Kayleigh McEnany Attacks Child Tax Credit As 'Means Tested Welfare'

[turbinetree]

Media Bites 7/16/21 6:00am Read time: 2 minutes

The former Trump WH press secretary only approves of tax credits for the very wealthy.
By John Amato

Former Trump White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany went on Fox News to object to giving millions of families a child tax credit, whining that people won't go back to work. The party of "family values" wants Mommy and Daddy to leave them with daycare providers while they trundle off to minimum wage jobs, or so she says.

"This is the largest expansion of means-tested welfare in United States history," McEnany complained.

She claims this is not a tax credit (It is), because in her view, working class Americans already don't pay any federal income tax.

https://crooksandliars.com/2021/07/kayleigh-mcenany-attacks-child-tax-credit

Again why is this Rupert Murdoch organization allowed to operate....bring back the Fairness Doctrine...

[lagomorph777]

1. Hey MAGAninny, you're saying that like it's a BAD thing.

[underpants]

2. Isn't all "Welfare" means tested???

[Wounded Bear]

5. I certainly hope so...

Actually, we could "means test" better by not allowing any gov't largesse to people/entities that earn more than $1/year.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. My First Thought, Too

We don't get welfare in this house.
Why? We make too much money to qualify!
That, by definition, is a means test. We have the means to not require assistance.
As expected, means testing is something she doesn't understand.

[underpants]

17. She's just getting "welfare" out there

The viewers know what she means

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Or Not

Lots of those viewers need to be told what to think.

[Caliman73]

18. They draw from a list of buzz words to formulate their talking points.

You see it with the way the speak about Critical Race Theory. You see it with the way they speak about crime. With social programs you will always hear, "Welfare" because it congers up images of the "Cadillac driving welfare queen" or "Young buck eating lobster" on the our tax payer dime. You will see "Means testing" though the logic of that escapes me as you and others have said, yes all government social programs are "means tested".

I don't qualify for Medicaid because I am above the income and asset threshold. I have the means to purchase, or in my case, have employment that offers health insurance as a benefit. I don't qualify for Universal Lifeline, or LHEAP, which would bring my phone and heating expenses down through government subsidy. Why? Because my wife and I make more than the maximum for the size of our family. Means testing.

Funny thing about most liberals (though I can only speak for myself really) is that I am okay with my tax dollars going to help people who need the help. Even if some of those people are exploiting the system, people need help.

Having studied organizational leadership and work psychology, all of the research shows that people are not primarily motivated to work because of pay. Obviously getting paid is very important because we need money to buy food, pay rent/mortgage, pay bills, etc... However, in the factors that encourage work and work performance, salary is typically one of the lower factors. Another obvious fact is that people need to be paid, ENOUGH. By enough, I mean that people need to be paid enough to cover all of the basic needs of living, plus a little more for occasional leisure.

Conservatives like to complain that social welfare programs are a disincentive for people to work. They completely, and likely deliberately, fail to add the last part of the sentence:

"Social welfare programs are a disincentive for people to work AT JOBS THAT DO NOT PAY A MINIMAL STANDARD OF LIVING WAGE"

In a conservative Capitalist system, coercion is necessary to get people to work at jobs that they (the Capitalists) would consider "low skill" or undesirable. The system, as they see it, not divorced from social mores, compels them to pay expendable workers low wages. It increases the profits to the wealthy, and it keeps the worker subservient for fear that they will starve.

They truly fear an empowered worker. One who can walk away from a demeaning job and take one that treats them better. They absolutely hate collective bargaining because one, or a handful of dissatisfied workers are easy to crush, but a whole plant, a whole industry working together, that is unacceptable.

The government helping people with childcare, healthcare, or a basic minimum income empowers workers to have more freedom to walk away from jobs that demean them. This is why Fox and idiots like McEnany are constantly trying to assault social programs and any labor strategies. They absolutely fear anything that gives the average person the ability to tell the economic elites, "NO".

[underpants]

20. 👆stellar post. Thank you.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

22. I don't think Corporate Welfare is means-tested.

Opening federal lands for grazing, mining, oil exploration, probably not means-tested. Supporting farmers by allowing ethanol in gasoline, not means-tested.

[underpants]

23. You nailed it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I hope right wing media gives her LOTS of air time to express her views on this

The more the better. Preach it girl, you tell those tens of millions of struggling parents that Republicans are coming to take their checks away!

[everyonematters]

4. It will reduce child poverty by 50%

It's not a child's fault if they live in poverty. If people don't want to work crummy jobs that don't pay anything, they need to pay more.

[Wounded Bear]

6. They'll start with the horror stories of parents misusing funds on drugs and luxuries soon...

[hatrack]

7. "Steak And Lobster In The Checkout Line" in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . .

.

[nykym]

8. She's just pissed that

she does not qualify for the tax credit.
She makes too much fooling stupid people.

[demtenjeep]

9. who

and why do we care what she thinks?


she is a proven liar

[gratuitous]

15. I don't care, either

But it's good to be forewarned about the nonsense we're all about to hear from our conservawhacko friends. The first question that occurs to me is to challenge a conservawhacko on "means tested welfare" is supposed to be. Should expose quite early that a person is just mouthing words that have been supplied to him by Fox or some other crap outlet without any understanding.

[Nexus2]

10. Having the child tax credit means she would no longer have an answer to her life long question.

Q:"What are the poor doing today?"

A: "Slaving for peanuts and trying to care for their squalling brats."

And we can't have that.

[Yavin4]

11. Someone please help me with their logic. START, govt should force women to carry babies to term.

But, once the babies are here, women should stay at home and care for their children while their husbands work.

But, minimum wage should not be raised so that husbands earn enough to support a family on one salary which means that wives have to work.

But, govt. should not pay for daycare for the children which means that families have to pay for their daycare out of their wages.

But, govt. should not give these families tax credits that can help pay for childcare.

So, their position is have children and suffer in poverty. Do I have that right?

[JHB]

13. Yes, that's about it.

[underpants]

24. Timing too. This is nothing new just a faster payout

It’s the same total amount of credit - divide by half - divide by the remaining 6 months. That’s just this year. Next year it will be 12 payments to get to the total amount.

[asiliveandbreathe]

12. They say a brain is a terrible thing to waste...even if she only has

1/2 a brain..her mom and dad must be so proud to have a daughter use that 1/2 brain for evil..for all to see..what a legacy -

[Caliman73]

14. Fox News is horrible right wing propaganda. Your last sentence however....

Again why is this Rupert Murdoch organization allowed to operate....bring back the Fairness Doctrine...

The Fairness Doctrine is not a solution here. It only applied to terrestrial broadcasting systems that used publicly owned airwaves. The legacy broadcasters (ABC, NBC, and CBS) in order to use public airwaves free of charge, had to have a license. As part of that license they had to agree to air controversial subjects of public interest and in editorial, they had to present all sides of the argument with equal time and "honesty". I suppose that last part is what sticks with most people.

The problem, as I stated, is that the Doctrine did not apply to networks provided by cable companies as they were "opt in" payment services.

Fox News and right wing media in general, is a HUGE problem. Their existence has allowed millions of people to live in a world devoid of actual fact and honest reporting.

Some pundit or former politician said recently, that during the time where only the legacy 3 networks were broadcasting, we had disagreement and spin, but the facts were typically all the same and the argument was about how to interpret those facts and what policies would be best to deal with the facts. It was a vigorous debate which, typically, liberals were winning because the reality is that facts favor the progress of society and liberalism is about progress, trial and error, and arriving at conclusions based on some mode of scientific methods whereas conservatism is about clinging to hierarchy and arbitrary tradition, using emotions and nostalgia as primary motivators.

Now we live in a world where a smaller, but much more vocal and empowered minority of Americans think that Trump was a good president, that the 2020 election was stolen, that he will be reinstated, and there is a global sex trafficking ring lead by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. How can we even have a debate when a good chunk of the population is basically indulged in a delusion?

The question is what to do. Unfortunately the Fairness Doctrine is not the solution. I think some kind of legislation requiring honesty in reporting is needed, but how to do that while not running afoul of the First Amendment is the trick.

[turbinetree]

25. Maybe there should be a Fairness Doctrine 2.0 or something along that line..

and your remarks are spot on...

[Caliman73]

26. 100% agree. We need something.

Lying to people and deliberately misinforming them should not be something that organized media should be able to do.

I have no problem with Tucker Carlson having a show (I mean, I do, but...) the problem is that he is very adjacent to the "News" portions of Fox and the idea that it is Fox News or One America News Network, or Newsmax infers some kind of legitimacy on what is plain and simply orchestrated propaganda.

Some kind of disclaimer flashing across the kyron saying, "This is ONLY opinion and the accuracy and validity of this information is questionable".

Something. Separate the news from the opinion. Make Fox and the other right wing networks set up new channels called Fox Opinion or One America Spin Network so that people know they aren't getting real news.

Messing with the First Amendment is always tricky, but if we don't do something about this blatant right wing propaganda, it is entirely possible that we can experience oppressive control by a right wing minority in the very near future.

[turbinetree]

27. To take this one step further if they get a 2/3 majority state control, they can call a

Constitutional Convention....then watch out...this is floating in the back ground and they are working overtime to get this...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

21. Kayleigh, you say "Means-Tested Welfare" like it's a bad thing.

It's a good thing.