or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Jack Nicklaus Endorses Romney, Mitt calls Jack “Greatest athlete of the 20th century.”
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jack Nicklaus Endorses Romney, Mitt calls Jack “Greatest athlete of the 20th century.” - Page 14

post #235 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Does the government have anything to do with purchasing phones for those on entitlements? (already looked this one up weeks ago about Obama phones  - the answer is no - it's another right wing lie)

Actually, it's not a lie.  The FCC is a government entity, and it runs the free phone program which is mostly paid for by us that pay for wireless service out of our own pockets.  It was not started by Obama though, it's actually an initiative from the 90's, which means they should be calling them Clinton phones, I guess.

 

Quote from USA Today:

 

The FCC's LifeLine Assistance program was set up in the '90s to help low-income families with monthly landline bills. Over the past few years, the program has put more than 12 million wireless feature phones into the hands of low-income Americans.

The informational website FreeGovernmentCellPhones.net estimates that as many as 50 million additional households might be eligible for the program. LifeLine is funded by the small Universal Service Fee that is added to phone subscribers' monthly bills.

To get a free phone, you need to apply to one of the regional providers serving your state. The three biggest companies are Assurance Wireless , a subsidiary of Virgin Mobile/Sprint; Reachout Wireless , which is a division of Nexus communications; and Safelink Wireless/, owned by Tracfone.

post #236 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt5339 View Post

Actually, it's not a lie.  The FCC is a government entity, and it runs the free phone program which is mostly paid for by us that pay for wireless service out of our own pockets.  It was not started by Obama though, it's actually an initiative from the 90's, which means they should be calling them Clinton phones, I guess.

 

The "Obama Phone" story is a lie. To attempt to tie the program to the President as an example that he is making the country dependent on welfare, as the right wing viral email attempted - is a lie. 

 

I'm all against abuse of entitlements, and in favor of reform. In fact, the President put entitlement reform on the table as part of the failed Grand Bargain. So apparently, even he recognizes entitlements are a problem.

 

But this constant carping of characterizing a program as completely wasteful and useful because of the minority who abuse - citing an example here and there - is misleading, and frankly, does no good to solve the problem. What it sets up is a "us against them" type of war. One that divides the country...

 

FactCheck.org

 

 

Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

 

FULL QUESTION

Is this e-mail true?

I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his "Obama phone."

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏

 

FULL ANSWER

Welfare recipients, and others, can receive a free cell phone, but the program is not funded by the government or taxpayer money, as the e-mail alleges. And it’s hardly new.

How It Works

SafeLink Wireless, the program mentioned in the e-mail, does indeed offer a cell phone, about one hour’s worth of calling time per month, and other wireless services like voice mail to eligible low-income households. Applicants have to apply and prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits, such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the poverty line. Using 2009 poverty guidelines, that’s $14,620 for an individual and a little under $30,000 for a family of four, with slightly higher amounts for Alaska and Hawaii.

SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households.

History

The SafeLink program has actually been offering cell phones to low-income households in some states since 2008, not beginning "earlier this year," as the e-mail claims. But the program is rooted in a deeper history.

When phone lines were first laid out in the late 19th century, they were not always inter-operable. That is to say the phone service created by one company to serve one town may not have been compatible with the phone service of another company serving a different town nearby. The telecom companies themselves saw the folly in this arrangement, and so in 1913, AT&T committed itself to resolving interconnection problems as part of the "Kingsbury Commitment."

That common goal of universal service became a goal of universal access to service when Congress passed The Telecommunications Act of 1934. The act created the FCC and also includedin its preamble a promise "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” There was a fear, expressed by telecom companies themselves, that market forces alone might encourage companies to pass on providing service to hard-to-reach places. This would both hurt the people who wouldn’t have service as well as existing customers who wouldn’t be able to reach them. So the new FCC was tasked with promoting this principle of "universal service."

This informal practice was codified when the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) was created as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to "ensure all Americans, including low-income consumers and those who live in rural, insular, high cost areas, shall have affordable service and [to] help to connect eligible schools, libraries, and rural health care providers to the global telecommunications network." The USAC includes four programs to serve rural areas, high cost areas, rural health care providers, and schools and libraries. Since 1997, USAC has provided discounted land line service to low-income individuals. (A more limited program to offer assistance to low-income individuals was created a decade earlier; the telecommunications act expanded and formalized it.) According to Eric Iversen, USAC director of external relations, the Universal Service Fund more recently began funding programs that provide wireless service, such as the pre-paid cellular SafeLink program mentioned in the chain e-mail.

The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson Phones, anyone?


Edited by Mr. Desmond - 10/3/12 at 9:35am
post #237 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt5339 View Post

 

I do not agree or even see where you could even come up with that idea.  How is being taxed on what you spend instead of what you earn not fair?  Fair is everyone paying the exact same percentage....... EVERYONE.  Regardless on income.  I could see retirees being exempt, but other than that?  Don't care, pay your share.

 

What happens in a few years when the consumers outnumber the earners?  The obvious answer from your point of view would be "Tax the earners more to pay for it".  

 

I take it that you think just because someone's income is low, they should not be "burdened" with any taxes?

 

That's a destructive thought in itself.  This may sound kind of cold-hearted, but it's the truth.........

 

People who do not pay taxes are the highest consumers of tax money.  So until they're paying something, I don't ever want to hear another poor person say that the rich need to pay more.  20% of people in the U.S. get paid to live here and actually receive our money directly through a tax return when they contribute nothing throughout the year.  Yeah, that's fair.......

 

It is regressive because poorer people spend ALL of their money to survive, thus are taxed on ALL of their money they earn.  Weathier people only have to spend a very small percentage of their money, and so they only get taxed on that very small percentage.

 

Being taxed on your entire $20,000 salary is a lot different than being taxed on $50,000 out of a $250,000 salary.  This is so basic.  Seriously.  If I have to explain this to you, you shouldn't be allowed in this conversation.  It's principle is taught in any intro economics or political science class.  You guys are a joke.  

post #238 of 404

From reading that, I think the only thing we're disagreeing on is that I say it's a Federal run program because it was an FCC program, you're saying it's not.  Even your source says that it was created by Government regulations, which makes it a Federal Program in my definition.  It was not created by an already existing private entity, Government created an entity to handle this task, hence "Federal Program".

 

Other than that, it seems that we both agree that using Obamaphone is a misnomer, although the use of the program has increased dramatically during his presidency.  That would be like calling Food Stamps Obamafood because the number of people on them has increased dramatically as well.  It's a program that was already in place, but the usage and hence cost of it has went up in the past few years, so Obama gets the blame.  I have a lot of Right Wing friends and co-workers that would tell you everything's Obama's fault, even if he has no control over any of it.

 

Most of us are Military retirees and one was complaining that his Tricare cost for the year was going up from $450 a year to $1300 a year because of Obamacare.  I think it's obvious that I'm not a supporter of Obamacare, but I corrected him and said that Obamacare doesn't even address Tricare and the Military Retirement Healthcare, it was in another bill written before Obamacare.

 

If you're a Conservative, everything's Obama's fault, If you're a Liberal, everything is Bush's fault, no matter how much proof or logic goes against it.  People are incapable of reading facts from unbiased sources and drawing their own conclusions or making their own decisions anymore as a whole.  Fox New or MSNBC said it, so that makes it true.

post #239 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subaroo View Post

 

It is regressive because poorer people spend ALL of their money to survive, thus are taxed on ALL of their money they earn.  Weathier people only have to spend a very small percentage of their money, and so they only get taxed on that very small percentage.

 

Being taxed on your entire $20,000 salary is a lot different than being taxed on $50,000 out of a $250,000 salary.  This is so basic.  Seriously.  If I have to explain this to you, you shouldn't be allowed in this conversation.  It's principle is taught in any intro economics or political science class.  You guys are a joke.  

 

You are assuming that people who make $250k don't spend all of it and live off of $50k a year.......  That is 100% untrue.  The more you make, the more you spend.  You would be taxed on your standard of living, point blank.  If you make $250k a year, but choose to live off of $50k a year, that's great.  You're saving a lot of money for no apparent reason, but whatever, it's a good incentive to actually save money instead of running up debt, I guess.

 

Ho

 

If I make $250k a year and buy a $400k house and pay 10% on it, you make $50k a year and can't afford to buy a house so you rent, then you don't pay the 10%.  If you can buy a $25k trailer, you pay your 10%.  You think it's regressive because we've been reprogrammed over time that it's government's responsibility to take care of people.  People didn't always feel that way, believe it or not, it was embarassing to get government aid or welfare until recently (25 years or so), and family, community and churches were the primary sources of aid for people who were in need.  Not anymore, we have Gubment to take care of us now.

 

It's regressive to you only because you don't like it. 

 

I have 3 kids that all go to public school and consume that resource, but I get tax breaks because I have children.  My neighbor is single, so he's taxed at a much higher rate than me.  So he is paying more towards the school than I am, although I consume more of that resource than he does.  He is paying more for a service that he doesn't use so that I can pay less and consume more.  How fair is that?  We make the same amount of money, but he has to pay more because he chose not to have children?  Pure crap, but that's the way our system is based right now, and even in this situation, where I am the beneficiary, I see the inherent problem and don't like it.

post #240 of 404

How many people do you think are out there driving new Lexus's that are on welfare or food stamps? The number is about zero. It isn't worth worrying about.  It is a political yarn to rile up the voters. The big money is in medicare fraud....

 

Is the EPA killing coal mines or is it a result of capitalism (i.e. natural gas fracking)? Sure looks like the later to me.  Now coal would be cheaper with zero regulations. In return we would have worse air pollution which poorer quality of life (i.e. more asthma and people dieing years early). A coal miner might like that trade off.  The rest of use might not.  Disruption in any industry is hard but it is one of the core attributes of capitalism. The question who takes care of the people (retraining and other services)? Is it there responsibility (i.e. they should have save when times are good) or should the state help out as it is hard to predict when your industry is going belly up?

 

 

On the receipt, here is the rest of the story for those that missed it the first time it made the national news. A guy on food stamps didn't buy lobsters to eat. He bought lobsters as a way to turn his food stamps into cash. The guy decided he would rather have 70 buck to buy something (probably booze) than 140 bucks worth of food. If that guy had bought 140 bucks of pasta, it would have been the same results.  If you are foodstamps, you are not eating lobsters and porterhouse steaks on a regular basis.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt5339 View Post

I have emphathy for the poor, just not the same as everyone else, apparently.  I grew up very poor and realized and was taught from a young age the value of hard work in order to get what you need/want.

 

 I have empathy for the family in WV who's entire family history is working in the coal mine and that's all they've ever known, but through increased EPA regulations over the past 30 years, the coal mine has closed down and the parents went from making $150k a year to $40k a year working in a department store.  They're working hard, but just not making it.  They've moved out of their $250k home into a trailer, sold the BMW and bought a used Ford, got rid of the Iphone and got a basic phone, trimmed all the unnecessary things out of their budget that they possibly could, but still have to choose between food and the electric bill this month.

 

I have no empathy for someone who collects welfare and food stamps, but drives a brand new Lexus, goes and gets their hair and nails done every week, uses their food stamps as barter material for cash and is complaining about rich people not paying their fair share to someone on their brand new Iphone.

post #241 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

How many people do you think are out there driving new Lexus's that are on welfare or food stamps? The number is about zero. It isn't worth worrying about.  It is a political yarn to rile up the voters. The big money is in medicare fraud....

 

Is the EPA killing coal mines or is it a result of capitalism (i.e. natural gas fracking)? Sure looks like the later to me.  Now coal would be cheaper with zero regulations. In return we would have worse air pollution which poorer quality of life (i.e. more asthma and people dieing years early). A coal miner might like that trade off.  The rest of use might not.  Disruption in any industry is hard but it is one of the core attributes of capitalism. The question who takes care of the people (retraining and other services)? Is it there responsibility (i.e. they should have save when times are good) or should the state help out as it is hard to predict when your industry is going belly up?

 

 

On the receipt, here is the rest of the story for those that missed it the first time it made the national news. A guy on food stamps didn't buy lobsters to eat. He bought lobsters as a way to turn his food stamps into cash. The guy decided he would rather have 70 buck to buy something (probably booze) than 140 bucks worth of food. If that guy had bought 140 bucks of pasta, it would have been the same results.  If you are foodstamps, you are not eating lobsters and porterhouse steaks on a regular basis.

 

 

Quote:

 Would you like to come to Southeastern NC and reevaluate that statement about new Lexus and Food Stamps?  I bet you would change your mind quickly.  My son is a bagger at a local grocery store and sees it every day.  Maybe not all Lexus, but a lot of Lincolns, BMWs and Lexus.  Pay for food with EBT, my son loads the groceries into a nicer car than I have.

 

You are partially correct, the natural gas industry has put a large dent in coal manufacturing, but you can track the start of the demise to the Clean Air Act passed by the Nixon administration, but that was not the major part of my argument.  My argument was that I have empathy for people who are working hard and by no choice of their own just can't make ends meet, the coal worker was just an example.  I have no empathy for people who don't try to get ahead and work hard instead are taught from a young age how to manipulate the system so that they don't have to.

 

I knew the story behind the reciept, and elluded to it in the post.  My point is that money was given to feed a family, not to provide cash to the person involved.  Because of this abuse, some child that the money was supposed to go feed is not going to eat.  If they say "Well, I fed him anyway", then you obviously didn't need that much in food stamps to begin with.

post #242 of 404

You spend more but you spend less of a percentage of your income.  The fairtax shifts the tax burden onto the working through upper middle class. The poor still don't pay taxes and the rich get a tax break.  You can decide if that is a good thing or not.

 

Personally I would love to see all the work arounds people would come up with if a fair tax was in place. Do you buy nothing new (used goods aren't taxed) but instead lease them for 1 month and then buy the used good? Do you take your vacations overseas where things are cheaper and come back with suitcases stuffed with crap? 

 

I don't know where you live but most schools are funded by property tax which tends to be a flat tax (sometime with a credit of some type).  I am sure some place has higher rates and gives breaks to large families but I am unaware of one. In exchange for paying for your  kids schools, your neighbor gets a higher house price.  Schools are a real bad example in that they are pretty much a state issue. Hmm maybe the states should go to the fair tax also. In CA, you would end up with something like a 50% sales tax. The avoidance would be epic.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt5339 View Post

 

You are assuming that people who make $250k don't spend all of it and live off of $50k a year.......  That is 100% untrue.  The more you make, the more you spend.  You would be taxed on your standard of living, point blank.  If you make $250k a year, but choose to live off of $50k a year, that's great.  You're saving a lot of money for no apparent reason, but whatever, it's a good incentive to actually save money instead of running up debt, I guess.

 

Ho

 

If I make $250k a year and buy a $400k house and pay 10% on it, you make $50k a year and can't afford to buy a house so you rent, then you don't pay the 10%.  If you can buy a $25k trailer, you pay your 10%.  You think it's regressive because we've been reprogrammed over time that it's government's responsibility to take care of people.  People didn't always feel that way, believe it or not, it was embarassing to get government aid or welfare until recently (25 years or so), and family, community and churches were the primary sources of aid for people who were in need.  Not anymore, we have Gubment to take care of us now.

 

It's regressive to you only because you don't like it. 

 

I have 3 kids that all go to public school and consume that resource, but I get tax breaks because I have children.  My neighbor is single, so he's taxed at a much higher rate than me.  So he is paying more towards the school than I am, although I consume more of that resource than he does.  He is paying more for a service that he doesn't use so that I can pay less and consume more.  How fair is that?  We make the same amount of money, but he has to pay more because he chose not to have children?  Pure crap, but that's the way our system is based right now, and even in this situation, where I am the beneficiary, I see the inherent problem and don't like it.

post #243 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt5339 View Post

From reading that, I think the only thing we're disagreeing on is that I say it's a Federal run program because it was an FCC program, you're saying it's not.  Even your source says that it was created by Government regulations, which makes it a Federal Program in my definition.  It was not created by an already existing private entity, Government created an entity to handle this task, hence "Federal Program".

 

Other than that, it seems that we both agree that using Obamaphone is a misnomer, although the use of the program has increased dramatically during his presidency.  That would be like calling Food Stamps Obamafood because the number of people on them has increased dramatically as well.  It's a program that was already in place, but the usage and hence cost of it has went up in the past few years, so Obama gets the blame.  I have a lot of Right Wing friends and co-workers that would tell you everything's Obama's fault, even if he has no control over any of it.

 

Most of us are Military retirees and one was complaining that his Tricare cost for the year was going up from $450 a year to $1300 a year because of Obamacare.  I think it's obvious that I'm not a supporter of Obamacare, but I corrected him and said that Obamacare doesn't even address Tricare and the Military Retirement Healthcare, it was in another bill written before Obamacare.

 

If you're a Conservative, everything's Obama's fault, If you're a Liberal, everything is Bush's fault, no matter how much proof or logic goes against it.  People are incapable of reading facts from unbiased sources and drawing their own conclusions or making their own decisions anymore as a whole.  Fox New or MSNBC said it, so that makes it true.

I'm saying is that for this program to be described as Obama buying votes is a pants on fire lie. And that's how it was used.

post #244 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

I'm saying is that for this program to be described as Obama buying votes is a pants on fire lie. And that's how it was used.

 

We can agree on that one, for sure.  Neither side is innocent of trying to distort facts to pander to a certain base.

 

Democrats with "Throw Grandma off the cliff, Dirty Air, Dirty Water"

 

Republicans with "Give people free stuff just for the vote"

 

The truth is that both sides are only interested in one thing and that's getting elected/reelected.  Neither truly represents the good of the American people anymore.

post #245 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Wait - what argument are you making?

 

"I had empathy for the poor before I found someone abusing the system?"

 

Or "Obama is bribing people with lobsters, steaks, and iPhones?"

 

Find the truth ..

 

Did Obama change the food stamp system that existed to buy votes?

 

Does the government have anything to do with purchasing phones for those on entitlements? (already looked this one up weeks ago about Obama phones  - the answer is no - it's another right wing lie)

 

 

I didn't say anything about the whole Obama Phone discussion.  There's misunderstanding on both sides of that issue.

 

My point, like the post that I responded to is that there are people using food stamps that are buying lobster, steaks, and I phones.  Abuse is rampant, and food stamp use has skyrocketed under the current administration.  The administration likes that......because they know that by increasing those reliant on the federal government, they increase their voting base.

 

It's simple.....some may not like to hear that, but to even try to argue the point is disengenuous. 

post #246 of 404

There was a very interesting PBS radio interview a couple days ago with one of our former California State Representatives, Nathan Fletcher, on his experiences and what caused him to change his political affiliation.    Fletcher was easily elected as a Republican representative for one of the San Diego districts four years ago and was running for San Diego mayor, but recently renounced his party affiliation and declared himself an independent; many thought this an astounding move given he seemed to be a rising star in the party.    I've met Fletcher on a number of occasions (through a mutual friend) and found him to be extremely intelligent and insightful, and thought his opinions on politics today to be very descriptive of the issues we're experiencing.  

 

Fletcher's primary observation from the inside was that the fundamental role of a representative in elected office has changed from one of seeking compromise to better the good of the people into a "win or at least make sure the other side loses" philosophy.    He gave numerous examples where politicians used to socialize with each other and would develop a respect for the person, even if you disagreed with their opinion.    One of the famous examples of this was Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan sitting down together to deal with a looming Medicare funding crisis, and though they strongly disagreed with each other's base position they came to a compromise where both sides gave a little.     Each was also their respective party's top leader, and they were able to help shape the party direction in the process.  

 

Fletcher contrasted that to today's process that he had experienced where representatives in a party are ostracized for bucking any of their party's positions.    He gave a number of examples where he worked to reach across the aisle and with Democratic Governor Brown to find some solutions to tough problems and found that the Republican party rebuffed his efforts and basically instructed him to not try to reach compromise, as it was more important to make the other side look bad than to help fix the problems.    And although many of Fletcher's examples of how the Republican party placed enormous restrictions on his efforts and tired to squelch anything that could be seen as positive for the opposition, he also indicated that this behavior is the same on both sides - both parties have taken the approach that making the other party look bad is the most important thing and not to address the issues that need to be addressed.    Instead of seeking win/win solutions, our political process is now dominated by a process to make the other side look bad and lose, no matter the fallout for the public.  

 

Great civilizations rise, and fall.   Is the current form of politics in this country something that is recoverable, or will this be one of the major contributing factors to America's decline?

post #247 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

 

 

I didn't say anything about the whole Obama Phone discussion.  There's misunderstanding on both sides of that issue.

 

My point, like the post that I responded to is that there are people using food stamps that are buying lobster, steaks, and I phones.  Abuse is rampant, and food stamp use has skyrocketed under the current administration.  The administration likes that......because they know that by increasing those reliant on the federal government, they increase their voting base.

 

It's simple.....some may not like to hear that, but to even try to argue the point is disengenuous. 

Actually, there was an independent study that stated the increase in food stamps is due to the lack of speed in the economic recovery... 

 

As to what people can buy, how do you think that works? Do you think that stores want to carry out government programs and tell people what they can't purchase?

post #248 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt5339 View Post

 

 

It's regressive to you only because you don't like it. 

 

 

 

 

No, it's regressive because those are the facts.  Pick up a ****ing book, read, educate yourself.
post #249 of 404

Give up. The guy is a troll.

 

Obama has had one expansion of government with Obamacare (which is largely privately implemented. The government is largely a regulator). All the expansion of food stamps, unemployment, and medicaid are results of the economic recession not policy. They would have happened if McCain was elected or anyone else. So would the trillion dollar deficits (see 2009 when we were operating under the Bush Budget. Heck Obama wasn't even in charge for a quarter of that budget year).  Food stamp fraud, medicaid fraud, social security fraud and the rest have been happening forever. I haven't seen any suggestion in an uptake in rate increases or that it is any worse than lets say DOD procurement fraud. Remember when Halliburton stole over 100 million from the DOD right after the start of the Iraqi war by overcharging for food and gas? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Actually, there was an independent study that stated the increase in food stamps is due to the lack of speed in the economic recovery... 

 

As to what people can buy, how do you think that works? Do you think that stores want to carry out government programs and tell people what they can't purchase?

post #250 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

Give up. The guy is a troll.

Because I disagree with you?

b3_huh.gif

Wow......
post #251 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Actually, there was an independent study that stated the increase in food stamps is due to the lack of speed in the economic recovery... 

As to what people can buy, how do you think that works? Do you think that stores want to carry out government programs and tell people what they can't purchase?


Lack of speed in the economic recovery? No argument there.... In spite of 4 years of trying to spend our way out of the recession. Imagine that.

Restrictions are placed on the sale of all kinds of goods that stores must abide by...... Note, I'm not saying that this type of abuse hasn't been going on forever. But the enormous increase in government dependency IS part of the Democrat play book. No one can seriously argue that those receiving federal subsistence are much more likely to vote for the candidate that promises to continue, or even increase their entitlements, than they are for the candidate who wants to cut spending that may decrease them.
post #252 of 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


Lack of speed in the economic recovery? No argument there.... In spite of 4 years of trying to spend our way out of the recession. Imagine that.
Restrictions are placed on the sale of all kinds of goods that stores must abide by...... Note, I'm not saying that this type of abuse hasn't been going on forever. But the enormous increase in government dependency IS part of the Democrat play book. No one can seriously argue that those receiving federal subsistence are much more likely to vote for the candidate that promises to continue, or even increase their entitlements, than they are for the candidate who wants to cut spending that may decrease them.

Here is another perspective on the history of the welfare state, Conservatives, and Obama:

 

 

But Eisenhower not only refused to repeal the New Deal, he wouldn’t even let Republicans in Congress cut taxes even though the high World War II and Korean War rates were in effect. He thought a balanced budget should take priority. Eisenhower also helped to destroy right wing hero Joe McCarthy and worked closely with liberals on civil rights.

Eisenhower’s effective liberalism was deeply frustrating to conservatives. Robert Welch of the John Birch Society even accused him of being a communist. But after Republicans lost control of Congress in 1954, he was the only game in town for them.

By 1964, conservatives got control of the GOP’s nominating process and put forward one of their own, Barry Goldwater, to complete the unfinished work of repealing the New Deal that Eisenhower refused to do. But he lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, who quickly capitalized on his victory by doubling down on the New Deal with the Great Society.

Although Johnson was done in by Vietnam, his domestic liberalism was as popular in 1968 as the New Deal had been in 1952. Nevertheless, conservatives deluded themselves that Nixon would repeal the Great Society. But just as Eisenhower cemented the New Deal in place, Nixon accepted the legitimacy of the Great Society. His goal was to make it work efficiently and shave off the rough edges. Nixon even expanded the welfare state by expanding its regulatory reach through the Environmental Protection Agency and other new government agencies.

Conservatives were infuriated by Nixon’s betrayal, but lacking control of Congress they were stuck with him just as they had been with Eisenhower. Not very many were upset when Watergate pushed Nixon out of office.

Conservatives finally got the president they had always hoped for when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. But by then, key New Deal/Great Society programs like Social Security and Medicare were so deeply embedded in government and society that he never lifted a finger to dismantle them. Reagan even raised taxes 11 times to keep them funded.

Liberals initially viewed Bill Clinton the same way conservatives viewed Eisenhower – as a liberator who would reverse the awful policies of his two predecessors. But almost immediately, Clinton decided that deficit reduction would be the first order of business in his administration. His promised middle class tax cut and economic stimulus were abandoned.

By 1995, Clinton was working with Republicans to dismantle welfare. In 1997, he supported a cut in the capital gains tax. As the benefits of his 1993 deficit reduction package took effect, budget deficits disappeared and we had the first significant surpluses in memory. Yet Clinton steadfastly refused to spend any of the flood of revenues coming into the Treasury, hording them like a latter day Midas. In the end, his administration was even more conservative than Eisenhower’s on fiscal policy.

And just as pent-up liberal aspirations exploded in the 1960s with spending for every pet project green lighted, so too the fiscal conservatism of the Clinton years led to an explosion of tax cuts under George W. Bush, who supported every one that came down the pike. The result was the same as it was with Johnson: massive federal deficits and a tanking economy.

Thus Obama took office under roughly the same political and economic circumstances that Nixon did in 1968 except in a mirror opposite way. Instead of being forced to manage a slew of new liberal spending programs, as Nixon did, Obama had to cope with a revenue structure that had been decimated by Republicans.

Liberals hoped that Obama would overturn conservative policies and launch a new era of government activism. Although Republicans routinely accuse him of being a socialist, an honest examination of his presidency must conclude that he has in fact been moderately conservative to exactly the same degree that Nixon was moderately liberal.

Here are a few examples of Obama's effective conservatism:

 

  • His stimulus bill was half the size that his advisers thought necessary;
  • He continued Bush’s war and national security policies without change and even retained Bush’s defense secretary;
  • He put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney in the recent past, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by liberals;
  • He caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever;
  • And in the past few weeks he has supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans.

 

Further evidence can be found in the writings of outspoken liberals such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has condemned Obama’s conservatism ever since he took office.

 


Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx#JD9lBQ7k2T55vzS2.99

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Jack Nicklaus Endorses Romney, Mitt calls Jack “Greatest athlete of the 20th century.”