http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/354-percent-109631000-welfare


109 million people on welfare.

Change we can believe in ...

QuakerOats;1646146 wrote:http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/354-percent-109631000-welfare


109 million people on welfare.

Change we can believe in ...

Combined with the non-veterans receiving government manna, we were less than 1% away from having half the country receiving government provided benefits in 2012. As the article states, certainly millions more have joined the government benefit ranks. For those who can't fathom the socialist tendencies we have assumed, we're well on the way to a full blown version based on the article's statements.
It was called, "Fundamental Transformation", by the leader of the socialists in 2008, so no one should be surprised.

BGFalcons82;1646188 wrote:Combined with the non-veterans receiving government manna, we were less than 1% away from having half the country receiving government provided benefits in 2012. As the article states, certainly millions more have joined the government benefit ranks. For those who can't fathom the socialist tendencies we have assumed, we're well on the way to a full blown version based on the article's statements.
It was called, "Fundamental Transformation", by the leader of the socialists in 2008, so no one should be surprised.

The only thing about that article that annoys me is the mention of Social Security and veterans benefits. These are not forms of welfare. The beneficiaries either paid in or earned those benefits. While it's true the checks still come from the Feds, it still annoys the crap out of me when people attempt to lump those items into the true welfare pool.

Nevertheless - yes - nearly half of our population relies on some sort of gubmint-issued income.

Yet if we're to believe leftists in Washington, the lamestream media, socialist professors in our public universities, the NEA in our public schools, Hollyweird, etc. our country is still chock full of greedy uncaring capitalists.

The fact that half our population relies on a government check doesn't stop the welfare-specific crowd from playing the "victim" card.

Yet those same "victims" keep sending clowns like Pelosi, Waters, Schumer, Reid, et al. back to DC to protect their victim-hood.

However, it is true that Merica's so-called "poor" have a quality of life that is the envy of the truly poor in much of the rest of the world.

The crazy thing is Merica's "poor victims" want our country to be more like those other countries. If we keep heading down the path we're walking, we're all going to join the rest of the world.

I see BHO sent 3 representatives to Michael Brown's funeral....that's 3 more than he sent to Maggie Thatcher's.

HitsRus;1647530 wrote:I see BHO sent 3 representatives to Michael Brown's funeral....that's 3 more than he sent to Maggie Thatcher's.

And 3 more than went to the general KIA in Afghanistan last month.
And 3 more than he sent to Foley's service.

He's such a disgrace.

Well, to be fair this is kind of expected from Obama since he's the "first black President". He COULD stay above this, but he's always been about the politics of appearances.

Right or wrong, Ferguson is really messed up. And when you are dealing with state authorities and National Guard in riots, I'm not sure it ISN'T something for the President to pay attention to and potentially get involved in.

The Thatcher snub was a disgrace. There's no good reason Hillary or Biden shouldn't have attended.

But Obama was supposed to be this 'great uniter'. Part of the reason why so many believed in his politics (under the guise of calling it Bush-fatigue, which nobody in their right mind believed for a second)

Unarmed white kid shot by black cop in Utah ...........nobody from the regime gives a rats ass, and Eric Holder will not be conducting an investigation.

Thatcher was kind of a kunt to be fair.

Absolutely, as long as you were a communist or someone hell bent on killing the English economy.

For those that actually saw the disastrous effects on socialism and communism in the empire and Western Europe, she was the iron lady. Then again the same diptwats will be praising ISIS in 40 years for the sake of simply being stupid.

Unionism almost killed England, not that's it is doing great now....then again, have you ever been there?

HelloAgain;1647814 wrote:Thatcher was kind of a kunt to be fair.

^^^

If it is any consolation, the vast majority of Brits appreciated Thatcher, even if the Obama administration didn't. The UK is a very pro-American country and our greatest ally for over a century. It is just the noisiest leftists and agitators tend to get the press.

This is similar to Reagan. Yeah, you can listen to the noise-makers in the media and academia that actively protect their own industries despite empirical fact....or listen to results.

After all, we'd all be better off living under communist rule and driving skodas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0



The beat goes on ...

gut;1640991 wrote:I'm not pretending. I have parents.

Best way to help your parents unless they are rich is to increase social security pay outs.

Raising interest rates or pulling back on QE too soon will cause more harm to our society at large to offset any potential benefit higher interest rates would have to those on fixed income. That is the mainstream view. Good thing we can increase social security benefits and aid those on fixed income without raising interest rates and reducing GDP.

gut;1640991 wrote:Stop acting like you know what you're talking about.

You views are much more out of the mainstream than my own. While I'm more to the left than the mainstream, my core views; that we should be trying either more expansionary monetary policy or more expansionary fiscal policy are well within the mainstream. You on the other hand are very far to the right on both monetary policy and fiscal policy in comparison to the mainstream.

For example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/upshot/what-debate-economists-agree-the-stimulus-lifted-the-economy.html?src=twr&_r=4&utm_content=buffer87712&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer&abt=0002&abg=0

There’s widespread agreement among economists that the stimulus act has helped boost the economy.
The Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago — hardly a hotbed of liberal or Keynesian thought — regularly surveys a number of the leading American economists about a variety of policy issues. The economists surveyed constitute a good sample of the leading economists in the nation, and the panel was chosen to be geographically diverse, to include older and younger economists, and importantly, to include Democrats, Republicans and independents. The most important qualification is that these are top-notch economists: senior faculty at the leading economics departments in the United States who are also vitally interested in public policy.

[h=2]Economists Believe the Stimulus Bill Reduced Unemployment[/h]Question: Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the United States unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill.
Response of economists surveyed

Agree

Disagree

Uncertain

[RIGHT]36

1[/RIGHT]

0







Source: University of Chicago Initiative on Global Markets, Economic Experts Panel, July 29

Recently each of these eminent economists was asked whether the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill. Of the 44 economists surveyed, 37 responded, yielding a healthy response rate of 84 percent.
Among those who responded, 36 agreed that the stimulus bill had lowered the unemployment rate, while one disagreed. That lone disagreeing economist, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina (who was one of my thesis advisers), has been a virulent opponent of the stimulus, although the research that he’s based this upon has come under sustained criticism, particularly from the International Monetary Fund, which views the study as flawed.

[h=2]Agreeing That Benefits of Fiscal Stimulus Exceed Costs[/h]Question: Taking into account all of the A.R.R.A.’s economic consequences — including the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending, its effects on future spending, and any other likely future effects — the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs.
Response of economists surveyed

Agree

Disagree

Uncertain

[RIGHT]25

2

10[/RIGHT]







Source: University of Chicago Initiative on Global Markets, Economic Experts Panel, July 29.

You can see the poll results yourself here:

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi

The results are not dissimilar from a survey taken in 2012

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw5O9LNJL1oz4Xi


I suppose none of them know what they're talking about either? I suppose none of those economists who share my core views know econ?

No, only Gut knows what he's talking about because the fellow Republican voters and donors that he works with in the management consulting world share his views on monetary and fiscal policy that align more with zero hedge derp than mainstream economic thought.

But I'm not going to sit here and say "you don't know what you're talking about." You're a smart guy. You just happen to be outside of the mainstream and in my humble opinion, wrong.

As an aside, you were on Ohiochatter.com replying to a derp like Boatshoes who doesn't know what he's talking about at 4:30 am after what was a beautiful Saturday evening in the Summer? At least waste time when you're at work on a cloudy day, eh?

gut;1640991 wrote:I don't think even the liberals here pay attention to your uninformed keynesian diatribes.

I’m basically the only dirty librul who still posts here and attempts to engage in spirited debate from time to time in this anti-obummer circle jerk. Of course it’s become a lot less rewarding as you folks have become more unhinged and less disagreeable folks are posting less and less.

The other “liberals” who post here still are really just normal people who show up to laugh at us politards duking it out…They are only "librul" in comparison to the population of this forum.

See you hardcore right wingers in this particular politics forum are like Iggeypride and Footwedge in the sports forums….so over the top with your anti-obama zeal it provides entertainment; akin to say, Iggeypride’s constant QQing about Brian Hoyer, Joe Banner, etc.

Endless, hyperbolic bitching that is easy to make fun of.

They probably wouldn’t agree with me on most things but you don’t see me acting like Obummer is the greaaaaattesssst of all of the time in the same way you folks rant and rave about how terrible he is. So, while they probably make fun of my graphs and asinine efforts to persuade those who cannot be persuaded, they pretty much ignore me.

Hope this helps.

Manhattan Buckeye;1647818 wrote:Absolutely, as long as you were a communist or someone hell bent on killing the English economy.

For those that actually saw the disastrous effects on socialism and communism in the empire and Western Europe, she was the iron lady.

Margaret Thatcher was more of a socialist than Obama. Social Security and NHS public spending increased by 32% under her and she also raised the salaries of public employees. And, she paid for it all with a 90% robin hood tax on north sea oil.

The way the right sees her is a legend. She was more of a socialist than any president the history of the United States has had save FDR.

believer;1646269 wrote:The only thing about that article that annoys me is the mention of Social Security and veterans benefits. These are not forms of welfare. The beneficiaries either paid in or earned those benefits. While it's true the checks still come from the Feds, it still annoys the crap out of me when people attempt to lump those items into the true welfare pool.

Nevertheless - yes - nearly half of our population relies on some sort of gubmint-issued income.

Yet if we're to believe leftists in Washington, the lamestream media, socialist professors in our public universities, the NEA in our public schools, Hollyweird, etc. our country is still chock full of greedy uncaring capitalists.

The fact that half our population relies on a government check doesn't stop the welfare-specific crowd from playing the "victim" card.

Yet those same "victims" keep sending clowns like Pelosi, Waters, Schumer, Reid, et al. back to DC to protect their victim-hood.

However, it is true that Merica's so-called "poor" have a quality of life that is the envy of the truly poor in much of the rest of the world.

The crazy thing is Merica's "poor victims" want our country to be more like those other countries. If we keep heading down the path we're walking, we're all going to join the rest of the world.

How bout that, the Republicans you vote for are going to raise cash by calling you a welfare queen!

Manhattan Buckeye;1643706 wrote:He know what he wants to do, buy the Hispanic vote with more government bennies. Few Americans think anyone should just ignore our laws and become legal....Dem or GOP. No other country does this. Immigrating is difficult and expensive in every other first world nation because they control their borders and give a hoot about their culture. Even our current H1-b program is up for debate given the abuse by Silicon Valley and no talent ass-clowns like Gates and Zuckerberg advocating bringing in Southern Asians to work for a fraction of a salary that American engineers need to survive - and they bring in their entire family and do not join in the community or be part of the greater "melting pot." They certainly aren't buying houses, but by God they send their kids to the public schools and who can blame them? Putting 8 people in an 1100 square foot condo and actually having a car and access to healthcare and education is paradise to them. But it deteriorates the American quality of life.

This isn't going to end well. This new wave of immigration (legal and illegal) is not assimilating.

Remind us again how you support legal immigration as a classical liberal? Oh no wait you're actually at all! You oppose more legal immigration too; of high quality talent from the rest of the world in fact!

And look how you complain about wage competition for the professional class that is used to being protected; engineers.

No similar complaints when those who weren't protected by government interventions like engineers and lawyers had to compete with the low wages of the world; i.e. the white working class. Now all of a sudden free trade and classical liberalism is bad in the minds of a like Manhattan Buckeye.

And yes, Bill Gates and Zuckerberg are no talent ass clowns....not the guy who endlessly whines on the internet. Good to know.

believer;1640781 wrote:Well it is at least an effort by global socialists to control energy production through confiscatory tax policies allowing them to redistribute the wealth and cement their political power base.

Believer, I am sure you are a good guy and a good family man but it is sad if you genuinely believe this.






It is never to late to repent.

gut;1640989 wrote:He doesn't know econ, either.

Again. It is your views that are outside of the mainstream. The core of the views that I promulgate on this little forum from time to time that the anti-obama brigade derides with impunity are within the mainstream of the economics profession as my previous post elucidates. I hope this helps.

gut;1640989 wrote:Boat is an accidental clown. We keep telling him, and he keeps coming back for more.

Indeed, I am the clown. Not the guy who is spending his Saturday nights in the summer responding to the alleged clown and nuthugging the Cafeteria Plan Christian while he's at it; the clown who got caught falling for a fake news story on his facebook page due being blinded by his anti-obummer hate and doesn't even have the grace follow his God's commandments and not lie about it on an anonymous message board when none of us know who he is.

It is cute to see you guys holding hands though.

gut;1640990 wrote:LMFAO. You BARELY understand the word. It isn't that the word isn't in my vocab, it's that it's not regularly used by people who know what they are talking about. If you were one of those people, you'd know what I'm talking about. You clearly are not, as you've demonstrated time and again...goes back to your language betraying the knowledge you pretend to have.

It is sad that you were still going on about this at 5:00 am after a Saturday evening in the summer. I suppose that would fall under a prerequisite for rustled jimmies.

The word isn't used by people who know what they're talking about? What about John Maynard Keynes, who you regularly lambaste me for following? Did he not know what he was talking about?

I said that the rentier class is who suffers the most from low interest rates. Keynes wrote in the last chapter of the General Theory that low interest rates would be the best for full employment and investment but that low rates....

…would mean the euthanasia of the rentier, and, consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity-value of capital.

If you readily criticize my keynesian views, why would you not expect me to use the same language?

Moreover you're simply wrong that the word is not regularly used. If you go to search "renter class" in google it will ask you if you meant "rentier class." Must not be that unusual of a phrase, no? You can go to the New York Times and see the word was used twice in succession in the comments section.

What I find aggravating is none of the so called "journalists" of the business beat, newspaper or TV or Cable, challenges them as to why they were wrong before and why the are right now. I do think there is rentier bias in favor of low inflation and deflation to preserve capital and high unemployment to depress labor's share of GDP and keep downward pressure on real medium wages.”

But, we need higher rates, because the rentiers must have their rents, and they never feel the pain. Or, not yet anyway.

\

Indeed, those comments make the same point that I made that set off your rambling about rent prices.

Again it is obvious that nobody says the phrase “renter class.”

People “who know what they’re talking about” say “rentier class” all of the time within in the context of low interest rates…especially dirty librul hippie Keynesian people. Please. The argument is pathetically silly. This is Jmog level denial. It is sad that I’m even taking the time to glorify your own failure by responding.

Your rush to insults makes your insecurities rather palpable though. It does not suit you.

But for future reference, should you ever find yourself talking to a dirty liberal hippie like myself or the type of person who would comment on a New York Times article, we use the word "rentier" and no, we didn't mean "renter." Hope this helps.

gut;1640990 wrote:Again, you don't understand the arguments you're making here. Asset prices. It's why you're wrong. Go take a class (since you clearly don't learn from what you read).

I provided a quote from a pretty good book for you. Low Interest Rates Euthanize the Rentier Class.

Your narrative that the rich are the sole beneficiaries of QE3 etc. is wrong in my humble opinion. Of course, that is the argument that the rentiers make in their Forbes Op-Eds.

Low rates are the best for investment which drives effective saving, full employment and the wealth of nations as a whole.

While we could avoid this conversation altogether with adequate Fiscal Stimulus; periods of rising asset prices driven by monetary policy are better than perpetual Japanese Depression or the depression in continental Europe. The United States engaged in more fiscal consolidation than in continental Europe and yet both the U.K. and the United States managed to overcome that with expansionary monetary policy.

And, that second part is pure Milton Friedman right there…that’s not even Keynes. Both Keynesianism and Monetarism work. Which one you want to pick is matter of preference. What does not work is raising interest rates in a depressed economy like Gut and the rentier class recommend...see the European Central Bank sending continental Europe into depression by raising interest rates and refusing to engage in the type of monetary policy enacted by Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen at the FED and Mark Carney at the Bank of England.


The point you're trying to make about about the rich being the major beneficiaries of rising asset prices is wrong. The super rich power elite would much rather have high risk free rents, which benefit only them and a handful of old people, than higher asset prices that benefit a much broader segment of society (i.e. everybody with a home or 401(k)).

The amount of income lost to lower interest rates by the super rich is not offset by increases in asset prices attributable to QE3 and Forward Guidance. Not at all. Low rates hurt the super rich dramatically more than high marginal tax rates.

Your views are not mainstream. And, they are not compatible with either the views of the Libertarian Milton Friedman or moderately Liberal Keynes.

If you’re going to oppose Keynes, the least you could do is take Milton Friedman’s view of the world and support QE if you’re going to constantly call other people names. But you don't. You promote zero hedge derp that would be rejected by them both while talking down to other people at 5:00am. Thanks for the entertainment!

• PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS could be at risk, Republicans and groups say, after the EPA secretly drafted highly detailed maps of waterways across the U.S., which Texas Rep. Lamar Smith fears will be used as part of a plan to expand the EPA's regulatory power over streams and wetlands.
  
  
  
  
  The EPA continues to be the weapon of choice for the Marxists. This will not end well if they keep it up.

Boat, you do realize that on an internet forum, no one is reading your 3 page posts right?

jmog;1648094 wrote:Boat, you do realize that on an internet forum, no one is reading your 3 page posts right?

Oh you'll read them by the time I check back in in about a month or so. This place hardly gets any action anymore. My posts from last month were still hanging around.

obama is now directly responsible for the growing terror threat rising around the world.


Our allies do not respect us, and our enemies do not fear us.


He is a complete failure.

URGENT: Obama to interrupt weekend fundraising trip, will return to DC...
To attend MSNBC wedding...