Foodstamps Are Good

[Bfgrn]

Hell why don't we just drop money out of a plane because it will go right back into the economy...

You know because thats how it works.

Educate yourself...

 

[mudwhistle]

I estimate that the SNAP program, which is, we are informed, feeding about 40 million people, right now, is costing this nation about $45 Billion a year.

All in all I'd say that's money well spent.

Remember that most of that money ends up as PROFITS going to local markets, US agricultural and food corporations and the middlemen who service the US food industry.

As long as the government doesn't have the balls to insure that working people make enough money to feed themselves, this is the alternative solution to that problem.

Its hardly a perfect system, but it's better than nothing at all.

Or you could look at it another way.

The profits goes to the rich and the government gets no revenue out of the deal.

 

[Cuyo]

Hell why don't we just drop money out of a plane because it will go right back into the economy...

You know because thats how it works.

Speaking strictly in macro-economics, it would be more stimulative than tax cuts.

 

[JoeB131]

Let me ask you a question that will require you to actually THINK: What can an 80 year old person on a fixed income do? Go back to college? Start a new career? Get a job?

What YOU are advocating is LET THEM DIE!

Medicare and Social Security are not 'good' things, they are GREAT things. They represent the BEST of America.

You right wingers LOVE government, just as long as our tax dollars are spent bombing, killing, maiming, torturing, arresting, incarcerating and executing human beings.

But when government actually HELPS people, it is EVIL.

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Interesting that you quote the bible. Here's the thing, the bible expected FAMILIES to step up to the plate and take care of the elderly, not the government. No, I don't expect an 80 year old to get a career. Nor do I think the government should provide him a monthly payment if he already has a lifetime of savings to fall back upon. Why should Bill Gates get Social Security. YOu see all these old folks of means living large on the government's dime.

That's the problem with the whole government entitlement mentality. It thinks government can replace family. The Welfare State replaced the Father, and the illegitimacy rate soared amongst the poor and minority communities after the "Great Society". But as we found, governmetn doesn't make a good father.

Now, we don't think the government is "evil". We just think that there is some things it kind of sucks at. Things that families and communities should be doing for themselves and did for themselves for centuries before a big government came along.

Killing the bad guys. Yup, I'm all for government doing that. They've been doign that forever.

Telling you what your kid should eat, and then providing the meals? Nope. That's not their job. That's the job of the family.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let me ask you a question that will require you to actually THINK: What can an 80 year old person on a fixed income do? Go back to college? Start a new career? Get a job?

What YOU are advocating is LET THEM DIE!

Medicare and Social Security are not 'good' things, they are GREAT things. They represent the BEST of America.

You right wingers LOVE government, just as long as our tax dollars are spent bombing, killing, maiming, torturing, arresting, incarcerating and executing human beings.

But when government actually HELPS people, it is EVIL.

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Interesting that you quote the bible. Here's the thing, the bible expected FAMILIES to step up to the plate and take care of the elderly, not the government. No, I don't expect an 80 year old to get a career. Nor do I think the government should provide him a monthly payment if he already has a lifetime of savings to fall back upon. Why should Bill Gates get Social Security. YOu see all these old folks of means living large on the government's dime.

That's the problem with the whole government entitlement mentality. It thinks government can replace family. The Welfare State replaced the Father, and the illegitimacy rate soared amongst the poor and minority communities after the "Great Society". But as we found, governmetn doesn't make a good father.

Now, we don't think the government is "evil". We just think that there is some things it kind of sucks at. Things that families and communities should be doing for themselves and did for themselves for centuries before a big government came along.

Killing the bad guys. Yup, I'm all for government doing that. They've been doign that forever.

Telling you what your kid should eat, and then providing the meals? Nope. That's not their job. That's the job of the family.

Well here are some FACTS for you to digest: We tried a family/charity only society. It failed. Before Medicare, the elderly were the most likely segment of the population to not have health insurance, and the most likely to live below the poverty line.

Medicare lifted millions of elderly Americans our of poverty, increased their life expectancy and now about 10% live below the poverty line.

It is the GREATEST government intervention in history...by FAR.

The Bible doesn't single out families.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 

[mudwhistle]

We can always count of the right wing parrots to mindlessly repeat the FALSE propaganda they are being spoon fed... you are more predictable that Pavlov's dogs.

Jesus, you're a dumb-ass.

The Depression started in 1929. Some countries started to recover in the mid 30s.

Not the United States. It took World War II to get us out of the depression.

The productivity you showed has no dates but I would be willing to bet it was war production in the 40s.

Let me find the real numbers.

Oh, holy shit look at that!!!

WHAT countries outperformed the USA? I want names, numbers and form of government; democracy, dictatorship??? America didn't start to recover in the early 1930's, FDR didn't take office until March 4, 1933.

Hey Einstein, can't you read a chart? The Key is in the ledger. Each of those bars signify one term in office. You don't need dates because we know when each President served. The first bar represents FDR's First term, 1933–1937

The Hoover/Mellon austerity turned a recession into a depression. Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon's formula: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate."

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars

1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9 <-----FDR takes office. BUT, it is still Hoover's budget
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937&#8211;1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

Gee, where did I hear austerity recently?

Tea party austerity plan: Would slashing US spending work?

Cutting $2.5 trillion in government spending over 10 years is the tea party's first step toward its 'small government' vision. Whether such measures will boost the economy or add jobs is a leap of faith, economists say.

Can America cut its way to prosperity by reducing government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars &#8211; starting now and for each year to come for 10 years?

That's the assertion of tea party conservatives and fiscal hawks in Congress, whose economic plan would reduce government spending by a collective $2.5 trillion within a decade. Most nondefense government spending would get cut by 40 percent, and the share of the gross domestic product attributed to government would drop from 25 percent to 18 percent. The eventual benefit, supporters of the plan say, would be a reinvigorated private sector.

Contrast that with President Obama's competing vision for a renewed economy. His economic fix, as outlined Tuesday in the State of the Union address, is to invest in the education and energy sectors, hold the line for five years on so-called discretionary spending &#8211; which has jumped 84 percent in the past two years &#8211; and slash corporate tax rates, a strategy that helped kick-start the economy in the 1960s and mid-1980s. He offered a relatively modest $400 billion in spending cuts over five years (not including cuts in defense).

The Christian Science Monitor

Will blood letting make the patient better???

Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

300 Economists Warn Congress: Don't Kill Growth And Jobs In The Name Of Deficit Reduction

A small army of economists warned Congress on Thursday not to focus on deficit reduction instead of job creation or else risk a 1937-style double-dip recession.

"History suggests that a tenuous recovery is no time to practice austerity," says a statement signed by more than 300 economists and policy experts. "In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal generated growth and reduced the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1932 to less than 10 percent in 1937. However, the deficit hawks of that era persuaded President Roosevelt to reverse course prematurely and move toward budget balance. The result was a severe recession that caused the economy to contract sharply and sent the unemployment rate soaring."

Democrats in Congress have had 1937 in mind since March 2009. "We're not going to let it happen again," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the time.

Nevertheless, deficit hawks dominated the debate in Congress this summer as Democratic leaders struggled to reauthorize a series of programs created by the 2009 stimulus bill. Pelosi and her counterparts in the Senate have had seemingly little choice other than to sacrifice things like COBRA health insurance subsidies and enhanced unemployment benefits to win the support of deficit-hawkish Democrats and moderate Republicans.

"This is about a high road to recovery versus a low road to fiscal balance," said Bob Kuttner of the American Prospect and co-author of the statement, along with the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Dean Baker and the Robert Borosage and Roger Hickey from the Institute for America's Future. "The proper sequencing is: You get the recovery first, that requires increased public investment. And then the road to fiscal balance is much less arduous because people are working, businesses are investing, and tax revenues go up because you're back in recovery.

"There is also a low road to fiscal balance, where you have austerity and you get the budget balanced at the cost of whacking the real economy."

Click HERE to download a PDF of the report.

I don't really think you know what is good for the country, what is a good economic indicator, and what ultimately represents a strong economy.

During the early years of the Depression we were in double-digit negative growth. FDR started spending and it swung back the other way. At the same time we still had massive unemployment.

Eventually the money started running out and the recovery started to peter out until WWII started. Then unemployment sank and productivity went way up. This is the time you're bragging about that was so great....but the problem was we were building up massive debt. The only thing that pulled us out of that debt was more people were working and more were paying taxes and of course more people had money to spend. Income taxes and other taxes reduced the debt over time.

The country pulled out of the Depression despite FDRs socialist programs, but it took a World War to do it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Jesus, you're a dumb-ass.

The Depression started in 1929. Some countries started to recover in the mid 30s.

Not the United States. It took World War II to get us out of the depression.

The productivity you showed has no dates but I would be willing to bet it was war production in the 40s.

Let me find the real numbers.

Oh, holy shit look at that!!!

WHAT countries outperformed the USA? I want names, numbers and form of government; democracy, dictatorship??? America didn't start to recover in the early 1930's, FDR didn't take office until March 4, 1933.

Hey Einstein, can't you read a chart? The Key is in the ledger. Each of those bars signify one term in office. You don't need dates because we know when each President served. The first bar represents FDR's First term, 1933–1937

The Hoover/Mellon austerity turned a recession into a depression. Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon's formula: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate."

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars

1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9 <-----FDR takes office. BUT, it is still Hoover's budget
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

Gee, where did I hear austerity recently?

Tea party austerity plan: Would slashing US spending work?

Cutting $2.5 trillion in government spending over 10 years is the tea party's first step toward its 'small government' vision. Whether such measures will boost the economy or add jobs is a leap of faith, economists say.

Can America cut its way to prosperity by reducing government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars – starting now and for each year to come for 10 years?

That's the assertion of tea party conservatives and fiscal hawks in Congress, whose economic plan would reduce government spending by a collective $2.5 trillion within a decade. Most nondefense government spending would get cut by 40 percent, and the share of the gross domestic product attributed to government would drop from 25 percent to 18 percent. The eventual benefit, supporters of the plan say, would be a reinvigorated private sector.

Contrast that with President Obama's competing vision for a renewed economy. His economic fix, as outlined Tuesday in the State of the Union address, is to invest in the education and energy sectors, hold the line for five years on so-called discretionary spending – which has jumped 84 percent in the past two years – and slash corporate tax rates, a strategy that helped kick-start the economy in the 1960s and mid-1980s. He offered a relatively modest $400 billion in spending cuts over five years (not including cuts in defense).

The Christian Science Monitor

Will blood letting make the patient better???

Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

300 Economists Warn Congress: Don't Kill Growth And Jobs In The Name Of Deficit Reduction

A small army of economists warned Congress on Thursday not to focus on deficit reduction instead of job creation or else risk a 1937-style double-dip recession.

"History suggests that a tenuous recovery is no time to practice austerity," says a statement signed by more than 300 economists and policy experts. "In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal generated growth and reduced the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1932 to less than 10 percent in 1937. However, the deficit hawks of that era persuaded President Roosevelt to reverse course prematurely and move toward budget balance. The result was a severe recession that caused the economy to contract sharply and sent the unemployment rate soaring."

Democrats in Congress have had 1937 in mind since March 2009. "We're not going to let it happen again," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the time.

Nevertheless, deficit hawks dominated the debate in Congress this summer as Democratic leaders struggled to reauthorize a series of programs created by the 2009 stimulus bill. Pelosi and her counterparts in the Senate have had seemingly little choice other than to sacrifice things like COBRA health insurance subsidies and enhanced unemployment benefits to win the support of deficit-hawkish Democrats and moderate Republicans.

"This is about a high road to recovery versus a low road to fiscal balance," said Bob Kuttner of the American Prospect and co-author of the statement, along with the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Dean Baker and the Robert Borosage and Roger Hickey from the Institute for America's Future. "The proper sequencing is: You get the recovery first, that requires increased public investment. And then the road to fiscal balance is much less arduous because people are working, businesses are investing, and tax revenues go up because you're back in recovery.

"There is also a low road to fiscal balance, where you have austerity and you get the budget balanced at the cost of whacking the real economy."

Click HERE to download a PDF of the report.

I don't really think you know what is good for the country, what is a good economic indicator, and what ultimately represents a strong economy.

During the early years of the Depression we were in double-digit negative growth. FDR started spending and it swung back the other way. At the same time we still had massive unemployment.

Eventually the money started running out and the recovery started to peter out until WWII started. Then unemployment sank and productivity went way up. This is the time you're bragging about that was so great....but the problem was we were building up massive debt. The only thing that pulled us out of that debt was more people were working and more were paying taxes and of course more people had money to spend. Income taxes and other taxes reduced the debt over time.

The country pulled out of the Depression despite FDRs socialist programs, but it took a World War to do it.

Don't let FACTS disturb your dogma and the propaganda you spew.

FDR Prolonged the Depression? Really?

Ummm ... no.

Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938.

But that was four years into Roosevelt's term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."

To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped — rather than hurt — the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes University of California historian Eric Rauchway.

What about the New Deal's most "massive government intervention" — its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn't detect?

Nope.

According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."

OK — if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians — do they "pretty much agree" on the opposite?

Again, no.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

But that's the critical point I somehow forgot last week – the truism we must all remember in 2009: As conservatives try to obstruct a new New Deal, they're not making any arguments that are remotely serious.

 

[Mustang]

I was just listened to an extremely idiotic argument about how food stamps are such a great asset to the economy.

This Democrat spokesman was talking about all of the wonders of food stamps. How they put food in the mouths of the poor and all of the usual liberal rhetoric. The spokesperson that was in opposition started in on him saying that because of the increase of people applying and qualifying for food stamps it is a major drag on the states. She was trying to sell her case that the increase of food stamps is more bad then good. More people employed and being able to afford food without food stamps is more desirable.

The Dem started saying "Oh, so you want to starve people?????"

I kid you not....that was his response!!

This is a microcosm of how a liberal or a progressive creates a wedge-issue. They propose policies that they and their opposition both know is unsustainable and know will cause a common-sense response and then they pull out the "you wanna starve the poor" accusation. The problem is, this has been working for Democrats for a long time. You'd think people would get wise to it. They used it on seniors when the GOP released their economic plan. "Those evil Republicans want to throw you and your wheel-chair over a cliff!!!"

You have to be a morally corrupt individual to make this kind of issue part of your campaign. Anyone who supports such a candidate or political party is in all respects living in denial. You have to live in a vacuum to think this way in the first place. Saying with a straight face that wide spread use of food stamps is a good thing is a radical rationalization similar to Nancy Pelosi proudly declaring that unemployment is helping the economy.

Lets put aside the loss of revenue to the states just for giving out food stamps to more and more people. Not only does the state have to reimburse stores for the lost sales, but also the state misses out on sales tax because no taxes are collected in the transactions. This shortfall has to be made up somewhere or the government will have to shrink or go broke.

Do Democrats realize this? Sure they do. But it fits into their class-warfare act. This all benefits the poor and everyone else suffers because of it.

Is this a good thing to them??? You be the judge.

Seems to me the Dems have policies on issues that are in direct conflict with each other. People are starving....feed them. People are fat....starve them. It's like the Global Warming/Ozone Depletion deal they've used to jack up the price of energy and cost billions to businesses and consumers in favor of their Green energy regulations in the EPA. Too much ozone or not enough. They've got us coming and going. On one hand they're saying we're too fat, on the other they're saying people are starving. It doesn't matter what the issue is. They want to spend more to deal with it forgetting the fact that they caused the problem in the first place. What it amounts to is they've turned the federal government into a perversion of it's original self. A bloated and abusive entity that is an Albatross to the taxpayers of the country.

I know this is a no-brainer.....but I see this repeated in several hot issues. In immigration reform, in Social Security reform, in health care reform, the list goes on and on. The left takes a populist position that they know is unsustainable and they roll with it. These days people are worried because they have been unemployed for a year or more so they tend to fall for the Democrat's argument. People have to be taken care of. Wouldn't it be better if they lived in a country where the government got out of the way so they could take care of themselves....if they so choose????

Your food stamp graph is from the Bush years.

 

[mudwhistle]

I was just listened to an extremely idiotic argument about how food stamps are such a great asset to the economy.

This Democrat spokesman was talking about all of the wonders of food stamps. How they put food in the mouths of the poor and all of the usual liberal rhetoric. The spokesperson that was in opposition started in on him saying that because of the increase of people applying and qualifying for food stamps it is a major drag on the states. She was trying to sell her case that the increase of food stamps is more bad then good. More people employed and being able to afford food without food stamps is more desirable.

The Dem started saying "Oh, so you want to starve people?????"

I kid you not....that was his response!!

This is a microcosm of how a liberal or a progressive creates a wedge-issue. They propose policies that they and their opposition both know is unsustainable and know will cause a common-sense response and then they pull out the "you wanna starve the poor" accusation. The problem is, this has been working for Democrats for a long time. You'd think people would get wise to it. They used it on seniors when the GOP released their economic plan. "Those evil Republicans want to throw you and your wheel-chair over a cliff!!!"

You have to be a morally corrupt individual to make this kind of issue part of your campaign. Anyone who supports such a candidate or political party is in all respects living in denial. You have to live in a vacuum to think this way in the first place. Saying with a straight face that wide spread use of food stamps is a good thing is a radical rationalization similar to Nancy Pelosi proudly declaring that unemployment is helping the economy.

Lets put aside the loss of revenue to the states just for giving out food stamps to more and more people. Not only does the state have to reimburse stores for the lost sales, but also the state misses out on sales tax because no taxes are collected in the transactions. This shortfall has to be made up somewhere or the government will have to shrink or go broke.

Do Democrats realize this? Sure they do. But it fits into their class-warfare act. This all benefits the poor and everyone else suffers because of it.

Is this a good thing to them??? You be the judge.

Seems to me the Dems have policies on issues that are in direct conflict with each other. People are starving....feed them. People are fat....starve them. It's like the Global Warming/Ozone Depletion deal they've used to jack up the price of energy and cost billions to businesses and consumers in favor of their Green energy regulations in the EPA. Too much ozone or not enough. They've got us coming and going. On one hand they're saying we're too fat, on the other they're saying people are starving. It doesn't matter what the issue is. They want to spend more to deal with it forgetting the fact that they caused the problem in the first place. What it amounts to is they've turned the federal government into a perversion of it's original self. A bloated and abusive entity that is an Albatross to the taxpayers of the country.

I know this is a no-brainer.....but I see this repeated in several hot issues. In immigration reform, in Social Security reform, in health care reform, the list goes on and on. The left takes a populist position that they know is unsustainable and they roll with it. These days people are worried because they have been unemployed for a year or more so they tend to fall for the Democrat's argument. People have to be taken care of. Wouldn't it be better if they lived in a country where the government got out of the way so they could take care of themselves....if they so choose????

Your food stamp graph is from the Bush years.

No shit.

I used it as an illustration....

But then again it does show that when the Dems took back Congress food stamp use did a reversal and instead of going down started going up.

 

[Mustang]

I was just listened to an extremely idiotic argument about how food stamps are such a great asset to the economy.

This Democrat spokesman was talking about all of the wonders of food stamps. How they put food in the mouths of the poor and all of the usual liberal rhetoric. The spokesperson that was in opposition started in on him saying that because of the increase of people applying and qualifying for food stamps it is a major drag on the states. She was trying to sell her case that the increase of food stamps is more bad then good. More people employed and being able to afford food without food stamps is more desirable.

The Dem started saying "Oh, so you want to starve people?????"

I kid you not....that was his response!!

This is a microcosm of how a liberal or a progressive creates a wedge-issue. They propose policies that they and their opposition both know is unsustainable and know will cause a common-sense response and then they pull out the "you wanna starve the poor" accusation. The problem is, this has been working for Democrats for a long time. You'd think people would get wise to it. They used it on seniors when the GOP released their economic plan. "Those evil Republicans want to throw you and your wheel-chair over a cliff!!!"

You have to be a morally corrupt individual to make this kind of issue part of your campaign. Anyone who supports such a candidate or political party is in all respects living in denial. You have to live in a vacuum to think this way in the first place. Saying with a straight face that wide spread use of food stamps is a good thing is a radical rationalization similar to Nancy Pelosi proudly declaring that unemployment is helping the economy.

Lets put aside the loss of revenue to the states just for giving out food stamps to more and more people. Not only does the state have to reimburse stores for the lost sales, but also the state misses out on sales tax because no taxes are collected in the transactions. This shortfall has to be made up somewhere or the government will have to shrink or go broke.

Do Democrats realize this? Sure they do. But it fits into their class-warfare act. This all benefits the poor and everyone else suffers because of it.

Is this a good thing to them??? You be the judge.

Seems to me the Dems have policies on issues that are in direct conflict with each other. People are starving....feed them. People are fat....starve them. It's like the Global Warming/Ozone Depletion deal they've used to jack up the price of energy and cost billions to businesses and consumers in favor of their Green energy regulations in the EPA. Too much ozone or not enough. They've got us coming and going. On one hand they're saying we're too fat, on the other they're saying people are starving. It doesn't matter what the issue is. They want to spend more to deal with it forgetting the fact that they caused the problem in the first place. What it amounts to is they've turned the federal government into a perversion of it's original self. A bloated and abusive entity that is an Albatross to the taxpayers of the country.

I know this is a no-brainer.....but I see this repeated in several hot issues. In immigration reform, in Social Security reform, in health care reform, the list goes on and on. The left takes a populist position that they know is unsustainable and they roll with it. These days people are worried because they have been unemployed for a year or more so they tend to fall for the Democrat's argument. People have to be taken care of. Wouldn't it be better if they lived in a country where the government got out of the way so they could take care of themselves....if they so choose????

Your food stamp graph is from the Bush years.

No shit.

I used it as an illustration....

But then again it does show that when the Dems took back Congress food stamp use did a reversal and instead of going down started going up.

That's when the Bush recession started.

 

[Bfgrn]

I was just listened to an extremely idiotic argument about how food stamps are such a great asset to the economy.

This Democrat spokesman was talking about all of the wonders of food stamps. How they put food in the mouths of the poor and all of the usual liberal rhetoric. The spokesperson that was in opposition started in on him saying that because of the increase of people applying and qualifying for food stamps it is a major drag on the states. She was trying to sell her case that the increase of food stamps is more bad then good. More people employed and being able to afford food without food stamps is more desirable.

The Dem started saying "Oh, so you want to starve people?????"

I kid you not....that was his response!!

This is a microcosm of how a liberal or a progressive creates a wedge-issue. They propose policies that they and their opposition both know is unsustainable and know will cause a common-sense response and then they pull out the "you wanna starve the poor" accusation. The problem is, this has been working for Democrats for a long time. You'd think people would get wise to it. They used it on seniors when the GOP released their economic plan. "Those evil Republicans want to throw you and your wheel-chair over a cliff!!!"

You have to be a morally corrupt individual to make this kind of issue part of your campaign. Anyone who supports such a candidate or political party is in all respects living in denial. You have to live in a vacuum to think this way in the first place. Saying with a straight face that wide spread use of food stamps is a good thing is a radical rationalization similar to Nancy Pelosi proudly declaring that unemployment is helping the economy.

Lets put aside the loss of revenue to the states just for giving out food stamps to more and more people. Not only does the state have to reimburse stores for the lost sales, but also the state misses out on sales tax because no taxes are collected in the transactions. This shortfall has to be made up somewhere or the government will have to shrink or go broke.

Do Democrats realize this? Sure they do. But it fits into their class-warfare act. This all benefits the poor and everyone else suffers because of it.

Is this a good thing to them??? You be the judge.

Seems to me the Dems have policies on issues that are in direct conflict with each other. People are starving....feed them. People are fat....starve them. It's like the Global Warming/Ozone Depletion deal they've used to jack up the price of energy and cost billions to businesses and consumers in favor of their Green energy regulations in the EPA. Too much ozone or not enough. They've got us coming and going. On one hand they're saying we're too fat, on the other they're saying people are starving. It doesn't matter what the issue is. They want to spend more to deal with it forgetting the fact that they caused the problem in the first place. What it amounts to is they've turned the federal government into a perversion of it's original self. A bloated and abusive entity that is an Albatross to the taxpayers of the country.

I know this is a no-brainer.....but I see this repeated in several hot issues. In immigration reform, in Social Security reform, in health care reform, the list goes on and on. The left takes a populist position that they know is unsustainable and they roll with it. These days people are worried because they have been unemployed for a year or more so they tend to fall for the Democrat's argument. People have to be taken care of. Wouldn't it be better if they lived in a country where the government got out of the way so they could take care of themselves....if they so choose????

Your food stamp graph is from the Bush years.

No shit.

I used it as an illustration....

But then again it does show that when the Dems took back Congress food stamp use did a reversal and instead of going down started going up.

What legislation did Democrats author and Bush sign from 2007-2009 that would cause food stamps to increase?

 

[JoeB131]

Let me ask you a question that will require you to actually THINK: What can an 80 year old person on a fixed income do? Go back to college? Start a new career? Get a job?

What YOU are advocating is LET THEM DIE!

Medicare and Social Security are not 'good' things, they are GREAT things. They represent the BEST of America.

You right wingers LOVE government, just as long as our tax dollars are spent bombing, killing, maiming, torturing, arresting, incarcerating and executing human beings.

But when government actually HELPS people, it is EVIL.

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Interesting that you quote the bible. Here's the thing, the bible expected FAMILIES to step up to the plate and take care of the elderly, not the government. No, I don't expect an 80 year old to get a career. Nor do I think the government should provide him a monthly payment if he already has a lifetime of savings to fall back upon. Why should Bill Gates get Social Security. YOu see all these old folks of means living large on the government's dime.

That's the problem with the whole government entitlement mentality. It thinks government can replace family. The Welfare State replaced the Father, and the illegitimacy rate soared amongst the poor and minority communities after the "Great Society". But as we found, governmetn doesn't make a good father.

Now, we don't think the government is "evil". We just think that there is some things it kind of sucks at. Things that families and communities should be doing for themselves and did for themselves for centuries before a big government came along.

Killing the bad guys. Yup, I'm all for government doing that. They've been doign that forever.

Telling you what your kid should eat, and then providing the meals? Nope. That's not their job. That's the job of the family.

Well here are some FACTS for you to digest: We tried a family/charity only society. It failed. Before Medicare, the elderly were the most likely segment of the population to not have health insurance, and the most likely to live below the poverty line.

Medicare lifted millions of elderly Americans our of poverty, increased their life expectancy and now about 10% live below the poverty line.

It is the GREATEST government intervention in history...by FAR.

The Bible doesn't single out families.

’

Guy, I'm an atheist, the bible doesn't impress me.

You can scream about how "Medicare" increased life expectency. Nope. It didn't. New drugs, new techniques, new procedures increased life expectancy.

The overall problem with health insurance is that when it was introduced, it wasn't a burden. There was only so much medical science could really do in 1964 if you had cancer or congestive heart failure. Now we can do a lot of stuff, and it's all expensive.

Not to mention with Medicare, you got the old people who show up to the Doctors just so they'll have someone to talk to because their kids never visit them. (Probably because their kids are too busy working two jobs just to pay their tax burden.) Medicare and Medicaid fraud equals 23-80 BILLION a year.

Here's another point. Medicare only works because it works in conjunction with the big, bad capitalist machinary you hate. The whole of Medicare Part C is essentially the government paying those big evil insurance companies to insure granny if her condition isn't chronic.

 

[mudwhistle]

WHAT countries outperformed the USA? I want names, numbers and form of government; democracy, dictatorship??? America didn't start to recover in the early 1930's, FDR didn't take office until March 4, 1933.

Hey Einstein, can't you read a chart? The Key is in the ledger. Each of those bars signify one term in office. You don't need dates because we know when each President served. The first bar represents FDR's First term, 1933&#8211;1937

The Hoover/Mellon austerity turned a recession into a depression. Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon's formula: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate."

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars

1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9 <-----FDR takes office. BUT, it is still Hoover's budget
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937&#8211;1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

Gee, where did I hear austerity recently?

Tea party austerity plan: Would slashing US spending work?

Cutting $2.5 trillion in government spending over 10 years is the tea party's first step toward its 'small government' vision. Whether such measures will boost the economy or add jobs is a leap of faith, economists say.

Can America cut its way to prosperity by reducing government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars &#8211; starting now and for each year to come for 10 years?

That's the assertion of tea party conservatives and fiscal hawks in Congress, whose economic plan would reduce government spending by a collective $2.5 trillion within a decade. Most nondefense government spending would get cut by 40 percent, and the share of the gross domestic product attributed to government would drop from 25 percent to 18 percent. The eventual benefit, supporters of the plan say, would be a reinvigorated private sector.

Contrast that with President Obama's competing vision for a renewed economy. His economic fix, as outlined Tuesday in the State of the Union address, is to invest in the education and energy sectors, hold the line for five years on so-called discretionary spending &#8211; which has jumped 84 percent in the past two years &#8211; and slash corporate tax rates, a strategy that helped kick-start the economy in the 1960s and mid-1980s. He offered a relatively modest $400 billion in spending cuts over five years (not including cuts in defense).

The Christian Science Monitor

Will blood letting make the patient better???

Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

300 Economists Warn Congress: Don't Kill Growth And Jobs In The Name Of Deficit Reduction

A small army of economists warned Congress on Thursday not to focus on deficit reduction instead of job creation or else risk a 1937-style double-dip recession.

"History suggests that a tenuous recovery is no time to practice austerity," says a statement signed by more than 300 economists and policy experts. "In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal generated growth and reduced the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1932 to less than 10 percent in 1937. However, the deficit hawks of that era persuaded President Roosevelt to reverse course prematurely and move toward budget balance. The result was a severe recession that caused the economy to contract sharply and sent the unemployment rate soaring."

Democrats in Congress have had 1937 in mind since March 2009. "We're not going to let it happen again," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the time.

Nevertheless, deficit hawks dominated the debate in Congress this summer as Democratic leaders struggled to reauthorize a series of programs created by the 2009 stimulus bill. Pelosi and her counterparts in the Senate have had seemingly little choice other than to sacrifice things like COBRA health insurance subsidies and enhanced unemployment benefits to win the support of deficit-hawkish Democrats and moderate Republicans.

"This is about a high road to recovery versus a low road to fiscal balance," said Bob Kuttner of the American Prospect and co-author of the statement, along with the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Dean Baker and the Robert Borosage and Roger Hickey from the Institute for America's Future. "The proper sequencing is: You get the recovery first, that requires increased public investment. And then the road to fiscal balance is much less arduous because people are working, businesses are investing, and tax revenues go up because you're back in recovery.

"There is also a low road to fiscal balance, where you have austerity and you get the budget balanced at the cost of whacking the real economy."

Click HERE to download a PDF of the report.

I don't really think you know what is good for the country, what is a good economic indicator, and what ultimately represents a strong economy.

During the early years of the Depression we were in double-digit negative growth. FDR started spending and it swung back the other way. At the same time we still had massive unemployment.

Eventually the money started running out and the recovery started to peter out until WWII started. Then unemployment sank and productivity went way up. This is the time you're bragging about that was so great....but the problem was we were building up massive debt. The only thing that pulled us out of that debt was more people were working and more were paying taxes and of course more people had money to spend. Income taxes and other taxes reduced the debt over time.

The country pulled out of the Depression despite FDRs socialist programs, but it took a World War to do it.

Don't let FACTS disturb your dogma and the propaganda you spew.

FDR Prolonged the Depression? Really?

Ummm ... no.

Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938.

But that was four years into Roosevelt's term &#8212; four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."

To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped &#8212; rather than hurt &#8212; the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes University of California historian Eric Rauchway.

What about the New Deal's most "massive government intervention" &#8212; its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn't detect?

Nope.

According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."

OK &#8212; if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians &#8212; do they "pretty much agree" on the opposite?

Again, no.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

But that's the critical point I somehow forgot last week &#8211; the truism we must all remember in 2009: As conservatives try to obstruct a new New Deal, they're not making any arguments that are remotely serious.

Wow, FDR turned off the spigot and things started going South.

Imagine that.

The problem with massive government spending is you ether run out of money or you go deeper into debt. Then taxes must be raised or you have to cut spending.

Cutting spending causes a shock to the economy but it is merely a temporary thing. However, massive spending merely delays the inevitable crash. It's unsustainable.....especially when you have to borrow to keep it going.

Look at countries like Greece....borrowing from the rest of the Euro countries. Now that they're running out of money they're starting to fall like dominoes. France and Spain are on shaky ground now. Germany is the only country with any money put away.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't really think you know what is good for the country, what is a good economic indicator, and what ultimately represents a strong economy.

During the early years of the Depression we were in double-digit negative growth. FDR started spending and it swung back the other way. At the same time we still had massive unemployment.

Eventually the money started running out and the recovery started to peter out until WWII started. Then unemployment sank and productivity went way up. This is the time you're bragging about that was so great....but the problem was we were building up massive debt. The only thing that pulled us out of that debt was more people were working and more were paying taxes and of course more people had money to spend. Income taxes and other taxes reduced the debt over time.

The country pulled out of the Depression despite FDRs socialist programs, but it took a World War to do it.

Don't let FACTS disturb your dogma and the propaganda you spew.

FDR Prolonged the Depression? Really?

Ummm ... no.

Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938.

But that was four years into Roosevelt's term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."

To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped — rather than hurt — the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes University of California historian Eric Rauchway.

What about the New Deal's most "massive government intervention" — its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn't detect?

Nope.

According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."

OK — if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians — do they "pretty much agree" on the opposite?

Again, no.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

But that's the critical point I somehow forgot last week – the truism we must all remember in 2009: As conservatives try to obstruct a new New Deal, they're not making any arguments that are remotely serious.

Wow, FDR turned off the spigot and things started going South.

Imagine that.

The problem with massive government spending is you ether run out of money or you go deeper into debt. Then taxes must be raised or you have to cut spending.

Cutting spending causes a shock to the economy but it is merely a temporary thing. However, massive spending merely delays the inevitable crash. It's unsustainable.....especially when you have to borrow to keep it going.

Look at countries like Greece....borrowing from the rest of the Euro countries. Now that they're running out of money they're starting to fall like dominoes. France and Spain are on shaky ground now. Germany is the only country with any money put away.

Only a moron would compare The United States of America to Greece.

You are operating FULLY on dogma now, you emote with NO factual basis.

Here are the FACTS:

The US is not drowning in debt. In relation to GDP, it is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. The relevant number, public held debt today is below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.

What you right wingers can't comprehend is demanding spending cuts now is like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

CBO’s 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook

The CBO did a long range debt report. The chart show 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican PEA BRAIN scenario.

Democrats have ALREADY put in place policies and laws that will reduce the debt. If WE DO NOTHING it will follow the Extended-Baseline Scenario. If Republicans get their way it will follow the Alternative Fiscal Scenario.


The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

IRONY...The Republicans want the budget to be balanced by keeping spending down rather than by raising tax revenues. They thus propose limiting spending to no more than 18% of gross domestic product (GDP).


Here is a conservative icon

 

[mudwhistle]

Don't let FACTS disturb your dogma and the propaganda you spew.

FDR Prolonged the Depression? Really?

Ummm ... no.

Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938.

But that was four years into Roosevelt's term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."

To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped — rather than hurt — the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes University of California historian Eric Rauchway.

What about the New Deal's most "massive government intervention" — its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn't detect?

Nope.

According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."

OK — if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians — do they "pretty much agree" on the opposite?

Again, no.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

But that's the critical point I somehow forgot last week – the truism we must all remember in 2009: As conservatives try to obstruct a new New Deal, they're not making any arguments that are remotely serious.

Wow, FDR turned off the spigot and things started going South.

Imagine that.

The problem with massive government spending is you ether run out of money or you go deeper into debt. Then taxes must be raised or you have to cut spending.

Cutting spending causes a shock to the economy but it is merely a temporary thing. However, massive spending merely delays the inevitable crash. It's unsustainable.....especially when you have to borrow to keep it going.

Look at countries like Greece....borrowing from the rest of the Euro countries. Now that they're running out of money they're starting to fall like dominoes. France and Spain are on shaky ground now. Germany is the only country with any money put away.

Only a moron would compare The United States of America to Greece.

You are operating FULLY on dogma now, you emote with NO factual basis.

Here are the FACTS:

The US is not drowning in debt. In relation to GDP, it is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. The relevant number, public held debt today is below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.

What you right wingers can't comprehend is demanding spending cuts now is like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

CBO’s 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook

The CBO did a long range debt report. The chart show 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican PEA BRAIN scenario.

Democrats have ALREADY put in place policies and laws that will reduce the debt. If WE DO NOTHING it will follow the Extended-Baseline Scenario. If Republicans get their way it will follow the Alternative Fiscal Scenario.


The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

IRONY...The Republicans want the budget to be balanced by keeping spending down rather than by raising tax revenues. They thus propose limiting spending to no more than 18% of gross domestic product (GDP).


Here is a conservative icon

You rightwingers.

Spoken like a true bigot.

Maybe you could dispense with the fucken insults for once.

You're beginning to bore me.

 

[mudwhistle]

The problem with you is you keep drawing the wrong conclusions.

You've obviously been taught a bunch of garbage from somebody that never applied it in real life.

However I'm sure that the Heritage Club has plenty of economists that have applied the principles we've discussed and know what works and what doesn't.

The worst mistake that you're making is that you can't see through your ideology and be open-minded about it. You can't imagine that what has happened in the past to others will ever happen to us. Well, leave it up to Obama and company and we will be another version of Europe in no time. Then it will be possible.

What FDR tried was intended to be a temporary measure, not open-ended. Massive debt is the result if you don't shut it down.

You're also ignoring the fact that any large corporation or in this case government has fat that can be trimmed. As matter of fact Obama has already sent word down the chain to us in the DOD that cuts are coming. So you're argument that this is not the time is pure rhetoric. Also, the Bush tax-cuts should have been allowed to expire if they represented such a Godsend. Why did they extend them? That's the million dollar question.

I know why, but it appears you don't. That makes you.....dumb.

 

[FA_Q2]

Don't let FACTS disturb your dogma and the propaganda you spew.

FDR Prolonged the Depression? Really?

Ummm ... no.

Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938.

But that was four years into Roosevelt's term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."

To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped — rather than hurt — the macroeconomy. "Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes University of California historian Eric Rauchway.

What about the New Deal's most "massive government intervention" — its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn't detect?

Nope.

According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."

OK — if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians — do they "pretty much agree" on the opposite?

Again, no.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

But that's the critical point I somehow forgot last week – the truism we must all remember in 2009: As conservatives try to obstruct a new New Deal, they're not making any arguments that are remotely serious.

Wow, FDR turned off the spigot and things started going South.

Imagine that.

The problem with massive government spending is you ether run out of money or you go deeper into debt. Then taxes must be raised or you have to cut spending.

Cutting spending causes a shock to the economy but it is merely a temporary thing. However, massive spending merely delays the inevitable crash. It's unsustainable.....especially when you have to borrow to keep it going.

Look at countries like Greece....borrowing from the rest of the Euro countries. Now that they're running out of money they're starting to fall like dominoes. France and Spain are on shaky ground now. Germany is the only country with any money put away.

Only a moron would compare The United States of America to Greece.

You are operating FULLY on dogma now, you emote with NO factual basis.

Here are the FACTS:

The US is not drowning in debt. In relation to GDP, it is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. The relevant number, public held debt today is below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.

What you right wingers can't comprehend is demanding spending cuts now is like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

CBO’s 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook

The CBO did a long range debt report. The chart show 2 scenarios. For all practical purposes, you can call the Extended-Baseline Scenario the Democrat scenario and the Alternative Fiscal Scenario the Teapublican PEA BRAIN scenario.

Democrats have ALREADY put in place policies and laws that will reduce the debt. If WE DO NOTHING it will follow the Extended-Baseline Scenario. If Republicans get their way it will follow the Alternative Fiscal Scenario.


The Extended-Baseline Scenario adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021.

IRONY...The Republicans want the budget to be balanced by keeping spending down rather than by raising tax revenues. They thus propose limiting spending to no more than 18% of gross domestic product (GDP).


Here is a conservative icon

That chart is very nice and clearly illustrates how evil the right is. Just like this one that so firmly proves the government's ability to make correct and accurate predictions:

 

[Againsheila]

I was just listened to an extremely idiotic argument about how food stamps are such a great asset to the economy.

This Democrat spokesman was talking about all of the wonders of food stamps. How they put food in the mouths of the poor and all of the usual liberal rhetoric. The spokesperson that was in opposition started in on him saying that because of the increase of people applying and qualifying for food stamps it is a major drag on the states. She was trying to sell her case that the increase of food stamps is more bad then good. More people employed and being able to afford food without food stamps is more desirable.

The Dem started saying "Oh, so you want to starve people?????"

I kid you not....that was his response!!

This is a microcosm of how a liberal or a progressive creates a wedge-issue. They propose policies that they and their opposition both know is unsustainable and know will cause a common-sense response and then they pull out the "you wanna starve the poor" accusation. The problem is, this has been working for Democrats for a long time. You'd think people would get wise to it. They used it on seniors when the GOP released their economic plan. "Those evil Republicans want to throw you and your wheel-chair over a cliff!!!"

You have to be a morally corrupt individual to make this kind of issue part of your campaign. Anyone who supports such a candidate or political party is in all respects living in denial. You have to live in a vacuum to think this way in the first place. Saying with a straight face that wide spread use of food stamps is a good thing is a radical rationalization similar to Nancy Pelosi proudly declaring that unemployment is helping the economy.

Lets put aside the loss of revenue to the states just for giving out food stamps to more and more people. Not only does the state have to reimburse stores for the lost sales, but also the state misses out on sales tax because no taxes are collected in the transactions. This shortfall has to be made up somewhere or the government will have to shrink or go broke.

Do Democrats realize this? Sure they do. But it fits into their class-warfare act. This all benefits the poor and everyone else suffers because of it.

Is this a good thing to them??? You be the judge.

Seems to me the Dems have policies on issues that are in direct conflict with each other. People are starving....feed them. People are fat....starve them. It's like the Global Warming/Ozone Depletion deal they've used to jack up the price of energy and cost billions to businesses and consumers in favor of their Green energy regulations in the EPA. Too much ozone or not enough. They've got us coming and going. On one hand they're saying we're too fat, on the other they're saying people are starving. It doesn't matter what the issue is. They want to spend more to deal with it forgetting the fact that they caused the problem in the first place. What it amounts to is they've turned the federal government into a perversion of it's original self. A bloated and abusive entity that is an Albatross to the taxpayers of the country.

I know this is a no-brainer.....but I see this repeated in several hot issues. In immigration reform, in Social Security reform, in health care reform, the list goes on and on. The left takes a populist position that they know is unsustainable and they roll with it. These days people are worried because they have been unemployed for a year or more so they tend to fall for the Democrat's argument. People have to be taken care of. Wouldn't it be better if they lived in a country where the government got out of the way so they could take care of themselves....if they so choose????

How is reducing food stamps going to improve employment and increase pay?

Hey, I'm all for getting rid of food stamps. IMO they're a big reason why our country hasn't had another revolution yet.

 

[mudwhistle]

Your food stamp graph is from the Bush years.

No shit.

I used it as an illustration....

But then again it does show that when the Dems took back Congress food stamp use did a reversal and instead of going down started going up.

That's when the Bush recession started.

The economy was still growing the last quarter of 07' so you're mistaken. A recession is two consecutive quarters of GDP shrinking.

So you're saying that the recession started within weeks after the Dems took office????

I call that admission if it were true.

I know they started screwing up lending immediately. It cost me thousands of dollars extra once they took back oversight of lending institutions.

No, the topic is food stamp use. Why were more people applying and qualifying for food stamps during the first year of the Democrat takeover of the government?

The poverty threshold was met by more and more people. Also illegals were allowed to collect them as well. Now that deportations of aliens with no criminal record are being withheld they now can qualify for food stamps under SNAP. Students can qualify for them.

Non-citizens who can be considered for SNAP:

Certain green card holders (lawful permanent residents)*, including Amerasian immigrants
Asylees
Refugees
Parolees who have held that status for at least one year*
People whose deportation or withholding is being withheld
People granted conditional entry before 4/1/1980*
Cuban or Haitian entrants

 

[BoycottTheday]

. IMO they're a big reason why our country hasn't had another revolution yet.

The biggest reason is everyone who would be fodder for a revolution

are so freaking high on drugs they dont know what day it is.

You want a revolution in aMerica?

Cut off the drugs people are using to stay high, then you will see a revolution

And what will they will be revolting for?

More drugs.