in , ,

Democrats Have Launched a War on the Poor

According to a new study from the Tax Foundation, a liberal initiative that we’ve seen in several cities – Berkeley, California, Philadelphia, and Seattle – has had and will have a disproportionate impact on lower income Americans. We’re talking about soda taxes and extra taxes on sugary drinks, both of which are consumed in large part by the poorest Americans in the marketplace. Democrats have lauded these taxes as opportunities to raise money for local government, but they may be hurting the very people they supposedly want to help when they go about taxation in this way.

A liberal proposition backfiring on Democrat voters? What an unusual occurrence!

As it turns out, the Tax Foundation found that if Congress were to pass a nationwide soda tax, the vast majority of the revenue taken in would come from people making between $20,000 and $100,000. Certainly, those on the upper end of that scale could not really be considered “poor” by any reasonable standard, but those on the lower end are firmly in the same category that Democrats claim to want to help with progressive taxation schemes. Well, okay, the Democrats REALLY want to help people who don’t make any money at all, but that’s another matter.

“Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes theoretically offer the potential for reducing externality health-care costs stemming from excessive sugar consumption, and in this way they may raise the prospect of efficiency gains by signaling to consumers these higher social costs,” said the study. “However, these taxes also raise equity concerns to the extent these goods represent a disproportionate share of the consumption among lower-income households.”

Put in plain English, it goes like this: Democrats claim up and down that they want the richest Americans to pay more in taxes. But then they go and propose things like this soda tax that would hit middle-and-working class Americans much harder than it would those on the upper side of the income ladder. In many ways, this is similar to their minimum wage proposal movement. By hiking wages, they are not only making fast food less affordable for lower income Americans – by far the biggest consumers – but they are forcing them completely out of the job market as restaurants turn to robots and computers to do low-wage tasks for less.

Of course, one wonders if any of this is an accident. Democrats don’t do well when it comes to middle class families. They thrive with the upper crust coastal elites, the trust fund kiddies who spent their lives earning one master’s degree after another, and the welfare queens who want everything handed to them. A close look at these categories may reveal more similarities than differences, come to think of it…

Soda taxes also flirt with another of the left’s favorite pastimes: Telling Americans what to do. God save this country from their counsel…and their taxes.

What do you think?

-9 points
Upvote Downvote

Total votes: 25

Upvotes: 8

Upvotes percentage: 32.000000%

Downvotes: 17

Downvotes percentage: 68.000000%


Leave a Reply
  1. I have been a registered democrat since 1972, back then the democrat party was a lot different than today. Although being registered as a democrat I have never voted for a democrat Presidential candidate. Always voted 3rd party whenever possible, viewed it as a protest vote against both corrupt parties.
    This article shows the corruption that the democrats have bee involved in for decades. They will take money in the form of taxes, fees, etc. from those who can least afford it then return it to them in the form handouts as if they have accomplished something good.
    Unfortunately, the people are to uninformed and do not realize the game the democrats play.
    I only hope the American citizens wake up in time before we have lost the whole country.

  2. I cannot fathom the reasoning of the Black people of this country. They continuously complain about being oppressed by the white man and yet they support the very people that laugh at them nd call them fools. The elite Democrat leaders have ALWAYS been the ones holding the blacks at bay. I just know that the Pelosi’s and Clinton’s think about the downtrodden Blacks everyday! NOT!

  3. Proof that the leaders of the Leftists/DumbA$$o CROOKS are only slightly smarter than their voting base. A LOW BAR that even IDIOTS can step over.

  4. Proof that the leaders of the LEFTISTS/DumbA$$o CROOKS are only slightly smarter than their voting base. Sadly, a low bar that IDIOTS can easily step over.

    • Hmmm!, as if the actions of Schumer, Feinstein, Harris, Pelosi, and Waters was not sufficient evidence of how low their average IQ is.

  5. I have an even better idea, start taxing finely aged wine, wine starting at $100 a bottle 7.5% additional tax, $200 a bottle 15%, $500 a bottle 25% and any wine over $500 at least an additional 27% tax.

  6. yes tax the high prices booze wine and other items like lobster , and high priced hotels and resorts,. chartered jets, filet mignon, and other high priced items that the rich want the poor already pay more tax than anyone now.

    • Yes, go ahead and make it more expensive for well off to do things that employ people of lesser means, like waiters, bartenders, maids, desk clerks, etc. Make it harder for them to find work.




    We will always have problems, but unless we recognize, analyze to understanding, we will not possess the requisite information to mitigate those problems.

    I propose that the MINIMUM WAGE concept appears to be classism, at its core, and it appears that those promoting minimum wage and increases thereto are accepting of a larger permanent underclass, and that many of our problems are rooted because of minimum wage.

    1. Entry level wage – paid for a first job or a first job within in a new endeavor
    2. Market wage – paid, based upon agreement between an employer and
    3. Subsistence wage – an ambiguous wage to enable one to exist
    4. Fair wage – an interesting and ambiguous concept, depending upon
    5. Living wage – that wage which enables one to exist (a modified subsistence
    6. Contractual wage – a wage by contractual agreement, e.g., a union wage
    7. Minimum wage – a wage promulgated by federal and state authorities as the
    minimum any employee must be paid – it appears to be a conflation of an
    entry level with a living wage, which appears to be a nonsensical

    MINIMUM WAGE, What’s It All About?
    Increasing the minimum wage would have two principal effects on low-wage (minimum wage) workers, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Most of them, i.e., those who keep their jobs, would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. Those who lose their jobs (per CBO projections) would see their incomes fall (brilliant observation).

    Unfortunately and, perhaps, insidiously, no mention is made of those who will not be able to find entry-level jobs and will be cast within a low and, perhaps, permanent underclass.

    That manufactured situation would cause frustration, depression, and desperation, which, probably is not a healthy situation for a community of any size.

    Any and all legislation, that would tend to create that situation, should be held as irresponsible, mean-spirited, shortsighted, and damaging to our economics, and if that thought were valid, any advocate for such legislation must be dismissed with prejudice.

    The CBO projects that, once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, an increase of the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 to $10.10, as advocated by President Obama would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent.
    Stipulated and underscores, “Any and all legislation that would tend to create that situation should be held as irresponsible, mean-spirited, shortsighted, and damaging to our economics, and if that thought is valid, any advocate for such legislation must be dismissed with prejudice.”

    The CBO estimates that the increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion.

    However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.
    Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices.

    If it were mandated, by legislation, that federal expenditures for personnel must be reduced by 12%, effective January 1, 2017, would it be better to lay off 12% of the federal workforce or to reduce wages and benefits by 12%?

    When one is laid off, there are many negative results, including, but not limited to depression, unable to meet financial obligations, losing property, such as his or her home, and adversely affecting his or her future in so many other ways.

    When one has a moderate reduction of income, but maintains his or her job, he or she will not be thrilled, but will adjust his or her lifestyle, accordingly.

    Which is better for a community, legislating the loss of jobs or a moderate reduction of income with all maintaining their jobs?

    Similarly, which is better, a higher minimum wage with fewer jobs or more jobs?

    Should it be Congress’s responsibility to advocate, propose, and pass legislation that would positively benefit our Nation?

    What is the “theory” that legislation, that is projected to cause 500,000 lowly paid workers to lose their jobs, would be beneficial to our Nation?

    The 500,000 only represents those low paid workers, who would lose their jobs, but does not include the vast numbers of new potential entrants into the workforce who will be unable to find those “entry-level” jobs.

    An entry-level job is critical to one’s future as it is the first rung of his or her ladder to the future. Our “leaders” should pass legislation, which would stimulate the creation of more entry-level jobs, now fewer.

    Whereas Senator Diane Feinstein was a co-sponsor of the $10.10 proposed legislation, on July 22, 2015, I was told by a member of her staff that, in April, she co-sponsored proposed legislation promoting a $12.00 minimum wage, thus the estimate of 500,000 lost jobs rises to X lost jobs and even fewer will find entry-level positions.

    It appears that Einstein’s definition of insanity is alive and well.

    Redundancy can be good: “Any and all legislation that would tend to create a situation that would cause fewer jobs and fewer opportunities should be held as irresponsible, mean-spirited, shortsighted, and damaging to our economics, and if that thought were valid, any advocate for such legislation must be dismissed with prejudice.”

    It appears as though ANY minimum wage is damaging to any community.

    The concept of “minimum wage” is a classic oxymoron and it is an irrational conflation of an “entry-level” wage with a “living-wage”. I offer five characterizations of wages: entry-level, minimum wage, living wage, union wage, and market-wage.

    Manufacturing within U.S.A., Inc. is becoming less competitive as wages rise.
    Many service jobs are, also, being off-shored.
    How many jobs has China, et al taken from us?
    NONE. We have given them our jobs.
    How often do we hear the question posed by Mr. Wonderful (Shark Tank), “Have you priced this item from China”?

    I posed the following “theoretical” question to staffs of Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator Bernie Sanders, and my Congressman, Brad Sherman:
    If “minimum wage” were $25, how would that affect high school graduation rates and the increase or decrease of unauthorized visitors and how would “no minimum wage” affect those two segments?

    After more than 15 calls to DC and SF, Senator Feinstein has not offered a reply.

    After 6 calls to Senator Sanders’ DC office, the best I could get was that a staff member said she was uncomfortable giving her opinion, but will make an effort to obtain a reply from the Senator. A campaign volunteer said he agreed with the obvious answers, but still supported Senator Sanders.

    After too many calls with Congressman Brad Sherman’s staff in DC and in Van Nuys, one staff member offered, off the record, that he or she and his or her father agreed with the obvious.

    It appears that the higher the minimum wage, the result will be lower high school graduation rates and a higher number of unauthorized visitors.

    This is more evidence to confirm that it appears as though ANY minimum wage is damaging to any community.

    Any artificialities (in this case, any minimum wage) inserted into the economy will have unintended consequences.

    Politicians who advocate minimum wage are ignorant (doubtful to perhaps), afraid to speak truth (for fear of losing their positions), or attempting to win votes (pandering), but regardless of the reason, any advocate for such legislation must be dismissed with prejudice.

    We, the People, desperately, need leaders, not politicians who have embedded within their DNA the “need” to lie.


    On July 4, 2015, Congressman Sherman and I were walking out of Woodland Hills Park as I asked him about minimum wage and he responded that there is some good in the concept.
    On August 27, 2015, I was told, by a staff member of Congressman Sherman, that the congressman believes, in some situations, a “minimum wage” is appropriate.

    If that report were true, it appears to be a stellar example of obfuscation and political-speak (redundancy).

    Congressman Sherman (Ca-D, 30th) supports the “minimum wage” concept, as do almost all Democrats.

    If my narrative were valid, why would anyone advocate for any minimum wage?

    A pragmatic and rational solution for those who want all employees to receive some type of amorphous “living” wage would be a massive expansion of the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) for those over the age of 25.

    Last edited: 08/27/2016

  8. Democrats Have Launched a War on the Poor
    I thought they Started out Being the party of the Poor & the Republicans were the party of the entitled, rich. Could be wrong. Won’t be the first or last time

  9. I want to know why the damn Republicans don’t use the dumbocrats against the dumbocrats. I’ve sent this to dozens of Republican LEGISLATORS. It’s time we stopped screwing with the democrats and inform them of the truth. Ask any democrat how they think of President John F Kennedy and they will tell you ‘HE WAS AS CLOSE TO A GOD AS CAN BE, HE COULD DO NOTHING WRONG, HE WAS GREAT’. So lets start here, there were 3 things JFK did or believed in 1 President Kennedy’s belief about taxes was ‘IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE GOVERNMENT REVENUE LOWER TAXES! 2 President Kennedy believed in A SMALLER LESS INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT! 3 President Kennedy was A LIFE MEMBER OF THE NRA(That alone is going to make some democrats slit their wrist’s) Need I say more, these 3 things should be enough to cause any democrat to have a stroke!

  10. Some Liberals must be at least semi-intelligent because they can hold a job, and feed and dress themselves. But the mental disorder that is Liberalism renders them unable to process logic and common sense and inflates their egos to a point where they’re unable to realize just how disabled they really are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


CNN Poll: Public Losing Patience with Robert Mueller’s Investigation

Supreme Court Hands the Left Their Biggest Loss in a Generation