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.
My answer is here:Ironic. The people who are being dishonest calling others dishonest.
No, YOU are the one being either dishonest, or a complete fool.
People LOST insurance as the economy tanked, so CLEARLY as the economy improved, more people would become insured. The same pattern has been taking place since the beginning of time, and now you want us to believe its due to ACA.
I don't attribute any of it to sequestration. Pres. Obama has submitted reasonable budget requests to Congress that keep federal expenditures within modest limits. Moreover, because of Pres. Obama's initiative to have the upper-end Bush tax-cuts expire, there is greater revenue.
President Barack Obama on Monday unveiled a $4 trillion fiscal year 2016 budget that will add more than $6 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years,
It's not an Obama problem, but a 40+ year problem. It's really that simple. And Obama promotes policies to narrow those gaps, like increasing the minimum wage, free community college, reducing the gender gap, etc.
Warren Buffets net worth is up something like 20 billion, and you think the problem is crap like the minimum wage..
You could not be more wrong. You obviously do not have any understanding of not only how our economy works which, but the way, is what has built America into the greatest nation this earth has ever seen, but also how completely devastating and destructive your so-called "anti-poverty programs" are to any human being, let alone the future of America. That is only one of the areas BO has screwed up worse than it was before. It has never been a good thing to do. Any welfare-type programs have to be "LOCALLY" based...only locals know who truly needs a hand up, certainly never the Feds with their one-size-fits-all totally erroneous messes.
When interest rates were paying 4 to 9 per cent, depending upon where investment was placed, retired people's life savings earned enough to supplement their living without having to dip into principle. That's the secret to maintaining a decent life in retirement. Today's low interest is primarily based on the fact that if that rate were raised to where it should be our National Debt would not be able to pay it's interest without damn*d near if not totally bankrupting America. THAT'S the simple fact of today's ridiculous and destructive-to-our-economic-recovery mess! We are held hostage to Obama's and his Dem lap dogs devastating spending which has brought our economy to a near screeching halt.
As for the high-paying jobs, that's not your place, mine or that of anyone else about which to complain. That is a stockholders/company-business owners responsibility. To sit and B*tch about how much someone else earns is none of your business. If you want to earn more, educate yourself or build up experience. No one owes you anything but your own ambition and hard work. In addition, if you knew anything about business you would also know that a large amount of those high-pay earnings are paid in stock, not pay roll. That means those people have a large responsibility to make sure that company stays sound. Do you know the difference between non-exempt and exempt employees?
It is your mind-set that is also destructive to this country. Socialism and Communism does NOT WORK! Never has and never will.
Only thing obvious here is a conservative way of thinking that knows know other way.
Local efforts on behalf of the problems we face as a country are all well and good to a point. Of course there are benefits and efficiencies that local jurisdictions are in the best place to apply. Also of course, every opportunity to apply those local resources in the most productive and helpful manner possible should be be tapped, from the local charities, faith organizations and local/state resources.
However, not to understand the role of federal government involvement when it comes to the very important and necessary application of additional resources is truly a sign of not understanding much about this topic.
I have tried to explain this before. I grow weary of having to repeat the same things over and over, especially as it seems no one really absorbs what there is to know about anything contrary to their left or right leaning perspective. Or maybe it is the many people commenting, the many threads, where the same tired agenda talking points are repeated ad nauseam without any perceptible progress made anywhere...
Nevertheless, on this subject of local vs federal assistance, at a most basic and/or fundamental level, one need only understand which states are net federal tax contributors and which are net federal tax recipients. Then work to understand WHY some states contribute more into federal tax coffers than received, and you just might begin to understand the when, where and how local efforts do not serve well enough to make federal support unnecessary or appropriate.
The examples of where this reality is made clear are numerous and profound, from FEMA to SNAP, the Department of Education to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development...
Seems to me that conservatives are far too inclined to promote what we would all like to dream can be reality, while progressives are just not as good at suspending what realities we actually face that stand in the way of those dreams.
I know, I know, government is what always stands in the way. Don't waist your breath. Vote for Rand Paul and dream away while the rest of us continue to grapple with reality.
As for all the rest about the good old days and the secret to retirement living, knowing a bit about business myself (having owned a successful employment agency once upon a time), I surely disagree.
I only wish things could be as simple and nice as lorrysda would like us to believe, or that local and state governments could address all our problems on their own. How nice and simple it would be if such problems were so nice and simple to fix.
Warren Buffets net worth is up something like 20 billion, and you think the problem is crap like the minimum wage..
Here too, can we think a moment? These issues/problems are not resolved by way of any one simple either/or options. The solutions, to whatever extent there are solutions to be had, require multi-level strategies. For example there is a reformed tax code to consider. One that results in more appropriate progressive taxes for the highest income Americans (like Obama, Trump and most front runners advocate today), better job opportunities and wages at the lower end, better educational opportunities, access to health care for all, etc...
These narrow-minded dismissals of any one particular area of consideration, because they are not the "silver bullet" we all wish existed, are not the mark of someone who understands politics or the bigger picture all too well.
The examples of where this reality is made clear are numerous and profound, from FEMA to SNAP, the Department of Education to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development...
There are HUGE amounts of waste in those departments and their programs. For example, SNAP. Along with wasting taxpayer money, SNAP is literally enabling excessive amounts of obesity, which then of course costs the taxpayers even more in increased SS disability benefits and health care costs for the poor who have obesity-related illnesses, incapacities, etc.
Poor adults with food stamps: 44% obese
Poor adults without food stamps: 33% obese Non-poor who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 32% obese
(Exhibit 5 in the first linked document.)
See the discrepancy there?
Of course, exacerbated by this fact... 59% of families on food stamps simultaneously get benefitsfrom 2 or more major free food programs for the exact same daily meals.
Of course, exacerbated by this fact... 59% of families on food stamps simultaneously get benefits from 2 or more major free food programs for the exact same daily meals.
There are only three other food programs that I am aware of:
WIC -that is a voucher program only for pregnant women, infants and children under 5. It is restricted to certain foods and participation requires a physician's authorization every 6 months
Food Banks- these are loosely organized and vary greatly from one community to another. In working with the poor my experience was that the food varied greatly from one week to another and sometimes the only food available would be canned string beans or instant potatoes.
Meals on Wheels A program run by volunteers that provides home delivered meals to the frail elderly, it most areas they request that the recipient pays for their benefits with SNAP if they receive those benefits.
If you know of other programs please share the information with us, because I think your claim originally came from Heritage or Cato and it is grossly misleading and inaccurate.
No, YOU are the one being either dishonest, or a complete fool.
People LOST insurance as the economy tanked, so CLEARLY as the economy improved, more people would become insured. The same pattern has been taking place since the beginning of time, and now you want us to believe its due to ACA.
What you are portraying is self-contradictory. You are claiming that people lost insurance when the economy tanked (which was 2008) and you credit the recovery for so many more people gaining insurance, not the ACA.
But wait, reading your other posts I learn that you deny that the economy and jobs are recovering and that Obama is a total failure with respect to jobs. So, which is it? Are so many more jobs being gained, bringing the uninsured rate down, because the economy is adding so many more jobs or is the "job-killing" ACA not so job-killing after all and responsible for the uninsured rate falling? You can't have it both ways. Either you need to admit that job gains under Obama are far better than you have stated before or admit that the ACA isn't job-killing at all. If it was so job-killing we wouldn't be having the best job growth since Clinton.
If we look at the below graph, even in Q1 2008 there was a 14.6% uninsured rate. We are now 3.2% below that.
There are only three other food programs that I am aware of:
Actually, the biggest contributor to the problem is the national school meals programs. Kids get free breakfast, lunch, and sometimes even dinner too if they're in after school care/programs, but their parents still get SNAP benefits to provide their kids those exact same meals. The adults then overeat, leading to the 44% obesity rate.
FWIW, those school meal programs are available 6 days a week including Summers and school breaks.
For example, look at the map to see the locations of Chicago Public Schools' free school meal Summer sites:
If you know of other programs please share the information with us, because I think your claim originally came from Heritage or Cato and it is grossly misleading and inaccurate.
No, what I stated came directly from the USDA and the USDA's OIG. I posted links to both documents. Go back and read the post.
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.
Not knowing right from wrong...
