I'd guess one would have to somehow compare Agribusiness' claimed inability to profit from an ongoing global need for food with the reality of American companies and workers laid waste by health care costs and Obama's attempt to provide profit for his Insurance friends from this waste.
Both programs mean to provide greater profits for corporations. An answer would be to break up both money houses and allow agriculture to be run by farmers and health care to be run by doctors.
Are you confusing what I said with what Newt said? I am no Newt! Thank God!
If you click Bruce's link you will find the second bullet point:
"Despite the improved economy, the number of people receiving food-stamp assistance has continued to grow, and now more people have been added to the food-stamp rolls under Obama than under any single previous president."
I don't do talking points. Have never seen talking points and wouldn't know where to go or who to see if I wanted talking points, if I had a desire to. I have a mind of my own and do not need to be told what I should think or be concerned about. We have been over this before nothing has changed.
"Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush."
"Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee raised more than $14 million from the securities and investment industry through the end of April, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Obama's campaign alone raised $361,000 from the industry in May.
It's true that those totals are well below the $28.2 million that Mr. Obama, together with the DNC, raised from the industry throughout the 2008 campaign. "
Bruce's link's first bullet point:
"The economy has added more jobs since Obama took office than it did in his predecessor’s entire eight years in office."
Is factual as far as it goes, shall we delve deeper:
"Over the last 56 months – since Barack Obama became president in January 2009 --unemployment has dropped 0.5%, from a rate of 7.8% in January 2009 down to 7.3% in August 2013, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
During those 56 months, the unemployment rate rose substantially to a high of 10% in October 2009 and stayed in the high 9% range for 2010 and much of 2011. In January 2012, the unemployment rate was 8.3%. It crept down to 7.8% in December 2012, exactly what it was when Obama was inaugurated (and George W. Bush left office).
That rate has stayed in the mid-7% range so far in 2013 and is at 7.3% for August, according to the BLS data.
The unemployment rate has not fallen below 7.3% in the last 5-plus years.
Doing a little rough number crunching:
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday the Obama administration has created 7.2 million jobs over the years, but other reports are pointing out that twice that many people have started getting food stamps since President Barack Obama took office.
OTP as for, "Bruce already busted you" we have both cited what we have said. of course I left off a couple of his, might as well get them in:
"Federal debt held by the public has grown by 90 percent since Obama took office."
"Obama has ordered seven times more drone strikes than Bush in the covert conflicts in Pakistan and Yemen, according to independent estimates."
What do you have?
Grove, thank you for that. An informed, rational, thoughtful comment. A perfect antidote to Nightcrawler's Limbaugher cheese.
You can't blame the shutdown on Reid and Obama unless you're a lemming that believes everything you hear on NPR and/or Fox News.
That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about when people have no ability to see when their favored party makes a mistake or a misstep.
Even Boehner is saying that he tried to warn his caucus that the strategy of trying to defund Obamacare was a failing strategy. You can't put items on the table that you know are show-stoppers for the other side of the negotiation and hope to get anywhere. That's what the Tea Party forced Boehner to do. Everyone knew that defunding Obamacare was a non-starter, yet the Tea Party folks thought that if they were just petulant enough about it, they could force Reid and Obama to give in to their demands.
When you're the side that puts show-stoppers on the table, the blame for not getting a settlement falls on you. That's why the public blasted the GOP over the shut down. The public isn't stupid, no matter how much Fox News tried to spin it the other way.
It's because the GOP took such a hit over the shutdown that Ryan was able to get the support to put a deal together with Murray on the budget that will prevent shut down for at least 2 years. The funny (and sad) part to me is how many Tea Party folks and groups panned this budget deal before the details were even released. That tells you which group is being unreasonable and petulant. That's also the reason why the mainstream GOP is going to be successful in booting most of these Tea Party yokels to the curb come 2014. There will be an all out war in the GOP primaries, and the Tea Party will get a big boot for their unwillingness to actually govern.
Boehner fired a warning shot to the Tea Party government obstructionists. He's firing the first shot, letting them know that they are going to be attacked by the mainstream GOP.
There are plenty of reasons to attack the Dems. Obama's approval ratings have been tanking on their own without the aid of conservative spin. There is no need to try to spin anything. Just let it be. The GOP just needs to step back and be reasonable, and they will actually have a chance to gain some ground in the coming 2014 and 2016 elections. Ryan just did the GOP a huge favor in getting a deal done.
I can respect someone's political opinion a WHOLE lot more when they prove they are capable of admitting failures of their favored party or their favored leaders.
No politician or party has it all right all the time, and it's impossible for anyone to truly believe that unless they're just a lemming with no opinion of their own.
That's one of the reasons I would actually prefer to get political news from John Stewart and Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central than going to MSNBC or Fox, where it's nothing but one sided spin no matter what happens. At least on Comedy Central, Stewart is willing to call out Obama and the Dems when they do something stupid or wrong, and Colbert will call out the Tea Party when they do something stupid or wrong. Now, they do it with a touch of comedy, but neither one sticks strictly to their party preference. They shoot you straight, and both are clear about their political leaning. I can respect that.
On the ACA promise, Obama knew he wasn't being 100% truthful with the public when he made his statements, and that's a leadership failure on his part. It doesn't matter that the policies being cancelled were "crappy" by someone's definition, they are the product that person chose to buy, likely because they didn't want to pay more for insurance. The ACA is requiring people to buy options they may not want to buy, and it's costing them more. He knew that was going to happen, but he came out and told the public that they wouldn't have to change anything if they didn't want to do so.
If that was the intention all along, then they would've specifically crafted the law to grandfather in ALL existing policies, regardless of whether they met some federal mandate, and they would've eliminated any loopholes. They didn't do that.
It's alright to admit that Obama was wrong for doing that. No one is perfect. It's when you can't admit that your party is wrong or that your favored leader ever makes a mistake that you lose credibility.
Question: Which is more detrimental, in the long run, to the fiscal and physical well being of America and Americans:
(a). USDA support for corn and soybeans.
(b). The Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obamacare)
This is not a loaded nor rhetorical question. Take the time and really think about the long range ramifications of each.
Btw, I railed against the Bush administration's spending like drunken Democrats on shore-leave, at the time. I am not trying to absolve him of his failures.
Real leaders work with an opposition Congress to move the Country forward. Reagan, Bush1 and Clinton all did it. Bush1 did it to his political demise "No new taxes." That is the leadership and sacrifice we should expect, Country before self, party or ideology, we aren't getting it and haven't over more than this administration.
The "He started it" refrain should be dismissed as we do constantly with our children and we should seek to solve the problems. This ain't working.
Balances out? What? Still, where does the money come from?
I know lots of people that have neither an ebt card nor a mortgage, and no savings or assets. They do pay taxes. Those taxes go into the pocket you speak of. Therefore, trickle down seems to work just fine.
I just don't get it. You want to praise Obama's Wall Street "success", while blaming the 16 million he has added to those needing SNAP to survive on Bush. Then you disparage the widening gap between rich and poor and blame it on Conservatives. It is nonsensical.
Liberal, well meaning, programs have failed and have not moved people out of poverty. They have, in fact, done the exact opposite as intended as a whole. We have GENERATIONS who think WORK is walking to the mailbox, they come in all colors. (a little pre-emptive strike on the ignorant)
Forbes v Forbes (now that's a movie)
"Even Jimmy Carter produced 4 times as much economic growth during his one term as Obama did during his entire first term."
Now that is helping the working man.
The money on ebt cards comes from the same pocket that the mortgage interest deduction comes from. You see, the average Snap recipient get no mortgage interest deduction and the one who get the mortgage interest deduction usually doesn't have an ebt car. See, how that balances out!
If trickle down economics doesn't work then where does the money on the ebt cards come from?
Between the first meeting on AutoZone Park and the second, Council members had more than 200 written questions answered. The notion that they were refused answers is specious.
Everything you mentioned has been debunked and factually turned out to be untrue.
Fast and Furious was a program instituted under the Bush administration. Benghazi has been proven to be nothing more than what it was, a planned attack on that consulate. There was no refusal to send help, help was more than 2 days away. The ambassador was warned not to leave the official embassy in Tripoli and travel to that consulate. Even the false report by 60 minutes was debunked and the reporter and producer put on leave; probably will be fired by CBS.
The IRS scandal was also debunked. Both democratic and gop groups were scrutinized. The gop knew this but held back that information from the public and the congressional hearings.
The president did stretch the truth on Health Care. But, these cancellation are due to the crappy insurance policies that did not meet minimum health care standards. It is just like auto insurance in the state. The auto insurance sold in this state must meet minimum state requirements. If it doesn't, then you can't have the policy. That is the nuts and bolts of it.
Losing one's doctor is the most over-hyped misinformation that the right wing has spread around. How many people spend a lot of time with their doctor? Not many. Doctors don't have the time to spend and socialize with each individual patient. Hell, they have to peruse the medical history just to see what the hell is going on. So, cut the bullshit that you have some special relationship with your doctor.
Keep listening at Rush, Shawn, etc. You will get dumber with each session tuned into those right wing nuts.
Now, you show me some facts surrounding your accusations against the president from neutral sources. If you can't do that, you are merely pissing in the wind and calling it a storm.
With a practiced flick of the wrist, who knows under which shell the pea resides.
It seems as though the facts have it!
I know that you are probably sincere about your beliefs, but, those beliefs were all built upon lies, innuendo and misinformation spread by the political right wing conservatives and right wing media.
Actually the figures now, coming out of the deepest recession except the great depression has been better than any president in modern history. The only other president's numbers a good or better is Ronal Reagan. but, even his recovery has a few caveats in them. Do some reading and the facts will tell you the truth.
@Cats, you seem a reasonable sort, but facts are against you. Obama inherited an absolute disaster of an economy. Obama's economic numbers, not just for Wall Street, which are pretty astounding, but for jobs, are much better than his predecessor. Bush inherited a surplus, blew up the economy, and paid billions in bank bail-outs, leaving us in a deep recession. Obama, by almost any measure, is doing pretty well, considering what he started with. Don't take my word for it: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/obamas-nu…
Why do you spread gop talking points and misinformation? Wouldn't it be more prudent to check the facts first before you post.
President Obama have not increased the Snap roles more than any other president. The increase in Snap recipients under Obama are directly tied to the Bush administration. The more liberal rules that allowed more people to qualify for Snap benefits were enacted on the George Bush watch.
Unlike you, I try to research information before I post it on a public forum and make myself look foolish.
If you doubt what I say, all you have to do is google:
Newt's Faulty Food-Stamp Claim. by Fact Check.org.
Fact Check.Org is a non-partisan organization, beholden to nobody. They have the truth of the matter, complete with dates, figures and under whose administration.
Read it and weep!
Shocking that George Bush put more people on Snap than any other president, including Obama, isn't it. Bruce already busted you; if you like, I can give you credible sources to debunk the rest of your misinformation. I won't call them purposeful lies because I don't think you know any better, just repeating what the gop tell you.
A paper recovery for the rich on wall street? (who has received more of their money than anyone else in politics?) Another balloon yet to pop.
Do you doubt the new 16 million needing SNAP to survive since he was elected? Do you doubt the middle class has lost more actual income under his recovery than under the Bush recession? Where is your humanity? JOBS!!! man JOBS!!!! You want to praise corporate wealth while we increase our SNAP numbers? What kind of Liberal are you? We have actual mouths to feed.
Trying to pass off President Obama's production of jobs as satisfactory is a joke. A rather harsh one when you and his supporters tell those on food stamps : We're doing fine now.
I'm gonna do what I tease eeyore for doing. Sorry, but I am an opportunist.
OTP, No communists, no ANC, no black SOBs sitting on the corporate boards in South Africa (as Cat suggests, no movement is perfect). Communists were rife in all social movements here and abroad. I worked with plenty. And if my grasp on a bottle were as firm as your grasp of history, I'll be sober til I die.
Nightcrawler, you got something, one thing, right. But I bet it's gotta grate you just a little that George W was honoring a terrorist.
For any wagering souls out there. how long before Mandela is used in a corporate commercial? Will it be Coca Cola or wage slavin' McDonald's...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogqo-HykRs4 (sorry eeyore)
With the loss of factory jobs to overseas and the increase in workers being replaced by machines, jobs are harder to come by for high school only educated workers. This has had a far greater impact on the American worker than anything else. And neither the Republicans or Democrats have done much to combat this. Don't forget in the Senate, the amount of millionairs on both sides of the aisle are about the same percentage wise. So hoping that Rich Senate Democrats will do more for you than Rich Senate Republicans is a stretch. Just look at the healtcare law. If we really wanted to fix the system, we would have gone with a single payer system like the rest of the civilized nations. But what we got was an effort to keep the insurance companies happy...when we should have removed them from the equation and controlled hospital costs. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the millionaires in the Senate to do anything that will actually help. How many times in the past has either pary had complete control and done much of anything to drastically change the economic situation of the poor?
By Joe Boone
download this issue
click here to see more »