Skip to comments.
DEPRESSION-
ERA FOOD LINES
MRC ^
| Friday, January 10, 2003 11:45:52 AM
| BrentBaker
Posted on 01/10/2003 10:58:50 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
To: Willie Green
The next question should have been - Did you vote for Clinton - either time ...??
If she did, then she is reaping the rewards!!
21
posted on
01/10/2003 11:20:23 AM PST
by
CyberAnt
To: GoodOleBoy321
George Bush's economic certainly leaves something to be desired. Just look at the data
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/fedstl/unemploy+1993+2003+0+0+0+290+545++0 Unemployment is skyrocketing and Bush's only solution is a windfall for the rich. How many unemployed people do you know who recieve substantial dividends or capital gains?
You need to learn some economics. Government produces NOTHING, it can only take from those who produce. If government takes less, there is more production, and therefore more for everyone. By the way what did "The Rich" ever do to you, except maybe give you job. To be rewarded by your petty envy?
To: Petronski
POOR people are POOR because they have POOR habits. (Generally speaking.)
23
posted on
01/10/2003 11:25:13 AM PST
by
goodnesswins
(Life IS Grand.)
Comment #24 Removed by Moderator
To: fight_truth_decay
I lived in Argentina for a year and saw people who were REALLY poor. They had cardboard houses next to the freeway and naked children because they had NO clothes, and no food, running water or sewage treatment or ANYTHING.
I do some work with a food bank now, and you would be amazed at how much most of these people have. Many of them just do the circuit, getting the free goodies from several charities, and sit on their butts and relax. Never have their cable TV (color tv of course) turned off.
The difference between now and depression era is that back then it was shameful to take charity. Now it is quite acceptable, so there are a lot more doing it "just because it's there".
25
posted on
01/10/2003 11:30:02 AM PST
by
Grammy
To: CyberSpartacus
GoodOleBoy321 signed up 2002-12-19.It seems that GoodOleBoy is rather new here. Might need some edumacation.
To: CyberAnt
Pure fear mongering, that's all. The societal engineers want as many dependent on the central authority as possible, for obvious reasons. The 'lieberal' bilge spittle is directed toward making the focus the economy, over all other issues. It's all about trying to get back in power now that Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. Democrats and their stooges would love to see bread riots, whether warranted or not, just to manipulate the psyche of the voting public. [WG is so full of bitterness over the Bush administration being in power that he would destroy this nation to get at the change he and his bitter ilk seeks.]
27
posted on
01/10/2003 11:35:37 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
(It ain't the economy, stupid, it's our survival as a nation not under Islamic controls.)
To: GoodOleBoy321
"Unemployment is skyrocketing and Bush's only solution is a windfall for the rich."
Welcome to Free Republic.
I've read the Bush tax plan, and I am going to benefit by it. After all, I have kids, and he increases the child credit. My parents and in-laws, both retired, will benefit from the proposals, because their retirement plans benefit from the elimination of double-taxation of dividends.
As will every couple where both the husband and wife work, due to the elimination of the marriage penalty.
While I am earning more than $50K, I -- and my in-laws and parents -- are all earning well under $100K/year. So is that fireman husband, teacher wife couple pulling in $75K/year. Now, I never though of myself, my parents, in-laws, or that working couple as rich, but, I guess we *must* be. After all we are all benefitting from Bush's "windfall for the rich." So by your definition, I guess, by golly, I am rich.
But if you cut taxes, then only the "rich" are going to benefit, because only the "rich" pay taxes. (This is a tautology, btw, because according to the Democrats, you have to be rich to benefit from tax cuts.)
If you make $30K or less, the EIC pays back more than what you pay in payroll taxes, so only households making $50K or more a year "pay" taxes. So if you *are* going to give a tax cut, by that logic, only those paying taxes -- the rich -- can get a cut.
Even if the "rich" were truly rich, why does that matter? If your fear is unemployment, you want to create jobs. And as Phil Gramm use to say, "I never got a job from a poor man."
Unless your definition of quality jobs is leaning on a shovel, employed in a redistribute-the-money public works position.
To: GoodOleBoy321
George Bush's economic certainly leaves something to be desired.Yes, in comparison to the vast wealth and full employment enjoyed in post-Soviet Russia, or in still-socialist Cuba, where everyone's malnourished and the biggest whine is that the evil, capitalist/imperialist USA won't trade with it.
The seeds of every peak and trough in a business cycle are planted in the policies made two years earlier. That means we're still in the Clinton Economy.
To: livius
AFAIK food stamps cannot be used to buy prepared food. But they CAN be traded, at say, 50 cents on the dollar, for cash which can then be spent on booze, drugs, Mickey D's or whatever. Anyone on food stamps BTW is getting plenty for food if they buy it in supermarkets and prepare it at home. I have known people on food stamps (Nowadays actually a debit card I believe)who get considerably more than my food budget. I'm with you; poor management, not a shortage of resources, is the problem.
To: GoodOleBoy321
"If you are a middle-class person your stocks are in a 401(k), your dividends are already tax-sheltered. The big breaks go only to the rich. Most of the distribution tables you will see are wrong.
The lost tax revenue has to be made up from somewhere. If it is made up by a tax proportional to incomes (as seems reasonable), you are a probable loser unless your income is more than $135,000..."
Of course, the hooey in this statement is the bolded text. Mr. Delong assumes:
(a) that earnings are static -- that the economy is a zero-sum game. This is nonsense from the get-go. Government revenues (taxes collected) skyrocketed after both the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts. (Why? Because the money retained by the public -- aka "the rich" -- was reinvested into the economy, more jobs were created, more income was generated, and more taxes were collected.)
(b) He considers it reasonable to "make up" decrease in tax revenues only through increased taxes. Cutting spending -- or even reducing the rate of increase in spending is taken off the table.
Get real.
To: livius
Unless we are talking illness or medical disabilities and perhaps abusive situations, etc, people made bad life decisions and that is why they wound up dependent on government handouts.Until responsibility for one's own actions and morality is instilled into the youth of our Country..nothing will change.
Dannetta Graves, director of Montgomery County's Job and Family Services, said her agency has chosen not to support Bush's marriage plan because, as she told Congress, "Not all of (the children in a family) have the same father, so which family are we trying to form?
Ms. Graves ,We're spending about 2 billion a year in various state and federal funds to substitute for the breakdown of the family. There is a governmental interest in stable marriages not only from the cost point of view alone, but also from the "morality..a lesson to the child"point of view for the welfare of those kids in the decisions they make down the road regarding how they will choose to live thier own adult lives.
To: GoodOleBoy321
"If you are a middle-class person your stocks are in a 401(k), your dividends are already tax-sheltered. Until you retire and make withdrawals, at which point you will pay the relevant taxes. Postponing taxes is not the same as cutting them. I'm for cutting them, across the board, right now.
33
posted on
01/10/2003 12:01:14 PM PST
by
Argus
To: GoodOleBoy321
Nice. Delong sets up the straw-man, then cuts it to shreds...And you offer that as ..proof.
Tax-sheltered is not tax free. 401k is tax deferred.
Who says lost tax revenues have to be "made up" somewhere ?
How about reduction of spending by the feds ?
To: GoodOleBoy321
..those that have retired to the elderly? Why should they be punished for working all their lives and saving and investing. Why punish the younger worker who has chosen to invest for the future. This "windfall for the rich" rhetoric has been carefully orchestrated by the Democratic Liberals to instill hatred and bias toward those who have worked hard and managed wisely.
To: Grammy
The Lost Boys walking 1000 miles across Africa after their parents were butchered by Islamic Fundamentalists, eating mud. Then before 9/11 coming to this country and being asked how many hours they wanted to work a day..the answer: 16 "so I can save to go to school". They knew education was the key to success.
After 9/11 they proudly raised between themselves (4-5) $400 to give to the victim's families of 9/11. That was unbelieveable to them to be able to help financially on such a grand scale in their eyes.
To: fight_truth_decay
The program mention above was a totally slanted propaganda piece.
Put up a sign or announce in the newspaper ... FREE COMMODITIES ... FREE FOOD, anywhere, unless there is a system in place to determinine if there is a need, there will be many many people come and stand in line.
Free toys at Christmas where one receives a free toy per child has many that come because it is free, not because there is need. Often, they are completely careless with the toy received casting it aside, before they reach the car.
Commodities have been given for years to many, that do not eat them. The commodities are taken and then sold real cheap and the money is used for beer, cigarettes, drugs, cell phone or pager, etc.. This is done with food stamps as well.
Locally there is a chain that offers Christmas dinner to any one needy over 55. How it actually worked is, over 55's that were eligible because of age made reservations for themselves; and partook of a meal when they needed no assistence of any kind. After all they didn't want to cook and it's a free meal. "Let's go" is the attitude exhibited.
It is sad but true that people will take something they do not want ... if it is free.
The fact that of the money sent to Washington as necessary tax increases, only 25% of the money comes back in the programs. Waste, adminstration, new organizations for monitoring etc. eat it up quickly and the benefit is insufficient. Haven't we learned that the government is grossly inefficient? The Armed Services are what they can manage best? Intra-structure (highway system) which they allocate to the states is another area that functions better at the national level. There are others too. Not welfare.
The government is operationg in the same way as California, and look at the mess with which they are coping. Sorry /rant off.
To: goodnesswins
POOR people are POOR because they have POOR habits. (Generally speakingPOOR people are POOR because they have POOR parents. (specificaly speaking) -Tom
To: Capt. Tom
My former sister in law was on welfare most of the time I was married to her brother (17+ years) (and may well still be), and everyone in her family was grossly obese. Her children would watch me in the kitchen, seemingly sure that I was a wizard because I would make mashed potatoes from potatoes, rather than a box. And the sight of muffins coming from the oven rather than a package was enough to leave them speechless.
This is the same woman who worked under the table and received money regularly received money from her husband; she was first in line for any food or toy giveaway.
39
posted on
01/10/2003 12:39:16 PM PST
by
LuLuLuLu
To: GoodOleBoy321
ALEXANDRIA, Va. --- The Media Research Center took network news anchors and correspondents to task today for their one-sided and biased coverage of President Bush's tax cut proposals. The MRC reviewed network news stories of Bush's new economic stimulus plan and found the same bias it did when it studied economic coverage this past summer.
"The networks are carrying the liberal line of attack against President Bush's tax cut by saying only the rich will benefit. What the networks don't tell viewers is that 96 percent of the taxes in this country are paid by people who make $27,682 or more," said Rich Noyes, MRCs Research Director. "The media are distorting reality by classifying families earning $28,000 and above as the rich and they are distorting reality by claiming these tax cuts are skewed in favor of these rich," he said.
The MRC's most recent analysis, Shocked By Tax Cuts for Taxpayers, showed that network reporters presented tax cuts as if they were just another government spending program. Balanced coverage would have equally stressed the fact that lower tax rates will promote more working, saving and investing the kind of positive economic activity that will build a more prosperous nation.
"Reporters seem far more interested in advancing the liberal line of class warfare than actually telling the public the truth. Some of the additional facts they ignore include: the poor have already had their income taxes cut to zero, and that the Democrats' alternative plan only cuts taxes for one year just to raise them again the next a classic bait and switch. So much for Al Gore's criticism of a 'conservative' bias in the media," Noyes said.
Noyes noted the networks liberal tilt hasnt changed since this past summer when the MRC analyzed economic coverage on ABC, CBS, CNN, FNC and NBC and published a special report on the anti-free market bias found throughout the stories. That report, A Summer of Skewed News, is available at
http://www.mrc.org/projects/atm/welcome.asp, as part of the MRC's ongoing "Operation: ATM" (Audit the Media).
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson