US Budget deficit shrinks to $680B

[.blank cd]

Lowest deficit since the crash of 2008

Fastest decline since WW2

Thanks, Obama.

[Sinfix_15]

The economy is so bad that were celebrating 680b deficits. Thanx obama for making good on your promise to cut the deficit in half in your first term and not raise my taxes 1cent.

Conservatives like me is who you should be thanking. I'm paying for this pathetic government with nothing to show for it.

[.blank cd]

No one here is celebrating. Economists say this isn't neccessarily a good thing.

And only conservatives pay federal taxes. Hmmm. Interesting.

[David88vert]

The factors as to why it shrank are more important. The main reasons that it shrank are that the stimulus spending is expiring, and the sequester prevented a lot of spending. Additionally, the economy is improving, and taxes have been raised on the rich.

Here is the good part: "Overall, spending in 2013 totaled 20.8% of GDP, down from 22% the year before, thanks in part to declines in defense spending and unemployment benefits, as well as the sequester. Among the areas where annual spending rose were Social Security and Medicare."

Basically, Obama and Congress lowered our spending a little over 1% of GDP. That is a step in the right direction, and that is something positive from the government.

The downside: "Independent budget experts' concern, however, is not about the country's deficits over the next 10 years. Their concern is about the subsequent decades when spending on major entitlement programs, as well as interest on the debt, will consume much larger portions of the budget while revenue is not expected to increase enough to keep pace."

[Vteckidd]

I love gimmicky math Washington uses. Spend 1000 million over budget one year, spend 600 million over budget next year = I SAVED MONEY!

step in the right direction but let's be honest it is still way too high.

I almost bet you it'll be revised back up once full figures on Obama Care are released.

[.blank cd]

Some economists say its probably too low.

Why would they say this?

[Sinfix_15]

Some economists say its probably too low.

Why would they say this?



'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'

Why would he say this?

http://www.beaker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CheckmateD.jpg

[Vteckidd]

Some economists say its probably too low.

Why would they say this?

I dont know, stupid people say dumb shit everyday, I dont try to figure out why.

I mean philosophically I dont agree with running large deficits, its not sustainable. It ruins the countries currency and buying power, which in turn hurts the citizens. It raises interest rates (normally). Its not fiscally responsible to run up deficits this large. All Washington has done has run them up year over year over year with no sign of actually slowing it down.

Im not going to get into a debate of 10 pages with you on the subject , ill just state what I believe to be true:

Both GOP and DEMOCRATs have run up massive deficits, Obama has the lions share however.
The Deficit shrinking is because they spent far too much in the first place. I dont slap someone on the back for approval if they go from 100 lbs- 400lbs, then lose 40lbs. Still fat.
The reason for the deficit falling is Tax Revenues are UP (because of the increase in taxes) (corp taxes DOWN) and the sequester/stim coming to an end (for now)
Neither side has made any strides toward balancing the budget
The Economy is in recovery, according to Obama, so , there should be no need to spend 500+ Billion over when Bush/Clinton were able to live with far less expenditures. Never convince me otherwise.

If youre a Keynesian fanatic, you believe that deficit spending gets you out of recession or depression. Its not true, but you can believe it. So i suspect the people that think we need MORE spending fall into that line of thinking. Which is fine, its just patently false. 5 Years of over 1 trillion dollar deficits isnt enough? need more? kinda funny.

[Matt300ZXT]

Wonder how many news sites and stories he had to look through to actually find a positive story to post on here?

[.blank cd]

The thing is, Keynes theory is the most widely accepted economic theory, and it's pretty much what's taught at college level economics. Shit, Krugman even writes a lot of the textbooks. So you're statement that deficit spending is false is your opinion, so just understand that the people actually counting the beans say otherwise, and that's how it's been done for quite sometime.

[.blank cd]

Wonder how many news sites and stories he had to look through to actually find a positive story to post on here?

None really. It was front page news for a solid week. I was hoping someone would post it before me.

[Vteckidd]

The thing is, Keynes theory is the most widely accepted economic theory, and it's pretty much what's taught at college level economics. Shit, Krugman even writes a lot of the textbooks. So you're statement that deficit spending is false is your opinion, so just understand that the people actually counting the beans say otherwise, and that's how it's been done for quite sometime.

General statement is general and wrong.

Wonder why most countries who try this experience exactly what economists say will happen. Go look up Japans deficit and economy the last 25 years, you can start there.


Japan went into the economic doldrums in the1990s. They’ve been trying that fiscal stimulus thing ever since: they’ve driven that national debt up to 200% of GDP in doing so. They’ve also done it in the approved manner, by building infrastructure. There’s hardly a stream in the entire country without its own bullet train station. This should have, according to a simplistic Keynesianism, have lifted the economy up out of those doldrums. Which it quite obviously hasn’t.

FYI what they spoon feed everyone in college isnt 100% correct, especially when its mostly liberal (KE is mostly liberal viewpoint). For every economist that says KE works, theres 10 that say it doesnt. Krugman has been dead wrong on a plethora of things, I dont support his point of view.

I can name you Economists and College Professors that have my point of view , doesnt make it right, just like you name dropping doesnt make you right.

KE is a theory, for which we have data, that shows more often than not, it doesnt work

[Vteckidd]

Charles Kolb: Why Paul Krugman Is Wrong (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-kolb/why-paul-krugman-is-wrong_b_3255089.html)

http://www.redstate.com/socrates/2013/05/09/keynesian-economics-still-failing-after-all-these-years/

IM sure you can find articles that claim it works.

Your claims that

Keynes theory is the most widely accepted economic theory

Is not true. But, prove me wrong. What gave you this idea, what specifics back up this claim. FYI in my ECON 101-102 classes , they touched on Keynes and what it was, but the books were overwhelmingly on capitalistic style economics, and never advocated deficit spending

[David88vert]

The thing is, Keynes theory is the most widely accepted economic theory, and it's pretty much what's taught at college level economics. Shit, Krugman even writes a lot of the textbooks. So you're statement that deficit spending is false is your opinion, so just understand that the people actually counting the beans say otherwise, and that's how it's been done for quite sometime.

I am not a Keynes/Krugman fan. I do not agree with them in some regards. That said, this is one of the better writeups on deficit spending that I have seen. It's simple, but probably the best supporting argument for your position. I figured that you might like this article. Why You Should Love Government Deficits - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/18/why-you-should-love-government-deficits/)

[.blank cd]

Charles Kolb: Why Paul Krugman Is Wrong (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-kolb/why-paul-krugman-is-wrong_b_3255089.html)

Keynesian Economics: Still Failing After All These Years | RedState (http://www.redstate.com/socrates/2013/05/09/keynesian-economics-still-failing-after-all-these-years/)

IM sure you can find articles that claim it works.

Your claims that


Is not true. But, prove me wrong. What gave you this idea, what specifics back up this claim. FYI in my ECON 101-102 classes , they touched on Keynes and what it was, but the books were overwhelmingly on capitalistic style economics, and never advocated deficit spending

Your articles look like you google searched Krugman wrong and Keynesian wrong, and went with the first two articles you saw.

Even the commenters on the red state article were bashing the article for how wrong it was. LOL.

And capitalist style economics huh?

[Vteckidd]

Your articles look like you google searched Krugman wrong and Keynesian wrong, and went with the first two articles you saw.

Even the commenters on the red state article were bashing the article for how wrong it was. LOL.

And capitalist style economics huh?

You can READ!

Like usual, you missed my point. My point wasnt to show you some article to prove im right, my point was to show you 1 other econmist, and 1 other article (from a well known conservative) who offering different points of view. So your "Paul Krugman says it ....." holds little to no weight with me because A) Its THEORY not fact B) Economists are split on what works, but majority dont feel Keynesian Econ works.

I should say I prefer supply side to KE, I think historical data proves it. I think there is more evidence that KE doesnt work, than it does work. But I also realize we will debate that topic for the next 40 pages and I dont care to.

All I was showing was that its not the wildly most accepted economic policy. Matter of fact, 4 of the last 5 presidents, have done THE OPPOSITE.

[Vteckidd]

Back to the topic, 680 Billion isnt something im excited about, I think its still shitty, and it wasnt like Obama came together with the GOP to lower the deficit. The lowering was artificial and was mainly over policies BOTH SIDES didnt want (sequester), stim running out yet we still have stagnant economy and extremely high UE, higher taxes.

Im not happy because the outlook is not good, this news is nothing to be happy about. The only reason people are happy is because every other sector of the economy is doing worse. its the only good data they have. Its kind of like the monthly UE numbers taht get released. You can be dumb and happy an think that going from 7.1 to 7.2 is amazing, but if you actually understood why it did that, its nothing to be happy about.

[.blank cd]

You can READ!

Like usual, you missed my point. My point wasnt to show you some article to prove im right, my point was to show you 1 other econmist, and 1 other article (from a well known conservative) who offering different points of view. So your "Paul Krugman says it ....." holds little to no weight with me because A) Its THEORY not fact B) Economists are split on what works, but majority dont feel Keynesian Econ works.Ah the good ol' theory vs. fact defense, which comes from not knowing what theory actually means. Lol


I should say I prefer supply side to KE, I think historical data proves it. I think there is more evidence that KE doesnt work, than it does work. But I also realize we will debate that topic for the next 40 pages and I dont care to.

All I was showing was that its not the wildly most accepted economic policy. Matter of fact, 4 of the last 5 presidents, have done THE OPPOSITE.
And all I'm showing you is that it is your opinion that Keynesian Economics doesn't work, when in fact the opposite is true. It's like the old evolution debate. It's definitely a theory in the literal sense, but it's the most widely accepted theory among scientists, and theory and fact are not mutually exclusive. Same is true with KE.

I'm not trying to change your mind, you can believe whatever you want. This is just how the majority of actual US economists count the beans.


Government deficit spending is a central point of controversy in economics, with prominent economists holding differing views.[1] The "mainstream economics" position is that deficit spending is desirable and necessary as part of countercyclical fiscal policy, but that there should not be a structural deficit: run deficits during recessions to compensate for the shortfall in aggregate demand, but run surpluses in boom times so that there is no net deficit over an economic cycle, i.e., only run cyclical deficits. This is derived from Keynesian economics, and gained acceptance (especially in the Anglo-Saxon world) during the period between the Great Depression in the 1930s and post-WWII in the 1950s

[Sinfix_15]

Blank completely glossed over Senator Obama strongly disagreeing with his defense of president Obama.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm not going to agrue economic theory with either of you 2 because no theory works in all situations, and no theory works with all cultures, ideologies, and lifestyles.


I will point out that Obama inherited a $458B deficit in FY'08 and it is now $680B in FY'13. He still needs to push the Senate for cuts of over $220B more a year just to get back on par with the "reckless" spending of the Bush admin.



Another point, ignore most of the economic data you see reported in the media. It is dumbed down for the masses and basicly meaningless.

Here is a good example of what 99% of the US population didnt see when they Sept. jobs report was released.
Jobs report: 169,000 jobs added, 7.3% jobless rate « Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/06/jobs-report-169000-jobs-added-7-3-jobless-rate/)

All they saw was a reduction in the U3 number and thought it was a good thing. They have no clue about the U6, which was nearly double that of the U3. They dont know anything about a labor participation rate, which is more than 4% lower now than it was in 2007.


Here is a pretty good article that worls through the UE numbers and comes to a very different conclusion than the federal govt. A conclusion that is 3x as high as the BLS reports.

The real US unemployment picture and our future » Market Realist (http://marketrealist.com/2013/10/real-us-unemployment-picture-future/)

[Vteckidd]

Ah the good ol' theory vs. fact defense, which comes from not knowing what theory actually means. Lol


And all I'm showing you is that it is your opinion that Keynesian Economics doesn't work, when in fact the opposite is true. It's like the old evolution debate. It's definitely a theory in the literal sense, but it's the most widely accepted theory among scientists, and theory and fact are not mutually exclusive. Same is true with KE.

I'm not trying to change your mind, you can believe whatever you want. This is just how the majority of actual US economists count the beans.

Sigh

I can post data and charts that refute KE, just like you can prob post articles and charts showing KE works.

Go look at Japan, Greece, Germany post and pre ww2, Look at the US in the Obama administration. Id rather have the clinton and Bush Jr economies than any of those scenarios.

[BanginJimmy]

Id rather have the clinton and Bush Jr economies than any of those scenarios.

Cant agree with you on this. W and Clinton economies were based on bubbles, not sound fundamentals. We all know the end results of those bubbles.

We need to get back to the economy we had in the 50's and 60's. Sound fundamentals and massive expansion of the middle and upper classes which leads to high demand from stable companies. The question is how do we get back to that and I dont have an answer. That period was based on manufacturing and today the American worker is too expensive for most of the manufacturing industry. I tend to think that if the US is going to see another golden age, its going to come on the back of a new technology and/or service that isnt feasible to import.

[Vteckidd]

Cant agree with you on this. W and Clinton economies were based on bubbles, not sound fundamentals. We all know the end results of those bubbles.

We need to get back to the economy we had in the 50's and 60's. Sound fundamentals and massive expansion of the middle and upper classes which leads to high demand from stable companies. The question is how do we get back to that and I dont have an answer. That period was based on manufacturing and today the American worker is too expensive for most of the manufacturing industry. I tend to think that if the US is going to see another golden age, its going to come on the back of a new technology and/or service that isnt feasible to import.

Would you take 10 years of stagnation and massive spending

or

8 year cycles of incredible booms, and then 1-2 years of busts.

Id take the boom and bust cycle. Mainly because 50-60s economy isnt feasible anymore, americans dont want to work those jobs anymore, unions have destroyed american manufacturing.

[Sammich]

#FDB

[Elbow]

The economy is so bad that were celebrating 680b deficits. Thanx obama for making good on your promise to cut the deficit in half in your first term and not raise my taxes 1cent.

Conservatives like me is who you should be thanking. I'm paying for this pathetic government with nothing to show for it.

Only conservatives pay taxes? LOL

[Sinfix_15]

Only conservatives pay taxes? LOL

No. But they predominantly pay for taxes for things they don't want. Libs ask for all these nanny programs

[Elbow]

No. But they predominantly pay for taxes for things they don't want. Libs ask for all these nanny programs

Libs don't ask for nanny programs, lazy people do.

Do you know how much you actually pay for things like food stamps?

[Sinfix_15]

Libs don't ask for nanny programs, lazy people do.

Do you know how much you actually pay for things like food stamps?

I dont want to pay for a single food stamp, or section 8 house, or welfare check, or bailout, or food drop to korea, or guns to arabs.... i dont want any of it. $1 is $1 too much.

[.blank cd]

Maybe you should move to a country where the government doesn't pay for these things.

Not wanting to pay taxes seems pretty unpatriotic to me.

[Sinfix_15]

Maybe you should move to a country where the government doesn't pay for these things.

Not wanting to pay taxes seems pretty unpatriotic to me.


This government is not what the founders of this country wanted. Obama is type of politician that would have been tar and feathered. I dont want to pay taxes to a reckless tyrant filled government that has no respect for it's citizens.

What radical leftists like you believe is not the principles that this country was founded on. What you believe is the exact opposite of what our country stands for.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

[Elbow]

I dont want to pay for a single food stamp, or section 8 house, or welfare check, or bailout, or food drop to korea, or guns to arabs.... i dont want any of it. $1 is $1 too much.

I hope you never need any of it.

Seems mind of dick like to me..

[.blank cd]

The thing is, "conservatives" like you are in the small minority of Americans who don't want "nanny programs". No one who's smart would want to get rid of them, and no politician would ever even dream about committing political suicide. They'll just keep telling people like you that you're giving your hard earned paycheck to lazy people and you'll eat it right up because you don't know any better, nor do you want to

[.blank cd]

I hope you never need any of it.

Seems mind of dick like to me..

That's the crazy thing. It tends to be the people who bitch about it the most that end up using it and abusing it the most

[Elbow]

That's the crazy thing. It tends to be the people who bitch about it the most that end up using it and abusing it the most

I dunno about all that.....

[David88vert]

The thing is, "conservatives" like you are in the small minority of Americans who don't want "nanny programs". No one who's smart would want to get rid of them, and no politician would ever even dream about committing political suicide. They'll just keep telling people like you that you're giving your hard earned paycheck to lazy people and you'll eat it right up because you don't know any better, nor do you want to


I dont want to pay for a single food stamp, or section 8 house, or welfare check, or bailout, or food drop to korea, or guns to arabs.... i dont want any of it. $1 is $1 too much.

Have to agree with Blank on this one - no politician is going to really attempt to get rid of the programs.

Yes, we do need a food stamp program, and yes, we need government subsidised housing, and many other public assistance programs. Ideally though, these should be run at the local or state level though, not the federal level.
The federal government should be a "safety net" for local or state-run public assistance programs. They shouldn't be the first stop. At the federal level, they have too many issues with fraud due to lack of oversight. If you brought that down to a local level, the people receiving the assistance should be more likely to work to get off it, and have access to direct help in doing so.

The real issue is the fraud that is rampant in the system, not the program itself.

[David88vert]

That's the crazy thing. It tends to be the people who bitch about it the most that end up using it and abusing it the most


Well, we now know that you have never been in a welfare line. That's a good thing.

[Elbow]

Have to agree with Blank on this one - no politician is going to really attempt to get rid of the programs.

Yes, we do need a food stamp program, and yes, we need government subsidised housing, and many other public assistance programs. Ideally though, these should be run at the local or state level though, not the federal level.
The federal government should be a "safety net" for local or state-run public assistance programs. They shouldn't be the first stop. At the federal level, they have too many issues with fraud due to lack of oversight. If you brought that down to a local level, the people receiving the assistance should be more likely to work to get off it, and have access to direct help in doing so.

The real issue is the fraud that is rampant in the system, not the program itself.

This.

[.blank cd]

The real issue is the fraud that is rampant in the system, not the program itself.rampant?

"The US Department of Labor reported that 1.9% total UI payments for 2001 was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program.[8]"

"SNAP error rates declined by 57% since FY2000, from 8.91% in FY2000 to a record low of 3.80% in FY2011.[vi] The accuracy rate of 96.2% (FY2011) is an all-time program high and is considerably higher than other major benefit programs, for example Medicare fee-for-service (91.5%) or Medicare"

[Vteckidd]

No work requirement for welfare
99 weeks of UE insurance
20%+ overpayments in EIC to poor families
Foodstamps and EBT Cards being used for luxury items
Free Cell phones

The govt could def shrink the handouts, and force people on the bubble to work and get a job. Some people who actually need it, deserve help. But when you have parasites and leeches stealing the same money, it hurts those that are truly in need.

this is the problem with most liberals like blank. He doesnt understand that we dont want the eradication of all social welfare programs, we want it more efficient and to be a last line of defense. Not a way of life

[.blank cd]

20%+ overpayments in EIC to poor familiesDont forget underpayments

Foodstamps and EBT Cards being used for luxury itemsProbably also doesn't happen as much as you think...

Free Cell phonesSubsidized phone service has been going on since before you were born.


The govt could def shrink the handouts, and force people on the bubble to work and get a job. Some people who actually need it, deserve help. But when you have parasites and leeches stealing the same money, it hurts those that are truly in need.How does it hurt people who are truly in need?

[Vteckidd]

Dont forget underpayments
See last response


Probably also doesn't happen as much as you think...
Shouldnt happen AT ALL. There been more than enough objective news reports that show its a large enough section that it should be stopped. Just My opinion. If youre ok with poeple using EBT cards for ciggs and booze, thats your opinion.


Subsidized phone service has been going on since before you were born.
There you go making it a left an right issue , i never mentioned who was reponsible, and this is a classic example of you going off subject. Unlike you, I dont discriminate against bad right and left policies. Any waste is waste. We shouldnt be subsidizing free cell phones



How does it hurt people who are truly in need?
If people are taking money that they dont need because they are gaming the system, it takes money away from those who truly need it. If you have 90 people in dire need of social programs, and 10 people who are scheming and scamming, that 10% is taking away from the 90% in true need, and squeezing out people that should be there before them.

99 Weeks of unemployment, 5 years after the recession has ended, is wrong. It should be shrunk back down to the 6 month limit. theres NO REASON for 99 weeks of UE. Force people to look for jobs, not sit on their ass for 2 years.

[.blank cd]

Shouldnt happen AT ALL. There been more than enough objective news reports that show its a large enough section that it should be stopped. Just My opinion. If youre ok with poeple using EBT cards for ciggs and booze, thats your opinion.But we're being realistic. We realize there will be some amount, however marginal, of indiscretion. And this marginal amount doesn't affect how much I contribute to the system, and if buying cigs and beer from a grocery store contributes to the economy, who cares? If you find a way to legislate people's discretionary habits to 0, we're all ears.



There you go making it a left an right issue , i never mentioned who was reponsible, and this is a classic example of you going off subject. Unlike you, I dont discriminate against bad right and left policies. Any waste is waste. We shouldnt be subsidizing free cell phonesI don't see subsidized phone service as a bad right-wing policy. It's actually one of the better ideas right wingers have come up with.



If people are taking money that they dont need because they are gaming the system, it takes money away from those who truly need it. If you have 90 people in dire need of social programs, and 10 people who are scheming and scamming, that 10% is taking away from the 90% in true need, and squeezing out people that should be there before them.Its not a closed system though. I can go apply for SNAP whenever I want provided I meet the requirements, and my benefits will never decrease no matter how many times my rich neighbor gamed the system to get SNAP

[Vteckidd]

But we're being realistic. We realize there will be some amount, however marginal, of indiscretion. And this marginal amount doesn't affect how much I contribute to the system, and if buying cigs and beer from a grocery store contributes to the economy, who cares? If you find a way to legislate people's discretionary habits to 0, we're all ears.

I dont accept mediocrity. This is always your argument. that wasted money gets spent, so technically its not wasted. Its a fallacy, its not true.

You dont understand where that money comes from. It comes from John Q Taxpayer. Youll never convince me that people who are taking money they dont deserve get a pass because their "stimulating the economy". Its a stupid argument. You are ignoring the fact that the money originally came from someone who earned that money, they could have spent it. They could have hired a person.

Now you are debating acceptable waste and abusing the system as a means to stimulate the economy. you can debate that with yourself because I am not going to go another 20 pages where you claim opinions as facts and facts that dont agree with your views as opinions.



I don't see subsidized phone service as a bad right-wing policy. It's actually one of the better ideas right wingers have come up with.

If you gave people jobs, they wouldnt need free phones. The dirty secret is that Obama has no economy to run on, people cant get jobs, so he has to keep UE at 99 weeks. If people were being hired, there would be no need for the 99 weeks, we could go back to 6 months.

Its a bad program. (MY opinion). Why do people need free cell phones? For jobs? Ok, so after 3 months if they cant find a job, will they ever? The problem is these programs have good intentions, but they never work the way designed.



Its not a closed system though. I can go apply for SNAP whenever I want provided I meet the requirements, and my benefits will never decrease no matter how many times my rich neighbor gamed the system to get SNAP


Not true. Govt programs dont appear from thin air. Tax Money is used. I guess you should go look up "national debt" and "how social programs are paid for" to understand what Im saying.

I wont argue anymore, Ive learned my lesson with you. :)

Its not worth arguing the sky is blue to someone who only sees green. Youve already deviated and gone off topic from simple statements i made and tried to make it something else. I know your tactics, I wont fall for them anymore

[Elbow]

Probably also doesn't happen as much as you think...


If I see it with my own eyes numerous times per week than I am going to say it probably happens MORE than I think.

This past weekend I was in a gas station paying for gas and a guy and a beautiful girl (sike) bought $70.00 worth of soda, candy, chips, and some cigs with their EBT card. I see it at LEAST once a week.

[.blank cd]

I dont accept mediocrity. This is always your argument. that wasted money gets spent, so technically its not wasted. Its a fallacy, its not true.

You dont understand where that money comes from. It comes from John Q Taxpayer. Youll never convince me that people who are taking money they dont deserve get a pass because their "stimulating the economy". Its a stupid argument. You are ignoring the fact that the money originally came from someone who earned that money, they could have spent it. They could have hired a person.First of all, not a fallacy at all. The sole job of public assistance is to give people who don't have money, money to spend. I realize you have a very individualist view of the very collectivist public assistance program. Second of all, I know economics, so before you say things like "you don't know where money comes from" "look up national debt", just realize you're talking to yourself. Lol.

How many people can you hire with 10% of your salary BTW?




If you gave people jobs, they wouldnt need free phones.If you gave people jobs, they probably wouldn't need public assistance either. So what's your point?


Its a bad program. (MY opinion). The problem is these programs have good intentions, but they never work the way designed.How was it designed, and how has it failed?

[Elbow]

First of all, not a fallacy at all. The sole job of public assistance is to give people who don't have money, money to spend. I realize you have a very individualist view of the very collectivist public assistance program. Second of all, I know economics, so before you say things like "you don't know where money comes from" "look up national debt", just realize you're talking to yourself. Lol.

How many people can you hire with 10% of your salary BTW?



If you gave people jobs, they probably wouldn't need public assistance either. So what's your point?

How was it designed, and how has it failed?

It has failed because it's royally abused.

[.blank cd]

I think y'all's definition of royally abused, and what royally abused actually is, is fundamentally different. Lol.

The whole point of public assistance is to give people money who are financially disadvantaged. It's not to change people's discretionary spending habits. That's on the individual to change.

The system works, very well. No one will dispute that. You want to change people's spending habits, not the system. And that is a tough problem to legislate.

[Elbow]

I think y'all's definition of royally abused, and what royally abused actually is, is fundamentally different. Lol.

The whole point of public assistance is to give people money who are financially disadvantaged. It's not to change people's discretionary spending habits. That's on the individual to change.

The system works, very well. No one will dispute that. You want to change people's spending habits, not the system. And that is a tough problem to legislate.

Then the system is flawed because it should only be there for people who have no other options.

If you want to spend $70.00 on crap, screw you, do it with your own money. I've been in rough times and didn't get food stamps, I bought peanut butter sandwiches.

If the system worked it would be for people who need it because they would literally starve without it.

So yeah...it's flawed. In your definition it may not be abused, but it is flawed.

[Vteckidd]

Elbow, the #1 statistic that shows its failed is that since 1950 when we started the war on poverty, the numbers are about the same with little change. Despite trillions in spending, the numbers are around 15%

File:Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate 1959 to 2011. United States..PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_20 11._United_States..PNG)

[Elbow]

Elbow, the #1 statistic that shows its failed is that since 1950 when we started the war on poverty, the numbers are about the same with little change. Despite trillions in spending, the numbers are around 15%

File:Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate 1959 to 2011. United States..PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_20 11._United_States..PNG)

Well there you have it.

[.blank cd]

So I guess your "utopian" idea of a public assistance system would be strictly for people who need it, and only for essentials, correct?

And we always love data with no context here. Let me fix that for you...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

[Vteckidd]

Well there you have it.

I think people with different ideological views can make agreements on common sense ideas.

No one thinks that ALL social programs are wasted, and no one thinks all social programs are great. I see signs popping up for WE TAKE EBT cards at gas stations, and Im like WHY?? Are you kidding me? The place that sells every good at 20% over what a grocery store sells it for is accepting EBT cards? HMMMM I WONDER WHY?

the money that goes to social programs is a safety net, not a lifestyle. In instances where its a lifestyle choice, i absolutely advocate taking away that money. It would be easy to pass a law forbidding all EBT cards from being used for anything other than groceries. I dont care if you want to be a dumbass and spend $100 on lobster. But we should have limits and evaluate who is on these programs. 2 years of EBT, i would like to know why. 2 years of UE , i would like to know why.

Again, its a simple as if we focused on getting poor people JOBS, they wouldnt need public assistance.

[Vteckidd]

So I guess your "utopian" idea of a public assistance system would be strictly for people who need it, and only for essentials, correct?

not what i said. Try again

[Sinfix_15]

I hope you never need any of it.

Seems mind of dick like to me..

If i ever need government assistance, it will be because the government took too much from me for me to make a living.


Yes, i am a dick. If you want to donate to charity, that's fine, and i will admire you for it. What we have in America today is literally me being forced to donate to charity via a gun to my head.

[Sinfix_15]

That's the crazy thing. It tends to be the people who bitch about it the most that end up using it and abusing it the most

I have received $0 of government assistance in my lifetime. I would rather starve than beg for food...... which is the number one reason i will never starve..... or beg for food.

so how about you shove that comment right back up your ass where you pulled it from.

[Vteckidd]

So I guess your "utopian" idea of a public assistance system would be strictly for people who need it, and only for essentials, correct?

And we always love data with no context here. Let me fix that for you...

War on Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty)

LOL figures. So the definition of the "war on poverty" is supposed to provide context? Elbow and I are way ahead of you, its getting old having to drag you along

Well, ripped from your Wikipedia article, which was demonstrated in my charts, and which doesnt need context. If you know how to read bar graphs and charts, youll get all the context you want.


In 2004, more than 35.9 million, or 12% of Americans including 12.1 million children, were considered to be living in poverty with an average growth of almost 1 million per year. According to the CATO institute, since the Johnson Administration almost $15 trillion has been spent on welfare, with poverty rates being about the same as during the Johnson Administration.[23]

I left the footnote so you can find it and read it and then tell me how its "out of context"

Thank you for agreeing with my previous point.

[Sinfix_15]

Have to agree with Blank on this one - no politician is going to really attempt to get rid of the programs.

Yes, we do need a food stamp program, and yes, we need government subsidised housing, and many other public assistance programs. Ideally though, these should be run at the local or state level though, not the federal level.
The federal government should be a "safety net" for local or state-run public assistance programs. They shouldn't be the first stop. At the federal level, they have too many issues with fraud due to lack of oversight. If you brought that down to a local level, the people receiving the assistance should be more likely to work to get off it, and have access to direct help in doing so.

The real issue is the fraud that is rampant in the system, not the program itself.

My comment is spoken in the sense of "i dont want to give another $1 to these broken programs until they are fixed". The government should not have the freedom of being so disgustingly incompetent on my dollar. If these programs were a value, i wouldnt feel the way i feel.

[Elbow]

What we have in America today is literally me being forced to donate to charity via a gun to my head.

That's far over the top.

[Vteckidd]

My comment is spoken in the sense of "i dont want to give another $1 to these broken programs until they are fixed". The government should not have the freedom of being so disgustingly incompetent on my dollar. If these programs were a value, i wouldnt feel the way i feel.

Could we agree to say:

Reduce UE to 6 months like it was under Bush/Clinton
Means test SS or raise age of retirement
Restrict EBT cards to grocery stores only, and ban cigarettes and alcohol from being purchased. Only food items.
Means test Cell Phone program, have a limit, after 6 months, no job, then you have a social worker take you to mcdonalds.

Its irrational to think that social programs should last forever, and its irrational to think we cant make them operate better which is ultimately leading to the poor person making more money, from a job.

[Sinfix_15]

That's far over the top.

Yes, it is...... but is it not true???????????????? What happens to me if i say "fuck it, i am no longer paying into this fraudulent system because it goes against everything i believe".....


Wont be long before someone with a gun is knocking on my door. Am i telling a lie?

[Sinfix_15]

Could we agree to say:

Reduce UE to 6 months like it was under Bush/Clinton
Means test SS or raise age of retirement
Restrict EBT cards to grocery stores only, and ban cigarettes and alcohol from being purchased. Only food items.
Means test Cell Phone program, have a limit, after 6 months, no job, then you have a social worker take you to mcdonalds.

Its irrational to think that social programs should last forever, and its irrational to think we cant make them operate better which is ultimately leading to the poor person making more money, from a job.

"We should judge welfare programs by the amount of people who leave welfare".....


When these programs fail to product results, they should not be funded. These programs should be safety nets....... not safety condos with fully stocked mini fridges and an unlimited stay. Ultimately, i dont care how they chose to make these programs effective... there's a lot of ways to do it. I just dont think ineffective programs should be funded.

[Vteckidd]

IN FOR "INEFFECTIVE PROGRAMS STIMULATE THE ECONOMY DOE"

[Elbow]

Yes, it is...... but is it not true???????????????? What happens to me if i say "fuck it, i am no longer paying into this fraudulent system because it goes against everything i believe".....


Wont be long before someone with a gun is knocking on my door. Am i telling a lie?

Have you not always paid taxes?

I understand feeling upset that a lot of the benefit programs are abused and you may feel like you're being robbed your money so others can do nothing, but that's not the case, at least not as large as people make it out to be. You're hardly robbed if $3.00 goes to the BS a year. More than you want to pay maybe but this is America and that's how it is.

I doubt someone would come to your door with a gun, probably a notebook and a lot of questions.

I agree, the programs need to change and need to provide results, not just be a lifestyle option.

[Sinfix_15]

Have you not always paid taxes?

I understand feeling upset that a lot of the benefit programs are abused and you may feel like you're being robbed your money so others can do nothing, but that's not the case, at least not as large as people make it out to be. You're hardly robbed if $3.00 goes to the BS a year. More than you want to pay maybe but this is America and that's how it is.

I doubt someone would come to your door with a gun, probably a notebook and a lot of questions.

I agree, the programs need to change and need to provide results, not just be a lifestyle option.

The government isnt gonna volunteer to reduce it's size and ability to dispense funds to voters. How do you suggest we fix these problems?

Yes, i pay taxes.... and i am currently out numbered by people who think they should be able to control me financially, how do i resolve this?

[Elbow]

The government isnt gonna volunteer to reduce it's size and ability to dispense funds to voters. How do you suggest we fix these problems?

I wouldn't say changing the laws surrounding the programs or how one can get the benefits/keep them won't be changed somewhere down the road.

[Sinfix_15]

I wouldn't say changing the laws surrounding the programs or how one can get the benefits/keep them won't be changed somewhere down the road.

Isnt gonna happen with a democrat in office.

[.blank cd]

"What part of the program is ineffective?"

"PEOPLE BUY ALCOHOL AND CIGS HURRDURR"

"...."

[Elbow]

Isnt gonna happen with a democrat in office.

I disagree. May not happen with the moron we have now in office, but...


"What part of the program is ineffective?"

"PEOPLE BUY ALCOHOL AND CIGS HURRDURR"

"...."

I don't mean this in a rude way, but you're an idiot.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't mean this in a rude way, but you're an idiot.

Dont be so harsh. Blank just believes that luxury items should be available to everyone, whether they can pay for them or not.



Blank is right on one thing though. More money is lost and wasted by corporate fraud on a yearly basis than welfare fraud. Then again, medicare/medicaid and social security fraud accounts for a lot more than both of those combined. I am quite willing to bet that fraud within SS, SSI, medicare and medicaid account for a quarter trillion a year in wasted govt spending.

Add in tax fraud and people that dont do their taxes incorrectly and you can probably add another quarter trillion in funds the govt isnt collecting.


There is a very simple fix to the tax problem, thats either a consumption tax or a flat tax.

Fraud is far more difficult to root out. I would propose 25k new fraud investigators within the problem programs. These new investigators would pay for themselves by rooting out less than 10% of fraud.

[.blank cd]

Dont be so harsh. Blank just believes that luxury items should be available to everyone, whether they can pay for them or not.
It's not that I believe in it, I honestly just don't care. It doesn't affect what I contribute to the system whether everyone buys cigarettes or not. And to believe that it's as simple as banning EBT cards from gas stations or controlling what they do with the money is incredibly naive.

[Sinfix_15]

It's not that I believe in it, I honestly just don't care. It doesn't affect what I contribute to the system whether everyone buys cigarettes or not. And to believe that it's as simple as banning EBT cards from gas stations or controlling what they do with the money is incredibly naive.

Stupidest thing typed out by a keypad in the history of humanity.

[Elbow]

It's not that I believe in it, I honestly just don't care. It doesn't affect what I contribute to the system whether everyone buys cigarettes or not. And to believe that it's as simple as banning EBT cards from gas stations or controlling what they do with the money is incredibly naive.

You're right, it wouldn't change how much is to the system, but eventually the cost put into it may drop, people may not have it that don't NEED it, and the positives continue growing. Maybe you just like the country to waste money, who knows. Not caring though is just ignorant if you actually care about the countries future.

I don't think anyone thinks banning EBT cards from gas stations is a fix all solution, nobody said that.

[Sinfix_15]

Being on welfare should not be comfortable. You shouldnt be able to smoke, drink, eat steak dinners, rent movies and go shopping. You should be able to not starve to death until you find another job.

How can anyone say that what theyre allowed to buy has no effect on the cost?????? If they can afford to smoke and drink on welfare, then welfare is paying out too much and that's an area in which it can be reduced. Welfare should not allow you any luxury. Luxuries are.... a luxury.

[.blank cd]

Could someone please point me to the waste? I'm not seeing it. LOL all the data I see say the misuse of welfare money is minimal at best.

I am, however,seeing the fact that every dollar spent on welfare is bringing in $1.50. Because of this, it won't change, until there's a more economically beneficial model. No one with the purse strings actually cares what anyone thinks about people's personal discretionary spending habits. That's why it hasn't been changed in 70 years.

[Sinfix_15]

Could someone please point me to the waste? I'm not seeing it. LOL all the data I see say the misuse of welfare money is minimal at best.

I am, however,seeing the fact that every dollar spent on welfare is bringing in $1.50. Because of this, it won't change, until there's a more economically beneficial model. No one with the purse strings actually cares what anyone thinks about people's personal discretionary spending habits. That's why it hasn't been changed in 70 years.

So for every dollar spent on welfare, americans are taxed $1.50. What's your point? is there a point to be made? can you explain a point?

You cant argue that welfare is not a cost.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................




how can you be this stupid??? seriously...... you are unfathomably stupid.

[Elbow]

Being on welfare should not be comfortable. You shouldnt be able to smoke, drink, eat steak dinners, rent movies and go shopping. You should be able to not starve to death until you find another job.

How can anyone say that what theyre allowed to buy has no effect on the cost?????? If they can afford to smoke and drink on welfare, then welfare is paying out too much and that's an area in which it can be reduced. Welfare should not allow you any luxury. Luxuries are.... a luxury.

He doesn't understand the fact that the government isn't making a profit off handing out EBT cards.


Could someone please point me to the waste? I'm not seeing it. LOL all the data I see say the misuse of welfare money is minimal at best.

I am, however,seeing the fact that every dollar spent on welfare is bringing in $1.50. Because of this, it won't change, until there's a more economically beneficial model. No one with the purse strings actually cares what anyone thinks about people's personal discretionary spending habits. That's why it hasn't been changed in 70 years.

Where is this database you have?

Every dollar spent brings in $1.50, is that $1.50 profit from their "investment" as you clearly see it?

Know what would be even better? Lowering how much they throw in there and use it for something with meaning. Cut costs. Just because Cletus puts $1.50 in Obama's hand after he buys a few 12 packs doesn't mean the system is winning.

[.blank cd]

He doesn't understand the fact that the government isn't making a profit off handing out EBT cards.Sure about that?


Just thought y'all should know, every dollar spent in public assistance creates $1.50 in economic growth. Since this subsection has a heavy "conservative" slant, this will go in one ear and out the other.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/134245/err103_reportsummary_1_.pdf

[Sinfix_15]

Sure about that?


Breaking news from Blox cd news, welfare doesnt cost anything and actually makes $.50 on the dollar. Tune bACK in at the top of the hour for coverage on the bigfoot capture.


YOU CAN NOT ARGUE THAT WELFARE IS NOT A COST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



if welfare was a self sustained program that paid for itself in economic growth................... it wouldnt need my support.... it would be a self sustained program that paid for itself in economic growth and we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.

[.blank cd]

So for every dollar spent on welfare, americans are taxed $1.50. What's your point? is there a point to be made? can you explain a point?

You cant argue that welfare is not a cost.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................




how can you be this stupid??? seriously...... you are unfathomably stupid.You make up a bunch of numbers, and then call me stupid? LOL

[Vteckidd]

I don't think anyone thinks banning EBT cards from gas stations is a fix all solution, nobody said that.

I was more or less questioning why someone, who is poor, would shop for food and necessities at a gas station. I mean if youre poor, why would you buy milk which is 20-50% MORE at a gas station? The real reason is because some places will trade EBT cards for cash.
Do i think limiting EBT cards to groceries solves the problem>? Nope, but its a minor step in the right direction. If you cant agree to that, then theres no reason to debate any reforms because you (IMO) arent serious about tackling the spending problems in washington

[.blank cd]

Breaking news from Blox cd news, welfare doesnt cost anything and actually makes $.50 on the dollar. Tune bACK in at the top of the hour for coverage on the bigfoot capture.


YOU CAN NOT ARGUE THAT WELFARE IS NOT A COST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



if welfare was a self sustained program that paid for itself in economic growth................... it wouldnt need my support.... it would be a self sustained program that paid for itself in economic growth and we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.

You don't read good do you?

[Sinfix_15]

You make up a bunch of numbers, and then call me stupid? LOL

You are stupid. Very.... very...... very...... stupid.

You are sitting here...... talking to adults........ and trying to say that the welfare system is profitable and not a cost.

[Vteckidd]

Breaking news from Blox cd news, welfare doesnt cost anything and actually makes $.50 on the dollar. Tune bACK in at the top of the hour for coverage on the bigfoot capture.


YOU CAN NOT ARGUE THAT WELFARE IS NOT A COST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



if welfare was a self sustained program that paid for itself in economic growth................... it wouldnt need my support.... it would be a self sustained program that paid for itself in economic growth and we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.

they will rationalize anything to uphold their beliefs.

Stop getting caught in his strawmans and tangents.

FACT: Poverty rate in the US has not declined in 70 years. Despite 15+ trillion dollars. Its clearly not working. its INDISPUTABLE

This "For every dollar spent on welfare spending we gain $1.50" is the biggest bowl of turds ever served. I could sit here and spend hours showing him how wrong that is, but he wont listen. If he believes that, then everyone should quit their jobs and the govt should just send us checks every month. Problem solved.

I mean, if every dollar we get from Uncle Sam is worth $.50 more than it was to begin with, we have solved the economic crisis.

He doesnt understand or care where the $1 originates from

[Sinfix_15]

they will rationalize anything to uphold their beliefs.

Stop getting caught in his strawmans and tangents.

FACT: Poverty rate in the US has not declined in 70 years. Despite 15+ trillion dollars. Its clearly not working. its INDISPUTABLE

This "For every dollar spent on welfare spending we gain $1.50" is the biggest bowl of turds ever served. I could sit here and spend hours showing him how wrong that is, but he wont listen. If he believes that, then everyone should quit their jobs and the govt should just send us checks every month. Problem solved.

I mean, if every dollar we get from Uncle Sam is worth $.50 more than it was to begin with, we have solved the economic crisis.

He doesnt understand or care where the $1 originates from

Wisdom spoken......

I have reached a point where Blank has made me want to punch a baby kitten in the face.

I shall exit the internet for the day.

[Vteckidd]

I am, however,seeing the fact that every dollar spent on welfare is bringing in $1.50.

Then , despite the trillions in public programs we have spent money on, is the labor participation rate at its lowest?

If John Q earns $100
Govt taxes $10
Govt gives Jimmy $10 in welfare
Jimmy spends $10 at John Qs store
John Q collects $10 and pays taxes on it again

How long until this model expires and ends?

Eventually you will run out of money to take from John to pay for Jimmy. Its that simple. But you dont understand simple concepts. The problem with your study is its talking about stimulus. Stimulus comes from tax revenues, when the social programs outgrow the tax payers, its game over.

See Greece, France, Britain, etc

You need private jobs and sector to generate funds to pay for the stimulus. Stimulus is artificial, its not sustainable or real. if it was, then nationalize EVERYTHING and have at it.

[.blank cd]

Its clearly not working. its INDISPUTABLEOpinion


This "For every dollar spent on welfare spending we gain $1.50" is the biggest bowl of turds ever served. I could sit here and spend hours showing him how wrong that is, but he wont listen. If he believes that, then everyone should quit their jobs and the govt should just send us checks every month. Problem solved.

I mean, if every dollar we get from Uncle Sam is worth $.50 more than it was to begin with, we have solved the economic crisis.Biggest misrepresentation of fact in history. I don't know anyone in the history of economic research who thinks what you just said would be true

But go ahead, explain. But first, what makes you more qualified than the researchers who figured this out?

[.blank cd]

Eventually you will run out of money to take from John to pay for Jimmy. Its that simple.

Broken window fallacy.

[Vteckidd]

Opinion[quote]

Charts and data from the BOLAS are opinion. Got it. I remember saying this earlier:
[QUOTE] you claim opinions as facts and facts that dont agree with your views as opinions.




Biggest misrepresentation of fact in history. I don't know anyone in the history of economic research who thinks what you just said would be true
Not surprised, close minded people have trouble accepting facts from ideology


But go ahead, explain. But first, what makes you more qualified than the researchers who figured this out?
Let me see how this plays out

Vteckidd lists qualifications
Blank says HA well you arent an economist
Vteckidd posts articles from Economists that support his POV
Blank claims this as "rhetoric and right wing fallacies"

[Vteckidd]

Broken window fallacy.

If everyone stopped paying taxes tomorrow would social programs exist?

NOPE

next.

In simplest terms this is what happens in the American Economy

If John Q earns $100
Govt taxes $10
Govt gives Jimmy $10 in welfare
Jimmy spends $10 at John Qs store
John Q collects $10 and pays taxes on it again

People pay taxes that pay for things in the budget, eventually it becomes unsustainable. Taxes pay for programs, you cant claim taxed dollars spent, and then taxed again as "revenue". The money doesnt appear from thin air. you are depending on John Q to continue earning $100 , if his revenues fall, (because of higher taxes, competition, etc) then it hurts Jimmy. the solution is to have jimmy work for John Q.

How long until this model expires and ends?

[.blank cd]

Charts and data from the BOLAS are opinion. Got it.Drawing conclusions that said charts don't support = your opinion. Just so we're clear.





Not surprised, close minded people have trouble accepting facts from ideologyYeah. I know. You should read what you've been posting.



Let me see how this plays out
Vteckidd lists qualifications
Blank says HA well you arent an economist
Vteckidd posts articles from Economists that support his POV
Blank claims this as "rhetoric and right wing fallacies"So then all you have to do is post one study from one economist who says that $1 in welfare =\= $1.50 in economic growth. That's all.


BTW, you do realize that everyone who pays into the system doesn't take from the system, correct?

[Elbow]

If it's just an opinion that it all works then tell us how it all works aside from the "we make $1.50" BS.