Educating Democrats: Economics

[Sallow]

George W. Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Harding—and perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002.

LMAO! George Bush was more conservative than Ronald Reagan? Really?

Yup.

He loved war.

He cut taxes by more then Reagan.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002.

Thats probably true but so what?? A president is far from a king so what happens while he is in office hardly matters and often has little to do with his philosophy.

The system is created so you have to compromise with the party opposite to get anything done, and also set up so you cant get elected and reelected unless you win the independent flip floppers.

This is way too complicated for a liberal to grasp.

 

[g5000]

Continuing my series on educating liberals, today we cover their absolute weakest point - economics. Of course, part of this weakness stems from their greed. When you're crazed out of your mind with getting your hands on other people's money, you're not likely to stop and think about what that is doing to the economy. But who knows, maybe today some young liberal will actually read the facts listed below and become the first liberal in US history to actually THINK.

• In 1968, there were 51 people employed full-time for every 1 person on disability.
  
  
• In 1997, there were 24 people employed full-time for every 1 person on disability (less than HALF than 1968)
  
  
• Today (2013), there are 13 people employed full-time for every 1 person on disability.

It is simply unsustainable. It cannot be denied. It cannot be debated. It cannot be ignored. It is unsustainable - and liberal policy of expecting the few to provide for the many (just like communist countries did) does not work. It's been tried by communists nations world wide and it has a 100% failure rate. It's more than just burdening the few. It's taking away the incentive for production, innovation, etc. When it doesn't matter how hard I work, because I'll get the same as everyone else, I stop working hard and put in the same effort as everyone else (it's just a reality that the utopian-based communist ideology refuses to take into account).

8,830,026: Americans on Disability Hits New Record for 192nd Straight Month | CNS News

Well, you've done it again. Made a fool of yourself trying to educate others.

You know, this disability meme has been repeated by others on this forum and I have shown them the errors of their ways many times. Too bad you weren't paying attention.

Here is what I have shown them, and now you:


A 2006 report: The Growth in the Social Security Disability Rolls: A Fiscal Crisis Unfolding

In 1985, 2.2 percent of individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 were receiving DI benefits, but by 2005 this fraction had risen to 4.1 percent. If recent entry and exit rates continue in the years ahead, then more than 6 percent of the nonelderly adult population will soon be receiving DI benefits.

The rapid expansion of the beneficiary population has three main causes.
First, a set of congressional reforms in 1984 to Disability Insurance screening led to rapid growth in the share of recipients suffering from back pain and mental illness. Because these disorders have comparatively low mortality, the average duration of disability spells—and hence the size of the recipient population—has increased. Second, a rise in the after-tax DI income replacement rate—that is, the ratio of disability income to former labor earnings—strengthened the incentives for workers to seek benefits. Third, a rapid increase in female labor force participation expanded the pool of insured workers. The aging of the baby boom generation has contributed little to the rise of receipt of disability benefits, while improvements in population health have likely reduced the incidence of disabling medical disorders.

The Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican White House did nothing to stop it.


Nothing to do with Obama. Ain't that a bitch?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican White House did nothing to stop it.

too stupid!! they did everything to stop it consistent with getting elected in a nation where independents decide elections!!

Nothing to do with Obama. Ain't that a bitch?

actually everything to do with BO since more and more welfare to more and more potential voters is the exact essence of Obama's Marxist philosophy! Don't forget he had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Education? Of Democrats? On the growth of DI recipients?

Here's a history lesson:

The authors first take up the question of why the disability rolls have grown.

The most important factor is the liberalization of the DI screening process that occurred due to a 1984 law.

This law directed the Social Security Administration to place more weight on applicants' reported pain and discomfort, relax its screening of mental illness, consider applicants with multiple non-severe ailments, and give more credence to medical evidence provided by the applicant's doctor.

...hmmmmm...1984...which Democratic President signed that law? The law most responsible for the explosive growth in DI recipients?

Class? Anyone? Now let's not always see the same hands...

lol

The Growth in the Social Security Disability Insurance Rolls

Who wrote the law to begin with?
HR 3755 - 1984
By James Jake Pickle D TX
The Dems put in these types of programs (Disability Insurance) and Repubs are always stuck with trying to fix them.

Oh I'm sorry. Ronald Reagan didn't SIGN IT INTO LAW?? Is that what you're implying?

And while we're at it,

why did you fail to mention that this law passed UNANIMOUSLY in both houses?

 

[NYcarbineer]

All REPs or all Conservatives backed him no matter what he did??

You are SERIOUSLY rewriting history, TDM.... there was PLENTY of conservative backlash against Bush II, ESPECIALLY on the economic side of things

You fucking idiot bitch

Bush had a 73% job approval rating, among conservatives, in December 2008.

And that shows they agreed with EVERYTHING he did?? That shows that they agreed with him fiscally??

Epic fail....

Do you have a better indicator? You tossed the word 'plenty' out there. I would assume that means more than you and couple other nuts on the internet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Education? Of Democrats? On the growth of DI recipients?

Here's a history lesson:

The authors first take up the question of why the disability rolls have grown.

The most important factor is the liberalization of the DI screening process that occurred due to a 1984 law.

This law directed the Social Security Administration to place more weight on applicants' reported pain and discomfort, relax its screening of mental illness, consider applicants with multiple non-severe ailments, and give more credence to medical evidence provided by the applicant's doctor.

...hmmmmm...1984...which Democratic President signed that law? The law most responsible for the explosive growth in DI recipients?

Class? Anyone? Now let's not always see the same hands...

lol

The Growth in the Social Security Disability Insurance Rolls

I guess the OP is loath to explain why he would try to pin this problem on Democrats when it appears to have been caused by Ronald Reagan.

 

[Dubya]

Continuing my series on educating liberals, today we cover their absolute weakest point - economics. Of course, part of this weakness stems from their greed. When you're crazed out of your mind with getting your hands on other people's money, you're not likely to stop and think about what that is doing to the economy. But who knows, maybe today some young liberal will actually read the facts listed below and become the first liberal in US history to actually THINK.

• In 1968, there were 51 people employed full-time for every 1 person on disability.
  
  
• In 1997, there were 24 people employed full-time for every 1 person on disability (less than HALF than 1968)
  
  
• Today (2013), there are 13 people employed full-time for every 1 person on disability.

It is simply unsustainable. It cannot be denied. It cannot be debated. It cannot be ignored. It is unsustainable - and liberal policy of expecting the few to provide for the many (just like communist countries did) does not work. It's been tried by communists nations world wide and it has a 100% failure rate. It's more than just burdening the few. It's taking away the incentive for production, innovation, etc. When it doesn't matter how hard I work, because I'll get the same as everyone else, I stop working hard and put in the same effort as everyone else (it's just a reality that the utopian-based communist ideology refuses to take into account).

8,830,026: Americans on Disability Hits New Record for 192nd Straight Month | CNS News

Try finding where these disability people live!

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf

Hint: They are in the Red States sucking us dry.

 

[Bfgrn]

actually unions are a basic part of communism. Commies love unions and hate freedom.

Totally false. Worker's rights and social programs is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies. When Bismarck’s Prussia instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883, the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

When the two Germanies united after 1990, the social provision of the capitalist West was more than twice that of the socialist East, and the cost of unification to West Germany proved vast.

You are completely and totally lying through your ass (the fundamental characteristic of the radical idiot liberal). To call "social programs" a "characteristic" of capitalist economies is so absurd, it defies belief that someone would actually try to make that case.

Social anything is the cornerstone of communism. It's what communism is built on you you dumb fuck. That everyone will put into that same pot and that the pot will then be distributed "evenly" (which we know never happens as the ruling elite lives like kings while the rest live in poverty).

The entire concept of a union is nothing more than privatized communism you fuck'n moron.

Let's see; I have history on my side, and you have emotion and dogma...tough call.

 

[Dubya]

actually unions are a basic part of communism. Commies love unions and hate freedom.

Totally false. Worker's rights and social programs is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies. When Bismarck’s Prussia instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883, the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

When the two Germanies united after 1990, the social provision of the capitalist West was more than twice that of the socialist East, and the cost of unification to West Germany proved vast.

You are completely and totally lying through your ass (the fundamental characteristic of the radical idiot liberal). To call "social programs" a "characteristic" of capitalist economies is so absurd, it defies belief that someone would actually try to make that case.

Social anything is the cornerstone of communism. It's what communism is built on you you dumb fuck. That everyone will put into that same pot and that the pot will then be distributed "evenly" (which we know never happens as the ruling elite lives like kings while the rest live in poverty).

The entire concept of a union is nothing more than privatized communism you fuck'n moron.

You're a fucking nutcase.

Stalin killed around 20 million people and that's called antisocial behavior.

We have social programs, because we have a corporatist economic system that keep wages below living wage. Social programs are subsidies for those low wages. If a business can't pay it's people enough to live, it's going to run out of people, isn' it? Our economy is designed to keep inflation low and protect the value of wealth accumulated throughout centuries. The corporatists set this economic system up and then get fools like you to bitch about the necessities of it. Who do you think is behind all the propaganda that motivates you idiots? You are just fools on the puppet string, parroting what they tell you to say. The concept that society needs people to do that job just goes over your head. The concept that the business can pay the person enough to live and your social programs aren't needed to subsidize those wages goes over your head. What the hell is wrong with having wages high enough where someone can live off of those wages and they don't get anything from the government? What the hell is wrong with living in a society that says if you want the services of someone and the job is needed for society, then you pay for it when using that service? There are plenty of low skill jobs that society needs someone to do and if society needs someone to do the job, then society should pay the people enough to live and do the job. We need someone to pick up our garbage, check us out at the supermarket and other retail stores, pick our crops and work in fast food and restaurants. When we need them to do that work, then we should pay them enough to live without any social programs to assist them doing the work we need them to do. If you want to buy a hamburger, pay for your own hamburger and leave the rest of society out of it! What the hell is wrong with redesigning the system so the people using the services of unskilled workers are directly paying for those services and the workers aren't subsidized with social programs?

So you work for the BEAST and claim unions are communism totally oblivious that corporatism is next to communism. You are always so willing to do the will of your BEAST masters, do whatever you can to screw the workers of your country and give more to the rich. Your antisocial behavior isn't any different than Stalin's and that's how you extremists operate. You and the BEAST are at war with the workers of America.

The biggest problem with communism was having business and government in bed with each other and once communism was defeated from dominating the world, you clowns try to create a new communism to rally the fools against. Communism isn't the workers, but the elite who run the system. Do you ever bother to look in the mirror and see that you are the people who support business in bed with government, which is what communists support? If you are looking for a communists take a long look at yourself. When you finally meet your communist enemy, you will discover it is you and not the workers of America.

 

[Redfish]

Totally false. Worker's rights and social programs is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies. When Bismarck’s Prussia instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883, the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

When the two Germanies united after 1990, the social provision of the capitalist West was more than twice that of the socialist East, and the cost of unification to West Germany proved vast.

You are completely and totally lying through your ass (the fundamental characteristic of the radical idiot liberal). To call "social programs" a "characteristic" of capitalist economies is so absurd, it defies belief that someone would actually try to make that case.

Social anything is the cornerstone of communism. It's what communism is built on you you dumb fuck. That everyone will put into that same pot and that the pot will then be distributed "evenly" (which we know never happens as the ruling elite lives like kings while the rest live in poverty).

The entire concept of a union is nothing more than privatized communism you fuck'n moron.

You're a fucking nutcase.

Stalin killed around 20 million people and that's called antisocial behavior.

We have social programs, because we have a corporatist economic system that keep wages below living wage. Social programs are subsidies for those low wages. If a business can't pay it's people enough to live, it's going to run out of people, isn' it? Our economy is designed to keep inflation low and protect the value of wealth accumulated throughout centuries. The corporatists set this economic system up and then get fools like you to bitch about the necessities of it. Who do you think is behind all the propaganda that motivates you idiots? You are just fools on the puppet string, parroting what they tell you to say. The concept that society needs people to do that job just goes over your head. The concept that the business can pay the person enough to live and your social programs aren't needed to subsidize those wages goes over your head. What the hell is wrong with having wages high enough where someone can live off of those wages and they don't get anything from the government? What the hell is wrong with living in a society that says if you want the services of someone and the job is needed for society, then you pay for it when using that service? There are plenty of low skill jobs that society needs someone to do and if society needs someone to do the job, then society should pay the people enough to live and do the job. We need someone to pick up our garbage, check us out at the supermarket and other retail stores, pick our crops and work in fast food and restaurants. When we need them to do that work, then we should pay them enough to live without any social programs to assist them doing the work we need them to do. If you want to buy a hamburger, pay for your own hamburger and leave the rest of society out of it! What the hell is wrong with redesigning the system so the people using the services of unskilled workers are directly paying for those services and the workers aren't subsidized with social programs?

So you work for the BEAST and claim unions are communism totally oblivious that corporatism is next to communism. You are always so willing to do the will of your BEAST masters, do whatever you can to screw the workers of your country and give more to the rich. Your antisocial behavior isn't any different than Stalin's and that's how you extremists operate. You and the BEAST are at war with the workers of America.

The biggest problem with communism was having business and government in bed with each other and once communism was defeated from dominating the world, you clowns try to create a new communism to rally the fools against. Communism isn't the workers, but the elite who run the system. Do you ever bother to look in the mirror and see that you are the people who support business in bed with government, which is what communists support? If you are looking for a communists take a long look at yourself. When you finally meet your communist enemy, you will discover it is you and not the workers of America.

you are correct---dictators kill people, liberals/socialists/communists/unionists bring dictators to power because they erroneously believe that the dictator will punish the evil rich and give their money to them

 

[Dubya]

You are completely and totally lying through your ass (the fundamental characteristic of the radical idiot liberal). To call "social programs" a "characteristic" of capitalist economies is so absurd, it defies belief that someone would actually try to make that case.

Social anything is the cornerstone of communism. It's what communism is built on you you dumb fuck. That everyone will put into that same pot and that the pot will then be distributed "evenly" (which we know never happens as the ruling elite lives like kings while the rest live in poverty).

The entire concept of a union is nothing more than privatized communism you fuck'n moron.

You're a fucking nutcase.

Stalin killed around 20 million people and that's called antisocial behavior.

We have social programs, because we have a corporatist economic system that keep wages below living wage. Social programs are subsidies for those low wages. If a business can't pay it's people enough to live, it's going to run out of people, isn' it? Our economy is designed to keep inflation low and protect the value of wealth accumulated throughout centuries. The corporatists set this economic system up and then get fools like you to bitch about the necessities of it. Who do you think is behind all the propaganda that motivates you idiots? You are just fools on the puppet string, parroting what they tell you to say. The concept that society needs people to do that job just goes over your head. The concept that the business can pay the person enough to live and your social programs aren't needed to subsidize those wages goes over your head. What the hell is wrong with having wages high enough where someone can live off of those wages and they don't get anything from the government? What the hell is wrong with living in a society that says if you want the services of someone and the job is needed for society, then you pay for it when using that service? There are plenty of low skill jobs that society needs someone to do and if society needs someone to do the job, then society should pay the people enough to live and do the job. We need someone to pick up our garbage, check us out at the supermarket and other retail stores, pick our crops and work in fast food and restaurants. When we need them to do that work, then we should pay them enough to live without any social programs to assist them doing the work we need them to do. If you want to buy a hamburger, pay for your own hamburger and leave the rest of society out of it! What the hell is wrong with redesigning the system so the people using the services of unskilled workers are directly paying for those services and the workers aren't subsidized with social programs?

So you work for the BEAST and claim unions are communism totally oblivious that corporatism is next to communism. You are always so willing to do the will of your BEAST masters, do whatever you can to screw the workers of your country and give more to the rich. Your antisocial behavior isn't any different than Stalin's and that's how you extremists operate. You and the BEAST are at war with the workers of America.

The biggest problem with communism was having business and government in bed with each other and once communism was defeated from dominating the world, you clowns try to create a new communism to rally the fools against. Communism isn't the workers, but the elite who run the system. Do you ever bother to look in the mirror and see that you are the people who support business in bed with government, which is what communists support? If you are looking for a communists take a long look at yourself. When you finally meet your communist enemy, you will discover it is you and not the workers of America.

you are correct---dictators kill people, liberals/socialists/communists/unionists bring dictators to power because they erroneously believe that the dictator will punish the evil rich and give their money to them

Then give me one example in all of history where liberals or unions brought a dictator to power!

 

[g5000]

The Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican White House did nothing to stop it.

too stupid!! they did everything to stop it consistent with getting elected in a nation where independents decide elections!!

So you admit the GOP gives out gifts, too, eh? Spend like drunken sailors, they do. I agree, and that is the whole point.

Not only did the GOP do nothing to stop it, they doubled the national debt, and steamrolled over the fiscal conservatives in the party to pass Medicare Part D.

Nothing to do with Obama. Ain't that a bitch?

actually everything to do with BO since more and more welfare to more and more potential voters is the exact essence of Obama's Marxist philosophy! Don't forget he had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

A stream of complete gibberish is all you have!

More and more welfare? Let's take a look at that, shall we, gibbering idiot?

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf

The number of people receiving SNAP benefits increased
by almost 50 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005
and even more rapidly (by 70 percent) between fiscal
years 2007 and 2011. During that latter period, spending
on SNAP benefits grew by about 135 percent. The
increase in the number of people eligible for and receiving
benefits between 2007 and 2011 has been driven
primarily by the weak economy. That increase was
responsible for about 65 percent of the growth in
spending on benefits between 2007 and 2011. About
20 percent of the growth in spending can be attributed
to temporarily higher benefit amounts enacted in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA). The remainder stemmed from other factors,
such as higher food prices and lower income among beneficiaries,
both of which boost benefits.

A 50 percent increase in Bush's first term. Followed by a 70 percent increase for the period including his second term and the first two years of Obama's first term.

Between 1990 and 2011, the number of SNAP participants
increased during periods of relatively high
unemployment (see Figure 1). Even as the unemployment
rate began to decline from its 1992, 2003, and
2010 peaks, decreases in participation typically lagged
improvement in the economy by several years. For
example, the number of SNAP participants rose steadily
from about 20 million in the fall of 1989 to more than
27 million in April 1994—nearly two years after the
unemployment rate began to fall and a full three years
after the official end of the recession in March 1991. The
number of people receiving SNAP benefits began to
climb again in 2001 and continued to grow until 2006,
more than two years after the unemployment rate began
to decline and well after that recession ended (in November
2001). The number of participants temporarily
leveled off in 2006 and 2007 until the unemployment
rate began to rise sharply in 2008. Participation then
started to grow quickly and has continued to increase
since then.

This tell us it is entirely normal for SNAP participation to increase for many years beyond the last recession.

The primary reason
for the increase in the number of participants was the
deep recession from December 2007 to June 2009 and
the subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant
legislative expansions of eligibility for the program during
that time.

Considering the Bush Recession was the greatest crash since the Great Depression, none of these figures being cited for the years following that crash should be the least bit surprising now that we have much more context in which to consider them.

 

[Redfish]

You're a fucking nutcase.

Stalin killed around 20 million people and that's called antisocial behavior.

We have social programs, because we have a corporatist economic system that keep wages below living wage. Social programs are subsidies for those low wages. If a business can't pay it's people enough to live, it's going to run out of people, isn' it? Our economy is designed to keep inflation low and protect the value of wealth accumulated throughout centuries. The corporatists set this economic system up and then get fools like you to bitch about the necessities of it. Who do you think is behind all the propaganda that motivates you idiots? You are just fools on the puppet string, parroting what they tell you to say. The concept that society needs people to do that job just goes over your head. The concept that the business can pay the person enough to live and your social programs aren't needed to subsidize those wages goes over your head. What the hell is wrong with having wages high enough where someone can live off of those wages and they don't get anything from the government? What the hell is wrong with living in a society that says if you want the services of someone and the job is needed for society, then you pay for it when using that service? There are plenty of low skill jobs that society needs someone to do and if society needs someone to do the job, then society should pay the people enough to live and do the job. We need someone to pick up our garbage, check us out at the supermarket and other retail stores, pick our crops and work in fast food and restaurants. When we need them to do that work, then we should pay them enough to live without any social programs to assist them doing the work we need them to do. If you want to buy a hamburger, pay for your own hamburger and leave the rest of society out of it! What the hell is wrong with redesigning the system so the people using the services of unskilled workers are directly paying for those services and the workers aren't subsidized with social programs?

So you work for the BEAST and claim unions are communism totally oblivious that corporatism is next to communism. You are always so willing to do the will of your BEAST masters, do whatever you can to screw the workers of your country and give more to the rich. Your antisocial behavior isn't any different than Stalin's and that's how you extremists operate. You and the BEAST are at war with the workers of America.

The biggest problem with communism was having business and government in bed with each other and once communism was defeated from dominating the world, you clowns try to create a new communism to rally the fools against. Communism isn't the workers, but the elite who run the system. Do you ever bother to look in the mirror and see that you are the people who support business in bed with government, which is what communists support? If you are looking for a communists take a long look at yourself. When you finally meet your communist enemy, you will discover it is you and not the workers of America.

you are correct---dictators kill people, liberals/socialists/communists/unionists bring dictators to power because they erroneously believe that the dictator will punish the evil rich and give their money to them

Then give me one example in all of history where liberals or unions brought a dictator to power!

Castro, Chavez, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Obama, FDR,

 

[Redfish]

The Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican White House did nothing to stop it.

too stupid!! they did everything to stop it consistent with getting elected in a nation where independents decide elections!!

So you admit the GOP gives out gifts, too, eh? Spend like drunken sailors, they do. I agree, and that is the whole point.

Not only did the GOP do nothing to stop it, they doubled the national debt, and steamrolled over the fiscal conservatives in the party to pass Medicare Part D.








A stream of complete gibberish is all you have!

More and more welfare? Let's take a look at that, shall we, gibbering idiot?

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf



A 50 percent increase in Bush's first term. Followed by a 70 percent increase for the period including his second term and the first two years of Obama's first term.

Between 1990 and 2011, the number of SNAP participants
increased during periods of relatively high
unemployment (see Figure 1). Even as the unemployment
rate began to decline from its 1992, 2003, and
2010 peaks, decreases in participation typically lagged
improvement in the economy by several years. For
example, the number of SNAP participants rose steadily
from about 20 million in the fall of 1989 to more than
27 million in April 1994—nearly two years after the
unemployment rate began to fall and a full three years
after the official end of the recession in March 1991. The
number of people receiving SNAP benefits began to
climb again in 2001 and continued to grow until 2006,
more than two years after the unemployment rate began
to decline and well after that recession ended (in November
2001). The number of participants temporarily
leveled off in 2006 and 2007 until the unemployment
rate began to rise sharply in 2008. Participation then
started to grow quickly and has continued to increase
since then.

This tell us it is entirely normal for SNAP participation to increase for many years beyond the last recession.

The primary reason
for the increase in the number of participants was the
deep recession from December 2007 to June 2009 and
the subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant
legislative expansions of eligibility for the program during
that time.

Considering the Bush Recession was the greatest crash since the Great Depression, none of these figures being cited for the years following that crash should be the least bit surprising now that we have much more context in which to consider them.

we get it-----you don't like Bush. Thats fine, but the rest of your post is FOS

 

[Bfgrn]

you are correct---dictators kill people, liberals/socialists/communists/unionists bring dictators to power because they erroneously believe that the dictator will punish the evil rich and give their money to them

Then give me one example in all of history where liberals or unions brought a dictator to power!

Castro, Chavez, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Obama, FDR,

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads."

Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung - Combat Liberalism

 

[Dubya]

you are correct---dictators kill people, liberals/socialists/communists/unionists bring dictators to power because they erroneously believe that the dictator will punish the evil rich and give their money to them

Then give me one example in all of history where liberals or unions brought a dictator to power!

Castro, Chavez, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Obama, FDR,

You just don't know what you are talking about and you don't want to know. The first thing a communist is going to do is get rid of liberals.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Then give me one example in all of history where liberals or unions brought a dictator to power!

Castro, Chavez, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Obama, FDR,

You just don't know what you are talking about and you don't want to know. The first thing a communist is going to do is get rid of liberals.

using idiot liberal unions ("workers of the world unite") is an essential part of Marxism.

LIberals buy into it hook line and sinker. This is why our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb!

 

[Dubya]

Castro, Chavez, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Obama, FDR,

You just don't know what you are talking about and you don't want to know. The first thing a communist is going to do is get rid of liberals.

using idiot liberal unions ("workers of the world unite") is an essential part of Marxism.

LIberals buy into it hook line and sinker. This is why our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb!

Who would listen to them? Union workers are far from being Marxists and probably would side more with conservatives than liberals, if the conservatives didn't try to stab the union workers in the back. Republicans and conservatives go after the money that is anti-union, but ideologically, the unions would split their vote if they weren't alienated. Marxism just doesn't cut it in America and I doubt it ever will.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Union workers are far from being Marxists

lets not forget that they were heavily Marxist in the beginning but then figured out they would not succeed in America as marxists or communists, but the class warfare message of stealing from the rich
is still central to unions.

and probably would side more with conservatives than liberals, if the conservatives didn't try to stab the union workers in the back.

I'll agree they tended to be from culturally red states, but don't see where Republicans stabbed them in the back at all???.