The Food-Stamp Crime Wave

The Obama administration is far more enthusiastic about boosting food-stamp enrollment than about preventing fraud. Thanks in part to vigorous federally funded campaigns by nonprofit groups, the government's AmericaCorps service program, and other organizations urging people to accept government handouts, the number of food-stamp recipients has soared to 44 million from 26 million in 2007, and costs have more than doubled to $77 billion from $33 billion.

"48.6% Now Getting Gov Assistance, Welcome to Obamaville"

Yeah, those home mortgage deductions are killer.

NY Times: Democrats Not Interested in Voters Who Work, Target Losers Instead

"The Future of the Obama Coalition -- For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class." The Democrat Party is just abandoning white working class voters. The Democrat Party is punting. The Democrat Party is saying, "Sayonara, we don't care." They are going after the welfare state full-fledged. They are going after the entitlement mentality people in this country full-fledged. They're not making any pretenses.

The biggest increases came from an uptick in those turning to food stamps and Medicaid.

How much of that is the elderly population that is also bigger than it has ever been?

Cause Sarah and McCain would have fixed W's nightmare leftovers by now....Riiiiight!

#2 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

You do understand that there is a difference between a tax credit and a Government assistance program. Or is it all just free shit to you.

Cause Sarah and McCain would have fixed W's nightmare leftovers by now....Riiiiight!

#5 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour

We'll never know. But we do know who didn't and who threw gas on the fire.

2001 Stats
How Many People Receive Benefits?

The U.S. Bureau of the Census reported that in 2001 about 70.3 million people, or 25 percent of the total U.S. population, lived in households that received some form of means-tested assistanceâ€"assistance based on earning below a certain amount. (See Table 6.1.) This number is considerably higher than the 53.2 million people, or 21 percent of the population, who received assistance in 1990.

In 2001 approximately 32.9 million people were living below the poverty level. There are various governmental measures of poverty, including poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines. The 2001 poverty guideline for a family unit of two was $11,610; for a family unit of four, the guideline was $17,650. Of those living in poverty, 22.2 million, or 67.5 percent, were receiving some form of means-tested aid. (See Table 6.2.)

About 17.7 million persons, 6.3 percent of the total populace, lived in households that received food stamps in 2001. (See Table 6.1.) Of the people who lived below the poverty level, 33.6 percent lived in households that received food stamps in 2001. (See Table 6.2.)

Corrected headline:

100% Gets Government Assistance.

"You do understand that there is a difference between a tax credit and a Government assistance program. Or is it all just free shit to you."

That's funny 'cause I was wondering what your criteria were for "government assistance." And gee, doesn't it seem likely that in a shitty economy, assistance numbers would go up? You can argue about making it worse, or whatever, but make the argument. Don't just throw stats against the wall.

Better that the multimillionaires pay lower tax rates than your local newspaper delivery boy than a hungry child gets a quart of milk once a month.

The DR compassionate conservaturds.

#10 | Posted by pragmatist
To your point. NPR agrees with you (shocked) but stats are going the wrong way

Your local newspaper delivery person is probably a self employed, 1099 vendor for the local newspaper. Assuming he makes too little to have a net Federal Income Tax liability, he still has to pay around 14% in self employment taxes (SS, Medicare). He also probably spends close to 100% of his income on goods and services, paying an average of say 5% in sales taxes.

Your paperboy pays a REAL TAX RATE of 19% give or take a couple of points.

Your future king and personal savior Mitt Rmoney admits that he pays 15%. His masters the are worth far more than a mere multimillinoaire pay even less.

#13 | Posted by axe at 2012-01-17 02:22 PM | Reply Too thick to understand that capital gains is on money that was already taxed.

"To your point. NPR agrees with you (shocked) but stats are going the wrong way"

Oh, the NPR-is-liberally-biased argument. Whee. : )

And yes, the stats should not go up. Nor should millions of people be out of work. You see, I don't get into the blame game on this. Economy is one of those issues that I don't know enough about to argue in depth. So I don't. But if the economy is shitty, chances are, more people need assistance. It seems fairly simple. So I submit to you that maybe it's not that Obama is running around putting more people on assistance, but that more people are applying under existing eligibility rules, and his gov't is approving them. If he changed the eligibility rules, or the relevant department(s) did by his order, I'd see the point. Of course, you might be arguing that his policies are making the economy worse...

I do think the welfare system needs further reform, btw. Yeah, stealth progressive me, I think we should change it. (Of course, part of that would be job training, which would also cost money, but it's more in line with "Teach a man to fish...")

#14 | Posted by paneocon Power of the Pants Whore #2. Too bad, panfriedshitsandwich. The other whore beat you to it.

Its gonna be a Very Long Ten Months for you sluts to suck underpants.

Contrary to AXE, conservatives don't hate the poor.

And yes, the stats should not go up. Nor should millions of people be out of work. You see, I don't get into the blame game on this. #15 | Posted by pragmatist

We must have back stops in society but these public assistance programs have become way more that a hand up. They are a hand out and a regular part of people's lives. We make people too comfortable in their poverty or at least what we call now call poverty. We need to do a better job getting people off these programs. It not just the money but we are crippling these people. Welfare states are created this way.

I submit to you that maybe it's not that Obama is running around putting more people on assistance, but that more people are applying under existing eligibility rules, and his gov't is approving them. #15 | Posted by pragmatist

I disagree, I listen to radio during the day in the warehouse and I hear constant commericals to get more people into the SNAP program. The intent is to grow this program.

I do think the welfare system needs further reform, btw. Yeah, stealth progressive me, I think we should change it. (Of course, part of that would be job training, which would also cost money, but it's more in line with "Teach a man to fish...")#15 | Posted by pragmatist

Newt made a good point last night. 99 weeks is an associate degree or trade school program. Assistance needs to be tired to training and effort getting a job.

"We've rated that Half True because the number was headed upward before Obama became president."

So half true means that half of the credit is based on if your politics go with the statement or not?

#16 | Posted by axe

It's going to be a dam long 8 years for you.

#18 | Posted by salamandagator

It's NPR, they can't admit that Obama has increased the number of SNAP recipients. Lets look at the question.

"He later said that "the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history"

NPR can't disprove it so they do the liberal thing, they obfuscate and point out that the upward trend started before Obama took office. So they say "Half True". Have True, your public funded supported liberal ass, NPR.

4 more years and we can get that number to 100%- the left

Better that the multimillionaires pay lower tax rates than your local newspaper delivery boy than a hungry child gets a quart of milk once a month.

The DR compassionate conservaturds.

#11 | Posted by axe at 2012-01-17 02:18 PM | Reply |

because we all know its the millionares fault that the kid has no milk. If the greedy bastards would just pay a higher tax rate the poor parents would become more responsible for the lives they brought into this world and be able to feed their own kids.

"#18 | Posted by salamandagator

It's NPR, they can't admit that Obama has increased the number of SNAP recipients. Lets look at the question.

"He later said that "the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history"

NPR can't disprove it so they do the liberal thing, they obfuscate and point out that the upward trend started before Obama took office. So they say "Half True". Have True, your public funded supported liberal ass, NPR.
#20 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-01-17 03:15 PM"

Apparently you'll have to take it up with PolitiFact as they agree with NPR and for many of the same reasons:

"I disagree, I listen to radio during the day in the warehouse and I hear constant commericals to get more people into the SNAP program. The intent is to grow this program."

Well, that's your reading (was it you or some other guy who said it's all about your politics? : ) ). Maybe it's the gov't trying to help more people who don't know about or how to get assistance.

"Newt made a good point last night. 99 weeks is an associate degree or trade school program. Assistance needs to be tired to training and effort getting a job."

Long-term assistance, sure. Jeebus, I might share an idea with you and Newt? Weird.

But PA, it's not obfuscation to point out the truth; if there was an upward trend, there was an upward trend. Do you have stats to prove that it wasn't? And how much do you listen to NPR? There are demonstrable stats to show that they're much more balanced than their critics think, and if you listen to the news shows, you'd probably find that to be true. For instance, last year, they devoted a week of segments during the morning show to the Tea Party--very even-handed stuff. I was impressed. And in the run-up to the Iraq war, they had more conservative commentators than liberal ones (by a long shot). And like much of the MSM, they were hardly hugely critical. I feel that some of you critics confuse NPR with Democracy Now. I happen to like Amy Goodman, but she wears her bias on her sleeve.

"BTW, SNAP is a voluntary program (which was noted), so nobody was "put on food stamps by Barack Obama"."

Well, PA's argument is that this administration wants more people to sign up. I'm not sure why that would be (I can predict the argument, though), but that seems to be the point.

"Some 48.6% of the population lived in a household receiving some type of government benefit "

So despite my two full-time jobs, since my MIL gets SS, I live in a household receiving "some type of government benefits".

Is that percentage supposed to actually mean something?

#26
Meant to be fodder for right wing. Look who posted the blog

Better that the multimillionaires pay lower tax rates than your local newspaper delivery boy than a hungry child gets a quart of milk once a month.

All those poor, obese, hungry children running around America.
Imaging how many more we could feed if we could just get those greedy college students out of the food stamp program.

Is that percentage supposed to actually mean something?

It means partial success to the Democratic Party and the Obummer crowd Danfuck. Total success would mean that 99% of people are receiving government assistance. The 1 percenters can go fuck themselves.

North Korea or Bust!

Imaging how many more we could feed if we could just get those greedy college students out of the food stamp program.

#28 | POSTED BY DR_DUDE2 AT 2012-01-17 04:02 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

No, don't "Imaging" it. Do the calculations.

because we all know its the millionares fault that the kid has no milk.

If the kid has no milk, it's obviously not the parents fault.
It's Wall Streets.
Get with the fucking party line or you're a racist homophobe.

No, don't "Imaging" it. Do the calculations.
Sorry Hulkster. My racism often impacts my spelling.

It's NPR, they can't admit that Obama has increased the number of SNAP recipients

They could. It would just dry up their government funding if they did.

My racism often impacts my spelling.

#32 | POSTED BY DR_DUDE2 AT 2012-01-17 04:06 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

And your ability to think logically.

"Too thick to understand that capital gains is on money that was already taxed."

Too stupid to know he's wrong; capital gains are only on the amounts OVER the money already taxed.

4 more years and we can get that number to 100%- the left

#21 | Posted by kersh

It already is 100%.

" Americans flocked to Social Security disability, a last bastion of support for some of the long-term unemployed."

Anyone else see anything wrong with the above?

Too thick to understand that capital gains is on money that was already taxed.
#14 | Posted by paneocon

Seriously, if you can come up with a handful of topics - suggest you start with one, two max - about which you actually do know something, try concentrating on offering comments about them. When you enter into the area of capital gains - the basic principle is actually quite simple (see Danforth's #35 above) but clearly beyond your ken - you just sound, well, kinda stoopid.

I realize commenting about stuff one doesn't know jack about is not at all unusual here, but, hey, make an effort to apply the brakes once in a while - think of it as your contribution to curbing the crash-and-burn stats.

25 | Posted by pragmatist

Are you so naive as to think that Democrats want to make things better for anyone? Silly Rabbit. Let's take this home for you, teachers unions and education vouchers. We have plenty of evidence that teachers unions protect bad teachers and cause good teachers to be released under the last hired first fired union law. We also have plenty of evidence that education vouchers work especially in intercity districts where the schools are sub standard. I'm sure you beg to differ but you can't argue that these schools are not performing at a reasonable level with the current pro union anti-voucher program that's been in place for decades. Dems support teachers unions because the unions are huge and they put millions into political support of Dems, I don't see where the kid come in here? Same goes for vouchers, they could make it possible for a lot of kids to break out of the cycle of poverty but dems fight them because they would damage the teachers unions, still not feeling Dem love for the kids? Dems are interested in power and their need to rule in perpetuity.

Look at that ad folks. SSDI see if you're qualified. Or, just ask Rcade.

lmao......

What's an ad like that pay you Rcade? lol

Looks official,,,,,, them lawyers is smart ones they is.

"We have plenty of evidence that teachers unions protect bad teachers "

What a pile of flung feces. Teachers Unions merely make management adhere to the rules they signed.

#38 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

You own an asset, how did you acquire the asset? You purchased it with capital you paid taxes on. When you sell the asset the profit or loss becomes a capital gain or capital loss. You are taxed on the profit on the sale of a asset you purchased with post tax money.

"You are taxed on the profit on the sale of a asset you purchased with post tax money."

Bingo. The PROFIT, i.e., the part NOT taxed yet. The "post-tax money" is your basis in the investment.

Give up now, dude: you're clueless.

Teachers Unions merely make management adhere to the rules they signed.
#41 | Posted by Danforth

Wrong as usual but thanks for playing the union studge

The Rubber Room

n a windowless room in a shabby office building at Seventh Avenue and Twenty-eighth Street, in Manhattan, a poster is taped to a wall, whose message could easily be the mission statement for a day-care center: "Children are fragile. Handle with care." It's a June morning, and there are fifteen people in the room, four of them fast asleep, their heads lying on a card table.

And your ability to think logically.

But not my ability to own your ass.

"Wrong as usual ... The Rubber Room"

Thanks, Einstein: the Rubber Room proves ME right: it's a management problem, since they can't find the proof required in the contract they signed to terminate the teachers.

"but thanks for playing the union studge"

Classic self-retort, stooge.

#46 | Posted by Danforth
Don't like that here are 3,220,000 more articles on teachers unions protect bad teachers

"here are 3,220,000 more articles on teachers unions protect bad teachers "

Anyone can barf anything they want, whether it's truthful or not, as you prove on a near-daily basis.

48 | Posted by Danforth

Well if a union doesn’t protect bad teachers with the good then the union sucks! So which is it?

"So which is it?"

False dichotomy. The Union itself doesn't get to determine if the teacher is good or bad; it merely makes the administration live up to its side of the bargain REGARDLESS, which, if you think about it, is the whole point, as it parallels our "innocent until proven guilty" system.

#50 | Posted by Danforth

So we agree the unions protect bad teachers.

"So we agree the unions protect bad teachers."

No, dumbshit, not any more than the judicial system protects criminals but not innocents.

The Union protects the contract; nothing more, nothing less. If management can't produce the requirements to terminate a teacher they believe is bad, why is it suddenly the Union's fault? Why is the Union wrong for making them live up to their side of the bargained contract?

39--No bearing on argument about SNAP. I don't feel like going through the whole damned argument about schools/vouchers again. I've written about it extensively. Why reopen an argument we'll never get closer on?
+++++

44--ONE FUCKING situation. AFT, NOT NEA. NYC, which is a fucking morass of shitty administration and huge bureaucracy. But yes, I will watch Waiting for Superman eventually. It's in my queue. These days, I want to escape when I have time from school. When I get to it, we can have a rip-roarin' conversation (and you can tell me that Michael Moore is a great source of information : ) ).
+++++

47--Christ, PA. A link to Google hits? How many of those are the same story in different places? How many are in anti-union-bias sites? Fuckin' A, man. THINK. And of course, unions protect the contract. It's our job. We should all agree on better ways to assess teaching and fairer ways to help those who want it and get rid of those who don't. Agreed. Why don't you go get the parties to sit down and really talk? I've tried (in my tiny district), and neither side really wants to think it through. Just imagine what it's like in big districts with bigger bureaucracies and crazier politics.
+++++

50--Bingo. 52--Double win! PA--the union works on a systemic level; it's the point of a union. Collective bargaining; collective action. This means that sometimes, yes, bad teachers get the same representation as good teachers. Parallel to criminal justice system valid. I'd really like to see better, more open behaviors on both sides. But changing a SYSTEM is hard. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try--as I have in my small way, in my small place. Have you served on your board, written letters to your congressmen, given money to organizations that forward your agenda? If you believe it's important, take action, man. Some of you talk a lot about this problem (and there are indeed problems), but so far no critic on DR has told me about the action they've taken in this area.

Btw, the current NEA president has some goals for the organization that seem likely to piss off members. I'm interested to see how it pans out. For one thing, he wants to make entrance into the field harder, which I have long thought is a good thing. Of course, then you better pay more. And I think that, by and large, we should shitcan education degrees. Get degrees in the appropriate field and then get trained in teaching methodology. (I just did a new program that was fantastic--great stuff for mechanics of teaching: running a discussion, getting learners started in a discussion or new unit, etc. etc. etc. All of us can learn. No one is ever done growing and learning.)

47--Christ, PA. A link to Google hits?

Hey what do you do with Danforth I thought it would keep him busy for a while and he might learn something. I was wrong.

the current NEA president has some goals for the organization that seem likely to piss off members.#54 | Posted by pragmatist

We've heard it before. Any of these public service unions that don't hear the beat of war drums are idiots.

You missed my point that status quo is not working and Dems are showing no interest in anything but business as usual. They want it that way.

Keep checking up on the new Orleans school systems. They Dems and unions are attacking again to return it to the same old shit. The folks are pushing back.

"Hey what do you do with Danforth I thought it would keep him busy for a while and he might learn something. I was wrong."

You were only wrong because I already knew it: some folks will barf anything. As I said, the guy in your mirror is a perfect example.

If you have, now or in the future, links from nonpartisan sources about events in New Orleans relating to schools, I'd be interested.

I'm not sure what your point was regarding teachers' unions. other than some of the same old talking points based in lack of knowledge of what the NEA actually does in the school systems. You ignore all of the points brought up by Danforth and by me. If you're going to try to criticize unions, you really need to look at the whole picture. I'm saying that we, the union, have work to do and need to be ready to move forward together. You're not acknowledging any of the other factors in what is a systemic problem. When you're ready to do that, let me know, and we can have a real conversation.

You see, I actually agree that the system needs serious work, and that part of that is the role of unions. I've written extensively here on my interest in serious school reform that involves all stakeholders. I believe some of those conversations were even with you. As for the NEA president's moves, I'm not saying they're all good, but when I read about them last week, they seemed pretty bold for the president of a union. That's all.

The U.S. Bureau of the Census reported that in 2001 about 70.3 million people, or 25 percent of the total U.S. population, lived in households that received some form of means-tested assistanceâ€"assistance based on earning below a certain amount. (See Table 6.1.) This number is considerably higher than the 53.2 million people, or 21 percent of the population, who received assistance in 1990.

......I wonder when the Bush Tax Cuts trickle down effect is going to kick in ?......

Welcome to Obamaville

Much better that we do away with the social safety net and let these people starve or steal for their food.

You do understand that there is a difference between a tax credit and a Government assistance program. Or is it all just free shit to you.

#6 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-01-17 02:00 PM | REPLY | FLAG

I love how you turn a blind eye to the home ownership assistance the federal government gives you solely because it is a tax deduction. It is still government intervention in the free market, as is charitable donation deduction, real estate tax deduction, etc.

Much better that we do away with the social safety net and let these people starve or steal for their food.

The social saftey net for 48.6% of the starving, oppressed, downtrodden Americans that can't take care of themselves. Big fucking net don't you think?

I love how you turn a blind eye to the home ownership assistance the federal government gives you solely because it is a tax deduction. It is still government intervention in the free market, as is charitable donation deduction, real estate tax deduction, etc.

I wonder when the Bush Tax Cuts trickle down effect is going to kick in

"Oops, forgot, that would kill your wealth redistribution agenda. Can't have that now can we?"

LORD NO! But now you're pissin' him off. Our little welfare friends have managed to keep it secret for a long time that they have more disposable income than a family making 60K per year. See the chart:

I love how you turn a blind eye to the home ownership assistance the federal government gives you solely because it is a tax deduction. It is still government intervention in the free market, as is charitable donation deduction, real estate tax deduction, etc.#59 | Posted by 726

If you want to remove all deductions and lower my tax rate I could go with it. It is a nice effort to move the goal posts because the Government assistance programs in this article are direct payment and not tax credits. The two are separate issues, but of course you know that. The Danforth Defense will not work here.

I wonder when the Bush Tax Cuts trickle down effect is going to kick in ?......
#58 | Posted by skizziks

They kicked in around 2002/2003 more revenue to the trearsery and lower unemployment. Barry knows this because he didn't remove then when he had control of congress for two years.

You mean the mortgage interest deduction that the Democrats oppose eliminating? - thehill.com
You want to get rid of it, go to the fair tax. Oops, forgot, that would kill your wealth redistribution agenda. Can't have that now can we?

#60 | POSTED BY DR_DUDE2 AT 2012-01-18 12:50 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Thanks Dr. Douche, but I never said get rid of it. But for paneoclown to say it is not government assistance is dishonest.

Big fucking net don't you think?

Yes, the republicud agenda has fucked up this country big time.

#62 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Thanks for the link. Interesting.

They kicked in around 2002/2003 more revenue to the trearsery and lower unemployment.

That is too funny.

#65 | Posted by 726

It is government assistance but it not included in the 48.6% in the article. Note that mortgage interest deduction benifits all. If you own or rent it is a factor. It is also progressive so you should keep your socialist income redistribution mouth shut.

That is too funny.
#67 | Posted by 726

Too true but you libs never were big on fact and figures. Here let me put it in terms you libs can understand. It didn't SUCK in 2002/2003

"It is a nice effort to move the goal posts because the Government assistance programs in this article are direct payment and not tax credits. The two are separate issues"

Why? One dollar from one is equal to one dollar of the other. Of course you don't want to bring up tax deductions, because the whole picture doesn't paint what you believe.

"Note that mortgage interest deduction benifits all."

Not if you aren't an owner, have a paid-off mortgage, or use the standard deduction.

If you have, now or in the future, links from nonpartisan sources about events in New Orleans relating to schools, I'd be interested #57 | Posted by pragmatist

Next time I see something good I'll post it to the DR. as for the "nonpartisan sources" stuff, is there such a thing anymore? The truth is more elusive than ever these days, but I'll try.

I'm not sure what your point was regarding teachers' unions#57 | Posted by pragmatist

Most likely a mistake on my part, the teacher's union stuff is too much of a hot button issue for both or us. The original premise was that I feel that Democrats are more vested in their own interests that that of their constituents.

Different example: Immigration. We know that illegal immigration increases demands on stressed social services, we know that it waters down the job market by flooding the low wage job pool with more supply than demand, thus forcing US citizens, mostly minority, into social services like unemployment compensation. We also know that illegal immigrates are lacking of the protections afforded by the law and constitution, so illegal immigrates are abused. This is the all caring all, peoples party?

"They kicked in around 2002/2003 more revenue to the trearsery "

Well, yeah, if you compare it to the precipitous drop the year before due to the tax cuts.

Compare it with the year before the cuts, and you'll see revenue is not about to catch up. So your statement the tax cuts boosted revenue to the treasury is either uninformed or bullshit.

#70 | Posted by Danforth

The "Danforth Defense" is not going to work here. The article has nothing to do with tax deduction and you can move "your" goal posts but you will be playing with yourself. (as usual)

#72 | Posted by Danforth

it's called 9/11 and a recession in 2001.

Economists call it recession

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

"Economists call it recession"

Sorry, there's already a definition for that word.

" The article has nothing to do with tax deduction"

You're being intellectually dishonest if you don't admit both ends cost the same dollar.

#75 | Posted by Danforth

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)is the official determiner of whether we are in a recession or depression. An accountant would know that.

Note that mortgage interest deduction benifits all. If you own or rent it is a factor. It is also progressive so you should keep your socialist income redistribution mouth shut.

#68 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-01-18 01:44 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Not if you don't have a mortgage fuck for brains.

"The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is the official determiner"

Sorry, bub, my official determiner is the dictionary, and the definition I was taught in Econ class. That word has a meaning: two consecutive contracting quarters. You can't find two consecutive contracting quarters until Dubya was leaving office.

"The "Danforth Defense""

AKA, the whole picture, including the inconvenient parts you want to pretend don't exist because they undermine your bullshit.

They kicked in around 2002/2003 more revenue to the trearsery and lower unemployment. Barry knows this because he didn't remove then when he had control of congress for two years.
Year / Federal Deficit -fed
2002 157.75 a
2003 377.59 a
2004 412.73 a
2005 318.34 a
2006 248.19 a
2007 160.94 a
2008 458.55 a

Got to love someone that posts data about the federal deficit going up and uses that as proof that revenue went up.

LOL!

How about this smart guy...

#79 | Posted by Danforth

Are you so foolish as to question something from "anyone" with out checking it out? It just makes you look stupid. It called Google, try it some time

Got to love someone that posts data about the federal deficit going up and uses that as proof that revenue went up.
#81 | Posted by 726

I post official Gov sources and you give me Urban Institute, Brookings Institution?

Further proof that the economy left behind by Gannon's cum dumpster was every as bit as dead as that poor kid his cunt wife t-boned.

#83... Pooowah! And you miss the point. Predictable.

Further proof that the economy left behind by Gannon's cum dumpster was every as bit as dead as that poor kid his cunt wife t-boned.

#84 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2012-01-18 03:36 PM

Nothing of the kind as Medicare is included in this. Both my parents are getting Medicare as they are of that age, but my dad is still working. My parents fall under this 48.6%, but are far from poor or economically hurt.

you give me Urban Institute, Brookings Institution?

Ahhhh.... don't deal with the data, attack the messenger. Very predictable.

#86 | Posted by kanrei

Do you have a reinheitsgebot to English Dictionary? Is there a babel fish for that?

#87 | Posted by 726

I'll try to post the revenue to the US Treasury tonight if I get time and I will use the US Treasury for a source, not some Soros think tank. With all the pissing and moaning you libs do when someone posts from Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute I’m shocked that you have a issue when I reject your Soros sources.

It doesn't matter who the next president is. America has passed the point of no return and is sinking far faster than it can ever be bailed out. The Serenity Prayer helps me to accept that there are millions who still think we can reverse the National Debt and eliminate welfare dependance. I've said before and I'll say it again. I think it would serve America best if 0bama was reelected. It's better we should plunge headlong onto bankruptcy as fast as we can while there is still a generation of American's alive who have the drive and recollection to regroup and reorganize what remains and rise back up to our rugged American roots. If we flounder for another generation, we could loose any hope of rising back up because, through sedation, revisionist media and government education, Americans will only know to turn to government which by then will no longer be unable to function normally or provide for the "general welfare".

#90 | Posted by libertarian_gi

Sad but understandable, not defensible but understandable.

#87 | Posted by 726
There you go, GDP rising and revenue to US Treasury up at least untill Dems took over congress in 2007.

Year / GDP-US / Total Direct Revenue
2001 10218 3527.75 i
2002 10572.4 3299.19 a
2003 11067.8 3456.93 i
2004 11788.9 3891.15 a
2005 12554.5 4243.60 a
2006 13310.9 4696.05 a
2007 13969.3 5170.63 a
2008 14270.5 4700.14 a
2009 14014.8 3634.90 a
2010 14551.8 4724.78 e
Legend:
a - actual reported
i - interpolated between actual reported values
e - out-year estimate in US fy13 budget

#92, now adjust for inflation, or doesn't that exist in your world?

Name three pieces of legislation that the Dems passed into law that caused the revenue drop you blame them for.

2000 ... 2,025,191
2001 ... 1,991,082
2002 ... 1,853,136
2003 ... 1,782,314
2004 ... 1,880,114
2005 ... 2,153,611
2006 ... 2,406,869
2007 ... 2,567,985
2008 ... 2,523,991
2009 ... 2,104,989

Funny how your site's numbers are so drastically different than the governments published numbers. Why is that?

#93 | Posted by 726

The very existence of Democrats in charge causes revenue to US Treasury drop. It's called the business pucker factor.

Okay, got proof of that.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Why is that?
#94 | Posted by 726

I don't know but letd see, if I want to know how much money is coming into the US Treasury who do I go to for that information? The US Treasury or the White House?

Correlation does not equal causation.
#96 | Posted by 726

It was a joke tight ass. Have some more coffee and lighten up. It's only money and our future as a viable country.

I don't know

Great. I post "facts" but I don't know why they are different than the official numbers!

It was a joke tight ass.

Well it appears to me that everything you post is a joke, so maybe you indicate what you intend to be a joke with a smiley face or an LOL.

So do tell, what did the Dem Congress do to make revenues go down?

You are good at tap dancing around a question and posting info that you don't know if it correct or not.

I don't know but letd see, if I want to know how much money is coming into the US Treasury who do I go to for that information? The US Treasury or the White House?

#98 | Posted by 726
You are correct Chantrill's site suckered me. I looked in the IRS and Treasury site but I can't find it in the time I have available this morning so OK lets use your White House figures.

2000 ... 2,025,191
2001 ... 1,991,082
2002 ... 1,853,136
2003 ... 1,782,314
2004 ... 1,880,114
2005 ... 2,153,611
2006 ... 2,406,869
2007 ... 2,567,985
2008 ... 2,523,991
2009 ... 2,104,989

2001 recession revenue lower
2002/2003 Bush Tax Cuts revenue increases GDP increases
2009 Market collapase

Hertiage figures mirror White House but graph is interesting

Now adjust those to 2005 constant dollars to remove inflation from the growth.

2000 2,310.0
2001 2,215.3
2002 2,028.6
2003 1,901.1
2004 1,949.5

2005 2,153.6
2006 2,324.1
2007 2,414.0
2008 2,286.8
2009 1,898.3
2010 1,919.0

With the exception of two years - 2006 and 2007 - all lower than 2000. Tax cuts do not increase revenue.

Hertiage figures mirror White House

Here's my shocked face..... "Whaaaaaaaaa!"

Here is some interesting facts about the food stamps program:
President George W. Bush expanded food stamp eligibility with the egregious 2002 farm bill by adjusting deductions and income tests and encouraging states to find more participants. The Pelosi Congress then rebranded the program in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of June 2008 to emphasize nutrition rather than the stigma of receiving handouts. As a result and also thanks to the recession in 2008, food stamp participation rose by 10.9 million across the Bush Presidency.

But Mr. Obama is now outstripping that dubious achievement, and in only three years rather than eight. The 2009 stimulus bill increased maximum benefits and authorized more money for states to administer the program. Some 11.2 million more people have joined the rolls from 2009 through 2011, including 4.4 million last year during what was ostensibly an economic recovery.

Tax cuts do not increase revenue.
#100 | Posted by 726

2002 2,028.6
2003 1,901.1
2004 1,949.5
2005 2,153.6
2006 2,324.1
2007 2,414.0
2008 2,286.8
2009 1,898.3
2010 1,919.0

Is that liberal math because I'm seeing revenue increase until 2008 when princess Nancy took over the House of Rep and by the way the last Fed budget was passed in ? April 3, 2009. Thanks for making the case for the Bush tax cuts and for the effect of dems in control of the budget..

"Is that liberal math"

You're being intellectually dishonest. Why did you start AFTER the Bush tax cuts, and not use the final year of Clinton's tax code as the baseline? Is it because, once adjusted for inflation, your theory is blown to shit?

#104 | Posted by Danforth

I didn't put Clintons last year in because it was not germane to the discussion. As for inflation adjusted you have to ask 726 they are his numbers.

"I didn't put Clintons last year in because it was not germane to the discussion."

That's ridiculous. Of course it's germane to the discussion. If you're going to claim "tax cuts increase revenue", you have to show and compare it to the last year before the tax cuts. You can't start after the tax cuts have taken effect and pretend that's a base year. Your methodology flunks.

"As for inflation adjusted you have to ask 726 they are his numbers."

No, you pared off the first two years' numbers, numbers which proved you wrong. And purposely.

Give em more handouts, get em where you want em then they'll vote you in for life. What a plan, wait America? its pride, productivity, creativity? shot to hell?

Ahhhhh who cares, a country on the dole living mediocre lives, unemployed, drugged out and unproductive is far more important.

Go Libs Go, like the plague destroying everything before you, as long as you get yours all is well.

Get a job lazy bastards