Food stamp users hit a new record high numbers

Funny how you'll drag things into the conversation that are only vaguely related to the conversation and weren't even being talked about and then accuse others of being stupid for denying your take on things. No wonder ignoring you is becoming my national pastime. You’ve earned it.

 

Yeah, let's get back to the subject of BO creating an economy & atmosphere where millions are looking to food stamps for survival.

 

The topic is from you post #11

and you continued in posts #17, #22, #27, #31. My responses from #13, #18, #19, #20, and #33. I guess now that you have lost the argument when the facts are presented, you decide to change the topic. So now what is you topic-de-jour?

 

Oops!

 

Yeah, let's. You claim the fault rests entirely on Obama, that he created an economy and atmosphere that led to more people on food stamps. That's claim ignores the reality of what Obama inherited as he was sworn in. It ignores the recession that peaked in the final months of Bush Jr.'s reign.

It was well known in late 2008 that, even under the best of circumstances, it would take several years to recover from the recession.

By the way, my estimates (at the time) put it in the 12 to 15 year range for a more or less full recovery, the return to a more stable rise in the economic conditions, and I was being optimistic. That estimate is based on the US taking several small "hits" during the recovery, maybe even a medium hit. A large hit, especially in the first three years would have caused serious problems and my estimate would have jumped to around 20 years or more. That came close to happening. The economic issues around the World, especially in the EU almost became a "big hit" for us as well as them. If the economic conditions around the World hadn't been stabilized (using the term loosely), if they had instead gotten much worse, I'd have considered that a 2nd major blow to our own economy, instead of the more or less minor hits it caused.

 

But I thought, for the left, BO being elected was "the best of circumstances"?
Have you forgotten BO proclaimed he knew what our problems were & he knew how to fix them...or do you give him a pass on that too? BO also had complete control of Washington for the first 2 years & every single piece of legislation he has wanted passed has been passed, even after Repubs re-claimed the House. BO called Bush "unpatriotic" for borrowing from the Chinese & running up $1 trillion dollars in debt.

 

Please define "complete control" when every single piece of legislation had to be filibuster-proof! There was never at any point 60 Democrats in the Senate and I defy you to prove that there was. You have such a self-serving take on the facts that you, like Mitt, can talk out of both sides of your mouth with ease. You have the freedom to lie to yourself but the rest of us aren't buying your lies.

Your lies about Obama spending conveniently omit that Bush enacted spending that could not have been changed by Obama and yet you still attribute them to Obama. Obama's spending was temporary while Bush’s spending reached far into the future. The Chinese are actually financing Bush's debt. You've seen the graph before but you keep lying anyway. A close friend of Reagans used to say that if he said something out loud, it was truth from then on in spite of any and all facts to the contrary after that point. Must be a RW thing.
The graph one more time...

View attachment 420

 

He got every piece of legislation passed that he wanted passed. What about that? He got his healthcare bill passed with no filibustering, what about that?

I also see you've conveniently avoided the the bit about BO prclaiming he knew what our problems were & that he knew how to fix them. Didn't happen, did it?

 

That's because I thought it was both out of context bull hockey AND every single candidate has made that claim in one context or another. Why would any of them say they didn't have the answers? Don't be so naive.

 

You mean like unemployment will no go above 8%? Like last summer was the summer of recovery? Like Obama promised to “eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses? Like And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely? etc. and so forth?

 

It sounds like you've given up defending him...so much much a transformational, new kind of leader, huh?

 

...here's the best one:
BO thought Crazy Joe Biden was the very best choice, among the dems, the be VP & take over if something were to happen to him. That speaks volumes about his decision making abilities!

 

It was my opinion at the time, and still is to this day, that Obama was exactly what I wanted in the White House. That isn't to say I didn't have any concerns, I had a few.

One was the general state of the economy at the time. The economy was essentially stopped from free-fall in the last two months of Jr.'s reign, and was buttressed in the first two months of Obama's reign, but recovery was never considered a certainty within X-amount of months or years.

The republican political game-plan to shift all blame to Obama was anticipated, and they didn't disappoint. So one of my concerns was how rotten the republicans would get, and how gullible the people in America would be.

Historically speaking, a significant portion of the American people are known to be easily manipulated into believing the person who squaks the loudest... and one thing you can't say about republicans is they lack vocal chords. (see "David" )

As explained previously on this site (or the previous version of it), lefties were under no illusions that Obama would be capable of single-handedly solving all our issues in America, that little nugget dropped from the republican political spinsters as a means to shift blame on Obama.

It's a republican tactic, a misdirection, and is effective somewhat in that it excites the republican base a bit... like chumming... they smell blood in the water. The problem is, the statement itself is a lie, lefties were not under any illusions, but righties certainly prefer that unreality. The base is stirred into a frenzy, but there's nothing for them to feed on but lies.

As I've stated elsewhere, my personal opinion in late 2008 was that the recovery would take 12 to 15 years. Looking back three and a half years later I can say it's possible it could come quicker, so I now consider my previous estimate to be more conservative than optimistic.

IMO, we became stable about a year ago, though other, more expert opinions in the news have stated it was earlier than that. In either case, I believe true recovery has begun... but that process is the longest of the three (stopping the crash, stabilizing, and recovery), and it is likely to take several more years before it can be said full recovery has been achieved.

I do my best to be fair, no matter the party. You on the other hand support republican politicians exclusively, no matter what.

Congress is more complicated than that. In order to pass any legislation nowadays compromise between the party's membership has to be reached, and that doesn't always happen. There were a few instances where congress balked at the President's proposals, the closing of "Gitmo's" "unlawful combatants" prisons is one example.

Necessity. And I've stated before that I hate it. I hate having to borrow money from the Chinese just to be able to fund things here in America. Now, who is to blame?

True, there are a lot of government programs to fund, and I support most of them, so I have a bit of bias when it come to them... but what about the military's presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq... not to mention just about every country out there? That costs money too.

It's not a simple issue that can be wished away. Changes have to be made, changes that affect everyone negatively financially. The problem with that is that the wealthy can afford to take the hit financially. They'll survive. The poorest however, they can't take that kind of hit, and they will be the ones to suffer the most... again.

So, I'm opposed to cutting funding completely for the poor, and also for the military. Both can afford to take small hits financially, but cutting funding completely for either of them isn't going to happen so that leaves the only real option left, and that's tax increases.

Now, if that idiotic, coke-snorting drunkard hadn't invaded Iraq we would be sitting a little better finacially. Even if he hadn't though we'd eventually have gotten to this point. The fight to lower taxes and have less government versus taking care of those in need wouldn't have gone away.

 

That's because I never believed that he needed to be defended. He has face incredible problems and has done an outstanding job so far. Why would I have to defend that? Especially from someone with Obama derangement syndrome.

 

How do you explain BO's healthcare getting passed?

 

As opposed to Obama Infatuation Syndrome?

 

How do I explain it? Easy. Compromise was reached.

Is that all? ...or did you want to complain about how that compromise was reached? ...which makes your question something like a "lead-in" for the more detailed look into the process that may follow. Chop chop, get to the point lol

 

Here's a reminder of exactly how the obamacare vote went down:
http://quipster.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/congressmen-and-senators-who-voted-for-obamacare/

It was able to pass without any Republican support so please explain why BO would ever care about compromise or Repub objection.

 

As I said before, compromise within the party was necessary for it to pass. As you well know, a party is comprised of a range of beliefs, and in order to pass the legislation a compromise had to be reached with all those disparate beliefs. Now, if your point is to say only one party passed it, that no compromise with the other party was attempted, you'd be wrong.

The republicans brushed aside all attempts at compromise by demanding their version of the legislation be accepted. They made no attempt to compromise. The democrats did make the attempt, but the republicans resolve to be uncompromising left the democrats no other choice but to include some of the republican ideas on their own, without backing or support from the republicans themselves.

Now that alone becomes a complicated endeavor, since if the democrats had acquiesced to the republican's version, in essence, if they had allowed the republicans to be responsible for the legislation, and the legislation had passed, the republicans would have had a hard time explaining that to their constituents, who generally opposed any such legislation.

But again, you know all that. You know that Obama, as well as the democrats in the legislature attempted to compromise with the republicans on this legislation, and you know that attempt was ignored in favor of a total uncompromising position by the republicans. Despite that, several republican ideas were incorporated into the legislation by the democrats.

So if you are trying to say the democrats failed to compromise with the republicans on this legislation, you'd be half-right. The truth though is that the republicans chose not to negotiate or compromise with the democrats, while the democrats did make the attempt repeatedly. That means the republicans are to blame for any failure to compromise, not the democrats, since the democrats put in the effort.