Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ayup... as has been explained many times. Bush was a socialist neocon as a TX governor and continued to be a socialist neocon as President.Rep. Tom Cole says food stamp spending doubled under Bush, doubled again under Obama | PolitiFact
doubled under Bush, doubled under Obama ...
We asked Cole for his evidence that spending doubled under Bush before doubling under Obama. The congressman provided numbers from the agency that administers the program, the U.S. Agriculture Department.
He compared total costs of the program from the start of Bush’s term in 2000 to the end of his second term in 2008, then growth from 2008 to the most recent fiscal year available, 2012. Costs had more than doubled under Bush, from $17 billion to $38 billion, then doubled again under Obama, to $78 billion.
Cole didn’t adjust for inflation, but he should have: A more accurate inflation-adjusted measure even more closely matches his claim. Total spending on SNAP in 2012 dollars doubled under Bush, from $20 billion to $40 billion, and very nearly doubled under Obama, $40 billion to $78 billion.
Why?
The story since 2007 is still fresh: joblessness driven by the recession made more people eligible for help, and also drove more folks who were already eligible for help to ask for it, perhaps because their other support networks were tapped out. The stimulus bill also included a boost in benefits, which temporarily increased costs. That expires in November.
The recession also partly explains the rise in benefits before Bush left office in 2008.
But it was the presidency of Bill Clinton and the 1996 welfare reform that set the stage for rising benefits under Bush. Under Clinton, spending had fallen nearly 40 percent, partly because of new limits in the law. By the late 1990s, lawmakers were already starting to roll back some restrictions, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"The increases were largely a rebound from the deep cuts the program sustained in the 1996 welfare law and strengthening the program’s ability to support working families," said Dottie Rosenbaum, who worked in the Congressional Budget Office at the time. She’s now a senior policy analyst with the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who advised Bush on welfare policy at the time of the 2002 farm bill, said the goal then was to expand food programs for low-income working families. The bill made it easier for states to administer the programs and to get more eligible people signed up.
dumbass.
You want to increase production in this country? Stop paying people to be un-productive and watch people start fighting for the chance to be productive so they can get paid.
Here is an article that compares Reagan's economic results to obama's...Obama doesn't come out well...
PJ Media » Updating the Reagan v. Obama Economic Rout
Obamas economic policy, with the help of a pliant Federal Reserve, has been built on the notion that massive deficit spending and easy money would bring the economy roaring back and stimulate job growth. The former strategy was tried during the 1930s. It only succeeded in lengthening the Great Depression, as the nations unemployment rate never fell below 12 percent. The fact that Team Obama insisted on making the same mistakes, while at the same time unleashing the federal governments regulatory apparatus to harass the economys productive participants, is enough to make reasonable people question whether this president and his administration have ever truly wanted to see a genuine recovery occur.
On the other hand, five years of strong, solid and uninterrupted economic performance following a serious recession is how you create a positive economic legacy. Ronald Reagans post-recession economy an economy which faced arguably greater challenges when he took office, particularly double-digit inflation and a prime interest rate of 20 percent did just that.
Reagans economic policy, conducted in the face of necessarily painful anti-inflationary Federal Reserve monetary policy, was premised on supply-side tax cuts and regulatory restraint. A third element, getting federal spending under control, didnt occur because (surprise) Democrats reneged on promises to cut spending made during budget negotiations. Today, Obamas crew anticipates annual budget deficits which will never fall below $450 billion and will balloon back to $1 trillion within a decade.
Five years after the early-1980s recession ended, the U.S. economy was almost 26 percent larger. The Obama economy, in the worst five-year recovery since World War II by miles, hasnt achieved even half of that.
The difference is, well, graphic, as the two images below highlight.
Another REALLY good summary. Thanks for posting. But don't expect some of the dolts to read it. They don't want to be confused with facts. You can tell them someone fed them revisionist history till you're blue in the face and they won't see it. Ever.
Here is an article that compares Reagan's economic results to obama's...Obama doesn't come out well...
PJ Media » Updating the Reagan v. Obama Economic Rout
Another REALLY good summary. Thanks for posting. But don't expect some of the dolts to read it. They don't want to be confused with facts. You can tell them someone fed them revisionist history till you're blue in the face and they won't see it. Ever.
This "dolt" read it, the source was the Ministry of Truth. As for the stats, let's never forget this quote attributed to Mr. Samuel Clemens: "There are liars, damn liars, and Statistics".
So more efficient isn't better? Weird, WHY WASN'T THE US BOOMING AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES? PLEASE explain?
I guess tax rates on Corps don't matter much either then right?
efficiency is good but creating new jobs for America would be better...
firms based in the U.S. have 2 trilion dollars sitting overseas.....cutting our high corporate tax rate would bring alot of that money back to our country where it would do some GOOD for Americans....it would kickstart our failing economy....so what the hell is stopping BO....?
OBAMA WRITES BILLS IN CONGRESS? LOL
ARE CORPS RESTRAINED ON CAPITAL? I MEAN THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY WOULD NEED THE MONEY IN THE US RIGHT?
Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs?
ofits previously earneda repatriation tax holidayis gaining momentum in Congress. This sequel to a similar 2004 holiday would, like its predecessor, have a minuscule effect on domestic investment and thus have a minuscule effect on the U.S. economy and job creation
Heritage Foundation tax policy experts
Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs?
What is "Trickle Down Economics"?
It's a failed and discredited republican fiscal policy predicated on a fallacy propagated by conservative economic dogma that by reducing the tax burden on corporations and the wealthiest Americans, those corporations and individuals will 'reinvest' windfall profits to expand corporate production and business activity, resulting in growth in jobs and the economy.
Needless to say nothing could be further from the truth.
Trickle-down economics, a centerpiece of conservative economic thinking for many decades, failed to deliver its promise of distributing wealth across the economy, a new paper from Harvard Universitys Kennedy School of Government says.
Trickle-Down Economics Fails to Deliver as Promised - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Indeed, rather than using the windfall generated by tax cuts to 'create jobs,' corporations instead used their decreased tax burden to maximize profits and enrich investors and stockholders, where in fact there was nothing remaining to 'trickle-down.'
That republicans and conservatives continue to attempt to promote this failed and discredited fiscal policy is both remarkable and telling.
You wave your ignorance like a flag. Supply side economics worked every time it was tried. Creating incentives for people to work more and invest results in...people working more and investing! Creating incentives for people to move up their auto purchase from December to May creates...loss for the auto industry, as we just saw.
In contrast demand side economics, like Obama has been practicing, is a total failure. Just look at this chart, which proves it:
A total record of failure.
I'll be more specific. The number of jobs available is infinite. Said another way the number of jobs available is only limited by yourself.
Weird, I thought 'job creators' created job by supplying US jobs (via 'supply side) , and we gutted taxes on them HUGELY the last 33+ years. You saying there is no reason for 'job creators' to have the lowest sustained tax burden in 80 years?
Can you convert this question to English?
Ayup... as has been explained many times. Bush was a socialist neocon as a TX governor and continued to be a socialist neocon as President.Rep. Tom Cole says food stamp spending doubled under Bush, doubled again under Obama | PolitiFact
doubled under Bush, doubled under Obama ...
We asked Cole for his evidence that spending doubled under Bush before doubling under Obama. The congressman provided numbers from the agency that administers the program, the U.S. Agriculture Department.
He compared total costs of the program from the start of Bushs term in 2000 to the end of his second term in 2008, then growth from 2008 to the most recent fiscal year available, 2012. Costs had more than doubled under Bush, from $17 billion to $38 billion, then doubled again under Obama, to $78 billion.
Cole didnt adjust for inflation, but he should have: A more accurate inflation-adjusted measure even more closely matches his claim. Total spending on SNAP in 2012 dollars doubled under Bush, from $20 billion to $40 billion, and very nearly doubled under Obama, $40 billion to $78 billion.
Why?
The story since 2007 is still fresh: joblessness driven by the recession made more people eligible for help, and also drove more folks who were already eligible for help to ask for it, perhaps because their other support networks were tapped out. The stimulus bill also included a boost in benefits, which temporarily increased costs. That expires in November.
The recession also partly explains the rise in benefits before Bush left office in 2008.
But it was the presidency of Bill Clinton and the 1996 welfare reform that set the stage for rising benefits under Bush. Under Clinton, spending had fallen nearly 40 percent, partly because of new limits in the law. By the late 1990s, lawmakers were already starting to roll back some restrictions, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"The increases were largely a rebound from the deep cuts the program sustained in the 1996 welfare law and strengthening the programs ability to support working families," said Dottie Rosenbaum, who worked in the Congressional Budget Office at the time. Shes now a senior policy analyst with the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who advised Bush on welfare policy at the time of the 2002 farm bill, said the goal then was to expand food programs for low-income working families. The bill made it easier for states to administer the programs and to get more eligible people signed up.
dumbass.
You want to increase production in this country? Stop paying people to be un-productive and watch people start fighting for the chance to be productive so they can get paid.
Ayup... as has been explained many times. Bush was a socialist neocon as a TX governor and continued to be a socialist neocon as President.Rep. Tom Cole says food stamp spending doubled under Bush, doubled again under Obama | PolitiFact
doubled under Bush, doubled under Obama ...
We asked Cole for his evidence that spending doubled under Bush before doubling under Obama. The congressman provided numbers from the agency that administers the program, the U.S. Agriculture Department.
He compared total costs of the program from the start of Bushs term in 2000 to the end of his second term in 2008, then growth from 2008 to the most recent fiscal year available, 2012. Costs had more than doubled under Bush, from $17 billion to $38 billion, then doubled again under Obama, to $78 billion.
Cole didnt adjust for inflation, but he should have: A more accurate inflation-adjusted measure even more closely matches his claim. Total spending on SNAP in 2012 dollars doubled under Bush, from $20 billion to $40 billion, and very nearly doubled under Obama, $40 billion to $78 billion.
Why?
The story since 2007 is still fresh: joblessness driven by the recession made more people eligible for help, and also drove more folks who were already eligible for help to ask for it, perhaps because their other support networks were tapped out. The stimulus bill also included a boost in benefits, which temporarily increased costs. That expires in November.
The recession also partly explains the rise in benefits before Bush left office in 2008.
But it was the presidency of Bill Clinton and the 1996 welfare reform that set the stage for rising benefits under Bush. Under Clinton, spending had fallen nearly 40 percent, partly because of new limits in the law. By the late 1990s, lawmakers were already starting to roll back some restrictions, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"The increases were largely a rebound from the deep cuts the program sustained in the 1996 welfare law and strengthening the programs ability to support working families," said Dottie Rosenbaum, who worked in the Congressional Budget Office at the time. Shes now a senior policy analyst with the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who advised Bush on welfare policy at the time of the 2002 farm bill, said the goal then was to expand food programs for low-income working families. The bill made it easier for states to administer the programs and to get more eligible people signed up.
dumbass.
You want to increase production in this country? Stop paying people to be un-productive and watch people start fighting for the chance to be productive so they can get paid.
uh, the Republicans had majority in both houses of congress during the latter part of Clintons admin, until the later part of the Bush admin. They wrote the laws and spent the $$ before Bush could sign on the bottom line.
efficiency is good but creating new jobs for America would be better...
firms based in the U.S. have 2 trilion dollars sitting overseas.....cutting our high corporate tax rate would bring alot of that money back to our country where it would do some GOOD for Americans....it would kickstart our failing economy....so what the hell is stopping BO....?
OBAMA WRITES BILLS IN CONGRESS? LOL
ARE CORPS RESTRAINED ON CAPITAL? I MEAN THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY WOULD NEED THE MONEY IN THE US RIGHT?
Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs?
ofits previously earneda repatriation tax holidayis gaining momentum in Congress. This sequel to a similar 2004 holiday would, like its predecessor, have a minuscule effect on domestic investment and thus have a minuscule effect on the U.S. economy and job creation
Heritage Foundation tax policy experts
Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs?
tax holidays and lowering the corporate rate are two different things....maybe we wouldn't have so many inversions if we didn't have the highest corporate rate in the world..
however your liberal plan is to tax corporations even more....it's no wonder that corporations want to flee America....and it appears the liberal answer to THAT problem is to use government threats to stop them from fleeing....take Walgreens for example....this is not a free country when you have government dictating to a private company...
Walgreen Co. opts out of avoiding tax bill by leaving US | TheHill
OBAMA WRITES BILLS IN CONGRESS? LOL
ARE CORPS RESTRAINED ON CAPITAL? I MEAN THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY WOULD NEED THE MONEY IN THE US RIGHT?
Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs?
ofits previously earneda repatriation tax holidayis gaining momentum in Congress. This sequel to a similar 2004 holiday would, like its predecessor, have a minuscule effect on domestic investment and thus have a minuscule effect on the U.S. economy and job creation
Heritage Foundation tax policy experts
Would Another Repatriation Tax Holiday Create Jobs?
tax holidays and lowering the corporate rate are two different things....maybe we wouldn't have so many inversions if we didn't have the highest corporate rate in the world..
however your liberal plan is to tax corporations even more....it's no wonder that corporations want to flee America....and it appears the liberal answer to THAT problem is to use government threats to stop them from fleeing....take Walgreens for example....this is not a free country when you have government dictating to a private company...
Walgreen Co. opts out of avoiding tax bill by leaving US | TheHill
You meant the US has the highest MARGINAL tax rate but ONLY Chile and Mexico have lower tax burdens on Corps?
AND that's NOT counting the VAT's most other nations have? Despite right wing MYTHS, Corp taxes aren't high, and GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN STOP MOST OF THAT TAX AVOIDANCE, IF ONLY THE GOP WAS ON BOARD!
Obama proposed lower the top rate to 28% and closing loopholes. GOP said no, they wanted it revenue neutral, lol
tax holidays and lowering the corporate rate are two different things....maybe we wouldn't have so many inversions if we didn't have the highest corporate rate in the world..
however your liberal plan is to tax corporations even more....it's no wonder that corporations want to flee America....and it appears the liberal answer to THAT problem is to use government threats to stop them from fleeing....take Walgreens for example....this is not a free country when you have government dictating to a private company...
Walgreen Co. opts out of avoiding tax bill by leaving US | TheHill
You meant the US has the highest MARGINAL tax rate but ONLY Chile and Mexico have lower tax burdens on Corps?
AND that's NOT counting the VAT's most other nations have? Despite right wing MYTHS, Corp taxes aren't high, and GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN STOP MOST OF THAT TAX AVOIDANCE, IF ONLY THE GOP WAS ON BOARD!
Obama proposed lower the top rate to 28% and closing loopholes. GOP said no, they wanted it revenue neutral, lol
if we have such low taxes.....why is Obama getting panicky enough to use his 'pen and phone' trick to stop the exodus.....?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/business/Action-in-washington-on-corporate-inversions.html?_r=0
You meant the US has the highest MARGINAL tax rate but ONLY Chile and Mexico have lower tax burdens on Corps?
AND that's NOT counting the VAT's most other nations have? Despite right wing MYTHS, Corp taxes aren't high, and GOOD GOV'T POLICY CAN STOP MOST OF THAT TAX AVOIDANCE, IF ONLY THE GOP WAS ON BOARD!
Obama proposed lower the top rate to 28% and closing loopholes. GOP said no, they wanted it revenue neutral, lol
if we have such low taxes.....why is Obama getting panicky enough to use his 'pen and phone' trick to stop the exodus.....?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/business/Action-in-washington-on-corporate-inversions.html?_r=0
You mean Corps want to pay even lower effective tax rates, zero IF possible? I'm shocked
WHY not use GOOD GOV'T POLICY TO GET MORE REVENUES? Why not get MUCH more from Corps who get the VAST majority of their profits from the US?
Oh, right that 'punishes' the job creators' *shaking head*
if we have such low taxes.....why is Obama getting panicky enough to use his 'pen and phone' trick to stop the exodus.....?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/business/Action-in-washington-on-corporate-inversions.html?_r=0
You mean Corps want to pay even lower effective tax rates, zero IF possible? I'm shocked
WHY not use GOOD GOV'T POLICY TO GET MORE REVENUES? Why not get MUCH more from Corps who get the VAST majority of their profits from the US?
Oh, right that 'punishes' the job creators' *shaking head*
because the goal of government shouldn't be to 'get more revenues'.....
You mean Corps want to pay even lower effective tax rates, zero IF possible? I'm shocked
WHY not use GOOD GOV'T POLICY TO GET MORE REVENUES? Why not get MUCH more from Corps who get the VAST majority of their profits from the US?
Oh, right that 'punishes' the job creators' *shaking head*
because the goal of government shouldn't be to 'get more revenues'.....
Weird, I thought the conservatives were worried about debt? THINK the US Gov't runs on libertarian dreams and fairy tale dust?
because the goal of government shouldn't be to 'get more revenues'.....
Weird, I thought the conservatives were worried about debt? THINK the US Gov't runs on libertarian dreams and fairy tale dust?
worried...yes....but not to the point we let government become even more oppressive....witness the companies leaving the USA...
we need less government....less regulations.....less taxes.....setting free our American capitalist economy......there will be enough 'trickle down' to support government....or do you want to be stagnant for the next 30 years like Japan....?
Ayup... as has been explained many times. Bush was a socialist neocon as a TX governor and continued to be a socialist neocon as President.Rep. Tom Cole says food stamp spending doubled under Bush, doubled again under Obama | PolitiFact
doubled under Bush, doubled under Obama ...
We asked Cole for his evidence that spending doubled under Bush before doubling under Obama. The congressman provided numbers from the agency that administers the program, the U.S. Agriculture Department.
He compared total costs of the program from the start of Bushs term in 2000 to the end of his second term in 2008, then growth from 2008 to the most recent fiscal year available, 2012. Costs had more than doubled under Bush, from $17 billion to $38 billion, then doubled again under Obama, to $78 billion.
Cole didnt adjust for inflation, but he should have: A more accurate inflation-adjusted measure even more closely matches his claim. Total spending on SNAP in 2012 dollars doubled under Bush, from $20 billion to $40 billion, and very nearly doubled under Obama, $40 billion to $78 billion.
Why?
The story since 2007 is still fresh: joblessness driven by the recession made more people eligible for help, and also drove more folks who were already eligible for help to ask for it, perhaps because their other support networks were tapped out. The stimulus bill also included a boost in benefits, which temporarily increased costs. That expires in November.
The recession also partly explains the rise in benefits before Bush left office in 2008.
But it was the presidency of Bill Clinton and the 1996 welfare reform that set the stage for rising benefits under Bush. Under Clinton, spending had fallen nearly 40 percent, partly because of new limits in the law. By the late 1990s, lawmakers were already starting to roll back some restrictions, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"The increases were largely a rebound from the deep cuts the program sustained in the 1996 welfare law and strengthening the programs ability to support working families," said Dottie Rosenbaum, who worked in the Congressional Budget Office at the time. Shes now a senior policy analyst with the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who advised Bush on welfare policy at the time of the 2002 farm bill, said the goal then was to expand food programs for low-income working families. The bill made it easier for states to administer the programs and to get more eligible people signed up.
dumbass.
You want to increase production in this country? Stop paying people to be un-productive and watch people start fighting for the chance to be productive so they can get paid.
uh, the Republicans had majority in both houses of congress during the latter part of Clintons admin, until the later part of the Bush admin. They wrote the laws and spent the $$ before Bush could sign on the bottom line.
Weird, I thought 'job creators' created job by supplying US jobs (via 'supply side) , and we gutted taxes on them HUGELY the last 33+ years. You saying there is no reason for 'job creators' to have the lowest sustained tax burden in 80 years?
Can you convert this question to English?
WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JOBS IF LOW TAXES ON 'JOB CREATORS' CREATES JOBS? Lowest SUSTAINED tax burden (EFFECTIVE) IN 80 YEARS????
You mean Corps want to pay even lower effective tax rates, zero IF possible? I'm shocked
WHY not use GOOD GOV'T POLICY TO GET MORE REVENUES? Why not get MUCH more from Corps who get the VAST majority of their profits from the US?
Oh, right that 'punishes' the job creators' *shaking head*
because the goal of government shouldn't be to 'get more revenues'.....
Weird, I thought the conservatives were worried about debt? THINK the US Gov't runs on libertarian dreams and fairy tale dust?
Can you convert this question to English?
WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JOBS IF LOW TAXES ON 'JOB CREATORS' CREATES JOBS? Lowest SUSTAINED tax burden (EFFECTIVE) IN 80 YEARS????
Were you born a moron, or did it take years for you to get there?
I created my own job. No one created it for me. To Create a job for yourself all you have to do is GET UP OFF YOUR STUPID LAZY ASS AND START WORKING at something others are willing to pay for. Children do it all the time. Are you or are you not smarter than a 1st grader?
