State of The Union and Income Equality

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
State of The Union and Income Equality

 And here is what to expect :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25917009

 

Obama State of the Union speech to act on income inequality

 

US President Barack Obama will bypass a fractured Congress to act on income inequality as he delivers his annual State of the Union address later.

The White House said Mr Obama would unveil an executive order to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 (£6.10) an hour for new federal contract workers.

The Democratic president is expected to announce other executive orders, which do not require congressional approval.

He is facing some of the lowest approval ratings of his presidency.

Mr Obama has called for a "year of action", though Congress will limit his ability to get much done.

Time running out

He will speak in the House of Representatives at 21:00 local time (01:00 GMT) on Tuesday.

Just over a year after his re-election, Mr Obama must contend with determined opposition from the Republican Party, which controls the House of Representatives and has the numbers in the Senate to block his agenda.

Time is running short before Washington DC turns its attention to the 2016 race to elect his successor, threatening to render him irrelevant even with three years remaining in office.

In the face of a divided Congress, Mr Obama has pledged to use executive action to bypass Congress, and the White House says he will flesh out some of his plans in the State of the Union speech.

Mr Obama is also expected to address long-term joblessness, expansion of early childhood education and infrastructure spending.

He will reiterate his call for a broad rise in the national minimum wage, currently $7.25 per hour, say White House officials.

Mr Obama's executive order raising the hourly rate of federal contract workers prompted a swift response from Republicans.

House Speaker John Boehner warned that such a move would cost jobs. He told reporters his party would watch to ensure the president did not exceed his authority through the use of such executive actions.

Just over a year after his re-election, Mr Obama must contend with determined opposition from the Republican Party, which controls the House of Representatives and has the numbers in the Senate to block his agenda.

Time is running short before Washington DC turns its attention to the 2016 race to elect his successor, threatening to render him irrelevant even with three years remaining in office.

In the face of a divided Congress, Mr Obama has pledged to use executive action to bypass Congress, and the White House says he will flesh out some of his plans in the State of the Union speech.

Mr Obama is also expected to address long-term joblessness, expansion of early childhood education and infrastructure spending.

He will reiterate his call for a broad rise in the national minimum wage, currently $7.25 per hour, say White House officials.

Mr Obama's executive order raising the hourly rate of federal contract workers prompted a swift response from Republicans.

House Speaker John Boehner warned that such a move would cost jobs. He told reporters his party would watch to ensure the president did not exceed his authority through the use of such executive actions.

Among those joining First Lady Michelle Obama in the gallery will be Jason Collins, a professional basketball player who came out as gay last year; two survivors of the Boston Marathon bombing and the fire chief of a tornado-hit Oklahoma town.

After Mr Obama's speech, several Republicans are expected to offer rebuttals, a departure from the tradition of the opposition choosing a single voice to follow the president.

Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state will deliver the official response on behalf of the Republican Party.

Republican Kentucky Senator and presumed 2016 presidential hopeful Rand Paul, a favourite of the party's libertarian wing, will release a taped address, while Utah Senator Mike Lee will offer a response on behalf of the populist, anti-tax tea party movement.

http://emp.bbci.co.uk/emp/releases/worldwide/revisions/749603_749269_749444_6/cta_play.png); width: 27px; height: 36px; position: absolute; top: 125.98958587646484px; left: 26px; margin-top: -18px;">  

The US has one of the highest income gaps in the developed world

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  If he is so concerned

  If he is so concerned about income inequality perhaps he and the rest of the left-wing one percenters can donate the majority of their massive income to charity and live a middle class lifestyle instead ?  Maybe even enroll in Obamacare ?  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  If

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  If he is so concerned about income inequality perhaps he and the rest of the left-wing one percenters can donate the majority of their massive income to charity and live a middle class lifestyle instead ?  Maybe even enroll in Obamacare ?  

Sorry for the color issue - and this reply is not directed at you but rather a myth about who gives more. The rich donate less and it doesn't matter if you are a liberal or a conservative. 

People tend to use the IRS returns to show that conservatives give more than liberals, but that data can not be taken in the raw form. Many people consider giving to a church as "giving to charity" but religious institutions are not required to give an accounting on how their donations are used and they are not required to follow rules and regulations set forth as charities do. So donations for a church could be used to build a radio/television station and not feed the poor.

Studies (Chronicle of Philanthropy, "America’s Generosity Divide", 2012) have shown that liberals and conservatives give equal amounts of money depending on the region and the tax bracket they live within; also if the donors are poor, middle class or rich.

The "rich" are less likely to donate while the "middle class" give a higher amounts. The "poor" donate less than all three, but it must be considered that they have less to give and usually must retain what little income they have to feed their family, have housing and and to purchase clothing.

Also to consider is if a Blue state only gives 3% of their income to charity studies have shown that they also have a higher tax bracket and make more money so it compares to a Red state who gives 7% of their income but have a lower tax bracket and make less money.

A study by Rice University, ("Liberals versus conservatives: How politics affects charitable giving", 2012) shows that depending on what the charity is promoting will determine if a person donates to the charity. A charity promoting "equality and reducing suffering" would get more of their money from liberals while a charity promoting "defending American values and morals" would get more donations from conservatives.

So if you give money to a charity which "promotes christian values and morals" and then they use the money to hand out bibles, is that the same as a charity which "builds homes for the poor"? What about for charities which "help animals", "save the rain forest", "save old films"? What are we really talking about when we use the word "charity"?

So what that charity is promoting has not been accounted for in the myth that one party/ideology gives more than the other.

The jury is still out and I don't believe any one can lay claim to "giving more" to charity.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3928
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  If

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
If he is so concerned about income inequality perhaps he and the rest of the left-wing one percenters can donate the majority of their massive income to charity and live a middle class lifestyle instead ?  Maybe even enroll in Obamacare

{Sarcasm On} True altruism means making others sacrifice. {Sarcasm Off}

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen