Farking recessions, how do they work?

I wonder how many people rely on the USDOT.

Well who could depend on Bush, really

Republican strategy:
1) Cause massive recession with irresponsible fiscal policies
2) Lose election because of it
3) Try to block Democrats from cleaning up the mess you made
4) Blame the Democrats for not cleaning up the mess fast enough.

That's sure to translate into big victories in November, subby, go with that.

Done in one.

Backwards Cornfield Races: Yeah, I've been considering trying to get "laid off" from my job so I can collect unemployment and essentially get paid to play xbox and chill at the beach. Its quite tempting

Boy would YOU be in for nasty surprise, like most people who've never done it.

You get about 1/4 of you current income or less. I went from a 90k a year job to slightly less than $400/week. Could you even pay your rent with that? I couldn't

I call bullshiat on their selection of data. Dependence on the federal government comes in many, many packages. How about the GI Bill following WWII? The home mortgage interest deduction? Student loans? The Veterans Administration? Farm subsidies? Tax incentives for businesses?

The Heritage Foundation seems to have focused on the Great Society programs in the 60s and beyond; neglected how income taxes have been evolving over the decades, and forgotten why the safety net has jumped under President Obama. The Republicans cut taxes during two wars, trashed the economy, and have skewed progressive taxation to favor the rich at the cost of the middle class. And they even managed to bring Carter into the article to link him to Obama. Geez, what propaganda.

/Fark them.

Remember folks, this had nothing to do with the great recession kicked off towards the end of Bush's rein, and we are only just now starting to recover from.

USA! USA! USA!

This includes social security. Way to fudge the numbers.

Are they counting the VA?

So, how many people are on SS? How many get disability payments from SS? How many are on Medicaid? How many are on unemployment insurance? Food stamps? Student aid? Did you include government employees? The military?

Numbers mean nothing without context.

Oh, it's Heritage Foundation. I'm sure the numbers are lies anyway.

Investment income is effectively subsidized against the prevailing tax rate. By that criteria, 100% of the rich are on the Government's teet.

Backwards Cornfield Races: We could save a lot by cutting Medicare.

It would also have the unintended consequences of:

1) cutting down on social security expenditures
2) cutting down on traffic congestion and accidents (old people suck at driving)

I don't understand. Because old people would simply die sooner?

I hear that 99.999% of Americans rely on a federal program...




Damn Nobama!!!

Let's see...

Disabled veteran and spouse of retired, disabled veteran, suckling on the government teat for income, income, income and medical insurance.

Yup. Dependent.

/since way before Obama
//former defense contractor, too

Plasma refrigerator phones.

Guilty as charged. Uncle Sam is my employer.

edmo: Guilty as charged. Uncle Sam is my employer.

I'm technically partially employed by Uncle Sam. I go to/work for a state university.

Hobodeluxe: ultraholland: Dinki: Farking recessions, how do they work?

that on top of an aging population

Social Security is an easy fix. means testing and raise the cap on withholding. why should people who make more than 106k not pay anymore on the amount above that?

That's bullshiat right there. You put into social security, you get get back.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts.Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago. What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.

Source

TV's Vinnie: Winning: The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program

So naturally, the GOP candidates (especially RON PAUL) demand to end all federal programs.

Well, except the ones that give money to corporations and billionaires, of course.

You can't fix holes in the safety net with thread, buddy. You need to just burn the net and replace it with tissue paper.

Magorn: Backwards Cornfield Races: Yeah, I've been considering trying to get "laid off" from my job so I can collect unemployment and essentially get paid to play xbox and chill at the beach. Its quite tempting

Boy would YOU be in for nasty surprise, like most people who've never done it.

You get about 1/4 of you current income or less. I went from a 90k a year job to slightly less than $400/week. Could you even pay your rent with that? I couldn't

That's more than I'm currently making.

I assume by "Winning", Subby is referring to the economic terrorism necessary for the GOP to "win" with respect to their professed, #1 priority of making Obama a 1-term President.

Because their goal certainly isn't to fix the economy. The GOP has voted on everything they can think of, up to and including meaningless resolutions to sneer in the face of basic mathematics, as long as it in no way contributes to improving the economy and promoting jobs.

derivatives. inflection points. integrals. leading and lagging indicators. If you want to start talking about macro-econ please learn some basic concepts before you spew crap about "more now than last year" or whatever. It's meaningless at best, and disingenuous at worst when people spout off about some stat without proper context.