What is an alternative to welfare?

Celticguy said:
First, get over the pity party and realize you chose poorly regarding education and accept that the economy did not single you out for shafting. Then be thankful that Bush was so helpful to the economy that your choices in education did not hurt you. And then ask yourself why BO has been incapable of producing a normal recovery such as we would have had were BO done nothing at all.
Click to expand...


Um dude.

you do realize that the extended unemployment was needed BECAUSE your team fucked everything so so bad right?

BTW like 97% of economists said the stim package worked.


the numbers just dont jibe with your crap

=every Americans walking knows the economy is way more stable today and 97% of economists say it was the stim package.

Oh and BTW if you wanted it to recover why did you back all the republican obstruction to EVERYTHING and ANYTHING Obama and the dems tried to do?


you rooting for the wrong team?


yes you are.

your rooting for the duly elected president of the United States to not be successful in helping the people.


Its how you roll.


its all about YOU and your failed party and fuck the country and most of its people and what they want and need huh
 
Ishmael Pequod said:
Hitler would have loved you. Party before country.
Click to expand...


what the fuck dude?


your the one who denies flat out undeniable FACTS to cling like a drowning rat to the side of the republican sinking ship.


tell me why you can NOT process that the SCOTUS refused to help your party when they asked to be let out of the consent decree they were forced into in the early eighties when they were FIRST caught cheating Americans out of their votes to steal power from the people.


That case that the SCOTUS tossed away in quiet is JAMMED PACKED with court case after court case in which the republican party was caught red handed CHEATING voters in election after election so they have NEVER in 30 plus years been able to GET OUT of that consent decree.


so they get caught cheating voters and the courts slap their hands and tell them BAD PARTY and takes a few dollars from them and then tells them "you have to stay on the consent decree for more time".


GEE what a deal for your party huh?

you fucks get to cheat and cheat and IF someone manages to catch you you get your hand slapped and pay a fine and then NO ONE reports on your fucking cheating.


liberal media may ass.

We have a corporate media and your party cheats its fucking ass off and next to nothing happens to your party for it.

well you do win once in awhile with that cheating and then you fucks scream stupid lies like "mandate".



if you claim the republican party doesn't cheat then you are a fucking liar or you don't accept the highest level of provable fact
 
Sun Devil said:
Regarding (1)

I was a discharge planner. I made $30k a year. I needed something that would at least pay my rent $650 for a studio plus/gas and electric.

I guess you figured none of us could do math? $30,000 a year is $14.40 an hour, so you are doing way better than minimum wage. Your rent comes to $7800 a year. Let's say $150 a week for food, makes another $7800 a year. Gas and electric for a studio can't be much what $50/month which is $600/year? If you are renting, you probably don't pay heat or water. So for the base essentials of life, you have everything covered. Your essentials are $16,200 a year. You aren't paying any federal taxes on $30,000 a year so you have FICA and State (which you probably don't pay either). In fact, you probably qualify for EITC. So at most you were paying $5000 a year in taxes and I am being freaking generous. So let's review $30,000 a year minus $5000 taxes minus $7800 shelter minus $7800 food minus $600 gas/electric leaves you with $8,800 a year. Now let's get you some cable that is $800 a year. High speed internet? Another $600 a year. Cell phone? Gotta have a cell phone so let's give you $1200 a year for that. That leaves you with $6,200 a year. Seems to me you are doing just fine. You got the essentials covered and even some luxuries. What's the problem?


Regarding (2)

Jobs that can't pay meager living situations. I paid $650 for a studio. I wasn't living in great conditions but my place was clean. In California you pay $500 for a freggin room. Most places nowadays cater to Hispanics. I have no chance.

You don't know what meager is. Maybe you don't know how to budget? I am here to help

Regarding (3)

I provided my own lunch even when I was broke.

PB&J is cheap

Regarding (4)

You provide that


Regarding the last stupid sentence. What didn't suit me was the fact that I couldn't pay my bills because welfare caters to single parents with 10 kids as opposed to a single person with no kids. Man you guys are dumb.
Click to expand...

Your last statement seems to belie your racism. This isn't about people who receive welfare who you seem to be jealous of. You were doing just fine, but apparently you felt having two degrees that you should be making $100,000 a year? $200,000 a year? Life doesn't work that way
 
Sun Devil said:
So in other words you're a fucking moron...Why am I replying to non-college graduates in the first place?
Click to expand...

Dear dunce; I'm not the one whining on an internet forum full of strangers about my inability to find a fucking job having a master’s degree.

I am a college graduate you dunce; and I have never felt compelled to whine and rant on a forum about my lack of finding a job. When the company I was working for moved to Texas, I stayed behind and couldn't find work for a year. I didn't apply for unemployment or whine on an internet forum; I started a business and never looked back.

You define irony calling others moron with your moronic posts.

Sun Devil said:
"I'm guessing"

Yes a lot of conservatives tend to do that. So did Megyan Kelly when she said Jesus was white...
Click to expand...

A lot of Liberal dunces like you don't guess; you whine like effeminate little crybabies.

You're a dunce of epic proportions; unfortunately you're too stupid and arrogant to comprehend that truth.

Carry on dimwit; have some fucking cheese with that effeminate whine.
 
evince said:
you do realize that the extended unemployment was needed BECAUSE your team fucked everything so so bad right?
Click to expand...

Five years into the Obama Presidency and the dullard class still wants to blame Bush. How unintelligent; what a dunce.

evince said:
BTW like 97% of economists said the stim package worked.
Click to expand...

No they did not; you might want to re-read the cut and paste job you posted and re-evaluate your dimwitted talking points.

evince said:
=every Americans walking knows the economy is way more stable today and 97% of economists say it was the stim package.
Click to expand...

No they do not; they say nothing of the type. But with 2.5 million less participants in the workforce, unemployment at permanently high rates and less opportunity for everyone, you want to paint a rosey picture for the dimwit you helped elect; how dunce-ish of you.

evince said:
Oh and BTW if you wanted it to recover why did you back all the republican obstruction to EVERYTHING and ANYTHING Obama and the dems tried to do?
Click to expand...

Another incredibly stupid claim; Obama got everything he wanted his first two years; the $850 billion “stimulus”, Obamacare and a host of other issues.

But alas, you’re a dunce who five years later still blames Bush. You really are THAT stupid and THAT repugnantly partisan.

evince said:
your rooting for the duly elected president of the United States to not be successful in helping the people.
Click to expand...

It’s “you’re” not “your” you dunce. No one needs to root for his failure; he’s doing just fine all by himself. You’re just too dimwitted and stupid to comprehend it.

evince said:
its all about YOU and your failed party and fuck the country and most of its people and what they want and need huh
Click to expand...

Another dimwitted hyper partisan comment based on the lunatic rants of a dunce.

Cato Runs Full Page Anti-Stimulus Ad In NYT, WaPo

For our readers who wish not to strain their eyes reading a scaled down image of the ad here is the text:
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
The above statement was signed by over 200 economists, including some distinguished names such as James Buchanan, Vernon Smith, Edward Prescott, all whom are Nobel laureates.

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2009/02/cato-institutes-video-challenge-to.html

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/cato-runs-full-page-anti-stimulus-ad-in-todays-nyt-wapo

Why Keynes Was Wrong
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/15/unemployment-income-consumption-opinions-contributors-keynes.html
 
Why the Fed's stimulus 'didn't work'
By Janice Revell @Money August 2, 2012: 5:27 AM ET

(MONEY Magazine) -- You needn't look hard to see the contrast between presidential candidates when it comes to what role Washington should play in reviving the economy.

Stanford University economist John Taylor has spent decades looking to answer that question, in theory and practice. Taylor, 65, has worked for four Presidents -- Ford, Carter, and both Bushes -- and is advising Mitt Romney's campaign.

A senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, he created the influential "Taylor rule," which posits how central banks should target interest rates in response to inflation and economic output.

Today Taylor is harshly critical of some of the stimulus policies pursued by the Federal Reserve and the younger Bush and Obama administrations.

He argues that short-term attempts to juice the economy lead to higher unemployment and slower growth, a case he makes in his recent book, "First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America's Prosperity."

Taylor spoke with contributing writer Janice Revell. Their conversation was edited.

The concept of predictability is a major theme in your book. Why is it so important?

Unpredictable economic policy -- short-term stimulus packages, temporary tax rebates, and stop-and-go monetary policy -- is the main cause of our abysmal recovery. Economic growth has averaged 2.4%, compared with 5.9% after the most recent severe recession, from 1981 to 1982.

Related: Strategist sees 'ho-hum' returns for next 7 years

Start with fiscal policy. After the recession began, Presidents Bush and Obama felt a need to "do something." Their approaches differed, but both chose classic Keynesian stimulus policies.

It didn't work. My own research showed Bush's temporary tax rebate in 2008 had no discernible effect on the economy. Nor did Obama's $800 billion stimulus plan in 2009, which included tax rebates, increased federal spending, and grants to states for infrastructure projects.

The stimulus increased the federal debt burden and created uncertainty about what was next for taxpayers.

What is the proof for this failure?

Households mostly saved the stimulus money instead of spending it. Even where there was a temporary boost to consumption, my research found it didn't aid the recovery.

Take the Cash for Clunkers program, which offered consumers an incentive to buy a new car. People who were planning to trade in their old car anyway turned it in a few months earlier. So there was a blip in new-car sales, followed by a decline.

The money sent to the states, meanwhile, didn't really increase infrastructure spending. If a state already had a light-rail project under way, it just borrowed less and used some of the federal money instead -- you didn't see more light-rail projects.

What about the argument that things would have been worse if there had been no stimulus?

The models that suggest this are the ones that said in advance stimulus would work. Again, look at where the money went. It went to consumers. Then look at what households did when they got the money. The answer is, not much.

When asked this question, I sometimes tell a personal story.

Several years ago my wife got me new golf clubs for my birthday. I was all excited that this was going to be a real stimulus to my game. So a few years have gone by, and my game is just the same as ever. I didn't want to make my wife feel bad, so I said, "Look, if you hadn't gotten me these clubs, my game would have gotten a lot worse."

You highlight in your book a memo written in 1980 to President-elect Reagan by economists who had worked on his campaign. What is its relevance today?

That memo outlined long-term reforms for tax, monetary, and regulatory policies. There were no temporary tax rebates or other short-term stimulus proposals. It was strategic and focused on policy predictability.

Compare that to a memo written to President-elect Obama in 2008 by his economic team. That memo was focused on short-term interventions. The contrast is striking.

But wasn't Reagan facing a much less chaotic environment?

It's difficult to recall now the severity of the U.S. economic slump when Reagan took office. We had double-digit inflation, interest rates were near 20%, unemployment was high, and credit controls had been imposed.

What's your assessment of the Federal Reserve's recent actions to help spur the economy?

The Fed has engaged in extraordinarily loose monetary policy, including two rounds of so-called quantitative easing.

These large-scale purchases of mortgages and Treasury debt were aimed at lifting the value of those securities, thereby bringing down interest rates. I believe quantitative easing has been ineffective at best and potentially harmful.

Harmful how?

The Fed has effectively replaced large segments of the market with itself -- it bought 77% of new federal debt in 2011, my calculations show. By doing so, the Fed has created great uncertainty about the impact of its actions on inflation, the dollar, and the economy.

The existence of quantitative easing as a policy tool creates uncertainty, as traders speculate on whether and when the Fed is going to intervene. It's bad for the U.S. stock market, which should reflect the earnings of corporations.

You believe the Fed's mission needs to be changed.

The Fed needs to focus on a single goal of long-run price stability. We should remove the Fed's dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices, which was put into effect in the 1970s.

From 2003 to 2005, the Fed held interest rates too low for too long. A primary reason was its concern that raising rates would increase unemployment.

The unintended consequence was that low rates fueled the housing bubble, which in turn led to the recession and high unemployment.

More recently, the Fed has cited concerns over employment to justify its interventions, including quantitative easing. Removing the dual mandate would take away that excuse.

On the regulation front, what would you do with Dodd-Frank, the 2010 Wall Street reform act?

I would repeal almost all of it. The problem with Dodd-Frank is that it gives the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. the authority to take over and possibly liquidate any financial firm.

It's taking established bankruptcy law and assigning that power to government officials, who have the ability to favor certain firms over others. That actually increases the likelihood of a bailout.

Should the big banks be broken up then? That could eliminate the need for Dodd-Frank.

The best solution is to require adequate capital at banks and other financial firms, to enforce the risk regulations that are, and were, on the books, and to replace the orderly liquidation authority of Dodd-Frank with a bankruptcy code that applies to these large firms so they are not bailed out. It is too much risk taking with taxpayer money that is the problem.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/02/news/economy/fed-stimulus-john-taylor.moneymag/index.htm
 
Truth Detector said:
Dear dunce; I'm not the one whining on an internet forum full of strangers about my inability to find a fucking job having a master’s degree.

I am a college graduate you dunce; and I have never felt compelled to whine and rant on a forum about my lack of finding a job. When the company I was working for moved to Texas, I stayed behind and couldn't find work for a year. I didn't apply for unemployment or whine on an internet forum; I started a business and never looked back.

You define irony calling others moron with your moronic posts.



A lot of Liberal dunces like you don't guess; you whine like effeminate little crybabies.

You're a dunce of epic proportions; unfortunately you're too stupid and arrogant to comprehend that truth.

Carry on dimwit; have some fucking cheese with that effeminate whine.
Click to expand...

He is a little EMO metrosexual bitch who thinks the world owes him something. In one respect I feel sorry for him. His little brain was fed full of shit his whole life. He was told, get a degree and you have the world by the nuts. Well, they lied to him and now he feels betrayed. So I can understand that feeling.

But, he is handling it all wrong. Now he demands things from his fellow citizens instead of recalibrating.
 
Damocles said:
You can't, not without their SSN and a few other things. Give them a call and see what they say. Tell them your neighbors are on welfare and you want to turn them in for fraud. But hey, you say they shouldn't have any shame. They don't, you won.
Click to expand...
Putting words in my mouth, you are really desperate here, Damo.

I said the elderly and children should have no shame. People who commit fraud should have jail time.

He apparently reported these people.

Really desperate attempt at a gotcha there, Damo
 
Truth Detector said:
Why the Fed's stimulus 'didn't work'
By Janice Revell @Money August 2, 2012: 5:27 AM ET

(MONEY Magazine) -- You needn't look hard to see the contrast between presidential candidates when it comes to what role Washington should play in reviving the economy.

Stanford University economist John Taylor has spent decades looking to answer that question, in theory and practice. Taylor, 65, has worked for four Presidents -- Ford, Carter, and both Bushes -- and is advising Mitt Romney's campaign.

A senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, he created the influential "Taylor rule," which posits how central banks should target interest rates in response to inflation and economic output.

Today Taylor is harshly critical of some of the stimulus policies pursued by the Federal Reserve and the younger Bush and Obama administrations.

He argues that short-term attempts to juice the economy lead to higher unemployment and slower growth, a case he makes in his recent book, "First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America's Prosperity."

Taylor spoke with contributing writer Janice Revell. Their conversation was edited.

The concept of predictability is a major theme in your book. Why is it so important?

Unpredictable economic policy -- short-term stimulus packages, temporary tax rebates, and stop-and-go monetary policy -- is the main cause of our abysmal recovery. Economic growth has averaged 2.4%, compared with 5.9% after the most recent severe recession, from 1981 to 1982.

Related: Strategist sees 'ho-hum' returns for next 7 years

Start with fiscal policy. After the recession began, Presidents Bush and Obama felt a need to "do something." Their approaches differed, but both chose classic Keynesian stimulus policies.

It didn't work. My own research showed Bush's temporary tax rebate in 2008 had no discernible effect on the economy. Nor did Obama's $800 billion stimulus plan in 2009, which included tax rebates, increased federal spending, and grants to states for infrastructure projects.

The stimulus increased the federal debt burden and created uncertainty about what was next for taxpayers.

What is the proof for this failure?

Households mostly saved the stimulus money instead of spending it. Even where there was a temporary boost to consumption, my research found it didn't aid the recovery.

Take the Cash for Clunkers program, which offered consumers an incentive to buy a new car. People who were planning to trade in their old car anyway turned it in a few months earlier. So there was a blip in new-car sales, followed by a decline.

The money sent to the states, meanwhile, didn't really increase infrastructure spending. If a state already had a light-rail project under way, it just borrowed less and used some of the federal money instead -- you didn't see more light-rail projects.

What about the argument that things would have been worse if there had been no stimulus?

The models that suggest this are the ones that said in advance stimulus would work. Again, look at where the money went. It went to consumers. Then look at what households did when they got the money. The answer is, not much.

When asked this question, I sometimes tell a personal story.

Several years ago my wife got me new golf clubs for my birthday. I was all excited that this was going to be a real stimulus to my game. So a few years have gone by, and my game is just the same as ever. I didn't want to make my wife feel bad, so I said, "Look, if you hadn't gotten me these clubs, my game would have gotten a lot worse."

You highlight in your book a memo written in 1980 to President-elect Reagan by economists who had worked on his campaign. What is its relevance today?

That memo outlined long-term reforms for tax, monetary, and regulatory policies. There were no temporary tax rebates or other short-term stimulus proposals. It was strategic and focused on policy predictability.

Compare that to a memo written to President-elect Obama in 2008 by his economic team. That memo was focused on short-term interventions. The contrast is striking.

But wasn't Reagan facing a much less chaotic environment?

It's difficult to recall now the severity of the U.S. economic slump when Reagan took office. We had double-digit inflation, interest rates were near 20%, unemployment was high, and credit controls had been imposed.

What's your assessment of the Federal Reserve's recent actions to help spur the economy?

The Fed has engaged in extraordinarily loose monetary policy, including two rounds of so-called quantitative easing.

These large-scale purchases of mortgages and Treasury debt were aimed at lifting the value of those securities, thereby bringing down interest rates. I believe quantitative easing has been ineffective at best and potentially harmful.

Harmful how?

The Fed has effectively replaced large segments of the market with itself -- it bought 77% of new federal debt in 2011, my calculations show. By doing so, the Fed has created great uncertainty about the impact of its actions on inflation, the dollar, and the economy.

The existence of quantitative easing as a policy tool creates uncertainty, as traders speculate on whether and when the Fed is going to intervene. It's bad for the U.S. stock market, which should reflect the earnings of corporations.

You believe the Fed's mission needs to be changed.

The Fed needs to focus on a single goal of long-run price stability. We should remove the Fed's dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices, which was put into effect in the 1970s.

From 2003 to 2005, the Fed held interest rates too low for too long. A primary reason was its concern that raising rates would increase unemployment.

The unintended consequence was that low rates fueled the housing bubble, which in turn led to the recession and high unemployment.

More recently, the Fed has cited concerns over employment to justify its interventions, including quantitative easing. Removing the dual mandate would take away that excuse.

On the regulation front, what would you do with Dodd-Frank, the 2010 Wall Street reform act?

I would repeal almost all of it. The problem with Dodd-Frank is that it gives the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. the authority to take over and possibly liquidate any financial firm.

It's taking established bankruptcy law and assigning that power to government officials, who have the ability to favor certain firms over others. That actually increases the likelihood of a bailout.

Should the big banks be broken up then? That could eliminate the need for Dodd-Frank.

The best solution is to require adequate capital at banks and other financial firms, to enforce the risk regulations that are, and were, on the books, and to replace the orderly liquidation authority of Dodd-Frank with a bankruptcy code that applies to these large firms so they are not bailed out. It is too much risk taking with taxpayer money that is the problem.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/02/news/economy/fed-stimulus-john-taylor.moneymag/index.htm
Click to expand...

The fed's stimulus did work, and it worked as they intended it to work. It was always intended to prop up asset prices like real estate and stocks to bail out Wall St and the banks. The irony is that the lefties who are always bitching about the banks and Wall St trumpet the stock market gains. They are so full of contradictions they can't even see straight. Or they just don't fully understand what they are saying

What happened to our OWS friends? I miss them freezing their EMO asses off.
 
 
Rana said:
Putting words in my mouth, you are really desperate here, Damo.

I said the elderly and children should have no shame. People who commit fraud should have jail time.

He apparently reported these people.

Really desperate attempt at a gotcha there, Damo
Click to expand...

Uhh, I did say I tried. And Damo is mostly correct. They ask for a burden of proof that unless I'm a private eye or a cop, I can't legally acquire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top