Record 31.8 million on food stamps

zimmer · Mar 7, 2009

UtahBill said:
If the greedy conservatives on wall street would stop shipping jobs out of the country, this might not be happening....:2razz:

Ever read Adam Smith?
Anything from Milton Friedman?
von Mises or Hayek?

Let me ask you, if your locality decides to quadruple your taxes... and you could buy a house just down the street... bigger, cheaper, better and with 10% the taxes... would you move?

Of course you would, and it's proven DemocRATS move like the plague... escaping the tax penalizing districts and bringing their disease with them.

Moving down the street... That is what companies are doing and rightly so.

You cannot force what you think is social justice on companies.

Companies are in business, and the best thing you can do is be massively profitable.
When the "Margin of Safety" is too low and "Level of Hassle" too high... you've just f***** the workers.

The best thing is for businesses to leave and for the community to learn a lesson and provide a lesson to other localities.

I love the fact Halliburton relocated its HQ to Dubai.
Democrats just crapped all over them... and then are shocked when they pack up and move.

Maximus Zeebra · Mar 7, 2009

zimmer said:
Ever read Adam Smith?
Anything from Milton Friedman?
von Mises or ]Hayek?

I read Selma Hayek's breasts. Nice reading :mrgreen:

donsutherland1 · Mar 7, 2009

IMO, later data will be important in determining whether the ongoing increase in public assistance is largely related to the severe economic downturn that is taking place or the beginning of a shift in attitudes toward a greater propensity to seek government assistance. My guess is that it is the former situation--the economic contraction--is driving the numbers higher.

Several things to be considered are:

1. The U.S. is now highly likely to experience its worst post-World War II recession (magnitude and duration). The unemployment rate could climb to 9%-12% and underemployment for dislocated workers i.e., from the shrinking manufacturing sector and relatively inexperienced youth who will be entering the job market this year and next, will also be a major problem.

2. In the run-up of the housing bubble, the propensity to save in the U.S. virtually disappeared as funds flowed into real estate and home equity loans provided a ready source of cash. Real estate appreciation seemed to make saving unnecessary. Of course, that was an unsustainable situation. Hence, when the bubble burst and later the macroeconomic contraction commenced, the lack of saving amplified the hardship confronting those losing jobs, etc.

3. A fundamental realignment of U.S. industry remains plausible. The finance sector will likely emerge much smaller and account for a much smaller share of GDP than in the recent past. Synthetic finance, quantitative finance, among other subsectors will likely be much less important given the enormous flaws that were exposed and rediscovered understanding that human behavior, asymmetric information, externalities preclude a purely quantitative approach to risk management. That development will leave some highly talented, and specially-skilled persons with few opportunities outside of academe. The same holds true for other industries e.g., manufacturing-based ones. The chronic overcapacity of the U.S. auto industry is a thing of the past--at least for years or perhaps decades. What will happen to those who worked there and in supporting industries? Meanwhile there is some growth in health care-related industries. Even in February, that sector added another 32,000 jobs. Yet, one cannot seamlessly shift those from finance or manufacturing into health care. There is a mismatch of skillsets and experience.

4. Given the employment situation described above and the rising tide of unemployed persons, an approach will need to be found to expedite people's return to employment as soon as the economy stabilizes and then returns to a growth trajectory. That growth trajectory will likely be much less robust than during past recessions given the nature of a post-housing bubble recovery. The patchwork employment services options in the U.S. (website, recruiters, other placement options) does not deal very effectively with the kind of employment situation described above nor provide meaningful options for fresh college graduates. In fact, the employment services industry is also shrinking in the current recession. That also limits its capabilities. Those shortcomings suggest that the unemployment rate might not fall very fast following the recession. Indeed, the so-called "jobless recovery" following the 1990-91 recession might offer a harbinger of what to expect in the early years of an economic recovery, and the duration might be longer if a fundamental economic restructuring unfolds.

Having said that, well-positioned medium-sized firms could have a rare opportunity to use the current economic situation to successfully recruit high-caliber talent and freshly-minted Ivy League graduates whom they might ordinarily not have a chance to employ. That could also begin to shift the balance of growth to those companies relative to their older, larger, more troubled larger competitors.

All said, my early guess is that the rising statistics reflect the reality of a severe recession and lack of saving that occurred during the run-up of the housing bubble. The combination of a fundamental economic restructuring at a rate beyond which was already occurring and patchwork employment services options could lead to a stickiness in the number of people receiving public assistance even after a recovery begins. I believe policymakers would do well to add a component aimed at helping train/match people with positions to the existing public assistance as a mechanism to speed the process of reducing overall public assistance once the recovery begins.

rhinefire · Mar 7, 2009

UtahBill said:
If the greedy conservatives on wall street would stop shipping jobs out of the country, this might not be happening....:2razz:

Damn! I thought NY city stunk with liberals.

zimmer · Mar 7, 2009

Maximus Zeebra said:
I read Selma Hayek's breasts. Nice reading :mrgreen:

... architecture.

zimmer · Mar 7, 2009

donsutherland1 said:
All said, my early guess is that the rising statistics reflect the reality of a severe recession and lack of saving that occurred during the run-up of the housing bubble. The combination of a fundamental economic restructuring at a rate beyond which was already occurring and patchwork employment services options could lead to a stickiness in the number of people receiving public assistance even after a recovery begins. I believe policymakers would do well to add a component aimed at helping train/match people with positions to the existing public assistance as a mechanism to speed the process of reducing overall public assistance once the recovery begins.

What is the real solution?
Not more government job matching blarney... damn, we have the internet.
Telephone.
It's not 1929.

www.gotayob?.com...
Then to the phone...
Ring! Ring!
Hello... you gotta Yob?

No government necessary.
What is necessary?

Less government.
Less Obama Intrusion.
Less Marx.
Less LBJ.
Less FDR.

In 1916, when the income tax was introduced it was for the wealthiest 1%.

Now it's down to a fire fighter and a school teacher as wealthy.

Something is wrong, and Obama is adding fuel to the fire.

He is doing the opposite of what has been proven successful to move the economy.

It's not complicated.
Americans are the engine.
Get out of the ****ing way.

Maximus Zeebra · Mar 7, 2009

zimmer said:
It's not complicated.
Americans are the engine.
Get out of the ****ing way.

Americans yes were the engine of disaster, their greed, over borrowing, speculation and gambling lead to the current collapse, not the government regulation. Actually if the government had stricter regulation this whole thing could have been avoided.

The government need to create a long term engine for society to build around, a super engine that can never be broken, which ensure that the society around it also keeps prospering. We need to dispose of the whole capitalism model and mix capitalism with socialism and communism for it to work in the long term. None of these models can work by themselves, but together they could do miracles if put together the correct way. Agricultural subsidies for example is a typical communist idea that we have adopted in our western society, it would be disastrous to drop it. Free health care, welfare and unemployment for example are socialist ideas integrated into western society. We need more such programs and better programs and have them act as the engine we can all build a free market and capitalism model around.

As for regulations it must be stricter in some areas and dropped altogether on other areas.

zimmer · Mar 7, 2009

Maximus Zeebra said:
Americans yes were the engine of disaster, their greed, over borrowing, speculation and gambling lead to the current collapse, not the government regulation. Actually if the government had stricter regulation this whole thing could have been avoided.

The government need to create a long term engine for society to build around, a super engine that can never be broken, which ensure that the society around it also keeps prospering. We need to dispose of the whole capitalism model and mix capitalism with socialism and communism for it to work in the long term. None of these models can work by themselves, but together they could do miracles if put together the correct way.

No, it was socialism.
Freddie and Fannie.

Using bank loans as social programs.

And for the trillions they have wasted on social engineering that would have had far more positive effect left in the hands of the people.

This is where the Kanuckistani's cannot social engineer and therefore their banks remained in better shape.

They don't have a culture they feel guilty about, have an ACORN, and therefore did not get into copying the US's perverse idea of forcing loans on folks that could not pay them back.

THE DEMOCRATS IN G O V E R N M E N T
Thank them.

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 7, 2009

ludahai said:
I don't think we are totally on different pages here. I agree that there are people who are on the system long-term who can definately work (when economic times are better than this.) However, with an unemployment now over 8% with no end in sight, you can't deny that there is definately a need to help those who are TEMPORARILY unemployed NOW.

We are on the same page for the most part.

I'm one to think that we should encourage people to take care of themselves though.

SouthernDemocrat said:
Well we did have food riots in the Great Depression. So the history for doing without safety-nets for food is not exactly a good one even in a wealthy country like ours.

Our country is so different in some ways than we were in the WW2 era.

I can't understand why the people of the wealthiest country on earth can't save for unexpected circumstances.

I think that these social programs for the most part push people to spend and not save for rainy days.

We need to get away from social programs to cure the ills of lousy behavior.

donsutherland1 · Mar 7, 2009

zimmer said:
What is the real solution?
Not more government job matching blarney... damn, we have the internet.
Telephone.
It's not 1929.

www.gotayob?.com...
Then to the phone...
Ring! Ring!
Hello... you gotta Yob?

No government necessary.
What is necessary?

Less government.
Less Obama Intrusion.
Less Marx.
Less LBJ.
Less FDR.

I'm not sure that many of the unemployed from, let's say, the manufacturing sector are sufficiently familiar with the Internet's job search features, much less a sufficient share of positions available through such sites as Careerbuilder, TheLadders, etc. have relevance to their skill sets.

Furthermore, there is the issue of asymmetric information. What appears to be a "job ad" might, in fact, be a deceptive ad aimed at making a sales pitch for some product or service. One article on that matter was published in the February 17, 2009 issue of The Wall Street Journal: Fake Job Postings Dot Popular Job Boards - WSJ.com. Whether the existing patchwork framework, and one that is shrinking fairly rapidly at this time, provides a sufficient response to addressing the job-related consequences of the recession and later its aftermath will almost certainly become a subject for study by economists. However, policymakers who are elected to serve their constituents, do not have the liberty of leaving the matter solely to economic study. They are elected, in part, to be problem-solvers and to address issues that fall outside the parameters of economics e.g., the broader issue of public wellbeing.

In any case, the current recession is not an ordinary manifestation of the business cycle. It is the result of fundamental flaws that developed over time in the economy (housing sector, overreliance on credit, unsustainable trade imbalance, etc.). A fundamental restructuring of the economy is a real possibility and some exceptional steps may be required to limit the risk that an enlarged permanent class of public assistance recipients would become an outcome.

In my view, an investment in speeding up the process of assuring that today's unemployed do not become tomorrow's chronically unemployed (and long-term government assistance) makes far more sense than providing only public assistance and taking the real chance that the extraordinary economic unraveling underway and restructuring to come might create a new and fairly substantial permanent class of public assistance recipients.

In the former case, government intervention would be targeted and temporary, aimed largely at providing a good that is in insufficient supply for structural reasons and helping accelerate people's moving off public assistance. If the latter approach is pursued and a permanently enlarged class of public aid recipients is the outcome, one will likely witness a permanently enlarged role of the public sector. That would entail higher taxes, higher spending, a greater risk of crowding out the private sector, and greater economic deadweight.

donsutherland1 · Mar 7, 2009

zimmer said:
No, it was socialism.
Freddie and Fannie.

Using bank loans as social programs.

And for the trillions they have wasted on social engineering that would have had far more positive effect left in the hands of the people.

This is where the Kanuckistani's cannot social engineer and therefore their banks remained in better shape.

They don't have a culture they feel guilty about, have an ACORN, and therefore did not get into copying the US's perverse idea of forcing loans on folks that could not pay them back.

No disagreement concerning the disproportionate role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, one also cannot escape the reality that the U.S. provides special tax preferences for real estate that do not apply to other capital assets:

1. A maximum exclusion on the gain from a sale of a home of $250,000 ($500,000 for married couples).
2. Tax-deductibility of mortgage interest (unlike interest on other forms of consumer debt).

These tax preferences make real estate more attractive than other capital assets. They also provide an incentive for taking on greater leverage in making real estate purchases. Excessive leverage is a key reason the fall in home prices has substantially undermined the nation's banking system.

Canada, by the way, does not permit the tax-deductibility of mortgage interest and allows a deduction of two-thirds of the gain on a sale of a home ensuring that every home sold at a gain results in a tax on that gain. Yet, more than two-thirds of Canadians own their own homes (a rate that will, ironically, wind up higher than the U.S. rate by the time the current recession ends).

Of course, I highly doubt that the role the popular tax preferences allowed for real estate would gain the scrutiny they deserve except in economics journals and among academics. Yet, it is plausible that those preferences played a significant role in helping feed the real estate bubble once the mania was underway.

Finally, I highly doubt that were the Fed to make home price stability a component of its monetary policy goals that such an approach would be embraced. Nevertheless, emerging findings by economists suggest that the risks associated with real estate bubbles merit possible monetary policy consideration. Indeed, in its February 6, 2009 report on the initial lessons of the ongoing economic crisis, the IMF recommended, "Central banks should adopt a broader macro-prudential view, taking into account in their decisions asset price movements, credit booms, leverage, and the build up of systemic risk." It added, "The timing and nature of preemptive polic responses to large imbalances...needs to be reexamined." In other words, the Fed's existing "hands off" approach when it comes to preemptively curbing real estate price appreciation is something that the IMF believes needs to be reexamined.

The bottom line is that the housing bubble and its after effects were the consequence of a large number of factors. Federal policy that aimed at expanding home ownership to lower-income persons via expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are just one aspect of the matter. Longstanding and highly popular tax preferences are another. The lack of a monetary policy tool/response to rising home prices is another. The role innovation (particularly securitization and the rise of synthetic finance) played is another. One cannot reduce the risk and mitigate the consequences of future housing bubbles without taking a comprehensive look at all of the factors that contributed.

Now, to be sure, I am not necessarily arguing for repeal of the real estate-based tax preferences, and even if repeal were the approach, a grandfathering for existing homeowners or incremental phaseout for a transition would be necessary. I am suggesting that a pragmatic and comprehensive examination is in order and one cannot create "sacred cows" that are exempt from scrutiny. The problem was far more than the result of "social engineering."

Indeed, during the 1980s Japan saw the rise of a massive housing bubble that had nothing to do with policies remotely similar to the CRA or institutions modeled after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The international experience contains a large number of cases of destructive housing bubbles. There is far more to the story than "social engineering." Furthermore, when such bubbles collapsed the economic contractions were, on average, far more severe and longer-lasting than recessions associated strictly with the business cycle.

zimmer · Mar 7, 2009

donsutherland1 said:
donsutherland1 said:

No disagreement concerning the disproportionate role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, one also cannot escape the reality that the U.S. provides special tax preferences for real estate that do not apply to other capital assets:

Click to expand...

Yes

These tax preferences make real estate more attractive than other capital assets. They also provide an incentive for taking on greater leverage in making real estate purchases. Excessive leverage is a key reason the fall in home prices has substantially undermined the nation's banking system.

Click to expand...

Perhaps but the individual signing the contact is the one who ultimately knows if he can or cannot make the sacrifices to meet his contractual obligations.

If he has any doubt, then he should find out.

Amount of leverage is a personal decision. Who knows if the guy lives like a hermit the remainder of the time, allowing him to live up to the agreement, or if he lived too high. That is each person's decision to make.

It's also a responsibility of the bank to find out how people will manage to pay. If the guy really is a hermit or not.

Government forcing banks to loan to deadbeats is just a recipe for what we have.

These people were merely renters... you own after it's paid off... so the government should have these people go back to what they were really doing instead of burdening the rest of us.

And let people like me scoop up a bunch of units and rent them out. Even sell them to the occupants. But if they miss a payment...

...Go ask Mommy Dearest Obama to sort out your life.
Not.

Coolguy · Mar 7, 2009

Infinite Chaos said:
If only two people believed in his policies: how did he get elected?

Like you don't know.

He got elected as a direct result of the following:
Lack of knowledge of the voter base. (in general)
A biased media. (bashing republicans, Bush and his admin, and then pushing Obama.)
His lies/message. (that the uninformed bought into.)
A opposition candidate that appeared less viable. (because of the reasons listed above.)

The man had no experience, wasn't vetted thoroughly and was excused for involvements and associations when he shouldn't have been.

:::::::::::::::::::::::

UtahBill said:
It is tragic that so many conservatives here still don't realize why they lost the election.

It is also tragic that many of the liberals here do not understand why they won.
And for some, they are starting to realize they made a bad choice.

UtahBill said:
They have had their ass whooped in the election...

Whooped?
How in the world to you get whooped?
I certainly don't see a 4% margin as a 'whooping'.

UtahBill said:
... and still think that the current path of the GOP is valid.

Not saying I agree with it, but, there is, and has been, validity to the GOP's current path.

UtahBill said:
Times change, and so has the voting public. They know that what we had wasn't working, and voted out the GOP.

That isn't it at all.

UtahBill said:
Local ads here in Utah show a single mom (dressed in a waitress outfit) having to put her little girl to bed without supper because there was no food in the house. That is hardly an accurate portrayal of the typical food bank recipeient, but it is meant to get people to donate food. If the people who get food from food banks were accurately portrayed, the donations would dry up.

Just another example of the length that those who portray this message will go to, to lie to the public, to have their agenda met.

UtahBill said:
People standing in line smoking cigarettes (expensive habit), hair and nails done up, driving nice cars, and looking for free food. And so many of them are FAT !!!
Up until recently, I would have said that most of them got in their positions by making bad choices, dropping out of school, making themselves unemployable, etc. If it was just them, I would let them go hungry, but they have children, and some use their children to gain sympathy.

Just an example of why these type of people should not be allowed to have children.
These children, are growing up the way there parents are teaching them.
They will be the next generation doing the same things. Demanding support from the Government and voting along the same lines of thinking.
Which is exactly where the Democrats get their voter base from, and a big part of the reason why Obama won.

The above two quotes are also an example of why a person should dig into the statistics presented to support said programs.

UtahBill said:
But now is a bit different...many are in bad shape due to losing their jobs and they are suffering for the sins of others.

Not really. Not yet.
People still made bad choices and it is their responsibility.

UtahBill · Mar 7, 2009

zimmer said:
Ever read Adam Smith?
Anything from Milton Friedman?
von Mises or Hayek?

.

ever read henry ford? why would a capitalist pay his employees more than the going wage? because they are CONSUMERS...if you keep kicking the american employee to the curb in favor of cheaper labor overseas, you might find that your product no longer sells well at home...
granted, a lot of americans are overpaid, abusing their union status or their corporate power to demand more than they are worth, .
Publicly owned companies owe a profit to their share holders, IF there is a profit made. employees from bottom to top are reaping the results of their stupidity. share holders are getting screwed as a result...
Where did Smith, Friedman, et al address mass stupidity and greed as a factor in capitalism? Where did they foresee that govt overseers would be complicit in killing capitalism? I haven't read them, I suppose you have. I bet they at no time anticipated the mass stupidity going on now.
Doesn't affect me much, tho, nearly all my assets are paid for, my asset to debt ratio is well over 10 to 1, and all debt will be paid off in a few years.
I know how to live within my means and prepare for the future. It appears that big banking, the corporate world, and government at all levels do not...

ludahai · Mar 7, 2009

disneydude said:
When you stubbornly and arrogantly hold to your failed right-wing ideals and hope that America tanks because of Obama's policies...you are praying for America to fail. Love how you Limbaugh fanatics love to spin your way out of it.
In all the years of GWB...I disliked the man and his policies but I never hoped that he or the Country would fail.

I am a Limbaugh fanatic? I haven't even heard him in YEARS!

I don't want America to fail, and neither does Rush.

If you actually HEARD what head said, rather than the snippet the left loves to trot out, you would know that he doesn't want America to fail. Of course, the left ignores facts to present their warped agenda.

ludahai · Mar 7, 2009

Maximus Zeebra said:
Its funny that these people said when Bush was in power "you should always follow and listen to your president and respect him, even if you disagree", yet now they are acting completely different when Obama is in power. The whole "commander in chief" card seems to be obsolete in their ideology and wish to bring down their own president.

I hope you aren't talking about ME. I have always shown nothing but respect for Barack Obama - as a senator, candidate, president, father, fellow human being, whatever. You can't find any post I have made in reference to President Obama that is otherwise.

However, if his goal is to bring America down the road of socialism, OF COURSE I want him to fail. That is NOT the road America needs to follow.

ludahai · Mar 7, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
I agree. The problem with relying on charity alone for a safety-net is that in times of economic hardship charitable giving falls way off. Food banks around the country are having a hard time right now.

Agreed. I am not against the government helping those who truly need it. It is part of our responsibility as a civilized culture to help those who are less fortunate. I think the objection by many (one shared by me) is those who live off the system due to their own choices rather than going out there to find a job.

Arch Enemy · Mar 7, 2009

So, what does one do when people are not able to feed themselves because their greedy corporate bosses could not spare company "Growth"?
Conservatives, if inclinations are correct your job may be at risk to. Put yourself in the situation of someone who is dependent on food stamps in order to live.

Honestly fellas, this is not 1996 anymore. People who are on FOOD STAMPS ARE NOT EXPLOITING THE SYSTEM, THEY ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO SURVIVE; there is a good reason why the unemployment rate and the rate of food stamps are so high.

FFS.

donsutherland1 · Mar 7, 2009

zimmer said:
Yes

Perhaps but the individual signing the contact is the one who ultimately knows if he can or cannot make the sacrifices to meet his contractual obligations.

If he has any doubt, then he should find out.

Amount of leverage is a personal decision. Who knows if the guy lives like a hermit the remainder of the time, allowing him to live up to the agreement, or if he lived too high. That is each person's decision to make.

The current economic crisis shows that leverage cannot run out of control. The situation where outstanding mortgage debt rose to more than 100% of GDP, well beyond its previous mark of 65.9% of GDP, shows that too much leverage is highly dangerous when it comes to the macroeconomy. Furthermore, past experience concerning sovereign debt defaults also highlights the dangers of excessive leverage.

It's also a responsibility of the bank to find out how people will manage to pay. If the guy really is a hermit or not.

Government forcing banks to loan to deadbeats is just a recipe for what we have.

I agree that the government should not compel banks to make loans to risky borrowers and believe that such policies as the expansion of CRA were policy blunders. However, as the housing bubble was inflating, private sector risk management was disintegrating. Financial institutions increasingly believed that securitization shifted risk away from the banks (a flawed judgment), a compensation model based on commissions for mortgage origination placed emphasis on revenue generation as opposed to profit generation, excessive concentration (often >67%) of bank loan portfolios in real estate amplified financial sector risk, and accounting rules that allowed various items to be kept off the balance sheet and lack of expensing of stock options even as such options have a dilutive impact for shareholders undercut the benefits of transparency.

Bad government policy and bad financial sector risk management were both present, among other factors, in the run-up of the bubble. Toward the peak of the bubble, there was literally a race to the bottom among financial institutions--a dramatic lowering of lending standards--in a bid to gain incremental market share.

Maximus Zeebra · Mar 7, 2009

ludahai said:
I hope you aren't talking about ME. I have always shown nothing but respect for Barack Obama - as a senator, candidate, president, father, fellow human being, whatever. You can't find any post I have made in reference to President Obama that is otherwise.

However, if his goal is to bring America down the road of socialism, OF COURSE I want him to fail. That is NOT the road America needs to follow.

I am not talking about you, mostly the people who want to see Obama fail, and some who even utter that they want to bring down his presidency(a large conservative group)..

ludahai · Mar 7, 2009

Maximus Zeebra said:
I am not talking about you, mostly the people who want to see Obama fail, and some who even utter that they want to bring down his presidency(a large conservative group)..

I don't want Obama to fail as president of the United States. To succeed, he will have to chart a middle path - one that sees the long term economic security of the US (and by extension the world) will necessitate both a combination of free market economics with some regulation that will protect consumers and workers. If he goes overboard on the socialism side, he WILL fail - not because I want him to, but because that is NOT the way the American economy will work best.

donsutherland1 · Mar 7, 2009

The article quoted at the beginning of this thread noted that Ohio had the largest increase in food stamp recipients. As anecdotal evidence of how harsh the job environment has grown in Ohio, the following are excerpts from a recent news story:

Evidence of the slumping economy is stacking up at an Ohio school which has nearly 700 applications for one open janitorial job.

Officials at Perry Local Schools near Canton in northeast Ohio say they've extended the deadline until Monday to accommodate the overwhelming response to the week-old posting...

Superintendent John Richard says many applicants are laid-off workers with heart-wrenching stories about the tough economic times.

Ohio school gets 700 applicants for janitorial job

Kali · Mar 8, 2009

This is such a sad time in our country because more and more folks are losing jobs, having to go to food banks and the gov. for assistance and we have small tent cities popping up all over this country. This is the greatest country in the World and none of this should be happening cause we can do better

Also this is a happy time for this country because we have the first Black POTUS and this is history in the making but it is too bad that he has had to walk into one of the worse mess that our country has ever face. I have faith in Obama and no doubt he will make changes that will get us all out of this mess. It will be a long road but it will be done. I give it a year before we start to see any major improvements. Til then we -as a whole-need to stay strong and know that this country and the peoples in it WILL RISE ABOVE!

zimmer · Mar 8, 2009

Kali said:
we have small tent cities popping up all over this country.

All over the country?

Tent... "cities".

We have had permanent, destructive ghettos for decades... call them permanent tent cities created by well meaning but misguided social engineers.

It doesn't bother you leftist folks. In fact, you call this an important constituent group that should be pandered to. Ask Cosby.

Jesse Jackson threatens to cut the nuts out of Presidential candidates for suggesting personal responsibility for the babies the men bring into the world and the women giving birth to them.

What is sad is the government didn't help solve the problem, they helped create one.

In Ohio they have punished industries and unions overplayed their hand.

Nationally the socialist gave us the catalyst for the current meltdown (Fannie and Freddie). Social engineering fails again... and how!

Til then we -as a whole-need to stay strong and know that this country and the peoples in it WILL RISE ABOVE!

Problem is President Teleprompter and his clan are making us weaker, businesses fearful, punishing wealth creation and over-burdening us with taxes.

We will rise above, but not because of Obama... he has Changed.

United behind Marx, he is now telling us "No You Cannot".

Only government can fix this... "Cowards".

Also this is a happy time for this country because we have the first Black POTUS

I would happily trade this President, black... green or orange for one that is qualified.

Every time.

Color or gender do not matter... at all.

Policies and character matter. And what is Obama?

An Alinsky trained community agitator who does not believe in the American people or the documents that guide America.

His actions in the last six weeks have proven as much.

UtahBill · Mar 8, 2009

zimmer said:
All over the country?

Tent... "cities".

We have had permanent, destructive ghettos for decades... call them permanent tent cities created by well meaning but misguided social engineers.

It doesn't bother you leftist folks. In fact, you call this an important constituent group that should be pandered to. Ask Cosby.

Jesse Jackson threatens to cut the nuts out of Presidential candidates for suggesting personal responsibility for the babies the men bring into the world and the women giving birth to them.

What is sad is the government didn't help solve the problem, they helped create one.

In Ohio they have punished industries and unions overplayed their hand.

Nationally the socialist gave us the catalyst for the current meltdown (Fannie and Freddie). Social engineering fails again... and how!

Problem is President Teleprompter and his clan are making us weaker, businesses fearful, punishing wealth creation and over-burdening us with taxes.

We will rise above, but not because of Obama... he has Changed.

United behind Marx, he is now telling us "No You Cannot".

Only government can fix this... "Cowards".

I would happily trade this President, black... green or orange for one that is qualified.

Every time.

Color or gender do not matter... at all.

Policies and character matter. And what is Obama?

An Alinsky trained community agitator who does not believe in the American people or the documents that guide America.

His actions in the last six weeks have proven as much.

yeah, contrast the first 6 weeks of Obama with the first 6 weeks of GWB....
we all thought George would do a good job, but long run, he faileld miserably on the economic front.

Record 31.8 million on food stamps

Educating the Ignorant

MoG

Educating the Ignorant

Educating the Ignorant

MoG

Educating the Ignorant

Educating the Ignorant

Defender of the Faith

Defender of the Faith

Defender of the Faith

Familiaist

MoG

Defender of the Faith

Stigmatized! End R Word!

Educating the Ignorant