Back in 1998, a young Barack Obama explained many of his views of the world. Among those views, he admitted that he supported “redistribution” of wealth. He also said that he believed a “majority coalition” could be built using the “working poor,” which he described as including working people who made $30,000 per year at the time.
“What I think will re-engage people in politics is if we’re doing significant, serious policy work around what I will label the ‘working poor,’” he said, “although my definition of the working poor is not simply folks making minimum wage, but it’s also families of four who are making $30,000 a year.”
“They are struggling. And to the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward.”
Fourteen years ago, $30,000 per year bought more than it does today. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics has an online calculator that converts salaries across years. According to that calculator, $30,000 in 1998 equates to $42,401.04 in 2012. The US median income in 2011 was $50,502.
The two numbers above — 1998 and $30,000 — have special significance to me. I left the US Air Force in 1997 and landed a dream job as a NASA contractor a few months later. I started on that job in January 1998, annual salary $30,000. That salary represented a significant increase over my Air Force salary. In Obama’s mind at that time, I was among the “working poor” even though I would buy my first house a year later and already owned two cars. I wanted and soon earned significant raises, but the idea that I was among the “working poor” in 1998 would have struck me as insane. Had some two-bit leftist from Chicago told me I was “working poor” at the time, I would have laughed in his face and told him to stop insulting me and buzz off.
Obama’s attitude then shows up now, in the federal government doing all it can to increase dependence on government services even among working Americans who own their homes and cars. By any historical standard, they are not poor. In other period in American history, such people would not be targeted for food stamps and the stigma alone would keep them away. But we have replaced actual food stamps with ATM cards that remove the public sting from dependence, and we have been advertising food stamps to working middle class Americans for at least two years now. Barack Obama still sees the “working poor” as people just a click below the national salary mean, and sees them as people he can tie up to government services along with welfare recipients to build his “majority coalition.”
That coalition would end up bankrupting the US by voting itself ever more largesse out of the treasury, squeezing and ultimately breaking the system. And that’s part of the plan.
I’m right around the median, and the only reason I even entertain the notion of being the working poor is because gas is around $3.50, food prices have gone up, and Dear Liar wants to make my electricity bills skyrocket.
He does seem awfully determined to force conditions to match his worldview. If some little people suffer along the way, well, omlettes and eggs you know.
“That coalition would end up bankrupting the US by voting itself ever more largesse out of the treasury, squeezing and ultimately breaking the system. And that’s part of the plan.”
I do not deny there is plenty to suggest this is going on. Still, I cannot help but wonder what is the wisdom in doing so. Is it because that segment of society still dreams of “tearing down the establishment” so they can just groove on the rubble? Or is there something more sinister and self-serving (and so wildly fantastic as to be absurd) going on?
Go to this IRS webpage and look at the 2012 income limits for the EITC:
Preview of 2012 Tax Year
Earned Income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than:
•$45,060 ($50,270 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children
•$41,952 ($47,162 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children
•$36,920 ($42,130 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child
•$13,980 ($19,190 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children
Tax Year 2012 maximum credit:
•$5,891 with three or more qualifying children
•$5,236 with two qualifying children
•$3,169 with one qualifying child
•$475 with no qualifying children
Investment income must be $3,200 or less for the year.
Depends where you live, especially housing prices.
Median household income in city of Los Angeles is supposed to be like $80k, and even today a small house in a modest neighborhood may cost $500k (down from $800k in 2006). There are cheaper neighborhoods, but your medical insurance and ammunition budgets need to be increased.
Still, what does it take to be “poor”? Shouldn’t it be rather MUCH less than the median? This, I suspect, is your point.
Obambus’ point is that he wants everyone anywhere near or below the median, to be in his caucus, IOW pure class warfare.
this is exactly the problem with poverty. we all know the study done by heritage on all the amenities the “poor” have, yet even conservatives will decry how Obama has increased poverty. it doesnt mean anything anymore. poverty is just a goverment statistic used to sway both sides to their cause. like the unemployment number.
real buying power has fallen and that is what matters! all the important stuff is artifically costing more bc of governemnt rules and regs. but hey tvs are cheaper so its all good. now let me go get my new iPhone and $500 sneakers with my EBT card.
Well, I guess I am not as well off as I thought. I am glad to have $1,100. a month to live on and still manage to pay my bill and put a little aside each month. Of course my standard of living has changed dramatically, but then so has everyone else’s. What we can all aspire to now is to have a hut in kenya and be his brothers’ next door neighbor.
– Obama and his kin lives will be purple.