Under Obamanomics, America Morphs
Into Welfare Nation
Poverty: Any lingering doubts about the deficiencies of
Obamanomics can be dispelled with one piece of data: The U.S. has spent $3.7
trillion on welfare in the past five years, with virtually nothing to show for
it
A nation of welfare dependents who won't or can't work or pay taxes cannot prosper. Instead, it becomes stagnant and unproductive. We're well on our way
This reaffirms my post in a previous thread,and as I see it is the bases of our debt problem. This country is becoming non productive,as I stated.
Now my thoughts are you need a sound economy that will expand a tax base that will improve tax revenues. The liberal political approach does nothing to accomplish this. The liberal Obama administration simply does nothing to support business growth and in fact has proved to be hostile.
You think you are so right but you are so wrong. You see when someone gives you a figure that you think is an "I gotcha" Boy your all over it. Welfare spending in Obama's admin is actually 3.5 Trillion. But you obviously think this is entirely direct relief to lazy people. Well some is 175Billion. 105B goes to the Snap program. But guess what program many people have been forced to use especially in the 2009-2010 timespan that also falls under Social Welfare? Figure it out it's called unemployment insurance and many good people had to rely on that for income do to no fault of their own. Another big part of that spending is housing assistance. Would you rather they were all standing in the street begging from you like some 3rd world country? Sleeping on the sidewalks? now it all looks impressive to you to pile 4or5 years of spending into a large lump sum that's looks to be a shocker doesn't it but the fact of the matter is that welfare comprises 8-9% of our federal budget and it has for decades. Lets lump some other stuff into 4or 5 year lots. Pensions, That's social security and government pensions and lets keep in mind that those who receive these pensions also PAID into these pension funds. That's 6.2 trillion over Obama's time. Course we could just take all the old people into a giant field and gun them down and be done with this. Remember the Khmer Rouge, they did it, rounded up everybody they didn't want and offed them. Didn't go over too well. Healthcare 7.2 trillion includes Medicare which again most of the recipients paid a tax for that to be there for them over the course of their working life. ( See Kill them all above) education 5.5 trillion oops there's the next one your after Defense 5.1 trillion all other spending 9.5 trillion So see welfare while I agree needs to reigned in is not the problem with our country's spending. It's healthcare and last year the first implemented pieces of the bill did in fact help slow healthcare costs. Healthcare it's why it's so important to the President. Your post just shows how low information you are to think that welfare is the biggest spending problem facing our nation. Did you know that the public welfare costs the average taxpayer $465 dollars a year, yeah a new TV that you probably don't need anyway. On the other hand Corporate welfare through tax breaks and subsidies costs the average tax payer about $1440. Which total would you rather have back? And doesn't that corporate welfare help kinda fly in the face of your whole free markets, survival of the fittest scheme. Here's a good example, farm subsidies. Who gets 80% of that money, family farmers? Corporations who use that money to continue to drive the families from their farms because they can't compete.
•62 percent of farms in United States did not collect subsidy payments - according to USDA. •Ten percent collected 75 percent of all subsidies. •Amounting to $178.5 billion over 18 years. •Top 10%: $32,043 average per year between 1995 and 2012. •Bottom 80%: $604 average per year between 1995 and 2012.
The thing that you can't get your head around (political mental block) though, is, just like the sky-rocketing cost of higher education, it is the direct interference of the government(generally federal) that caused the price conflagration in the first place...
My statement..."Now my thoughts are you need a sound economy that will expand a tax base that will improve tax revenues. The liberal political approach does nothing to accomplish this. The liberal Obama administration simply does nothing to support business growth and in fact has proved to be hostile." Labor Participation Rate. The reason, the fact that just over 63% of the population is engaged in the workforce is problematic. It means that a smaller chunk of the population is paying for promised entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. And if a smaller share of the country is working, it will also act as a drag on economic growth.
"We're not getting the economic growth or the tax payments that were expected when these promises were made," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities. "It's disturbing, and it's going to force choices. We can't just continue doing what we're doing."
Median family income....New income data from the Census Bureau reveal what a great job Barack Obama has done for the middle class as President. During his entire tenure in the oval office, median household income has declined by 7.3%.
In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing a little less than one month’s income a year, every year. And on our current course that is only going to get worse not better This fact is a major drag on the economy,and affects tax collections all across the board
Again the bottom line....Economy stagnant because Obama is hostile to business. When America’s economy is strong, it’s because a strong business sector is driving growth. When it’s weak, it’s because the business sector is being kept from doing that. In this case, it’s being kept from driving growth by an openly hostile president of the United States.
The fruits of his efforts are now quantified for all to see. The economy is not growing, and it will not grow as long as Obama’s policies are in place.
Rick you can yada yada all you want but the real problem here is a failed economic plan.
News Flash....... Family incomes have been falling since the 70's. The exception being 1992-2001. Who was president then I forget. But what has been happening is the incomes of the top 5% are increasing while everyone else is stagnant or falling. Keep blindly supporting that with your conservative leanings. And I am betting that you are not in that top 5%. As for the economy it is in fact growing albeit slowly but no more slowly then any other time we have had a financial recession. You need to learn about types of recession and types of recoveries instead of listening to the talking heads. There are two types of recessions. 1 Business cycle, the kind we are familiar with they end rather rapidly after 12-18 months and everybody is happy. Then there are financial recessions. They are much more difficult because they are more widespread like oh worldwide. Great example is the 30's. We were damn close to that again and in fact this recession was financially just as bad. But we learned from the past for once and we installed a safety net to protect homes, savings and families, with programs like unemployment and FDIC. Financial recoveries typically take 7-14 years for recovery so yeah we may not fully recover while Obama is in office. You know obstructionism for political gain hasn't helped the situation and that comment is aimed at both parties, both are more concerned about political grandstanding then of talking about our problems and finding good balanced solutions.
Listen Rick, you can’t continue to hold Obama harmless.... you can’t continue the ideological rant that you do to blindly support your liberal leanings.
Liberals like double talk and do as I say, not as I do rhetoric. You will blame this entire economic situation that Obama has on Bush but turn around and make a statement like “The exception being 1992-2001. Who was president then I forget.” Well..... Clinton didn’t take office until ’93 so where is the admiration for Bush sr in setting up such a wonderful recovery out of the ’90-’91 recession. How about recognizing that peace dividend of the Soviet Union’s collapse that allowed Clinton to cut troop count, close bases and de-fund military projects saving hundreds of billions. Or the tax rises by both Reagan and Bush sr, or the easy money program of the fed that he allowed to continue during his entire administration that fuelled worthless business models but generated fabulous tax returns(for a while) or the republicans that pushed him into welfare reform saving billions in taxes? But in chastising Bush you fail to mention that all of the tax revenue of all those bogus businesses and the wild expansion of others vaporized, with a vengeance, in 2000... “oh, about the time he took office”..... Welfare rolls swelled and 911 prompted a military reaction which costs a lot of money. We can debate the correctness of those war decisions but there is no ability to dispute that a large majority of both parties backed his decisions. Were the tax cuts right? Debatable, but his "Go to the malls and shop" philosophy had to be funded somewhere and given that the economy was 70% consumption, not unreasonable.
Or perhaps, as you suggest, the problem goes back much farther.... real wages falling, manufacturing falling, real GDP falling and social liabilities rising. Could it be that the ‘Great Society coupled with the New Deal, plus ‘ free’ money economics allowed by decoupling from gold and hideous decisions and mountains of regulation created by government with respect to trade and business has set us on this path.... a path that cannot get better without seriously rethinking what a society is and what government should do.
You mention FDIC... morally I can see it as a nice protection of the common man but there is no denying that laws like this create moral hazard. There is no way that the ‘modern’ food stamp program of a credit card in a supermarket can motivate a worker like a soup kitchen and food bank. You may call it more civil but it does nothing to tell these people that there life might be better picking fruit in California instead of sitting on their bottom giving that income to an illegal immigrant. The government creates so much moral hazard in our society yet a certain segment of the population wants to blame it on exclusively on business. Private business certainly had its part to play... a part that Obama had a real shot at setting right by putting a few of the major culprits in jail but he bowed to the banks and not only didn’t punish them, he put some of the perpetrators in the government to run policy. Ill considered government policy created the conditions and government affiliates enabled the practice of subprime given the government encouraged home ownership among those that couldn’t really afford it. I realize that it was private lenders who made the loans but we can’t escape the fact that Fannie Mae or HUD had their hands in some 75% of the subprime problem... Much like the rise in student loans ($1trillion and rising) and cost of education today. By the justice department not getting involved in MERS which clearly violated state deed recording laws we have a title mess that will potentially take decades to sort out. The government didn’t even file criminal charges when banks submitted knowingly false documents to the courts... ‘Fraud upon the court’ use to be considered most egregious....
We Need to stop looking for government to provide solutions... It's not the answer.
The last paragraph sums up the blog.
ReplyDeleteA nation of welfare dependents who won't or can't work or pay taxes cannot prosper. Instead, it becomes stagnant and unproductive. We're well on our way
This reaffirms my post in a previous thread,and as I see it is the bases of our debt problem.
ReplyDeleteThis country is becoming non productive,as I stated.
Now my thoughts are you need a sound economy that will expand a tax base that will improve tax revenues.
The liberal political approach does nothing to accomplish this.
The liberal Obama administration simply does nothing to support business growth and in fact has proved to be hostile.
You think you are so right but you are so wrong. You see when someone gives you a figure that you think is an "I gotcha" Boy your all over it. Welfare spending in Obama's admin is actually 3.5 Trillion. But you obviously think this is entirely direct relief to lazy people. Well some is 175Billion. 105B goes to the Snap program. But guess what program many people have been forced to use especially in the 2009-2010 timespan that also falls under Social Welfare? Figure it out it's called unemployment insurance and many good people had to rely on that for income do to no fault of their own. Another big part of that spending is housing assistance. Would you rather they were all standing in the street begging from you like some 3rd world country? Sleeping on the sidewalks? now it all looks impressive to you to pile 4or5 years of spending into a large lump sum that's looks to be a shocker doesn't it but the fact of the matter is that welfare comprises 8-9% of our federal budget and it has for decades.
ReplyDeleteLets lump some other stuff into 4or 5 year lots.
Pensions, That's social security and government pensions and lets keep in mind that those who receive these pensions also PAID into these pension funds. That's 6.2 trillion over Obama's time. Course we could just take all the old people into a giant field and gun them down and be done with this. Remember the Khmer Rouge, they did it, rounded up everybody they didn't want and offed them. Didn't go over too well.
Healthcare 7.2 trillion includes Medicare which again most of the recipients paid a tax for that to be there for them over the course of their working life. ( See Kill them all above)
education 5.5 trillion oops there's the next one your after
Defense 5.1 trillion
all other spending 9.5 trillion
So see welfare while I agree needs to reigned in is not the problem with our country's spending. It's healthcare and last year the first implemented pieces of the bill did in fact help slow healthcare costs. Healthcare it's why it's so important to the President. Your post just shows how low information you are to think that welfare is the biggest spending problem facing our nation. Did you know that the public welfare costs the average taxpayer $465 dollars a year, yeah a new TV that you probably don't need anyway. On the other hand Corporate welfare through tax breaks and subsidies costs the average tax payer about $1440. Which total would you rather have back? And doesn't that corporate welfare help kinda fly in the face of your whole free markets, survival of the fittest scheme. Here's a good example, farm subsidies. Who gets 80% of that money, family farmers? Corporations who use that money to continue to drive the families from their farms because they can't compete.
•62 percent of farms in United States did not collect subsidy payments - according to USDA.
•Ten percent collected 75 percent of all subsidies.
•Amounting to $178.5 billion over 18 years.
•Top 10%: $32,043 average per year between 1995 and 2012.
•Bottom 80%: $604 average per year between 1995 and 2012.
The thing that you can't get your head around (political mental block) though, is, just like the sky-rocketing cost of higher education, it is the direct interference of the government(generally federal) that caused the price conflagration in the first place...
DeleteYup...Liberal mental block,can't see the cause for all the smoke and spin.
Deletericky.....Wow what a response.
ReplyDeleteMy statement..."Now my thoughts are you need a sound economy that will expand a tax base that will improve tax revenues.
The liberal political approach does nothing to accomplish this.
The liberal Obama administration simply does nothing to support business growth and in fact has proved to be hostile."
Labor Participation Rate.
The reason, the fact that just over 63% of the population is engaged in the workforce is problematic. It means that a smaller chunk of the population is paying for promised entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. And if a smaller share of the country is working, it will also act as a drag on economic growth.
"We're not getting the economic growth or the tax payments that were expected when these promises were made," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities. "It's disturbing, and it's going to force choices. We can't just continue doing what we're doing."
Median family income....New income data from the Census Bureau reveal what a great job Barack Obama has done for the middle class as President. During his entire tenure in the oval office, median household income has declined by 7.3%.
In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing a little less than one month’s income a year, every year. And on our current course that is only going to get worse not better
This fact is a major drag on the economy,and affects tax collections all across the board
Again the bottom line....Economy stagnant because Obama is hostile to business.
When America’s economy is strong, it’s because a strong business sector is driving growth. When it’s weak, it’s because the business sector is being kept from doing that. In this case, it’s being kept from driving growth by an openly hostile president of the United States.
The fruits of his efforts are now quantified for all to see. The economy is not growing, and it will not grow as long as Obama’s policies are in place.
Rick you can yada yada all you want but the real problem here is a failed economic plan.
News Flash....... Family incomes have been falling since the 70's. The exception being 1992-2001. Who was president then I forget. But what has been happening is the incomes of the top 5% are increasing while everyone else is stagnant or falling. Keep blindly supporting that with your conservative leanings. And I am betting that you are not in that top 5%.
ReplyDeleteAs for the economy it is in fact growing albeit slowly but no more slowly then any other time we have had a financial recession. You need to learn about types of recession and types of recoveries instead of listening to the talking heads.
There are two types of recessions. 1 Business cycle, the kind we are familiar with they end rather rapidly after 12-18 months and everybody is happy. Then there are financial recessions. They are much more difficult because they are more widespread like oh worldwide. Great example is the 30's. We were damn close to that again and in fact this recession was financially just as bad. But we learned from the past for once and we installed a safety net to protect homes, savings and families, with programs like unemployment and FDIC. Financial recoveries typically take 7-14 years for recovery so yeah we may not fully recover while Obama is in office.
You know obstructionism for political gain hasn't helped the situation and that comment is aimed at both parties, both are more concerned about political grandstanding then of talking about our problems and finding good balanced solutions.
Listen Rick, you can’t continue to hold Obama harmless.... you can’t continue the ideological rant that you do to blindly support your liberal leanings.
DeleteLiberals like double talk and do as I say, not as I do rhetoric. You will blame this entire economic situation that Obama has on Bush but turn around and make a statement like “The exception being 1992-2001. Who was president then I forget.” Well..... Clinton didn’t take office until ’93 so where is the admiration for Bush sr in setting up such a wonderful recovery out of the ’90-’91 recession. How about recognizing that peace dividend of the Soviet Union’s collapse that allowed Clinton to cut troop count, close bases and de-fund military projects saving hundreds of billions. Or the tax rises by both Reagan and Bush sr, or the easy money program of the fed that he allowed to continue during his entire administration that fuelled worthless business models but generated fabulous tax returns(for a while) or the republicans that pushed him into welfare reform saving billions in taxes? But in chastising Bush you fail to mention that all of the tax revenue of all those bogus businesses and the wild expansion of others vaporized, with a vengeance, in 2000... “oh, about the time he took office”..... Welfare rolls swelled and 911 prompted a military reaction which costs a lot of money. We can debate the correctness of those war decisions but there is no ability to dispute that a large majority of both parties backed his decisions. Were the tax cuts right? Debatable, but his "Go to the malls and shop" philosophy had to be funded somewhere and given that the economy was 70% consumption, not unreasonable.
Or perhaps, as you suggest, the problem goes back much farther.... real wages falling, manufacturing falling, real GDP falling and social liabilities rising. Could it be that the ‘Great Society coupled with the New Deal, plus ‘ free’ money economics allowed by decoupling from gold and hideous decisions and mountains of regulation created by government with respect to trade and business has set us on this path.... a path that cannot get better without seriously rethinking what a society is and what government should do.
You mention FDIC... morally I can see it as a nice protection of the common man but there is no denying that laws like this create moral hazard. There is no way that the ‘modern’ food stamp program of a credit card in a supermarket can motivate a worker like a soup kitchen and food bank. You may call it more civil but it does nothing to tell these people that there life might be better picking fruit in California instead of sitting on their bottom giving that income to an illegal immigrant. The government creates so much moral hazard in our society yet a certain segment of the population wants to blame it on exclusively on business. Private business certainly had its part to play... a part that Obama had a real shot at setting right by putting a few of the major culprits in jail but he bowed to the banks and not only didn’t punish them, he put some of the perpetrators in the government to run policy. Ill considered government policy created the conditions and government affiliates enabled the practice of subprime given the government encouraged home ownership among those that couldn’t really afford it. I realize that it was private lenders who made the loans but we can’t escape the fact that Fannie Mae or HUD had their hands in some 75% of the subprime problem... Much like the rise in student loans ($1trillion and rising) and cost of education today. By the justice department not getting involved in MERS which clearly violated state deed recording laws we have a title mess that will potentially take decades to sort out. The government didn’t even file criminal charges when banks submitted knowingly false documents to the courts... ‘Fraud upon the court’ use to be considered most egregious....
We Need to stop looking for government to provide solutions... It's not the answer.