Why are republicans so stupid when it comes to Food Stamps?

[Winston]

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts.

I'm trying to catch up as fast as I can...
there are so many posts I'm dying to reply to,
and didn't know where to begin...until ^

Now, it all makes perfect sense.
Obviously, you reside in the land of Oz!

So, tell me....
will the wizard be getting back to you anytime soon,
about that brain you're in desperate need of?

As much as I'm dying to properly respond,
it'll have to wait until later tonight

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?

There have been dozens. Here is just one.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/F12_Frisvold_Nutrition_Cognitive.pdf

And it is not about responsibility. It is about an investment in the future. Once again, you complain about the worthless parents, and perhaps they are worthless. But do you want those children to grow up and be worthless or do you want them to grow up and be productive citizens, UNLIKE their parents?

And you can bitch and moan till the cows come home. That is not going to change the behavior of those parents. Nor is any government crackdown or cuts in food stamps going to suddenly turn those parents around. What you can do is support the programs that improve the chances of those children being productive citizens.

 

[JonKoch]

You meant the hole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies PUT US IN and Cheeto wants to put it on steroids??

The Career politician is at fault the matter what side of the aisle... shit for brains
Lol

Sure cupcake, NOT the low informed GOP base who "believe" you can cut taxes on those "job creators" and magically get more revenues, but it's the Dems fault for the debt that has exploded since Reaganomics.


Sure wish CONservatives understood economics and there is no free lunch cupcake....

The Federal government cannot create jobs… fact

Sure cupcake, sure



NASA Socio-Economic Impacts

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SEINSI.pdf



NASA’s Ames Research Center generated 5,300 jobs and $877 million in total annual economic activity in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area in 2009, according to a new economic benefits study.

NASA - NASA Ames Stimulates Economy With Jobs, Innovation

CARE TO POINT TO THE SUCCESSFUL TRICKLE DOWN NATIONS CUPCAKE??

Someone has to pay for those government jobs... like I said military, police and fire have to be a necessary.
The larger of the federal government the more of a liability it is to the country... fact

Sorry cupcake ALL you keep doing is giving OPINIONS...

 

[JonKoch]

You meant the hole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies PUT US IN and Cheeto wants to put it on steroids??

The Career politician is at fault the matter what side of the aisle... shit for brains
Lol

The federal government and the country are not one in the same... The bigger the federal government the more harmful for the country… Fact

Why did Ronnie/Dubya grow Gov't then cupcake?

First of all they are career politicians. shit for brains
That's what career politicians do spend other peoples money unnecessarily.
From one side of the aisle to the other there is no difference between career politicians you dumbass motherfucker. LOL

Got it cupcake, the US is unlike that great libertarian nation of???

 

[Rustic]

The Career politician is at fault the matter what side of the aisle... shit for brains
Lol

The federal government and the country are not one in the same... The bigger the federal government the more harmful for the country… Fact

Why did Ronnie/Dubya grow Gov't then cupcake?

First of all they are career politicians. shit for brains
That's what career politicians do spend other peoples money unnecessarily.
From one side of the aisle to the other there is no difference between career politicians you dumbass motherfucker. LOL

Got it cupcake, the US is unlike that great libertarian nation of???

A control freak to the bitter end...

 

[JonKoch]

Then quit with the political bullshit. Obama created far more jobs than Bush. But he did nothing to discourage rent seeking. Rent seeking is when companies seek additional wealth without creating new wealth. In other words, by TAKING instead of MAKING. Citizens United pretty much threw the door wide open.

As the distribution of wealth becomes increasingly unequal, the returns to that wealth—like interest, dividends, and capital gains—will generate more inequality. In addition, the fact that those at higher wealth levels seem to receive higher returns to capital, when coupled with reductions in tax rates on capital income in recent decades, has increased the contribution of capital income to overall inequality. Further, if some firms earn monopoly profits, owners of those firms may benefit more than others.

How Rent-Seeking Is Driving Inequality

"reductions in tax rates on capital income". Did you get that. Obviously, the very first thing we can do is increase the tax rates on capital income to at least the level hard working blue collar Americans pay.

At no time in human history has higher taxes on capital income and redistribution to lower income people EVER resulted in economic growth. NEVER. I'll be back later to expand on that.

LMAOROG, Sure pal, sure

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers


HOW'D THE US ECONOMY DO 1945-1980 AGAIN CUPCAKE?

FactCheck.org says differently:

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech - FactCheck.org

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Oh, so you don't want to read it yourself? Allow me to help:

It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million. But both groups of high-income earners were paying just about the same rate in the late 1980s as they were in 2008, according to the White House graph. The rates increased during the 1990s and began to fall again during the early years of the last decade. Update, April 15: We originally said that the rates in the late ’80s were "similar or possibly lower" than they are today. The Office of Management and Budget later provided specific figures that show the tax rates in the ’80s were similar. The OMB figures show that those earning more than $2 million paid the same rate (25 percent) in 2008 as they did in 1988, 1989 and 1990, and those making more than $250,000 paid 25 percent — the same rate since 2003. The latter group had a rate of 26 percent in the late ’80s.

Hey cupcake WHAT do you "think" my posit was??

" It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million."



YOU KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ARE RIGHT CUPCAKE?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts.

I'm trying to catch up as fast as I can...
there are so many posts I'm dying to reply to,
and didn't know where to begin...until ^

Now, it all makes perfect sense.
Obviously, you reside in the land of Oz!

So, tell me....
will the wizard be getting back to you anytime soon,
about that brain you're in desperate need of?

As much as I'm dying to properly respond,
it'll have to wait until later tonight

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?

There have been dozens. Here is just one.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/F12_Frisvold_Nutrition_Cognitive.pdf

And it is not about responsibility. It is about an investment in the future. Once again, you complain about the worthless parents, and perhaps they are worthless. But do you want those children to grow up and be worthless or do you want them to grow up and be productive citizens, UNLIKE their parents?

And you can bitch and moan till the cows come home. That is not going to change the behavior of those parents. Nor is any government crackdown or cuts in food stamps going to suddenly turn those parents around. What you can do is support the programs that improve the chances of those children being productive citizens.

Yes, from the person that supports a party that fought school vouchers.

I'm sick of liberals using "children" to turn our country into a socialist state. I don't care about the children. They are not my responsibility, liability or my concern. The US spends the most per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world, and somehow, that's not enough, and we have only mediocre results to show for this spending.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Worthless parents will raise worthless kids, and there is nothing you can do about that. If a kid grows up in an environment of government dependency, he or she will continue that dependency because that's all they know. Forcing people to work for a living teaches their kids that life is not as easy as signing a piece of paper and getting checks in the mail. You have to do what you can to earn a paycheck. That's the best education you can give a child.

 

[JonKoch]

Never saw a poor Republican?

If all Republicans work & don't get any government benefits, why do Red States lead the pack in welfare type programs?

A red state does not mean everybody in that state is a Republican. If that were the case, there would be no need for local and state elections. States don't get welfare--people in states get welfare.

We in Ohio are a swing state, but currently pretty red. We have several large cities where Democrats dwell. That's where a lot of our population lives, and that's where you'll most likely find the welfare types.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base
Republicans want to shrink government. But their core voters benefit from assistance, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the most.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base



The Food Stamp Capital of the U.S. is WHITE and REPUBLICAN

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!!


...It’s Owsley County, Kentucky. A place that is said to be 99.22% white and 95% Republican!

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!! | Urban Intellectuals


According to the 2010 census reports, Owsley County has the second highest level of child poverty of any county in the United States. In terms of income per household, the county is the poorest in the nation

Between 1980 and 2014, the rate of death from cancer in the county increased by 45.6 percent, the largest such increase of any county in the United States.
Owsley County, Kentucky - Wikipedia

The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients

"But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group), according to the survey."

Still, Democrats have used the food stamp program twice as much as Republicans. That's a fact.

SURE CUPCAKE, AS WE SEE HOW "HONEST" YOU REPUGS ARE ON THIS BOARD, I'LL BELIEVE THEY DIDN'T LIE ABOUT SUCKING OFF THE TEET OF GOV'T P

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

At no time in human history has higher taxes on capital income and redistribution to lower income people EVER resulted in economic growth. NEVER. I'll be back later to expand on that.

LMAOROG, Sure pal, sure

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers


HOW'D THE US ECONOMY DO 1945-1980 AGAIN CUPCAKE?

FactCheck.org says differently:

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech - FactCheck.org

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Oh, so you don't want to read it yourself? Allow me to help:

It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million. But both groups of high-income earners were paying just about the same rate in the late 1980s as they were in 2008, according to the White House graph. The rates increased during the 1990s and began to fall again during the early years of the last decade. Update, April 15: We originally said that the rates in the late ’80s were "similar or possibly lower" than they are today. The Office of Management and Budget later provided specific figures that show the tax rates in the ’80s were similar. The OMB figures show that those earning more than $2 million paid the same rate (25 percent) in 2008 as they did in 1988, 1989 and 1990, and those making more than $250,000 paid 25 percent — the same rate since 2003. The latter group had a rate of 26 percent in the late ’80s.

Hey cupcake WHAT do you "think" my posit was??

" It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million."



YOU KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ARE RIGHT CUPCAKE?

I think your post was about Obama having the lowest tax rates in 50 years, and FactCheck disagrees with that. The tax rate for the wealthy is the same as it was during Reagan's administration.

 

[JonKoch]

.Wrong. Republicans obstructed job programs initiated by Obama.

The reality here is that conservatives have been a thorn in the side of progress ever since they took over in 1994. The almost took us to a depression during Bush, and Obama created jobs for more than 6. years straight . Things could have and would have been better had it not been for republicans deciding they would fight for power instead of for America. This has been our problem and now that we have Trump with a republican majority in the house ad senate, the problem will be magnified.

Yeah, DumBama wanted to have another failed program and waste another trillion dollars. What happened to shovel ready jobs? Ask the jobs expert:



His Pork Bill had nothing to do with getting America back to work, it had to do with union paybacks.

That bill that was 40% tax cuts to TRY to get a few GOPers on board?


Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked


“The stimulus worked” is the overwhelming conclusion of a panel of elite economists surveyed as part of the University of Chicago’s IGM Economic Experts Panel. The survey asked whether the unemployment rate at the end of 2010 was lower than it would have been because of the U.S. government’s 2009 fiscal stimulus act. Out of the 37 panelists who responded, 36 agreed, an even better response than an identical 2012 survey.
Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked | Moody's Analytics Economy.com

Here, try an unbiased source for a change:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...t-failures-from-president-obamas-stimulus-law

"Here, try an unbiased source for a change: "

AN OPINION PIECE FROM: Reince Priebus is chairman of the Republican National Committee.LMAOROG, CUPCAKE, CUPCAKE, CUPCAKE

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A red state does not mean everybody in that state is a Republican. If that were the case, there would be no need for local and state elections. States don't get welfare--people in states get welfare.

We in Ohio are a swing state, but currently pretty red. We have several large cities where Democrats dwell. That's where a lot of our population lives, and that's where you'll most likely find the welfare types.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base
Republicans want to shrink government. But their core voters benefit from assistance, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the most.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base



The Food Stamp Capital of the U.S. is WHITE and REPUBLICAN

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!!


...It’s Owsley County, Kentucky. A place that is said to be 99.22% white and 95% Republican!

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!! | Urban Intellectuals


According to the 2010 census reports, Owsley County has the second highest level of child poverty of any county in the United States. In terms of income per household, the county is the poorest in the nation

Between 1980 and 2014, the rate of death from cancer in the county increased by 45.6 percent, the largest such increase of any county in the United States.
Owsley County, Kentucky - Wikipedia

The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients

"But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group), according to the survey."

Still, Democrats have used the food stamp program twice as much as Republicans. That's a fact.

SURE CUPCAKE, AS WE SEE HOW "HONEST" YOU REPUGS ARE ON THIS BOARD, I'LL BELIEVE THEY DIDN'T LIE ABOUT SUCKING OFF THE TEET OF GOV'T P

Believe what you want. But the Pew Research center made the claim--I didn't. We report--you decide.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

.Wrong. Republicans obstructed job programs initiated by Obama.

The reality here is that conservatives have been a thorn in the side of progress ever since they took over in 1994. The almost took us to a depression during Bush, and Obama created jobs for more than 6. years straight . Things could have and would have been better had it not been for republicans deciding they would fight for power instead of for America. This has been our problem and now that we have Trump with a republican majority in the house ad senate, the problem will be magnified.

Yeah, DumBama wanted to have another failed program and waste another trillion dollars. What happened to shovel ready jobs? Ask the jobs expert:



His Pork Bill had nothing to do with getting America back to work, it had to do with union paybacks.

That bill that was 40% tax cuts to TRY to get a few GOPers on board?


Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked


“The stimulus worked” is the overwhelming conclusion of a panel of elite economists surveyed as part of the University of Chicago’s IGM Economic Experts Panel. The survey asked whether the unemployment rate at the end of 2010 was lower than it would have been because of the U.S. government’s 2009 fiscal stimulus act. Out of the 37 panelists who responded, 36 agreed, an even better response than an identical 2012 survey.
Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked | Moody's Analytics Economy.com

Here, try an unbiased source for a change:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...t-failures-from-president-obamas-stimulus-law

"Here, try an unbiased source for a change: "

AN OPINION PIECE FROM: Reince Priebus is chairman of the Republican National Committee.LMAOROG, CUPCAKE, CUPCAKE, CUPCAKE

The report was from US news cupcake.

 

[JonKoch]

The federal government and the country are not one in the same... The bigger the federal government the more harmful for the country… Fact

Why did Ronnie/Dubya grow Gov't then cupcake?

First of all they are career politicians. shit for brains
That's what career politicians do spend other peoples money unnecessarily.
From one side of the aisle to the other there is no difference between career politicians you dumbass motherfucker. LOL

Got it cupcake, the US is unlike that great libertarian nation of???

A control freak to the bitter end...

So the cupcakes can't think of one either?? lol

 

[JonKoch]

LMAOROG, Sure pal, sure

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers


HOW'D THE US ECONOMY DO 1945-1980 AGAIN CUPCAKE?

FactCheck.org says differently:

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech - FactCheck.org

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Oh, so you don't want to read it yourself? Allow me to help:

It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million. But both groups of high-income earners were paying just about the same rate in the late 1980s as they were in 2008, according to the White House graph. The rates increased during the 1990s and began to fall again during the early years of the last decade. Update, April 15: We originally said that the rates in the late ’80s were "similar or possibly lower" than they are today. The Office of Management and Budget later provided specific figures that show the tax rates in the ’80s were similar. The OMB figures show that those earning more than $2 million paid the same rate (25 percent) in 2008 as they did in 1988, 1989 and 1990, and those making more than $250,000 paid 25 percent — the same rate since 2003. The latter group had a rate of 26 percent in the late ’80s.

Hey cupcake WHAT do you "think" my posit was??

" It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million."



YOU KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ARE RIGHT CUPCAKE?

I think your post was about Obama having the lowest tax rates in 50 years, and FactCheck disagrees with that. The tax rate for the wealthy is the same as it was during Reagan's administration.

Sorry YOU have reading comprehension issue cupcake, I said the LOWEST SUSTAINED EFFECTIVE TAX RATES SINCE THE FIRST GOP GREAT DEPRESSION

But that Reagan guy had a top rate of 50% his first 6 years, that socialist

 

[JonKoch]

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base
Republicans want to shrink government. But their core voters benefit from assistance, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the most.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base



The Food Stamp Capital of the U.S. is WHITE and REPUBLICAN

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!!


...It’s Owsley County, Kentucky. A place that is said to be 99.22% white and 95% Republican!

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!! | Urban Intellectuals


According to the 2010 census reports, Owsley County has the second highest level of child poverty of any county in the United States. In terms of income per household, the county is the poorest in the nation

Between 1980 and 2014, the rate of death from cancer in the county increased by 45.6 percent, the largest such increase of any county in the United States.
Owsley County, Kentucky - Wikipedia

The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients

"But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group), according to the survey."

Still, Democrats have used the food stamp program twice as much as Republicans. That's a fact.

SURE CUPCAKE, AS WE SEE HOW "HONEST" YOU REPUGS ARE ON THIS BOARD, I'LL BELIEVE THEY DIDN'T LIE ABOUT SUCKING OFF THE TEET OF GOV'T P

Believe what you want. But the Pew Research center made the claim--I didn't. We report--you decide.

Cupcake, learn to read AND comprehend, it was SELF REPORTED to Pew by the LYING Repugs. Because IF you're a Repug you MUST lie and have amnesia about all policy from more than 3 days ago

 

[Rustic]

The federal government and the country are not one in the same... The bigger the federal government the more harmful for the country… Fact

Why did Ronnie/Dubya grow Gov't then cupcake?

First of all they are career politicians. shit for brains
That's what career politicians do spend other peoples money unnecessarily.
From one side of the aisle to the other there is no difference between career politicians you dumbass motherfucker. LOL

Got it cupcake, the US is unlike that great libertarian nation of???

A control freak to the bitter end...

So the cupcakes can't think of one either?? lol

The nanny state will not work, it will run out of other peoples money sooner than later.

 

[JonKoch]

.Wrong. Republicans obstructed job programs initiated by Obama.

The reality here is that conservatives have been a thorn in the side of progress ever since they took over in 1994. The almost took us to a depression during Bush, and Obama created jobs for more than 6. years straight . Things could have and would have been better had it not been for republicans deciding they would fight for power instead of for America. This has been our problem and now that we have Trump with a republican majority in the house ad senate, the problem will be magnified.

Yeah, DumBama wanted to have another failed program and waste another trillion dollars. What happened to shovel ready jobs? Ask the jobs expert:



His Pork Bill had nothing to do with getting America back to work, it had to do with union paybacks.

That bill that was 40% tax cuts to TRY to get a few GOPers on board?


Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked


“The stimulus worked” is the overwhelming conclusion of a panel of elite economists surveyed as part of the University of Chicago’s IGM Economic Experts Panel. The survey asked whether the unemployment rate at the end of 2010 was lower than it would have been because of the U.S. government’s 2009 fiscal stimulus act. Out of the 37 panelists who responded, 36 agreed, an even better response than an identical 2012 survey.
Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked | Moody's Analytics Economy.com

Here, try an unbiased source for a change:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...t-failures-from-president-obamas-stimulus-law

"Here, try an unbiased source for a change: "

AN OPINION PIECE FROM: Reince Priebus is chairman of the Republican National Committee.LMAOROG, CUPCAKE, CUPCAKE, CUPCAKE

The report was from US news cupcake.

Again Cupcake it was an OPINION PIECE from RNC head.... Go to the page again cupcake

 

[JonKoch]

Why did Ronnie/Dubya grow Gov't then cupcake?

First of all they are career politicians. shit for brains
That's what career politicians do spend other peoples money unnecessarily.
From one side of the aisle to the other there is no difference between career politicians you dumbass motherfucker. LOL

Got it cupcake, the US is unlike that great libertarian nation of???

A control freak to the bitter end...

So the cupcakes can't think of one either?? lol

The nanny state will not work, it will run out of other peoples money sooner than later.

Agreed since Ronnie "saved" SS the GOPers have used to hide the cost of tax cuts to the rich to the tune of $2.7+ trillion, now that it's due to be paid back, CONservatives/GOPers say SS is "broke". OPM

 

[JonKoch]

Republicans Gage compassion by how many people no longer need assistance not by how many people are receiving assistance. A growing economy a better health care program that will not hamper job growth will reduce unemployment and reduce the need for food stamps. The nation can not just keep borrowing money to pay able body people to not work, it's not good for them and we can't afford it. 20 trillion dollars of debt says we can't keep it up not me. Now we have a businessman in office creating real jobs and the welfare state is going nuts. Not surprised.

LMAOROG, Sure a "real" Bizman *shaking head*

Don the Con...

Where did most of that debt come from again?

..

 

[Winston]

LMAOROG, Sure pal, sure

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers


HOW'D THE US ECONOMY DO 1945-1980 AGAIN CUPCAKE?

FactCheck.org says differently:

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech - FactCheck.org

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Oh, so you don't want to read it yourself? Allow me to help:

It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million. But both groups of high-income earners were paying just about the same rate in the late 1980s as they were in 2008, according to the White House graph. The rates increased during the 1990s and began to fall again during the early years of the last decade. Update, April 15: We originally said that the rates in the late ’80s were "similar or possibly lower" than they are today. The Office of Management and Budget later provided specific figures that show the tax rates in the ’80s were similar. The OMB figures show that those earning more than $2 million paid the same rate (25 percent) in 2008 as they did in 1988, 1989 and 1990, and those making more than $250,000 paid 25 percent — the same rate since 2003. The latter group had a rate of 26 percent in the late ’80s.

Hey cupcake WHAT do you "think" my posit was??

" It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million."



YOU KNOW WHAT EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ARE RIGHT CUPCAKE?

I think your post was about Obama having the lowest tax rates in 50 years, and FactCheck disagrees with that. The tax rate for the wealthy is the same as it was during Reagan's administration.

The same as the last two years of Reagan's term. But, during that same two years capital gains were taxed at the same rate as earned income. Now, with the capital gains maximum rate at 20% the EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate is at an all time low.

 

[JonKoch]

Sorry cupcake, I'm just saying after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies, the US lost 600,000+ jobs AND lost another 4 million in 2009 before Obama policies kicked in. Obama saw 16 million private sector jobs starting March 2010, the same year "job killer" Obamacares was passed? Weird right cupcake??

Were those jobs "shit welfare" jobs? Record Corp profits, lowest tax burden since before the great GOP depression? Maybe time to get rid of GOP policies like trickle down, if the "job creators" aren't doing their part??

All the policies in place right now are your dear leaders, when does he take responsibility for not lowering the numbers on welfare and food stamps?

.

Weird you haven't seen those numbers going down cupcake? Perhaps relook?

MARCH 18, 2015

No Mystery Why SNAP Enrollment Remains High: It’s Still the Economy


GOP "WELFARE REFORM" CUPCAKE

The need is there and the share of eligible families receiving AFDC/TANF cash assistance declined, as you can see, 79% in 1996 to 32% in 2012. The budget proposals are targeted to serve these families, since less than one-third of eligible families are actually receiving cash assistance from TANF.
The President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget: Strengthening the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program

TANF



ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE??

Yeah, you got any raw numbers? Like there's 47 million on food stamps now, how many were on them last year and the year before? Stop with the percentage of population and adjust for inflation crap.

.

So the answer is no? LMAO

.

Here you go cupcake, I know it's hard for right wingers to find REAL data


Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) | Food and Nutrition Service


3.5 million less than the bottom of Bush's great recession cupcake

https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf