Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm2287.cfm

Change? No change same old tired ruling by fear.

[normiss 855]

I thought we were calling this one "the redistribution of wealth".


At least we'll have something to look forward to when the jobs continue to dry up.

[bodypilot90 0]

As the gov't prints more and more money we'll be back to the Carter era.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

As the gov't prints more and more money we'll be back to the Carter era.

Oh.. you mean when we actually PAID most of our own debts???


Federal Deficit under Carter... only 1 TRILLION..

Now after you guys have had your way with VOO DOO DOO Economics... 11 Trillion.

[bodypilot90 0]

Less than a month and barry is adding 1 trillion in pork.

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

As the gov't prints more and more money we'll be back to the Carter era.

Oh.. you mean when we actually PAID most of our own debts???


Federal Deficit under Carter... only 1 TRILLION..

Now after you guys have had your way with VOO DOO DOO Economics... 11 Trillion.

Compare those two figures relative to the GDP of the day.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[gravityizsexy 0]

HAHAHAHAA... Voo Doo Economics, I must have sleep through that one.

I just want to know who gets the first slice of this bill, Im trying to get mine before the brokers come cutting off heads for the scraps...

needs a foolproof plan for the consumers who actually receive actual currency flush that cash straight on down to commercial product.

Only problem is, the get a overpriced-undervalued product and end up broke AGAIN!.. while CEO financiers reap the profits off inflated riches. Who will once again hold up that cash in swiss banks, or real estate, and let it depriciate like they're doing now.

Can we just fucking legalize weed please.... Inflate a new Industry... give EVERYBODY A JOB!!! shiiieeettt... talk about working from home ;9.

Good luck you guys, Im off to Saudi Arabia...

"'Someday is not a day in my week'"

[wmw999 2,545]

Quote

Compare those two figures relative to the GDP of the day.

Here is a link showing exactly that. Oddly enough, the debt as compared to the GDP was at its lowest at the end of the Carter administration. Went up fast for Reagan and both Bushes, and down for Clinton.

Unless your contention is that a higher percentage is better .

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

Compare those two figures relative to the GDP of the day.

Here is a link showing exactly that. Oddly enough, the debt as compared to the GDP was at its lowest at the end of the Carter administration. Went up fast for Reagan and both Bushes, and down for Clinton.

Unless your contention is that a higher percentage is better .

Wendy W.

She takes the hook. You are quite correct.

While we face the highest debt to GDP numbers ever, Obama wants a stimulus package that will add over 10% to the country's insane debt....and he's been in office less than a month.

Can't wait to see what he spends next month.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[wmw999 2,545]

Yes. However, there is absolutely no way that we weren't going to run a deficit this year. So that's kind of a straw man, isnt' it? Do you really think that shutting down significant parts of the government in order to balance the budget would be better? Some things are better viewed with some time, as a single data point doesn't make a trend.

No, facts aren't hooks to take and be sunk with. Facts stand on their own, it's up to people to interpret them.

And sometimes going in to debt up front is better than paying more later. Of course, sometimes it's wrong. You buy a house, and you hope that you can live in it and build equity. Then comes the hurricane, the fact that there wasn't flood insurance, and the value dropped, and you're fucked. We might turn out that way. We might not. Personally, regardless of what I hope for anyone, I hope we're not fucked.

I'm not that impressed with the spending bill. But it's not as bad as going to war in Iraq -- that killed people.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Compare those two figures relative to the GDP of the day.

Here is a link showing exactly that. Oddly enough, the debt as compared to the GDP was at its lowest at the end of the Carter administration. Went up fast for Reagan and both Bushes, and down for Clinton.

Unless your contention is that a higher percentage is better .

Wendy W.

She takes the hook. You are quite correct.

While we face the highest debt to GDP numbers ever, Obama wants a stimulus package that will add over 10% to the country's insane debt....and he's been in office less than a month.

Can't wait to see what he spends next month.

Yes, it sucks that he inherited an economy in the shitter thanks to Reagan/Bush policies.

Cleaning up a mess is never pretty, but it has to be done.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Cleaning up a mess is never pretty, but it has to be done.

It's not cheap, either.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 23]

Anybody who cares to look into this bill understands that this is all it was ever intended to be.

And only for one reason. That one reason does not include what is good for the country. Not one bit

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Anybody who cares to look into this bill understands that this is all it was ever intended to be.

And only for one reason. That one reason does not include what is good for the country. Not one bit

Like Republican policies are good for the country.

Have you read a paper recently - we're in a huge RECESSION that Obama inherited.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Anybody who cares to look into this bill understands that this is all it was ever intended to be.

And only for one reason. That one reason does not include what is good for the country. Not one bit

Like Republican policies are good for the country.

Have you read a paper recently - we're in a huge RECESSION that Obama inherited.

Have you looked into the true causes? Or is it just easier to blame Bush?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anybody who cares to look into this bill understands that this is all it was ever intended to be.

And only for one reason. That one reason does not include what is good for the country. Not one bit

Like Republican policies are good for the country.

Have you read a paper recently - we're in a huge RECESSION that Obama inherited.

Have you looked into the true causes? Or is it just easier to blame Bush?

We have been debating them here for years.... you always seem to disregard anything that resembles reality on the economy or on the environment. Why is that????

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Yes. However, there is absolutely no way that we weren't going to run a deficit this year. So that's kind of a straw man, isnt' it? Do you really think that shutting down significant parts of the government in order to balance the budget would be better? Some things are better viewed with some time, as a single data point doesn't make a trend.

No, facts aren't hooks to take and be sunk with. Facts stand on their own, it's up to people to interpret them.

And sometimes going in to debt up front is better than paying more later. Of course, sometimes it's wrong. You buy a house, and you hope that you can live in it and build equity. Then comes the hurricane, the fact that there wasn't flood insurance, and the value dropped, and you're fucked. We might turn out that way. We might not. Personally, regardless of what I hope for anyone, I hope we're not fucked.

I'm not that impressed with the spending bill. But it's not as bad as going to war in Iraq -- that killed people.

Wendy W.

I don't disagree with your perspective - in many ways we agree completely. However, what the economy needs right now is confidence, and that doesn't come from government work programs and willy nilly spending for the sake of throwing money around to the groups that helped get a candidate into office. It comes from creating an economic environment in which businesses go into an expansion and reinvestment mode.

When jobs are plentiful (as is the case when businesses are expanding and reinvesting), people have the confidence to spend ("Boss gonna fire me? So what, the guy down the street is hiring. Now let's go buy that ski boat we've been wanting"). We saw that in the last run up, but it was way over the top. Too much confidence if you will, combined with rediculously loose lending standards across the spectrum. But back on point, we are a nation of consumers funded by the hard work of individuals. When the perception is that jobs are drying up, Americans go into a lock-down mode with their money, and the overall economy begins a nosedive that becomes self-inflicting.

And since 70% of our overall economy is consumer spending, it's pretty easy to see what needs done. Create incentives that will allow businesses to move toward expansion mode - also known as hiring mode.

And whether the socialist, anti-business left likes it or not, the best way to get businesses in that mode is through...

drum roll please.....

tax cuts.

If we're going to say to hell with addressing the debt level and deficit spending, let's at least do what works in the process.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anybody who cares to look into this bill understands that this is all it was ever intended to be.

And only for one reason. That one reason does not include what is good for the country. Not one bit

Like Republican policies are good for the country.

Have you read a paper recently - we're in a huge RECESSION that Obama inherited.

Have you looked into the true causes? Or is it just easier to blame Bush?

We have been debating them here for years.... you always seem to disregard anything that resembles reality on the economy or on the environment. Why is that????

Finally, a real question

Tell me, specifically, what have I been disregarding?

I have stated consistantly that I have not liked ANY of Bush's economic policies or his growth of the goverment. And these are clearly involved in this mess. But there is much much more that you and others seem to want to ignore because they are Democreatic failures. It is all Bush's fault it what you want all to beleive!!!

Its not. It is not all greed. It is not all corps.

The goverment and the Fed are the biggest criminals in this mess. Yet it seems you and others want those who created the mess to fix it. Well they are fixing it all right. Just not in a way that will really fix it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anybody who cares to look into this bill understands that this is all it was ever intended to be.

And only for one reason. That one reason does not include what is good for the country. Not one bit

Like Republican policies are good for the country.

Have you read a paper recently - we're in a huge RECESSION that Obama inherited.

Have you looked into the true causes? Or is it just easier to blame Bush?

The Buck Stops in the Oval Office.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anybody who cares to look into this bill understands that this is all it was ever intended to be.

And only for one reason. That one reason does not include what is good for the country. Not one bit

Like Republican policies are good for the country.

Have you read a paper recently - we're in a huge RECESSION that Obama inherited.

Have you looked into the true causes? Or is it just easier to blame Bush?

The Buck Stops in the Oval Office.

Not if you want the true cause fixed it doesnt

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Compare those two figures relative to the GDP of the day.

Here is a link showing exactly that. Oddly enough, the debt as compared to the GDP was at its lowest at the end of the Carter administration. Went up fast for Reagan and both Bushes, and down for Clinton.

Unless your contention is that a higher percentage is better .

Wendy W.

She takes the hook. You are quite correct.

While we face the highest debt to GDP numbers ever, Obama wants a stimulus package that will add over 10% to the country's insane debt....and he's been in office less than a month.

Can't wait to see what he spends next month.

Yes, it sucks that he inherited an economy in the shitter thanks to Reagan/Bush policies.

Cleaning up a mess is never pretty, but it has to be done.

No one denies that the housing market bubble is the biggest cause of our current economic situation. There's also no argument that the housing market bubble was caused from the government lowering lending standards, which in turn created an artificial demand filled by what should have been unqualified buyers. Sealing the deal, the government mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (owned by you and me, a.k.a. the taxpayer) back these loans that were destined to fail (also known as the empty houses down the street).

Did I mention it was the democratically controlled congress that passed the laws lowering those standards under the guise of creating "affordable housing" for all?

Did I mention that the Bush administration went to Congress at least twice to ask them to change these standards before it sank us?

And I guess I didn't mention that the democratically controlled Congress turned him away. Barney Frank - the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee - repeatedly spoke out on the house floor that Freddie and Fannie were in great shape and at no risk of having financial problems.

Wendy, I love ya, but this economic thing is clearly tied in the biggest way to the housing market, and that aspect of it can't be blamed on Bush. He may have done a lot of things you don't like, but his administration argued against the house of cards that was - and is - the housing market.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Did I mention it was the democratically controlled congress that passed the laws lowering those standards under the guise of creating "affordable housing" for all?

Uh.. you do remember that the Congress was controlled since 1994 and the rePUBICan Revulsion in 1994..... by the time the Democrats took control of Congress in JANUARY of 2007.... the damage had already been so DONE.. the fork was already sticking out of those running for cover.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Did I mention it was the democratically controlled congress that passed the laws lowering those standards under the guise of creating "affordable housing" for all?

Uh.. you do remember that the Congress was controlled since 1994 and the rePUBICan Revulsion in 1994..... by the time the Democrats took control of Congress in JANUARY of 2007.... the damage had already been so DONE.. the fork was already sticking out of those running for cover.

And bills were submitted after that point to regulate the housing industry...and it sat in the housing committee until it died.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

by the time the Democrats took control of Congress in JANUARY of 2007.... the damage had already been so DONE.. the fork was already sticking out of those running for cover.

The system had problems and needed to be fixed, but.... fuck it? Things are bad so we'll just go on record saying it's fine and hope for the best. Good defense you've got going there. Shit, you could use that for the next 4 years. The country had problems when they took over so the President and Congress shouldn't be expected to fix anything. Brilliant.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did I mention it was the democratically controlled congress that passed the laws lowering those standards under the guise of creating "affordable housing" for all?

Uh.. you do remember that the Congress was controlled since 1994 and the rePUBICan Revulsion in 1994..... by the time the Democrats took control of Congress in JANUARY of 2007.... the damage had already been so DONE.. the fork was already sticking out of those running for cover.

And bills were submitted after that point to regulate the housing industry...and it sat in the housing committee until it died.

I'm sorry, what was your point again?

The house of cards was already in collapse at that time... and there was no leadership coming from your hero.... He wanted to be a war president.. and his country's domestic matters did not mean shit to him or his rich oil buddies in his Administration.