Would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

[jasonnfree]

They're called liberals. They believe whatever Nazi Pelosi and Harry Reid tell them.

So the insanely rich are trying to brainwash us to support the poor. I would like you to go to your happy place and think about that for a long, long time. You going to start crying when you realize just how duped you've been. It's OK. We're here for you.

Random - He's right to a certain extent. Peak out of your Liberal blogosphere, remove the aluminum foil from inside your hat for a moment and at least try to see the World beyond 1984.

The Cloward Piven Strategy


The Cloward Piven strategy was outlined by political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. It called for deliberately forcing the U.S. public welfare system into over-drive in order to precipitate a economic collapse that would finalize in replacing the welfare system with a socialist system .

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within - Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system

The systematic failure, and economic chaos was happening as bush was leaving office and Obama was entering office. Why do you people keep telling these lies about all the failure under Obama?

 

[Faun]

Faun, been smoking some of that new medial marijuana now aren't you?

What a pity that math is foreign to Conservatives.

Bush/Republican policies sent some 12 million folks into poverty.

Obama's added about 4 million.

I know in Conservalalaland, 4 million is greater than 12 million, but here on planet Earth, you're a moron and Bush led more people into poverty than Obama.

Your figures are pure fantasy. People living in La-La land might believe that horseshit, but here in the real world we can look things up. If you look at the chart I posted, it shows that poverty declined for most of Reagan's term, and it barely increased during Bush's term.

You're so fucking stupid, you can't even understand that the chart you posted matches what I said ...

Notice where the poverty rate is when Bush became president in that chart ... 11.3%

Notice where it was at the end of the recession ... 14%.

Your own chart proves me right!

 

[Faun]

What a pity that math is foreign to Conservatives.

Bush/Republican policies sent some 12 million folks into poverty.

Obama's added about 4 million.

I know in Conservalalaland, 4 million is greater than 12 million, but here on planet Earth, you're a moron and Bush led more people into poverty than Obama.

Your figures are pure fantasy. People living in La-La land might believe that horseshit, but here in the real world we can look things up. If you look at the chart I posted, it shows that poverty declined for most of Reagan's term, and it barely increased during Bush's term.

Because we know no one ever gets out of poverty once they go into it. It is like the roach motel of economic states.

What are you saying, that Obama doesn't get credit for those coming out of poverty on his watch -- he only gets the blame for those who go into poverty??

Your insanity aside, regardless of who entered or left being in poverty, Bush/Republicans took the poverty rate from 11.3% to about 14%; Obama's policies took it to 15%.

That still means Bush added more people into poverty than Obama.

 

[Faun]

And the rate is still high. Whose fault is that?

I'll explain it to you, but you're too fucking rightarded to understand it ... Obama's policies have contributed about 8% but Bush & Republicans' policies contributed about 25%. So while it's higher now is no indication that Bush (and Republicans) caused about 3 times the number of people to be in poverty.

It is simply amazing. George Bush could singlehandedly put millions of people into poverty but Barack Obama is stymied by the minority Republicans in Congress.

I can't help that you're rightarded, but I didn't blame the minority Republicans in Congress.

 

[asterism]

Your figures are pure fantasy. People living in La-La land might believe that horseshit, but here in the real world we can look things up. If you look at the chart I posted, it shows that poverty declined for most of Reagan's term, and it barely increased during Bush's term.

Because we know no one ever gets out of poverty once they go into it. It is like the roach motel of economic states.

What are you saying, that Obama doesn't get credit for those coming out of poverty on his watch -- he only gets the blame for those who go into poverty??

Your insanity aside, regardless of who entered or left being in poverty, Bush/Republicans took the poverty rate from 11.3% to about 14%; Obama's policies took it to 15%.

That still means Bush added more people into poverty than Obama.

That's not true.

2000 - 33.3 Million
2008 - 39.8 Million
2012 - 48.7 Million

Bush added 5.9 Million in 8 years.
Obama added 8.9 million in 4 years

 

[freedombecki]

The unemployment extension bill might not have any Republican votes in the Senate and House Majority Leader Cantor said he will not bring a bill to the floor for a vote. The reasons the Republicans give for opposing extending unemployment benefits for 3 months are wide and varied. Could the primary reason for the opposition be to blame the Democrats for a bad economy? In other words, would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

Harry Reid already has 200 Republican jobs bills unattended on his desk for the last 5 years. Where you been?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The unemployment extension bill might not have any Republican votes in the Senate and House Majority Leader Cantor said he will not bring a bill to the floor for a vote. The reasons the Republicans give for opposing extending unemployment benefits for 3 months are wide and varied. Could the primary reason for the opposition be to blame the Democrats for a bad economy? In other words, would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

So let me see if I can get this straight. The economy is booming under obies leadership and everything is just fine. The unemployment rate is dropping since so many are leaving the work force. Obiecare is a smashing success and we should get our 2,500 dollar savings checks any day now. Anyone saying this is a failure is a racist because it's clearly working like a fucking charm....

But we need to extend unemployment because this stellar economy needs more government handouts? And not giving those handouts are somehow sabotaging the economy? Is that the same economy that is rolling into prosperity for everyone unless some don't get their welfare checks?

 

[Faun]

Faun, been smoking some of that new medial marijuana now aren't you?

What a pity that math is foreign to Conservatives.

Bush/Republican policies sent some 12 million folks into poverty.

Obama's added about 4 million.

I know in Conservalalaland, 4 million is greater than 12 million, but here on planet Earth, you're a moron and Bush led more people into poverty than Obama.

That's not true.

2000 - 33.3 Million
2008 - 39.8 Million
2012 - 48.7 Million

Bush added 5.9 Million in 8 years.
Obama added 8.9 million in 4 years

It is true.

Two things ...

1) The Census publishes two sets of data; ACS (unofficial rate) and CPS ASEC (official rate). You're posting ASC data (unofficial rate) whereas I am posting CPS ASEC (official rate). If you look on page 13 in the first link you provided, you will find:

NOTES

The Census Bureau also publishes poverty estimates based on the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC). Following the standard specified by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Statistical Policy Directive 14, data from the CPS ASEC are used to estimate the official national poverty rate, which can be found in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012, available at <www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf>. For information on poverty estimates from the ACS and how they differ from those based on the CPS ASEC, see “Differences Between the Income and Poverty Estimates From the American Community Survey and the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey” at <www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/datasources/index.html>.
​

So according to the "official poverty rate", my numbers stand.

2) I believe it's reasonable to attribute the numbers to Bush from the result of the Great Recession he passed on to Obama. I don't count from 12 noon on January 20th, 2009.

 

[Faun]

And the rate is still high. Whose fault is that?

I'll explain it to you, but you're too fucking rightarded to understand it ... Obama's policies have contributed about 8% but Bush & Republicans' policies contributed about 25%. So while it's higher now is no indication that Bush (and Republicans) caused about 3 times the number of people to be in poverty.

You are absolutely incorrect.

Bush made it bad but Obama made it worse.

America's Poverty Rate Stuck At 15 Percent For Second Straight Year

At least now you're posting the "official poverty rate." But I'm guessing you didn't actually look at what you posted since it proves me right. Here's the image from the article you posted...

You will note the poverty rate went from 11.3% when Bush became president to about 14% when the recession ended -- to 15% in the last survey.

 

[Faun]

The unemployment extension bill might not have any Republican votes in the Senate and House Majority Leader Cantor said he will not bring a bill to the floor for a vote. The reasons the Republicans give for opposing extending unemployment benefits for 3 months are wide and varied. Could the primary reason for the opposition be to blame the Democrats for a bad economy? In other words, would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

So let me see if I can get this straight. The economy is booming under obies leadership and everything is just fine. The unemployment rate is dropping since so many are leaving the work force. Obiecare is a smashing success and we should get our 2,500 dollar savings checks any day now. Anyone saying this is a failure is a racist because it's clearly working like a fucking charm....

But we need to extend unemployment because this stellar economy needs more government handouts? And not giving those handouts are somehow sabotaging the economy? Is that the same economy that is rolling into prosperity for everyone unless some don't get their welfare checks?

While there is no question there are many leaving the workforce, one of the contributing factors which cannot be ignored is baby boomers hitting the age of retirement.

In this graph I took of the labor force participation rate from the BLS, I highlighted the years from when the baby boomer generation first began hitting the age of 18 in 1964, when large numbers began working -- to when they began hitting the earliest age of retirement at age 62 in 2008.

The trend is noticeable.

 

[asterism]

What a pity that math is foreign to Conservatives.

Bush/Republican policies sent some 12 million folks into poverty.

Obama's added about 4 million.

I know in Conservalalaland, 4 million is greater than 12 million, but here on planet Earth, you're a moron and Bush led more people into poverty than Obama.

That's not true.

2000 - 33.3 Million
2008 - 39.8 Million
2012 - 48.7 Million

Bush added 5.9 Million in 8 years.
Obama added 8.9 million in 4 years

It is true.

Two things ...

1) The Census publishes two sets of data; ACS (unofficial rate) and CPS ASEC (official rate). You're posting ASC data (unofficial rate) whereas I am posting CPS ASEC (official rate). If you look on page 13 in the first link you provided, you will find:

NOTES

The Census Bureau also publishes poverty estimates based on the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC). Following the standard specified by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Statistical Policy Directive 14, data from the CPS ASEC are used to estimate the official national poverty rate, which can be found in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012, available at <www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf>. For information on poverty estimates from the ACS and how they differ from those based on the CPS ASEC, see “Differences Between the Income and Poverty Estimates From the American Community Survey and the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey” at <www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/datasources/index.html>.
​

So according to the "official poverty rate", my numbers stand.

2) I believe it's reasonable to attribute the numbers to Bush from the result of the Great Recession he passed on to Obama. I don't count from 12 noon on January 20th, 2009.

So when official government figures disagree with your (currently unsourced) figures you discard them.

Noted.

You are blaming Bush for the first part of Obama's term and budget (since Obama's budget started in March of 2009 not including the stimulus which was his too) but are also blaming Bush for the escalating poverty at the tail end of Clinton's term (and his enacted budget through October 2001).

Noted also.

 

[asterism]

I'll explain it to you, but you're too fucking rightarded to understand it ... Obama's policies have contributed about 8% but Bush & Republicans' policies contributed about 25%. So while it's higher now is no indication that Bush (and Republicans) caused about 3 times the number of people to be in poverty.

You are absolutely incorrect.

Bush made it bad but Obama made it worse.

America's Poverty Rate Stuck At 15 Percent For Second Straight Year

At least now you're posting the "official poverty rate." But I'm guessing you didn't actually look at what you posted since it proves me right. Here's the image from the article you posted...

You will note the poverty rate went from 11.3% when Bush became president to about 14% when the recession ended -- to 15% in the last survey.

I read it, and I'm aware of the different measures used by the government.

You don't seem to understand that while Bush made things bad, Obama made things worse. For some reason you think that's a good thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The unemployment extension bill might not have any Republican votes in the Senate and House Majority Leader Cantor said he will not bring a bill to the floor for a vote. The reasons the Republicans give for opposing extending unemployment benefits for 3 months are wide and varied. Could the primary reason for the opposition be to blame the Democrats for a bad economy? In other words, would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

The recession ended nearly 5 years ago.
Why do we need this bill?
Is it because Obama keeps killing jobs?

 

[asterism]

The unemployment extension bill might not have any Republican votes in the Senate and House Majority Leader Cantor said he will not bring a bill to the floor for a vote. The reasons the Republicans give for opposing extending unemployment benefits for 3 months are wide and varied. Could the primary reason for the opposition be to blame the Democrats for a bad economy? In other words, would the Republicans sabotage the economy for political gain?

So let me see if I can get this straight. The economy is booming under obies leadership and everything is just fine. The unemployment rate is dropping since so many are leaving the work force. Obiecare is a smashing success and we should get our 2,500 dollar savings checks any day now. Anyone saying this is a failure is a racist because it's clearly working like a fucking charm....

But we need to extend unemployment because this stellar economy needs more government handouts? And not giving those handouts are somehow sabotaging the economy? Is that the same economy that is rolling into prosperity for everyone unless some don't get their welfare checks?

While there is no question there are many leaving the workforce, one of the contributing factors which cannot be ignored is baby boomers hitting the age of retirement.

In this graph I took of the labor force participation rate from the BLS, I highlighted the years from when the baby boomer generation first began hitting the age of 18 in 1964, when large numbers began working -- to when they began hitting the earliest age of retirement at age 62 in 2008.

The trend is noticeable.

View attachment 29009

Is our population aging? Do you have any hard facts to demonstrate this?

 

[Faun]

That's not true.

2000 - 33.3 Million
2008 - 39.8 Million
2012 - 48.7 Million

Bush added 5.9 Million in 8 years.
Obama added 8.9 million in 4 years

It is true.

Two things ...

1) The Census publishes two sets of data; ACS (unofficial rate) and CPS ASEC (official rate). You're posting ASC data (unofficial rate) whereas I am posting CPS ASEC (official rate). If you look on page 13 in the first link you provided, you will find:

NOTES

The Census Bureau also publishes poverty estimates based on the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC). Following the standard specified by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Statistical Policy Directive 14, data from the CPS ASEC are used to estimate the official national poverty rate, which can be found in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012, available at <www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf>. For information on poverty estimates from the ACS and how they differ from those based on the CPS ASEC, see “Differences Between the Income and Poverty Estimates From the American Community Survey and the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey” at <www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/datasources/index.html>.
​

So according to the "official poverty rate", my numbers stand.

2) I believe it's reasonable to attribute the numbers to Bush from the result of the Great Recession he passed on to Obama. I don't count from 12 noon on January 20th, 2009.

So when official government figures disagree with your (currently unsourced) figures you discard them.

Noted.

You are blaming Bush for the first part of Obama's term and budget (since Obama's budget started in March of 2009 not including the stimulus which was his too) but are also blaming Bush for the escalating poverty at the tail end of Clinton's term (and his enacted budget through October 2001).

Noted also.

I'm not discarding official government numbers ... I'm using them. Between the figures you posted and the ones I posted ... I'm the one posting the official poverty rate, you're not. And they are sourced. Hell, I even used the numbers from your second post which also referenced the official poverty rate.

As far as counting from Obama's continuing budget resolution ... how did that push people into poverty? It was the recession which caused so many folks to fall under the poverty level. It's unreasonable to pin that on Obama.

 

[Faun]

You are absolutely incorrect.

Bush made it bad but Obama made it worse.

America's Poverty Rate Stuck At 15 Percent For Second Straight Year

At least now you're posting the "official poverty rate." But I'm guessing you didn't actually look at what you posted since it proves me right. Here's the image from the article you posted...

You will note the poverty rate went from 11.3% when Bush became president to about 14% when the recession ended -- to 15% in the last survey.

I read it, and I'm aware of the different measures used by the government.

You don't seem to understand that while Bush made things bad, Obama made things worse. For some reason you think that's a good thing.

I never said Obama increasing the poverty rate from 14% to 15% was good. That's your hallucination. What I said was that more people are under the poverty level thanks to Bush (and Republicans) than because of Obama.

 

[Faun]

So let me see if I can get this straight. The economy is booming under obies leadership and everything is just fine. The unemployment rate is dropping since so many are leaving the work force. Obiecare is a smashing success and we should get our 2,500 dollar savings checks any day now. Anyone saying this is a failure is a racist because it's clearly working like a fucking charm....

But we need to extend unemployment because this stellar economy needs more government handouts? And not giving those handouts are somehow sabotaging the economy? Is that the same economy that is rolling into prosperity for everyone unless some don't get their welfare checks?

While there is no question there are many leaving the workforce, one of the contributing factors which cannot be ignored is baby boomers hitting the age of retirement.

In this graph I took of the labor force participation rate from the BLS, I highlighted the years from when the baby boomer generation first began hitting the age of 18 in 1964, when large numbers began working -- to when they began hitting the earliest age of retirement at age 62 in 2008.

The trend is noticeable.

View attachment 29009

Is our population aging? Do you have any hard facts to demonstrate this?

How's this...

Aging Statistics

The older population--persons 65 years or older--numbered 39.6 million in 2009 (the latest year for which data is available). They represented 12.9% of the U.S. population, about one in every eight Americans. By 2030, there will be about 72.1 million older persons, more than twice their number in 2000. People 65+ represented 12.4% of the population in the year 2000 but are expected to grow to be 19% of the population by 2030. The information in this section of the AoA website brings together a wide variety of statistical information about this growing population.​

 

[Political Junky]

While there is no question there are many leaving the workforce, one of the contributing factors which cannot be ignored is baby boomers hitting the age of retirement.

In this graph I took of the labor force participation rate from the BLS, I highlighted the years from when the baby boomer generation first began hitting the age of 18 in 1964, when large numbers began working -- to when they began hitting the earliest age of retirement at age 62 in 2008.

The trend is noticeable.

View attachment 29009

Is our population aging? Do you have any hard facts to demonstrate this?

How's this...

Aging Statistics

The older population--persons 65 years or older--numbered 39.6 million in 2009 (the latest year for which data is available). They represented 12.9% of the U.S. population, about one in every eight Americans. By 2030, there will be about 72.1 million older persons, more than twice their number in 2000. People 65+ represented 12.4% of the population in the year 2000 but are expected to grow to be 19% of the population by 2030. The information in this section of the AoA website brings together a wide variety of statistical information about this growing population.​

That's promising for Fox's viewership.

 

[GreenBean]

So the insanely rich are trying to brainwash us to support the poor. I would like you to go to your happy place and think about that for a long, long time. You going to start crying when you realize just how duped you've been. It's OK. We're here for you.

Random - He's right to a certain extent. Peak out of your Liberal blogosphere, remove the aluminum foil from inside your hat for a moment and at least try to see the World beyond 1984.

The Cloward Piven Strategy


The Cloward Piven strategy was outlined by political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. It called for deliberately forcing the U.S. public welfare system into over-drive in order to precipitate a economic collapse that would finalize in replacing the welfare system with a socialist system .

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within - Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system

So Ayn Rand battles Fox Piven. And I thought I had seen it all.

No - actually you ain't seen nothin' yet !

 

[The Rabbi]

I'll explain it to you, but you're too fucking rightarded to understand it ... Obama's policies have contributed about 8% but Bush & Republicans' policies contributed about 25%. So while it's higher now is no indication that Bush (and Republicans) caused about 3 times the number of people to be in poverty.

You are absolutely incorrect.

Bush made it bad but Obama made it worse.

America's Poverty Rate Stuck At 15 Percent For Second Straight Year

At least now you're posting the "official poverty rate." But I'm guessing you didn't actually look at what you posted since it proves me right. Here's the image from the article you posted...

You will note the poverty rate went from 11.3% when Bush became president to about 14% when the recession ended -- to 15% in the last survey.

I see that since Bush left office the rate has increased, even in a "recovery." I guess that's Bush's fault too.