: reduce the total number of people
on benefits, not necessarily reduce payments to those who truly need
them. As is so often the case in politics between the two parties, terms
need to be defined. Most people agree that those who truly need help
should get it, we just want to narrow the definition of who qualifies.

Democrats portray benefits as a temporary lifeline, but in reality, they >often create long-term dependence. States routinely report challenges in >getting these individuals into job training or employment programs.

Meanwhile, many recipients get more in refundable tax credits than they
owe, along with a wide range of benefits from both federal and state >programs, including SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, Section 8 housing,
utility subsidies, and child tax credits. With their rent, medical care, >food, and other expenses covered without working, they have little
incentive to put in the effort that would disqualify them from receiving
free money.

Compounding the issue, many of the households receiving benefits suffer
from chronic social breakdown. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more
than 70% of children in low-income, inner-city communities are raised in >fatherless homes. These children face dramatically worse outcomes across
the board: the National Fatherhood Initiative reports that children
without fathers are four times more likely to live in poverty, twice as >likely to drop out of school, and more likely to engage in criminal
activity or be incarcerated.

Studies from the Brookings Institution and Pew Charitable Trusts further
show that welfare dependency is often passed down through generations. A >child whose parents received public assistance is significantly more
likely to end up on welfare themselves, and the probability increases
further if both parents and grandparents relied on benefits. In some >communities, families are now entering their fourth generation of
government dependence, with no expectation or cultural pressure to exit
the welfare system.

And the left either denies that any of this is true — or, worse,
believes it’s a good thing.'

Children should be forced to learn the truth about the poor in school.

Serving the wealthy has always been the American way, the poor can no longer
be tolerated. All good Christians know this and also Jesus Christ hated the poor more than he hated Communists, Jews and leftists.


The poor are the reason this country is a shithole not worth the dirt it's built on. If Trump would grow some balls and build camps to detain them in, we can start gassing them and cure poverty in America once and for all.

Why is he afraid of the poor and why won't he obliterate them?


Jim Hoft
Executive Publisher and CEO
The Gateway Pundit

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)