Obama determined to starve the poor

[justapixel]

Obama has cut 12 billion from food stamps to save union jobs.

The House of Representatives interrupted its August recess this week to return to Washington to starve the nation's poor.

Democrats contend the $26 billion aid package could save the jobs of more than 300,000 teachers, police officers and other public servants. Republicans, however, say the measure only prolongs state funding imbalances and does nothing to avert future layoffs.

The federal government reported last week that the number of Americans receiving food stamps rose to a record 40.8 million in May. Participation in the food stamp program has set records for 18 straight months.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013164-503544.html

 

[laikaNYC]

The next question is: Will Anthony Weiner go crazy on the House floor about this?

 

[evanrick]

You call him a socialist for passing healthcare but dont want him to cut social programs? Cant have it both ways.

 

[BostonPirate]

thanks pixie, we were just talking about the fact that it would be irresponsible for america to give the 20 billion in dollars to the civil servants, and several members pointed out to me that there are two ways that they paid for teachers, firefighters, policemen, and medicaid for the sick and elderly in emergency relief funds for states with budget deficits....

they reduced the hike that the original stimulus package gave on food stamps which added 12 billion back into the governments coffers. they also raised taxes on the top few percent of americans to make up 10 billion more. So all parties and classes within america helped pay for the future security of our nation and the education of our children.

its the first Bill I have noticed that was fiscally responsible while being economically stimulating.

good catch to remind us what a good job they did!!!

 

[polobro25]

. . . what? . . .

 

[justapixel]

. . . what? . . .

Did you really expect a real response for cutting food stamps?

Though I enjoyed the double speak.

 

[BostonPirate]

. . . what? . . .

he makes shit up by picking a few facts out of a story....lol

he does it all the time. it's actually kind of fun because its like a puzzle. you just follow the link and you see how he twisted the shit all up.

Not like a sunday crossword puzzle kind of fun. More like a people magazine crossword puzzle kind of fun.

its easy and light and then you move on to something else...hehe

In his own way, he always makes the other sides point for them accidentaly so you can't really dislike him for it.

I think it's fun, but I do have an offcenter sense of humor

 

[JB3]

I'm surprised you're talking about this when the real issue is that any states that take the money for education are not allowed to cut funding for at least 2 years, and have to maintain their funding level even though the borrowed money will have long run out. That fact is going to make it very difficult for states that actually need the money (like Illinois and California) to accept it, because there is no way in hell that they'll be able to maintain those funding levels.

THAT is a serious issue, and a fundamental defect in how this bill was put together. I can understand requiring that the states not cut funding while they're receiving the funding. But to do so after the money has run out was a poor, poor choice.

 

[rareboy]

he makes shit up by picking a few facts out of a story....lol

The thing is, it is always so glaringly absurd. Like Watching Glenn Back try to diagram his conspiracies on a chalkboard.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I just hope that all those minorities that waited in line hours and hours to vote for him are now saying,

"Hey! Wait a minute! Why has he not paid my bills?! Or paid my mortgage?! Or bought me a new car yet?! I thought he was going to do all that for me, that son of a......."

It's funny that when Bush was in office John Edwards always talked about people living under bridges. I bet there's a lot more living under those bridges now that Obama is in office.

Oh man, I think the whole thing's funny and sad.

Yep because it only took Obama less than two years in office to screw everything up for the rest of America.

I think that we should be in aw by how one individual by himself and within the course of just a few months, can take this country from being the admiration of the world, to the brink of being a third world country while we all continue to go broke, and a select few profit from it.

I'm glad to see you celebrating that.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Obama has cut 12 billion from food stamps to save union jobs.

But if those were minimum wage retail jobs, where Americans with their college degrees go to be underemployed, that would be okay with you?

Teachers, Firefighters, Police Officers, and other sometimes "unionized" Americans who keep the wheels greased, and who pay the majority of taxes in the country, saving their jobs and helping to keep their heads above water isn't as important as making sure that Wall Street boys get their $1000,000 bonuses. Guys who've probably never worked for an honest day's wage in their life?

Glad to see that you support an ideaology over your own Democracy, and your place as an American. Good Job!

{Epic Fail}

 

[BostonPirate]

The thing is, it is always so glaringly absurd. Like Watching Glenn Back try to diagram his conspiracies on a chalkboard.

well especially in this case, when the republicans have been fighting on television about the tax hikes for the wealthy and the dems have been dragging their feet on the bill because it deflates the higher levels of food stamps that were due to start. This basically just cuts spending that was GOING to happen out of the bill, leaves food stamp levels at their current levels, and raises taxes on the wealthy.

It was a good bill and you can tell because both sides of the aisle bitched as they drug their feet up to pass the bill.

I am actually not sure whether the president has signed it yet, but the white house signaled it definitely would.

The economic impact is that there will be a reduction in job losses, not that it will create new ones, which is an important point, and since it is paid for it wont add to the deficit. The method of payment just shuffles resources that haven't been spent and increases taxes on the wealthy.. I am not sure of the mechanism of the tax hike.

what it mostly does is stop things from falling apart... like teachers, firemen, and such from being laid off and it also covers medicaid for the states that have run out of cash, so that the elderly and disabled still get their coverage. It also reduces the economic burden of the medicaid program temporarily that is on the shoulders of the states, and that is important. all these things create spending, and the other side of this is that the government will make some of this back in income taxes from the people getting paid.

I'm usually very critical of spending bills, but this one is built on sound ground.

 

[JB3]

well especially in this case, when the republicans have been fighting on television about the tax hikes for the wealthy and the dems have been dragging their feet on the bill because it deflates the higher levels of food stamps that were due to start. This basically just cuts spending that was GOING to happen out of the bill, leaves food stamp levels at their current levels, and raises taxes on the wealthy.

It was a good bill and you can tell because both sides of the aisle bitched as they drug their feet up to pass the bill.

I am actually not sure whether the president has signed it yet, but the white house signaled it definitely would.

The economic impact is that there will be a reduction in job losses, not that it will create new ones, which is an important point, and since it is paid for it wont add to the deficit. The method of payment just shuffles resources that haven't been spent and increases taxes on the wealthy.. I am not sure of the mechanism of the tax hike.

what it mostly does is stop things from falling apart... like teachers, firemen, and such from being laid off and it also covers medicaid for the states that have run out of cash, so that the elderly and disabled still get their coverage. It also reduces the economic burden of the medicaid program temporarily that is on the shoulders of the states, and that is important. all these things create spending, and the other side of this is that the government will make some of this back in income taxes from the people getting paid.

I'm usually very critical of spending bills, but this one is built on sound ground.

See my post above. Even though the bill was paid for, and both sides had to sacrifice something for it, its going to cause problems down the road for states that accept the money.

 

[BostonPirate]

See my post above. Even though the bill was paid for, and both sides had to sacrifice something for it, its going to cause problems down the road for states that accept the money.

it gives the states time, though, to do that. So this gives the states time to find the same type of trades that the feds had to make to pass the bill and pay for it.

lets face a few facts. We have to create jobs and that can only happen if people are educated in new fields. We have to cover seniors and disabled people with medicare, because, frankly, that is what america does. It takes care of its elderly and its sick. moral decent societies DO that.

It pays teachers as well as insures that places don't burn down from laying off fire departments so heavily, and it forces them to find a fix within their budget that will not do those sorts of things. and that is the crux of the issue.... they will have to find the revenue through other means besides cutting teachers, police and firemen... all vital basic services for an urban and suburban setting to survive.

there are some services that are needed for society to function, and we have to raise the revenue, state to state, to pay for that stuff, instead of kicking the can firther down the road and making deficits larger.

the answers are in the individual states budgets. examples... massachusetts has HUGE luxury taxes. HUGE. a pack of smokes is between 8 to 9 bucks. New Hampshire has NO luxury taxes and has HUGE property taxes.

each state identifies what the citizens are willing to pay and where the money is, but

you cant cut basic services and expect society to not degrade... and that is what would make the recession even longer.

let me put it this way... you find the cancer early and you get a healthier patient after treatment because the treatment isn't extreme. You let cancer go for a year or two and you have huge health issues that can become systemic and spread all over the body. You have no choice but to fix it or die, and all that is left is choosing the least painful method and the least costly method.

the federal government bought time for the states and simultaneously warned them that there is a line that americans need to maintain societaly to insure the quality of life for its citizens.

does that make any sense?

 

[Seasoned]

Since when have Republicans supported food stamps? The paid operatives on this forum are getting queerer and queerer.

 

[JB3]

it gives the states time, though, to do that. So this gives the states time to find the same type of trades that the feds had to make to pass the bill and pay for it.

lets face a few facts. We have to create jobs and that can only happen if people are educated in new fields. We have to cover seniors and disabled people with medicare, because, frankly, that is what america does. It takes care of its elderly and its sick. moral decent societies DO that.

It pays teachers as well as insures that places don't burn down from laying off fire departments so heavily, and it forces them to find a fix within their budget that will not do those sorts of things. and that is the crux of the issue.... they will have to find the revenue through other means besides cutting teachers, police and firemen... all vital basic services for an urban and suburban setting to survive.

there are some services that are needed for society to function, and we have to raise the revenue, state to state, to pay for that stuff, instead of kicking the can firther down the road and making deficits larger.

the answers are in the individual states budgets. examples... massachusetts has HUGE luxury taxes. HUGE. a pack of smokes is between 8 to 9 bucks. New Hampshire has NO luxury taxes and has HUGE property taxes.

each state identifies what the citizens are willing to pay and where the money is, but

you cant cut basic services and expect society to not degrade... and that is what would make the recession even longer.

let me put it this way... you find the cancer early and you get a healthier patient after treatment because the treatment isn't extreme. You let cancer go for a year or two and you have huge health issues that can become systemic and spread all over the body. You have no choice but to fix it or die, and all that is left is choosing the least painful method and the least costly method.

the federal government bought time for the states and simultaneously warned them that there is a line that americans need to maintain societaly to insure the quality of life for its citizens.

does that make any sense?

It does, but I can tell you right now that in the states most heavily affected (Illinois and Cali) this is just going to make things worse. On paper, Illinois is 'funding' education to a certain extent. In reality though, even though the funds were supposedly allocated, they're not paying. What this bill does is lock in those same levels of funding (that they're already not paying) for at least two years. So, even though they might take the federal money, there is no way they're going to be able to keep up with this year's funding levels going forward which is GOING to result in teachers being laid off.

For the most affected states, this is just going to push the disaster further down the road. Already there is serious talk in Illinois about not accepting the money because they realize that the demands in exchange for it are more than the state can promise.

 

[CowboyBob]

Fuck! I was wondering what lunacy justapixel was going to grace us with upon his return. It's even more idiotic than I expected.

Stop with the baiting and blind hate, Buttercup. Try and come up with something productive, not destructive.

Tell us about how George W Bush created jobs, produced a vigorous economy and brought about world peace.

 

[BostonPirate]

It does, but I can tell you right now that in the states most heavily affected (Illinois and Cali) this is just going to make things worse. On paper, Illinois is 'funding' education to a certain extent. In reality though, even though the funds were supposedly allocated, they're not paying. What this bill does is lock in those same levels of funding (that they're already not paying) for at least two years. So, even though they might take the federal money, there is no way they're going to be able to keep up with this year's funding levels going forward which is GOING to result in teachers being laid off.

For the most affected states, this is just going to push the disaster further down the road. Already there is serious talk in Illinois about not accepting the money because they realize that the demands in exchange for it are more than the state can promise.

If the stimulus works it will provide extra income via added state taxes that would increase state revenue and then the programs could be paid for on their own.

and this is where the divergence occurs in the current economic models.... one projects low consumer confidence and the other projects high consumer confidence.

this is theory that Obama is betting history and his presidency on, is that he spends now,and in targetted ways, that promote growth in the overlying areas that cause the micro ones to heal instead of fail..

For example... He is willing to spend large amounts of money on these state projects because they directly inject money into the local economies, and they have a dividend of recollecting money through income taxes. SO they can appear to be more generous than they may actually being ....... consumer confidence rises on this..... revenue, both state and federal rises, and deficit reduces.

the teachers are going to need books and the students are going to need paper and new clothes, and school supplies. one of the biggest buying retail seasons is back to school. all sales steps up and the retail sector surges which is an indicator in consumer confidence levels ... revenue, both state and federal rises, and deficit reduces.

This is all wrapped up in drawing a line as to where he as president thinks america needs to be to maintain our quality of life. This is also HUGE to consumer confidence. Americans expect certain things out of habit, and when they disappear it makes people scared about money, and then they tend to start hoarding cash.

step in republicans and yell about how bad the economy is and people should be afraid that granny is going to loose her foodstamps. She then goes and hides the extra cash under the mattress. So she is hoarding money out of fear when she may make her personal situation better if she had just gone and bought something new for her house.

these small actions they are taking are like a biker sitting on his bike trying to kick start the engine.

If consumer confidence is low, then the economy can't recover and no amount of cash makes people feel safer.

The national dialogue is stuck and the media focus is on tea party activists, Sarah Palin, oil spills, 14th amendment repeal, legalization of gay marriage, The birth certificate of the president, the socialists are in power, the Black predident uses his AG to abuse white voters... the list is endless and reading the last two pages shows what the national mood and dialogue is... HEATED.

as long as that is happening consumer confidence is never going to raise, so Obama keeps enticing republicans with ellements within bills that barely pass, and he is gambling that he will excite his opponents constituents into feeling more financially confident. The republicans have NOTHING to gain from this happening so close to an ellection. low consumer confidence will win them extra seats in the house of reps.

Stimulus spending only works in concert with a positive consumer confidence and although we have the spending, we don't have the consumer confidence index rising... BAD NEWS for the president and the democrats.

so we have that diverging path.... who will dominate the national dialogue and affect the consumer confidence index in a way that will benefit their cause, the election, and the nation?

 

[JB3]

If the stimulus works it will provide extra income via added state taxes that would increase state revenue and then the programs could be paid for on their own.

and this is where the divergence occurs in the current economic models.... one projects low consumer confidence and the other projects high consumer confidence.

this is theory that Obama is betting history and his presidency on, is that he spends now,and in targetted ways, that promote growth in the overlying areas that cause the micro ones to heal instead of fail..

For example... He is willing to spend large amounts of money on these state projects because they directly inject money into the local economies, and they have a dividend of recollecting money through income taxes. SO they can appear to be more generous than they may actually being ....... consumer confidence rises on this.

the teachers are going to need books and the students are going to need paper and new clothes, and school supplies. one of the biggest buying retail seasons is back to school. all sales steps up and the retail sector surges which is an indicator in consumer confidence levels.

This is all wrapped up in drawing a line as to where he as president thinks america needs to be to maintain our quality of life. This is also HUGE to consumer confidence. Americans expect certain things out of habit, and when they disappear it makes people scared about money, and then they tend to start hoarding cash.

step in republicans and yell about how bad the economy is and people should be afraid that granny is going to loose her foodstamps. She then goes and hides the extra cash under the mattress. So she is hoarding money out of fear when she may make her personal situation better if she had just gone and bought something new for her house.

these small actions they are taking are like a biker sitting on his bike trying to kick start the engine.

If consumer confidence is low, then the economy can't recover and no amount of cash makes people feel safer.

The national dialogue is stuck and the media focus is on tea party activists, Sarah Palin, oil spills, 14th amendment repeal, legalization of gay marriage, The birth certificate of the president, the socialists are in power, the Black predident uses his AG to abuse white voters... the list is endless and reading the last two pages shows what the national mood and dialogue is... HEATED.

as long as that is happening consumer confidence is never going to raise, so Obama keeps enticing republicans with ellements within bills that barely pass, and he is gambling that he will excite his opponents constituents into feeling more financially confident. The republicans have NOTHING to gain from this happening so close to an ellection. low consumer confidence will win them extra seats in the house of reps.

Stimulus spending only works in concert with a positive consumer confidence and although we have the spending, we don't have the consumer confidence index rising... BAD NEWS for the president and the democrats.

so we have that diverging path.... who will dominate the national dialogue and affect the consumer confidence index in a way that will benefit their cause, the election, and the nation?

Well yeah. But that has little to do with the fact that Illinois' budget is completely fucked, and this is only going to make things worse. The state is BANKRUPTING school districts over their inability to make payments, and this bill REQUIRES them to do the same thing next year and the year after.

For states that are already deep in the red (Illinois has a 50% budget deficit, not counting the billions they STILL owe for bills they haven't paid) this bill is the worst thing imaginable. Hopefully our governor says thanks, but no thanks, but I'm not holding out hope.

 

[BostonPirate]

Well yeah. But that has little to do with the fact that Illinois' budget is completely fucked, and this is only going to make things worse. The state is BANKRUPTING school districts over their inability to make payments, and this bill REQUIRES them to do the same thing next year and the year after.

For states that are already deep in the red (Illinois has a 50% budget deficit, not counting the billions they STILL owe for bills they haven't paid) this bill is the worst thing imaginable. Hopefully our governor says thanks, but no thanks, but I'm not holding out hope.

you are correct if consumer confidence index stays stagnant. The world bank and the stock market are trending in the direction of agreeing with you.

BUT if a growth spurt occurs during this big retail event and there are well functioning schools to motivate that process.... ok lets break it down...

300,000 teachers projected to stay at work... that gets, if each teacher has say... four classes of twenty five students equals, 300,000,000 households that will have to buy clothes books and associated costs. If each parent spends 100 on each student, that is gross stimulated spending of $300,000,000,000 dollars that state sales taxes can get revenue from. we can estimate an average of 5 percent.... so nationally, in state taxes, the stimulus can posibly create 15 trillion in tax revenue for state coffers. split that fifty ways and consider the variations due to populations and you get a picture of the money injected into the individual state government coffers.

the opposite effect would have been that the states could have lost that 15 trillion in revenue. I think this averages to about a loss of 30 billion per state OR a 30 billion gain.

Illinois is median in size and income so using it as an example is a great idea.

would they be better off if they had lost the 30 billion or gained the 30 billion? The long term effects get fuzzy because so many variables need to be considered, and so once again, you have to look and bet on the longer term consumer index ratings and where you think they will be.