|
David Axlerod on Romney vs. Obama:
Originally Posted by campaign advisor to President Barack Obama
The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle-class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead and an economy that continues down the road we’re on.
|
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 864389)
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-xl/?mobile=nc
I'm just going to throw this one out here, Brainy, and let the wolves here devour it. I do not know why they dont like him as I dont follow the industry. After Obama took office there were quite a few layoffs here locally in the O&G industry, dont know if this happened everywhere, but I know of some companies who ceased business altogether for about a year. Im curious to see if the article is counting lost jobs that were just created (filled) again later. I mean if you lost 80K, but created 70K, thats not really a triumph, but I cant be bothered to actually read the article. |
...about 96 percent of the increase [in oil production] since 2007 took place on non-federal lands.
|
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 864671)
You want someone with a good budget record? Get Paul. Romney shouldn't even be 10 feet near anything about a budgetary history, Paul is the only candidate, including Obama, that actually has a clue about fiscal responsibility.
The flip side is that, because someone was successful under one set of rules (state budgeting during a specific time frame in the past) does not guarantee they will be successful under a different set of rules (federal budgeting in the future). B) Besides his Congressional budget (in which I believe he has always run a surplus and sent back a small check to the Treasury), what budget record does Ron Paul have?
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 864671)
No, I'm saying that the WaPo is a right-leaning source, and even advertises it as such. Even the WaPo themselves admit they went to the right specifically for market reasons.
Originally Posted by Opti
(Post 865056)
I do not know why they dont like him as I dont follow the industry.
After Obama took office there were quite a few layoffs here locally in the O&G industry, dont know if this happened everywhere, but I know of some companies who ceased business altogether for about a year. Im curious to see if the article is counting lost jobs that were just created (filled) again later. I mean if you lost 80K, but created 70K, thats not really a triumph, but I cant be bothered to actually read the article. Unfortunately, you cannot prove the counterfactual that more net jobs might have been kept/created under a different president with the same conditions. Opening up ANWR and other federal land areas, not having placed the off-shore moratoriums, not delaying the Keystone XL project, etc may have led to more jobs in more geographies over the same time but there's no way to prove that. |
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 865065)
The flip side is that, because someone was successful under one set of rules (state budgeting during a specific time frame in the past) does not guarantee they will be successful under a different set of rules (federal budgeting in the future). |
I really wish we had full access to props history. I'm astounded that someone would bother to neg each of these three posts I made. Is someone under the impression that I support these kinds of government benefits? Or are they so frustrated by the abuse that they lashed out at my explanation?
Seriously, go punch a wall instead.
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 863212)
Why does it matter at all? It doesn't matter if you limit purchases to food and non-alcoholic beverages (like SNAP funds) or not at all (like cash benefits). The recipient uses the benefits for food or whatever, and then uses his own money (previously budgeted for food) on whatever his heart desires.
There are plenty of reasons to questions the utility of government benefits, but unrestricted purchases isn't one of them. You're increasing the recipients overall budget, and he or she will find ways to adjust their spending in the categories they want, regardless of whatever "restrictions" you put on their purchases with those benefits.
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 863225)
It's fine to feel that way, but you're not going to stop them from using it how they please.
Does it really make you feel better if they have to a $100 EBT card on food, and then spend their new personal surplus of $100 on beer?
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 863236)
You're not addressing the real issue -- purchase restrictions (no matter whether it applies to the consumer or vendor) do nothing but force a simple budgetary shift. Spend this money here, spend that money there.
If you don't like the idea of "your money" being spent how the recipient desires, then you should be against government benefits entirely, because purchase restrictions do nothing to address the issue. |
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 865103)
I really wish we had full access to props history. I'm astounded that someone would bother to neg each of these three posts I made.
What I think Mark is trying to say is that limitations on what people can buy with their welfare really doesn't make a difference. With their budget, they just shuffle the money from one "income bucket" to another. For example, say someone on welfare wants to buy beer but it is not an eligible expense. Before, that person would buy beer and groceries and a cell phone from their wages (or not buy one of the items because they didn't have enough income). After, they use the wages to buy beer and a cell phone and the welfare to buy groceries. All the money goes in to one pot and then they decide how to spend it. It's like bad regulation that is easily skirted. I would guess Mark would say it is better to have (A) no welfare or, if we must, then (B) no restrictions on the welfare because it's just extra beauracracy and paperwork and needless costs. |
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 865103)
I really wish we had full access to props history. I'm astounded that someone would bother to neg each of these three posts I made.
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 865131)
There, I just poz'ed you. Better? :giggle:
|
1 Attachment(s)
|
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 865137)
Well, sure, that's great...but I'm more irritated at being misunderstood than by someone expressing disagreement. That's why I'd like to be able to see the props history. Fine if someone disagrees and feels they need to express it like that, but I'd at least like to be able to explain what I meant when I can't figure out why they'd disagree that strongly (or emotionally) with what I've said.
|
|
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...iews/232900478
This should be a generic outrage piece that should enrage anyone across any and all party lines. But I'm sadly certain someone here will find a way to say it's a GOOD thing/it's GOOD for the US. |
Just wanted to point out something really, really lulzy.
Read this article: http://www.newser.com/story/144300/w...orida-46k.html Everyone who passed was reimbursed for the cost of the test—which totaled $118,140, or more than the state would have paid in benefits to those who failed, according to an ACLU director. That means the program actually cost the government $45,780. http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/17463853...Dhbz4.facebook Florida passed similar legislation back in 2010 decreasing their welfare applicant pool by 48 percent and saving their state $1.8 million. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 866560)
LOLOL, propaganda much?
As for the cost; were the tests reimbursed because of the lawsuit or was that always baked in? |
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 866765)
Those seem like hugely disparate analyses... "Didn't affect the applicant pool at all vs cut it in half."
As for the cost; were the tests reimbursed because of the lawsuit or was that always baked in? |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 866560)
LOLOL, propaganda much?
similar progaganda to saying things like, if we cut out all federal welfare programs, we could give each citizen of the US $28,000 a year? |
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 866771)
I didn't think the first mentioned "applicant pool", but rather, It only looked at the effect of people who actually applied. What did I miss?
Originally Posted by Newser
Remember that controversial Florida law requiring welfare seekers to submit to drug tests? Turns out it didn't save taxpayers any money, didn't affect the number of applications, and didn't even ferret out very many drug users, the New York Times reports.
Originally Posted by WRCB
Florida passed similar legislation back in 2010 decreasing their welfare applicant pool by 48 percent and saving their state $1.8 million.
|
|
5 Attachment(s)
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1334844159
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1334844159 http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/up...096be346f.jpg] https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1334844159 https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1334844159 https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1334844159 http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/up...4798130104.png http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-ate-dog-meat/ “With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy),” the president wrote. “Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.” |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands