U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 05-17-2011, 05:59 PM
 
Location: SARASOTA, FLORIDA
11,489 posts, read 7,331,084 times
Reputation: 4748
Here is the ENTIRE chart the Obama fan purposely left out Obamas numbers because they are horrific.


SNAP Annual Summary


Bush highest number of participants on food stamps was

28,223


Obamas highest number of participants so far is

40,302 and growing as 2011 estimates it will hit 43,000 by years end making his increase almost 50% in 2 years.



To make it clear for the Obama followers:

The highest number of people on food stamps

Obama 40,302

Bush 28,223



Obama wins again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 05-17-2011, 06:03 PM
 
9,881 posts, read 7,911,198 times
Reputation: 3437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90 View Post
Here is the ENTIRE chart the Obama fan purposely left out Obamas numbers because they are horrific.


SNAP Annual Summary


Bush highest number of participants on food stamps was

28,223


Obamas highest number of participants so far is

40,302 and growing as 2011 estimates it will hit 43,000 by years end making his increase almost 50% in 2 years.



To make it clear for the Obama followers:

The highest number of people on food stamps

Obama 40,302
Bush 28,223


Obama wins again.
So... you're blaming Obama for an increase in food stamp recipients during the worst recession since the Great Depression?

Okay, then. In other news, there's more water during a flood!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-17-2011, 06:10 PM
 
54,390 posts, read 24,644,657 times
Reputation: 6773
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
This is what happened in terms of tax revune during the Bush 43 Admiinsistarion:

All figures are trillions of dollars
2001 - $1.9911
2002 - $1.8531
2003 - $1.7823
2004 - $1.8801
2005 - $2.1536
2006 - $2.4069
2007 - $2.5680
2008 - $2.5240
Increase from beginning to end of term: 26.56%

The 26.56% tax revenue increase during his term was THE LOWEST OF ANY TWO TERM PRSIDENT ON THE 59 YEARS!

This puts the tax reveune growth of the Bush 43 administation in context of to other two term Presidents

Increases in tax revenue
Harry Truman
1945 - $45.2 billion
1952 - $66.2 billion
Increase - 46.46%

Dwight D. Eisenhower
1953 - $69.6 billion
1960 - $92.5 billion
Increase - 32.90%

John F. Kennedy - Lyndon B. Johnson
1961 - $94.4 billion
1968 - $153 biliion
Increase - 62.76%

Richard M. Nixon - Gerald R. Ford
1969 - $186.9 billion
1976 - $298.1 billion
Increase - 59.50%

Ronald Reagan
1981 - $599.3 billion
1988 - $909.2 billion
Increase - 51.2%

Bill Clinton
1993 - $1.1543 trillion
2000 - $2.0252 trillion
Increase - 75.43%


In fact in comparing two term Presidents since World II the Biush 43 administration sets quite a few marks.

The Economic Legacy of George W. Bush Jr.

LOWEST at increasing tax revenue of any post World War II two term President

LOWEST at average year over year quarterly GDP growth of any post World War II two term President

LOWEST at job creation of any post World War II two term President

HIGHEST in the growth percentage of Americans below the poverty level of any two term President since figures stated being kept in 1959.

HIGHEST in the growth of Americans on Food Stamps of any two term President since the records started being kept in 1969.
Where on gods earth do Democrats come up with the opinion that the only thing that matters in the nation is federal revenue? Under your argument, we should tax everyone at 100%, and the economy would be wonderful, wouldnt it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-17-2011, 06:13 PM
 
13,929 posts, read 3,234,614 times
Reputation: 3514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90 View Post
Here is the ENTIRE chart the Obama fan purposely left out Obamas numbers because they are horrific.


SNAP Annual Summary


Bush highest number of participants on food stamps was

28,223


Obamas highest number of participants so far is

40,302 and growing as 2011 estimates it will hit 43,000 by years end making his increase almost 50% in 2 years.



To make it clear for the Obama followers:

The highest number of people on food stamps

Obama 40,302

Bush 28,223



Obama wins again.
So? We know that bush left Obama the worst economy since the Great Depression and it wasn't going to get fixed by Jan. 21, 2009.

But it gets worse. While complaining that Obama hasn't done anything the same people supported the Republican efforts to stop everything Obama wanted to do to fix the economy.

Originally, the stimulus was supposed to be ~$1.5 trillion with no tax cuts. Based upon that, the Administration predicted 8% unemployment.

However, the Republicans pledged to filibusterer and Obama had to accept a $787 billion stimulus that was 40% tax-cuts. Then, the Republicans complained again that Obama didn't meet the 8% unemployment target.

Sen Mitch McConnell is on record as saying he wants to obstruct Obama and then complains. These guys are like the person who kicks someone in the knee and then complains about how badly he walks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-17-2011, 06:14 PM
 
9,881 posts, read 7,911,198 times
Reputation: 3437
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Where on gods earth do Democrats come up with the opinion that the only thing that matters in the nation is federal revenue? Under your argument, we should tax everyone at 100%, and the economy would be wonderful, wouldnt it?
Actually, nationwide, many Republican governors are slashing programs that generate economic activity but are not increasing the tax cauffers enough. So, don't blame this on Democrats alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-17-2011, 06:15 PM
 
9,881 posts, read 7,911,198 times
Reputation: 3437
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
So? We know that bush left Obama the worst economy since the Great Depression and it wasn't going to get fixed by Jan. 21, 2009.

But it gets worse. While complaining that Obama hasn't done anything the same people supported the Republican efforts to stop everything Obama wanted to do to fix the economy.

Originally, the stimulus was supposed to be ~$1.5 trillion with no tax cuts. Based upon that, the Administration predicted 8% unemployment.

However, the Republicans pledged to filibusterer and Obama had to accept a $787 billion stimulus that was 40% tax-cuts. Then, the Republicans complained again that Obama didn't meet the 8% unemployment target.

Sen Mitch McConnell is on record as saying he wants to obstruct Obama and then complains. These guys are like the person who kicks someone in the knee and then complains about how badly he walks.
I can't rep you again, but that's a great point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-17-2011, 06:17 PM
 
54,390 posts, read 24,644,657 times
Reputation: 6773
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey View Post
Why are you so defensive?. I dont need to respond to Congressional hearings regarding Bush. Im not concerned about defending him.

Statutory laws go back quite a long way. Start reading. History goes back more than ten years.
Why am I so concerned about posting facts? Clearly you arent, by your own admission, you have no need to respond..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
I finally understand the root of your issue with all this. It's based on the simple fact that you don't really understand the purpose of stimulus.

Stimulus is designed to create jobs during a period when there are few private sector jobs being created.
And recent reports show that the stimulus actually helped LOSE 500,000 jobs.. Isnt that wonderful news?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Don't you get tired of posting factually incorrect material? There were two Bush tax-cuts, one in 2001 and the other in 2003.
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
The 2001 tax cuts werent designed to increase revenues, they were designed to grow the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
I hate to tell you this but YouTube videos aren't credible sources. Like movies, they can be edited to say and show anything the producer wants. They can lack context and edit out the parts not consistent with the desired narrative.

If you don't believe me, you can find the piano playing cat and the small plane that loses a wing at 1,000 ft. but manages to land safely, as evidence of credible looking videos that are not.
Yeah, you hate youtube videos that QUOTE Democrats ridiculing the need to regulate the mortgage industry.. I get it, but that doesnt mean they arent valid.. I watched the hearings, they went on, and on, and on, with Democrats saying there was no changes needed. If you want to find one video clip saying Democrats were concerned, I challenge you to find it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
So... you're blaming Obama for an increase in food stamp recipients during the worst recession since the Great Depression?

Okay, then. In other news, there's more water during a flood!
Why would we blame Obama for an increase in food stamps, even though his stimulus bill involved $300B in food stamp spending? You seriously didnt ask that question, did you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-17-2011, 06:21 PM
 
13,929 posts, read 3,234,614 times
Reputation: 3514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
I can't rep you again, but that's a great point.
Oh Rep me till it hurts, baby. (Thank you)

I also see a lack of understanding of macro economics -- people don't understand demand side recession. We have high unemployment because demand (sales) are down and business does not need labor nor a need to buy machines that would increase capacity. They already have enough capacity.

That's where the government, through fiscal policy, can supplement the demand that isn't in the private sector. There is plenty that can be done in many areas.

Yet, the conservatives called for cutting budgets, which further reduces demand and makes the recession worse.

To answer pghquest, the 2001 and 2004 tax-cuts neither increased revenue nor grew the economy. I've already established that in post #110.

Yes, economist Timothy Conley said the stimulus cost 500,000 jobs but that's counter to just about every other conclusion. See: Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

Last edited by MTAtech; 05-17-2011 at 06:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-17-2011, 06:25 PM
 
5,981 posts, read 2,789,919 times
Reputation: 3139
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Gingrich promises to slash taxes, calls Obama ‘food stamp president’ - The Washington Post



Has a nice ring - paycheck, not food stamps.

Of course, Newt is right. Obama can claim another nefarious record in his list of accomplishments - record number of people on food stamps under his watch.

Record number of Americans helped by government safety net - Apr. 13, 2011



Think we'll be seeing this great accomplishment on the obama campaign trail?
Here is another feather you can put in his cap..“Healthcare Exemptions for a favored few” | Morgan County Citizen Online
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-17-2011, 06:25 PM
 
54,390 posts, read 24,644,657 times
Reputation: 6773
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Originally, the stimulus was supposed to be ~$1.5 trillion with no tax cuts. Based upon that, the Administration predicted 8% unemployment.

However, the Republicans pledged to filibusterer and Obama had to accept a $787 billion stimulus that was 40% tax-cuts.
Thats a lie.. The projections of 8% unemployment was with the $787B stimulus bill.. Here is the report
http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

We have assumed a package just slightly over the $775 billion currently under discussion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:29 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top