Which way do you lean on blaming Obama for U.E.?

[GHook93]

I blame the Clinton Regime for Pushing the Community Reinvestment Act (the brain child of Carter in which Reagan was able to put a stop to), forcing banks to toss out their Matrix, leading the the mortgage and credit meltdown a decade later!

I blame Clinton for making student loans non-dischargable. Sounds great in theory, but in reality, it lead to: (1) The most dramatic increase in college tuition ever in history, (2) Americans starting their adulthood with substantial debt to which no other generation came close to having, (3) The good schools skyrocketing their tuition to nearly elite and unattainable positions, (4) Everyone getting a loan means the vast majority won't be able to pay and a student loan crisis is inevitable, (5) Even the shit of the shit school, charge crazy rates, because everyone gets a loan!

I blame Barney Frank and Dobbs for giving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so much power, authority, power and the ability to not be held accountable for anything, which help push through the CRA and worsen the effects of the mortgage meltdown.

I blame Bush for not doing what Reagan did and try to divert the damage of the upcoming mortgage meltdown. For spending like a Democrat. Not reducing the corporate tax. For sucking as a President.

I blame the tax and spending policies for creating substantial burdens on the US worker and US company.

I blame Obama for policies that are leading to private sector grow, but to government spending and government jobs, which is ALWAYS a road to disaster!

 

[ConHog]

I'm much more comfortable with forcing a homeowner to sell their home before them getting assistance from every tax-payer, because they're not quite at the dire-straights level if they own a home.........and that's what that should be reserved for.

That's what it reserved for. She didn't get food stamps.

As you can see by my link, it's apparently too easy, then, in NY to get food stamps. Don't whistle at me lady!! grrrr! lol

I don't believe anyone in NY who owns their own home is going to be eligible for food stamps either, too big of an asset.

 

[G.T.]

That's what it reserved for. She didn't get food stamps.

As you can see by my link, it's apparently too easy, then, in NY to get food stamps. Don't whistle at me lady!! grrrr! lol

Why don't you apply for them and see what happens, just as an experiment.

Because I can read, and I read my link.

 

[Ravi]

I agree, and that someone should be the kid living at home ..... ya know. Or, a retired person who works for "time killing."

If you're a grown assed adult making $8, 000 a year, it's not the system that's failed you...........it's your own hustle that's an absolute failure.

Except, as Pauli pointed out...someone has to do those $8K a year jobs.

And they deserve them.

Maybe. Or maybe they came from poor families that lived in homeless shelters and never got to go to a decent school.

Regardless, we are all better off all around if people are getting food stamps if they need them. The alternative is to let them just starve or watch crime rise. Then you end up paying more for police and prison.

 

[gautama]

I guess it's basically a question for Conservatives.

Is it because unemployment and welfare make people lazy? This position implies that collecting Gubbamint checks incentivises them from taking jobs that ARE THERE.....

Or....

Does Obama's teh oppressive Tax Regime keep employers from hiring? This position implies that jobs AREN'T THERE. If this is the answer, than "people being lazy" just can't be it, because if JOBS AREN'T THERE, to take, because of oppressive taxes or economic anxiety, than what's a playa to do?

Anyhoot.

Obama's oppressive Tax Regime? You mean all the tax hikes? Can you name them? Can you name one?

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK Obamacare IS ??????

CHOPPED LIVER ???? YOU FUCKING FOOL ?????

THAT IS "TAXES" .......so fucking transparent that a lobotomized lemming could tell that it is TAXES !!!!!

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK "CAP &TRADE" IS YOU FUCKING IDIOT ?????

YOU DON'T THINK THAT IS NOT TAXES ??????


WHAT THE FUCK DO YO THINK Michelle's Spain Trip......or BULLSHIT like sending THE HAMAS-TERRORIST-APPROVING IMAM OF CORDOBA FAME to collect money from the oily sheiks to build that fucking MOSQUE that DEFECATES on the memory of our 9/11 DEAD ?????

ETC., ETC., & ETC......

WHERE THE FUCK THAT MONEY IS COMING FROM , YOU Obamarrhoidal LIEBERRHOID CLUELESS ARSEHOLE ???

HINT: IT IS OUR TAX MONEY.....FOOL !!!!!!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Except, as Pauli pointed out...someone has to do those $8K a year jobs.

And they deserve them.

Maybe. Or maybe they came from poor families that lived in homeless shelters and never got to go to a decent school.

Regardless, we are all better off all around if people are getting food stamps if they need them. The alternative is to let them just starve or watch crime rise. Then you end up paying more for police and prison.

So you're in favor of school vouchers?

 

[Paulie]

I made over 1000 a month when I was in high school, working at a campground doing really tough manual labor and also some pretty disgusting things like pumping out the septic tanks of the travel trailers.

I made BANK for a 15 year old. I learned how to work hard for what I want at an early age.

I can't even fathom being an adult and only making 8000 a year. But I suppose some jobs really only command that much salary within the market, and SOMEONE has to do that job.

I agree, and that someone should be the kid living at home ..... ya know. Or, a retired person who works for "time killing."

If you're a grown assed adult making $8, 000 a year, it's not the system that's failed you...........it's your own hustle that's an absolute failure.

Except, as Pauli pointed out...someone has to do those $8K a year jobs.

In recognizing that someone has to do those jobs, be sure to also recognize that it doesn't entitle them to my tax dollars simply because that's their skill level.

I can't imagine someone working 40 hours a week and only making 8000 a year. That's only like 100+ dollars a week. No job pays that little.

If you're only making 8,000 a year you're not working hard enough.

 

[Ravi]

As you can see by my link, it's apparently too easy, then, in NY to get food stamps. Don't whistle at me lady!! grrrr! lol

Why don't you apply for them and see what happens, just as an experiment.

Because I can read, and I read my link.

So did I. Could you live in New York on the wage that would qualify you for food stamps? I doubt it.

 

[ConHog]

I agree, and that someone should be the kid living at home ..... ya know. Or, a retired person who works for "time killing."

If you're a grown assed adult making $8, 000 a year, it's not the system that's failed you...........it's your own hustle that's an absolute failure.

Except, as Pauli pointed out...someone has to do those $8K a year jobs.

And they deserve them.

I'm gonna part ways with you slightly here. No employee should be earning $8K a year. That is one thing that drives me crazy. These fast food places that hire 30 people and work them just enough hours to where they can't feasibly get another job but not enough to where they are earning enough to support themselves. Why they don't hire half the people and work them full time is beyond me.

 

[Paulie]

Except, as Pauli pointed out...someone has to do those $8K a year jobs.

And they deserve them.

I'm gonna part ways with you slightly here. No employee should be earning $8K a year. That is one thing that drives me crazy. These fast food places that hire 30 people and work them just enough hours to where they can't feasibly get another job but not enough to where they are earning enough to support themselves. Why they don't hire half the people and work them full time is beyond me.

Because at full time there are more financial liabilities for the business operator. That is a way for them to skirt some expenses.

 

[Ravi]

I agree, and that someone should be the kid living at home ..... ya know. Or, a retired person who works for "time killing."

If you're a grown assed adult making $8, 000 a year, it's not the system that's failed you...........it's your own hustle that's an absolute failure.

Except, as Pauli pointed out...someone has to do those $8K a year jobs.

In recognizing that someone has to do those jobs, be sure to also recognize that it doesn't entitle them to my tax dollars simply because that's their skill level.

I can't imagine someone working 40 hours a week and only making 8000 a year. That's only like 100+ dollars a week. No job pays that little.

If you're only making 8,000 a year you're not working hard enough.

I doubt anyone that works full time makes that little (except perhaps illegal aliens). The poverty level is higher than that.

And no, it doesn't entitle anyone to food stamps. But I'd still rather see the program (mainly because it benefits CHILDREN) than the alternatives.

 

[ConHog]

Except, as Pauli pointed out...someone has to do those $8K a year jobs.

And they deserve them.

Maybe. Or maybe they came from poor families that lived in homeless shelters and never got to go to a decent school.

Regardless, we are all better off all around if people are getting food stamps if they need them. The alternative is to let them just starve or watch crime rise. Then you end up paying more for police and prison.

Poor families, no decent school? you mean like Bill Clinton or Sam Walton? That's a piss poor excuse. Yes there are advantages to being born with money, but being born without it is not the shackle you would like to make it out to be.

 

[Paulie]

Except, as Pauli pointed out...someone has to do those $8K a year jobs.

In recognizing that someone has to do those jobs, be sure to also recognize that it doesn't entitle them to my tax dollars simply because that's their skill level.

I can't imagine someone working 40 hours a week and only making 8000 a year. That's only like 100+ dollars a week. No job pays that little.

If you're only making 8,000 a year you're not working hard enough.

I doubt anyone that works full time makes that little (except perhaps illegal aliens). The poverty level is higher than that.

And no, it doesn't entitle anyone to food stamps. But I'd still rather see the program (mainly because it benefits CHILDREN) than the alternatives.

It ends up rewarding low income families for having children.

I don't see that as a positive at all. You have no business bringing a child into the world if you can barely support yourself.

Nothing is more irresponsible than that.

 

[ConHog]

Except, as Pauli pointed out...someone has to do those $8K a year jobs.

In recognizing that someone has to do those jobs, be sure to also recognize that it doesn't entitle them to my tax dollars simply because that's their skill level.

I can't imagine someone working 40 hours a week and only making 8000 a year. That's only like 100+ dollars a week. No job pays that little.

If you're only making 8,000 a year you're not working hard enough.

I doubt anyone that works full time makes that little (except perhaps illegal aliens). The poverty level is higher than that.

And no, it doesn't entitle anyone to food stamps. But I'd still rather see the program (mainly because it benefits CHILDREN) than the alternatives.

Link to anyone in this thread who has advocated abolishing food stamps?

 

[Charles_Main]

Nothing is ever black and White. The previous Admin Deserves blame for the Causes, as do Democrats and republicans who have been in power for Decades. Obama Deserves Blame for the Inept, Ineffective response to the Problem, and for Adding Massive amounts to the Debt that is in part responsible for the Problem to begin with. His Admin is also doubling down on the Policy of Pushing for Questionable loans in the name of home ownership for all. They recently opposed Freddy and Fanny when they wanted to start asking for 5% Down on all Mortgages.

IMO if you can not come up with 5% of the cost of a home up front, you have no business buying that house.

 

[ConHog]

And they deserve them.

I'm gonna part ways with you slightly here. No employee should be earning $8K a year. That is one thing that drives me crazy. These fast food places that hire 30 people and work them just enough hours to where they can't feasibly get another job but not enough to where they are earning enough to support themselves. Why they don't hire half the people and work them full time is beyond me.

Because at full time there are more financial liabilities for the business operator. That is a way for them to skirt some expenses.

Exactly, and I am against that. The government should step in in that situation. Yes I realize that isn't a conservative viewpoint. but as I have said, I temper my conservatism with compassion, and this is one case I would use one over the other.

 

[ConHog]

In recognizing that someone has to do those jobs, be sure to also recognize that it doesn't entitle them to my tax dollars simply because that's their skill level.

I can't imagine someone working 40 hours a week and only making 8000 a year. That's only like 100+ dollars a week. No job pays that little.

If you're only making 8,000 a year you're not working hard enough.

I doubt anyone that works full time makes that little (except perhaps illegal aliens). The poverty level is higher than that.

And no, it doesn't entitle anyone to food stamps. But I'd still rather see the program (mainly because it benefits CHILDREN) than the alternatives.

It ends up rewarding low income families for having children.

I don't see that as a positive at all. You have no business bringing a child into the world if you can barely support yourself.

Nothing is more irresponsible than that.

No matter the stupidity or irresponsibility of the parents, I would never wish to see a child go hungry, I'm sure you agree there.

 

[WillowTree]

I guess it's basically a question for Conservatives.

Is it because unemployment and welfare make people lazy? This position implies that collecting Gubbamint checks incentivises them from taking jobs that ARE THERE.....

Or....

Does Obama's teh oppressive Tax Regime keep employers from hiring? This position implies that jobs AREN'T THERE. If this is the answer, than "people being lazy" just can't be it, because if JOBS AREN'T THERE, to take, because of oppressive taxes or economic anxiety, than what's a playa to do?

Anyhoot.

Obama's oppressive Tax Regime? You mean all the tax hikes? Can you name them? Can you name one?

Health Care. The government is now arguing that it can level any tax it chooses. Add that to the increased cost now of buying health care and I can tell you those that hire will take a second look at hiring new people. But then those of you who don't actually PAY federal taxes are too stupid to see "tax hikes" so cry us a fucking river.

 

[Ravi]

In recognizing that someone has to do those jobs, be sure to also recognize that it doesn't entitle them to my tax dollars simply because that's their skill level.

I can't imagine someone working 40 hours a week and only making 8000 a year. That's only like 100+ dollars a week. No job pays that little.

If you're only making 8,000 a year you're not working hard enough.

I doubt anyone that works full time makes that little (except perhaps illegal aliens). The poverty level is higher than that.

And no, it doesn't entitle anyone to food stamps. But I'd still rather see the program (mainly because it benefits CHILDREN) than the alternatives.

It ends up rewarding low income families for having children.

I don't see that as a positive at all. You have no business bringing a child into the world if you can barely support yourself.

Nothing is more irresponsible than that.

I agree with that but it just isn't reality. You certainly can't force people to abort or forbid them from having sex.

I haven't heard a better solution, honestly. What is yours? What would make people act better than they are and cost less to society?

 

[Paulie]

I'm gonna part ways with you slightly here. No employee should be earning $8K a year. That is one thing that drives me crazy. These fast food places that hire 30 people and work them just enough hours to where they can't feasibly get another job but not enough to where they are earning enough to support themselves. Why they don't hire half the people and work them full time is beyond me.

Because at full time there are more financial liabilities for the business operator. That is a way for them to skirt some expenses.

Exactly, and I am against that. The government should step in in that situation. Yes I realize that isn't a conservative viewpoint. but as I have said, I temper my conservatism with compassion, and this is one case I would use one over the other.

I don't know dude, that's a slippery slope.

The government should only step in there if the business is using deceptive and/or coercive tactics to get the employees to work part time.

Otherwise, it was the choice of the employee to take the job and what it entailed.