Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on February 08, 2012, 08:41:02 AM
-
We live in a nation of weak, lazy freeloaders and because libs think they have some sense of entitlement this ASSHOLE may get re-elected >:(
The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.
The conservative think tank's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."
The increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.
The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.
"You can't get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index," said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.
Dependence on the government has climbed steadily since 1962, when the index stood at 19. By 1980, the index had risen to 100. It stood at 294 in 2010, the last year for which the data are available. The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation has produced the index for nine years.
The report also found that spending on "dependence programs" accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs.
At the same time, fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn't pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden.
Other findings:
The number of people dependent on the federal government shot up 7.5% over the past two years.
In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income.
The dependency index has dipped only seven times in the past 49 years, three of which were under President Reagan and two under President Clinton.
Some observers say the rise in dependence under Obama is merely a reflection of the deep and long recession.
But Beach says his team's research shows that economic effects account for only one-fifth of the change in the index.
http://news.investors.com/Article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm
-
This is even better...
http://www.businessinsider.com/18-staggering-charts-on-the-rise-of-government-dependence-2012-2
-
It's an overall breakdown - doesn't have too much to do with him.
Obsama sucks, but he's just a visual representation of some assholes higher up.
-
unemployment lowest its been since february 2009. job growth finally starting to outpace population growth. things are looking up. too bad obama wasnta run of the mill politician, that stimulus he passed would have focused entirely on stuff the public would notice, instead of saving jobs of teachers and policeman and making long term investments. but hey, a more popular president or a healthier country in the long run? option 2 sounds better to me
-
unemployment lowest its been since february 2009. job growth finally starting to outpace population growth. things are looking up. too bad obama wasnta run of the mill politician, that stimulus he passed would have focused entirely on stuff the public would notice, instead of saving jobs of teachers and policeman and making long term investments. but hey, a more popular president or a healthier country in the long run? option 2 sounds better to me
The public doesn't notice saving the jobs of teachers or policemen? What are your examples of jobs saved that the public notices, vs. the teachers and policeman that you claim were saved but unnoticed?
-
Remember where the unemployment numbers come from. They come from the Obama administration during his reelection campaign. There are many ways to play with the numbers like not counting those who reach the limit for their unemployment checks.
The more people become dependent on govermnet the stronger Obama becomes. In poor urban cities were getting a form of government check is the norm have there ever been a conservative mayor?
The number of slackers are growing and their cries are to spread the workers tax dollars to them.
-
More people need adult diapers?
-
unemployment lowest its been since february 2009. job growth finally starting to outpace population growth. things are looking up. too bad obama wasnta run of the mill politician, that stimulus he passed would have focused entirely on stuff the public would notice, instead of saving jobs of teachers and policeman and making long term investments. but hey, a more popular president or a healthier country in the long run? option 2 sounds better to me
Applications for unemployment may be at the lowest since 09 but the ACTUAL # of unemployed people is way higher
-
The public doesn't notice saving the jobs of teachers or policemen? What are your examples of jobs saved that the public notices, vs. the teachers and policeman that you claim were saved but unnoticed?
you go to school. theres 100 teachers. next years, still 100 teachers. you dont notice anyy difference.
you drive around town. you see about 10 cops per day. next year, still about 10 cops per day. you dont notice any difference.
thats similar to the situation that happened. except teachers and cops declined, just not nearly as much as they would have without the stimulus. so in fact, instead of people thinking obama helped increase jobs in those areas, they can only assume he contirbuted to the decline. which of course is the opposite of the truth.
-
Applications for unemployment may be at the lowest since 09 but the ACTUAL # of unemployed people is way higher
% is what matters. if 9 people are unemployed, out of a total of 10 workers. or if 12 people are uneployed, out of 20 workers. which is worse? % is what matters.. %
-
Hopefully Getbig is around when Coach is 60 yrs old, and his son is living off of his old man's money...and selling drugs out of the house---"pills, I got 50 oxy for $20 each"
(not saying it would happen, or wish that it did...I just wonder whathis philosophy would be then)
-
you go to school. theres 100 teachers. next years, still 100 teachers. you dont notice anyy difference.
you drive around town. you see about 10 cops per day. next year, still about 10 cops per day. you dont notice any difference.
thats similar to the situation that happened. except teachers and cops declined, just not nearly as much as they would have without the stimulus. so in fact, instead of people thinking obama helped increase jobs in those areas, they can only assume he contirbuted to the decline. which of course is the opposite of the truth.
Listen, I give you credit for a lot of stuff you post, but I think you're taking a simplistic unrealistic view of this. Obama's problem is not one of perception, but of reality.
The stimulus was a failure, in a macro sense, and especially in relation to what the administration thought it would do. If it saved jobs temporarily that aren't legitimately sustainable, it just delayed the inevitable. Of course, that means a ton to those saved, but doesn't help on the whole.
-
It's an overall breakdown - doesn't have too much to do with him.
Obsama sucks, but he's just a visual representation of some assholes higher up.
what kind of person takes a job like that? I guess he get's to play golf and get away from the wife from time to time.
-
% is what matters. if 9 people are unemployed, out of a total of 10 workers. or if 12 people are uneployed, out of 20 workers. which is worse? % is what matters.. %
No.
If in May there are 10 unemployed workers out of a pool of 100, UE is at a 10% - 10/100
If in June, there are are still 10 unemployed workers, but 2 have given up looking because they feel it's futile, the calc is now 8/100 or 8%.
So, it looks like a 2% improvement, but there's still 10 people without work.
Or something like that. If I fucked that up, someone let me know.
-
Hopefully Getbig is around when Coach is 60 yrs old, and his son is living off of his old man's money...and selling drugs out of the house---"pills, I got 50 oxy for $20 each"
(not saying it would happen, or wish that it did...I just wonder whathis philosophy would be then)
That last part is vs and you know it.
-
I thought you said you were going to stop discussing politics
-
in a recovery moron, what do you expect fuck.
-
Listen, I give you credit for a lot of stuff you post, but I think you're taking a simplistic unrealistic view of this. Obama's problem is not one of perception, but of reality.
The stimulus was a failure, in a macro sense, and especially in relation to what the administration thought it would do. If it saved jobs temporarily that aren't legitimately sustainable, it just delayed the inevitable. Of course, that means a ton to those saved, but doesn't help on the whole.
you really need to define success and failure before you start claiming which one was the result.
i agree that obama's problem is rooted in reality. unemployment is at its highest since the great depression. schools everywhere are making cuts and colleges are increase tuition. the defecit is at an outrageous 14 trillion. that is the reality he faces.
was the stimulus a failure? was it a success? i would say failure means it made no effect on the economy. we would be in the exact same boat if it hadnt happened. and success would mean that it positively effected the economy to such a degree that its benefits outweighed its costs. was it completely ineffective? no. without it we would be worse off. was it successful in creating enough benefits to outweigh its costs ? i dont know. but i think probably, at least marginally.
-
That last part is vs and you know it.
No, it's often common that people who are so adamant like you, their kids go the other way...and I grew up with kids like that...
Pops goes on and on about "hard work" and "earning your keep"
son turn out looking like Yahoo Serious and was hooked on so many things...
Of course he was away for "vacation" turns out it was detox.
You got a lot of kids from households that rail all the time like you---and the kids are selling all types of shit from the house...
Another woman I know, her father kinda didn't want his daugther marrying certain "people", well she is married to a loser from that "tribe".
It's just going to be interesting to see how things turn out in less than 20 yrs for you...
I'd never wish it would happen, but you know, sins of the father and all...
-
Lmao...you think you know me and my kid? Lol
-
Hey Coach, did you have a good workout today?
-
you really need to define success and failure before you start claiming which one was the result.
Let's define it as if it had the impact on UE that they forecasted it would. 3333's posted the chart of the admin's prediction of UE with and without the stimulus. UE actually turned out to be higher WITH the stimulus than the admin expected it to be WITHOUT the stimulus. That means the gap between what they expected and what they got was huge. We can also define success as if it fundamentally changed the direction things were going.
was the stimulus a failure? was it a success? i would say failure means it made no effect on the economy. we would be in the exact same boat if it hadnt happened. and success would mean that it positively effected the economy to such a degree that its benefits outweighed its costs. was it completely ineffective? no. without it we would be worse off. was it successful in creating enough benefits to outweigh its costs ? i dont know. but i think probably, at least marginally.
I think your definition of failure is too lenient. Throwing a trillion dollars is obviously going to help some people continue to earn money and be in better shape. That's basic.
Did it fix the problem though, or just mitigate some of the damage for awhile. Also, success has to be measure in terms of debt and currencey devaluation, and overall economic health. Not just individuals continuing to earn.
I think any strong Republican candidate would destroy Obama. Whether any of these guys develops into one is a topic for another thread.
-
Let's define it as if it had the impact on UE that they forecasted it would. 3333's posted the chart of the admin's prediction of UE with and without the stimulus. UE actually turned out to be higher WITH the stimulus than the admin expected it to be WITHOUT the stimulus. That means the gap between what they expected and what they got was huge. We can also define success as if it fundamentally changed the direction things were going.
I think your definition of failure is too lenient. Throwing a trillion dollars is obviously going to help some people continue to earn money and be in better shape. That's basic.
Did it fix the problem though, or just mitigate some of the damage for awhile. Also, success has to be measure in terms of debt and currencey devaluation, and overall economic health. Not just individuals continuing to earn.
I think any strong Republican candidate would destroy Obama. Whether any of these guys develops into one is a topic for another thread.
And yet, not one exists in all the land.
-
Lmao...you think you know me and my kid? Lol
So the arrogant goose cackles
we know enough of you, only the future will tell.
-
So the arrogant goose cackles
we know enough of you, only the future will tell.
Is that so? lol
-
Just caught Obama saying how he saved the car companies. The left keep using the catch phrase from that lefty movie that it was to big to fail. The funny thing is that money was offered to Ford so they wouldn't fail and they refused to take it. The Ford motor company is doing fantastic now.
-
Coach you must of be loads of fun around the fukin dinner table :-\
-
Coach you must of be loads of fun around the fukin dinner table :-\
LOL...we don't talk much politics around our house. I only vent on here.
-
I'm going to wear my Obama Tshirt when I workout with Coach :D
-
I'm going to wear my Obama Tshirt when I workout with Coach :D
We're going to workout?
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
The American Dream ... living on the dole?
One News Now ^ | 2/10/2012 | Chris Woodward
Posted on February 12, 2012 8:37:16 AM EST by IbJensen
A new study finds more Americans than ever before are dependent on the federal government for financial assistance.
The Heritage Foundation's "Index of Dependence on Government" also finds that the average American relying on federal government assistance receives $300 more in benefits ($32,748) annually than the average American's disposable personal income ($32,446).
William Beach of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis puts that in context.
"... We now have [about] 67 million Americans who are getting significant aid from the government for their housing or their food or their income support or their healthcare or their education -- or all five put together," he explains. "When you think of 67 million, that's big enough; but imagine, that's one out of every five Americans."
Beach also points out that while the number of Americans receiving federal aid rises, the number of federal taxpayers continues to drop, with nearly half of Americans (49.5 percent) not paying any federal income taxes.
Unless significant steps are taken to cut debt, reduce spending, and restore prosperity, Beach warns this unsustainable fiscal model will collapse.
"We're about to get the largest generation in U.S. history to retire ... the Baby Boom generation," he points out.
"They're not all going to retire on January 1, but over the next ten years, we're going to see millions of those people retire. Many of those people, unfortunately, won't have saved enough. They'll be living totally on Social Security and getting all of their healthcare through the Medicare Part A program."
Heritage offers more details on its findings, as well as proposed solutions, at SavingTheDream.org.
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...