[JohnInIndy]

OK let's try it again:

So Newt cites actual facts and everyone in the liberal media seems to want to label him a racist. Guess liberal morons need to do a little actual fact checking themselves. Obama HAS create more food stamp recipients. He is very successful at it. So where pray tell is the racism in stating fact?

[shooz]

Where is the "fact"?

[Wheatfield]

So what you're saying is that the "safeguards" the liberals have put in place don't work? That just can't be so. I mean what about OSHA? And you tell me there are no programs run by the government that will come in and check your workplace for you? The local University near one of our shops will come in free of charge and inspect your workplace and give a full report. Had it done twice so far.

Wheatfield I've said it many times before. I back the unions when it comes to safety. Not payroll.

Unions are why we have safeguards in the first place. They didn't exist until workers decided they had had enough dying or being maimed for their employers and got the laws created that were required.
Unions are also why there is a middle class (or was, since business owners have done a very effective job of killing it by shipping their jobs to China) by forcing employers to give people a decent wage for a decent days work.
Hostile unions such as the UAW were a direct result of hostile employers, and yes, eventually they became too powerful, but bad management has to take it's place on the podium of stupidity as well.
Are you saying that if there had been no unions to force the issue employers would have just put safety first because it was the right thing to do?
And when would they have done it? And for whom?
The unskilled labourers or just the people who would be unhandy to replace?
Employers fought against this sort of thing because for the most part it was cheaper to pick a corpse up off the factory floor and retrain someone than it was to have safety protocols in place to ensure people went home alive.

And I'll ask you again, since you seem unwilling to give straight answers:

Tell me John, do you really think an employer has the right to kill his employees just because he can hire more?
China is an example of a country with rather lax safety rules. Are you holding them up to us as a paragon of how things should be done?

Why do you hate American workers so much John?

[JohnInIndy]

Whaeatfield in the text you quoted of mine is your answer:

Wheatfield I've said it many times before. I back the unions when it comes to safety. Not payroll.

Shoozie, the FACT is there are more food stamp recipients under Obama. It's not conjecture it's a fact.

Obama took office in January 2009. That month, nearly 32 million people received SNAP benefits. That means the number of food stamp recipients has increased by about 12.2 million since the start of his administration.

Fact is he is the Food Stamp President

[newarts]

Shoozie, the FACT is there are more food stamp recipients under Obama. It's not conjecture it's a fact.

Fact is he is the Food Stamp President

He is president while there are a lot of people needing food stamps; I agree. There would be even more people needing them without the stimulus spending.

Proposed cuts in spending coupled with the stimulus roll-off will likely increase the number of people needing needing food stamps. However these same cuts will likely mean that people in need will go without.

It is a bleak situation.

Cutting food stamp numbers may not only mean hungry people but also mean hungry farmers - food stamps are part of our ag support system.

[JohnInIndy]

He is president while there are a lot of people needing food stamps; I agree. There would be even more people needing them without the stimulus spending.

Proposed cuts in spending coupled with the stimulus roll-off will likely increase the number of people needing needing food stamps. However these same cuts will likely mean that people in need will go without.

It is a bleak situation.

Cutting food stamp numbers may not only mean hungry people but also mean hungry farmers - food stamps are part of our ag support system.

Now that's a load of tainted cow manure. Not good for anything.

The porkulus did one thing well. It took taxpayer money and put it in the hands of unions so they could contribute back to the Pharaoh's 2012 campaign.

[deadwolfbones]

John, you just keep getting funnier. Thanks for the lolz.

[newarts]

Now that's a load of tainted cow manure. Not good for anything.

I can't see how your comment makes any sense at all.

Just tell me how removing assets from the private sector can possibly increase net private production or total consumption.

You sell stuff to people either directly or indirectly from government demand or resources right? How will removing that demand or those resources help your bottom line in any way other than the pleasure of punishing others?

[JohnInIndy]

I can't see how your comment makes any sense at all.

Just tell me how removing assets from the private sector can possibly increase net private production or total consumption.

You sell stuff to people either directly or indirectly from government demand or resources right? How will removing that demand or those resources help your bottom line in any way other than the pleasure of punishing others?

Not sure I fully follow your "logic"

Porkulus spending already took money from the private sector and redistributed it. So you tell me how the government's taking of private money and "investing" it helped at all? Most say it didn't.
Remember when we were told by the current admiistration if we didn't have the "stimulus" unemployment would go above 8%? So where is unemployment now?

[shooz]

took money from the private sector and redistributed it.

YES, redistributed it to Wallstreet.

[newarts]

Porkulus spending already took money from the private sector and redistributed it.

Government debt (which is an asset to the private sector) was distributed to the private sector. It was not redistribution. It may become redistribution when the debt is reconciled depending on who provides the funds.

So you tell me how the government's taking of private money and "investing" it helped at all?

No money was taken from the private sector; rather it was given to the private sector.

It appears that a lot of the assets distributed are still sitting unused in the hands of the financiers and never made its way to industry and/or consumer.

Most say it didn't.

Which "most"?

Remember when we were told by the current admiistration if we didn't have the "stimulus" unemployment would go above 8%? So where is unemployment now?

That is not evidence the stimulus did not moderate the economic collapse.

[JohnInIndy]

Government debt (which is an asset to the private sector) was distributed to the private sector. It was not redistribution. It may become redistribution when the debt is reconciled depending on who provides the funds.



No money was taken from the private sector; rather it was given to the private sector.

It appears that a lot of the assets distributed are still sitting unused in the hands of the financiers and never made its way to industry and/or consumer.


Which "most"?



That is not evidence the stimulus did not moderate the economic collapse.

Interesting how you think. So if the government, which makes no money only prints it, didn't take it from the private sector where did "stimulus" money come from?

[shooz]

The great and glorious "invisible hand".

[newarts]

Interesting how you think. So if the government, which makes no money only prints it, didn't take it from the private sector where did "stimulus" money come from?

Like you said; they "printed" it. Actually they essentially made an entry in a spread sheet.

[JohnInIndy]

Like you said; they "printed" it. Actually they essentially made an entry in a spread sheet.

When they "print" it it's not worth the paper it's printed on. That's why China and Russia told Obama to STOP printing it. It devalues the dollar.