Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Obama owns his portion of the debt, why can't you admit that he and the domocrats controlled the congress and presidency in the first two years of his first term and then the senate and presidency the last two years. The blame bush game is tired. You have to be a democrat to run in the democrat primaries.
You can read this about libertarian democrats. Daily Kos :: The Libertarian Dem
First, Dems didn't completely control the Senate. Al Franken was seated nearly eight months after winning his Senate seat. Even if the Senate was controlled by Democrats (e.g. 50 seats), the statement ignores two other facts. a) there were Democrats in the Senate that vote as if they were Republicans. b) Republicans liberally used the filibuster to block legislation.
The Dems never had 60 Senate seats post-2008. They had between 56 and 58 seats. For that very brief period they had 58 seats with consistent support from Bernie Sanders and inconsistent support from Joe Lieberman. The Democrats hardly had 60 Dem seats, and hardly 60 reliable Dem votes. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.
Second, Obama didn't create unemployment insurance, SNAP, nor Medicaid. These programs are part of the government we had long before Obama. They are need-based programs. Due to the economic decline, more Americans were applying for these programs. End of the story for "Obama spent more."
Third, what would you do during the worst economic decline since the Great Depression, cut these programs just when Americans need them the most?
Fourth, this economic decline cut revenues by $500 billion per year.
Fifth, during an economic decline, the worst thing you can do is cut spending -- unless you want to accelerate the economic decline. Focusing on short-term deficits is a distraction from the real problem, unemployment.
It's the economy, not Obama. If you want to fix deficits, get more people back to work, which Obama's programs are doing, which raises government revenues and decreases the need for safety net programs.
Look the welfare reform act of the 1990's put what is commonly known as fertility caps, which means that the moms don't get additional money for having additional children.
WIC provides greater benefits for each additional child, as does Section 8 housing assistance. The EITC REFUNDABLE tax CREDIT provides more money for each additional child, a direct payment FROM the government even to those who pay no federal income tax.
Quote:
The welfare rolls have shrunk a tremendous amount. This is objective reality.
BS. There's a record high number of people on food stamps, 49% of them are children.
Quote:
Also, I don't know ANY American family that isn't getting some kind of public assistance.
If you claim a tax deduction for your children, then you are getting public assistance.
If you claim a tax deduction for paying your mortgage and paying your property taxes, then you are getting public assistance. If your employer is giving you health insurance, then you are getting public assistance.
NONE of those are refundable tax credits. They are only tax deductions or earned benefits. No money comes FROM the government to pay for those. Keeping more of what one EARNS is NOT welfare. Thinking that is so is absurdly idiotic.
AND it is a FACT published by the U.S. Government itself that those on welfare have a birth rate 3 times higher than everyone else.
U.S. Representative G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina[10]
U.S. Representative Mike Thompson of California[11]
U.S. Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky[12]
Former U.S. Representative Paul Hodes of New Hampshire[13]
Former U.S. Representative Tim Penny of Minnesota[14]
U.S. senators
Former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin[15]
Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska[16]
Former U.S. Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin[17]
Sharing *some* libertarian views doesnt mean they were libertarians. Just like "blue dogs" sharing some conservative views. None of these ran as libertarians, but there are many libertarians and republicans who run as Republicans or Libertarians interchangeably.
First, Dems didn't completely control the Senate. Al Franken was seated nearly eight months after winning his Senate seat. Even if the Senate was controlled by Democrats (e.g. 50 seats), the statement ignores two other facts. a) there were Democrats in the Senate that vote as if they were Republicans. b) Republicans liberally used the filibuster to block legislation.
The Dems never had 60 Senate seats post-2008. They had between 56 and 58 seats. For that very brief period they had 58 seats with consistent support from Bernie Sanders and inconsistent support from Joe Lieberman. The Democrats hardly had 60 Dem seats, and hardly 60 reliable Dem votes. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.
Second, Obama didn't create unemployment insurance, SNAP, nor Medicaid. These programs are part of the government we had long before Obama. They are need-based programs. Due to the economic decline, more Americans were applying for these programs. End of the story for "Obama spent more."
Third, what would you do during the worst economic decline since the Great Depression, cut these programs just when Americans need them the most?
Fourth, this economic decline cut revenues by $500 billion per year.
Fifth, during an economic decline, the worst thing you can do is cut spending -- unless you want to accelerate the economic decline. Focusing on short-term deficits is a distraction from the real problem, unemployment.
It's the economy, not Obama. If you want to fix deficits, get more people back to work, which Obama's programs are doing, which raises government revenues and decreases the need for safety net programs.
Exactly.
I would blame Obama if he continued massive spending if handed a budget surplus...
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
.
BS. There's a record high number of people on food stamps, 49% of them are children.
NONE of those are refundable tax credits. They are only tax deductions or earned benefits. No money comes FROM the government to pay for those. Keeping more of what one EARNS is NOT welfare. Thinking that is so is absurdly idiotic.
AND it is a FACT published by the U.S. Government itself that those on welfare have a birth rate 3 times higher than everyone else.
There is always a record high for the number of people on welfare, even if the percentage of people stayed the same every year, the number of people on it would grow because of populations gains so your argument is subjective.
Keeping what one earns is not welfare, but for a specific group of people who claim this nation needs to balance its budget, it is illogical to call for those kind of tax credits.
The Birthrate of those on welfare is not high because they are on welfare, they are on welfare because their birthrate is high. lower income means less contraception.
WIC provides greater benefits for each additional child, as does Section 8 housing assistance. The EITC REFUNDABLE tax CREDIT provides more money for each additional child, a direct payment FROM the government even to those who pay no federal income tax.
BS. There's a record high number of people on food stamps, 49% of them are children.
NONE of those are refundable tax credits. They are only tax deductions or earned benefits. No money comes FROM the government to pay for those. Keeping more of what one EARNS is NOT welfare. Thinking that is so is absurdly idiotic.
AND it is a FACT published by the U.S. Government itself that those on welfare have a birth rate 3 times higher than everyone else.
In 2010, there were 308million Americans 114million American households and the US Federal budget was 3.55trillion
There are 2million families(1.75% of all families) in 2010 receiving TANF otherwise known as welfare. Total federal spending on TANF was 7billion(.197% of the federal budget). That works out to $3,500 federal dollars per YEAR per family.
WIC is literally food. It lasts until a child is 5 yrs old max, but usually ends after a year.
There were 8.9 million(2.9% of the population) on wic in 2010, those infants, toddlers, and pregnant mothers collectively received 6.6billion dollars( .186% of the federal budget)
That comes out to spending $741 per baby, infant, and pregnant mom for a YEAR.
Section 8 program has long waiting lists, a lot of places don't take the vouchers, and many of families are merely getting their rent subsidized, they pay something towards their rent.
There are 3.3million families(2.9% of families) on Section vouchers. The program in total costs 15billion dollars( .42% of the federal budget).
Food Stamps there are like 42.2million( 13.7% of the population using food stamps). The program spent 65billion(1.8% of the federal budget) in 2010
So you rile against four relatively, when compared to the size of the federal budget and the total US population, tiny programs being unsustainable. You are a liar.
The EITC is refundable, but they have to be working, which means they aren't on TANF, which should make you happy.
The government's housing policy for homeowners is the equivalent of mailing homeowners a check for owning a home.
The governments health insurance policy towards employers who give their employees health insurance is the equivalent of mailing employers a check for providing health insurance for their employees.
I don't know why you think you are entitled to that government spending anymore than someone is entitled to food stamps or how your entitlement makes you better than someone else, but you are wrong.
There is always a record high for the number of people on welfare, even if the percentage of people stayed the same every year, the number of people on it would grow because of populations gains so your argument is subjective.
Keeping what one earns is not welfare, but for a specific group of people who claim this nation needs to balance its budget, it is illogical to call for those kind of tax credits.
The Birthrate of those on welfare is not high because they are on welfare, they are on welfare because their birthrate is high. lower income means less contraception.
Welfare is when the government gives you money directly. As a matter of objective reality the welfare rolls have shrunk.
I don't know why people don't know this, but the number of families getting TANF/welfare has declined since the 1990's. Again, this is objective reality.
There is always a record high for the number of people on welfare, even if the percentage of people stayed the same every year, the number of people on it would grow because of populations gains so your argument is subjective.
No, my argument is based on fact. The percentage IS increasing:
Sources: USDA Food and Nutrition Service, St. Louis Fed
Quote:
Keeping what one earns is not welfare
Exactly.
Quote:
but for a specific group of people who claim this nation needs to balance its budget, it is illogical to call for those kind of tax credits.
Solution to the budget problem: cut spending.
Quote:
The Birthrate of those on welfare is not high because they are on welfare, they are on welfare because their birthrate is high. lower income means less contraception.
Doesn't matter which way you look at it, the result is the same. The 3 times higher birth rate of those receiving public assistance is caused by their own irresponsibility.
Quote:
lower income means less contraception
No, lower income means free or very low-cost contraception which they're not using. Irresponsibility.
The government's housing policy for homeowners is the equivalent of mailing homeowners a check for owning a home.
No, it isn't. It's the equivalent of letting people keep more of what they earn. The government pays them nothing, they take less from them.
Quote:
The governments health insurance policy towards employers who give their employees health insurance is the equivalent of mailing employers a check for providing health insurance for their employees.
Again, no, it isn't. It's the equivalent of letting people keep more of what (salary, benefits) they earn. The government pays corporations nothing for providing benefits, they take less from them.
Quote:
I don't know why you think you are entitled to that government spending anymore than someone is entitled to food stamps or how your entitlement makes you better than someone else, but you are wrong.
It's not spending. It's less taking.
Food stamps, welfare, and any form of public assistance are actual spending.
No, it isn't. It's the equivalent of letting people keep more of what they earn. The government pays them nothing, they take less from them.
Again, no, it isn't. It's the equivalent of letting people keep more of what (salary, benefits) they earn. The government pays corporations nothing for providing benefits, they take less from them.
It's not spending. It's less taking.
Food stamps, welfare, and any form of public assistance are actual spending.
You have this backwards, and aren't thinking.
Here is the basis of reality, Imagine there is a landlord and there is a renter. The landlord says to the renter if the renter performs certain maintenance and upkeep tasks on the property, the landlord will take $100 a month off of the rent.
If the renter agrees, the landlord has one of two options, the landlord can just lower the monthly rent a $100 upfront or the land lord can collect the full rent the whole year and write a check for $1200.
Whether the landlord writes a check or not, that landlord is spending money.
Here are the key points, the renter agrees that the landlord is owed whatever the agreed upon monthly rent.
That monthly rent is the landlord's money, not the renters.
Now, as taxpayers we agree that we owe the federal government taxes.
There are tax rates that are the law of the land. When you agree that you OWE someone or some entity, you are saying a portion of whatever you earn belongs to them. This is basic reality. Plain english.
Now, just as in the example, when the federal government says to taxpayers if you buy a home your taxable income is lowered as a result, the federal government is spending money because it is forfeiting money that it is legally owed.
The other reason it's spending is that not everyone gets that benefit. So if you earn $50,000 a year and don't own a home, all other things being equal, you owe more in taxes then the same you that owns a home.
The government is spending money on one person and charging another person more. This is objective reality.
I don't know why you think you are entitled to that government spending over your fellow taxpayers, but you aren't.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
