patrick.net

artistsoul says

It is scary as hell, to me, that some 42+ MILLION people are having trouble feeding themselves.

many/most of these people rent, so the food stamps end up being a backdoor rent subsidy that ends up in the LLs pockets. Theoretically.

artistsoul .... take the time to watch this old video based on the Grace Commission's findings back in the mid 1980's. It's about 40 minutes long and predicts, far in advance, most of what is happening to this economy now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9ZnfG6wgQ4

I take one exception with your last post; that "Democrats" are better at protecting the middle class. BOTH parties have supported all the trade policies that have decimated the working class in America. BOTH parties promise in their political campaigns to "renegotiate" trade policies (NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc.) but it never happens. Why? Because both parties are being controlled by the money powers that run this nation from the shadows. FDR wrote in a private letter to Col. House: "We both know that since the days of Andrew Jackson, this country has been controlled by the banks." Col. House was an incredibly powerful insider himself. Pretty revealing quote from a President to an insider, don't you think?

artistsoul says

It is scary as hell, to me, that some 42+ MILLION people are having trouble feeding themselves.

Not all of the 42 million are having trouble, many just get onto government subsidy because it is available.

I'm not opposed to food stamps, but seriously, when I see someone whip out that Food Stamp plastic card at Whole Foods in Princeton, NJ, someone needs to get their ass kicked. Even the salt is $10 there.

RayAmerica says

“We both know that since the days of Andrew Jackson, this country has been controlled by the banks.” Col. House was an incredibly powerful insider himself. Pretty revealing quote from a President to an insider, don’t you think?

A footnote. Andrew Jackson was a very great man. As President, he fought and eventually won in breaking the hold the central bank had on the U.S. economy. For the first and ONLY time in U.S. history, the federal government had no national debt, and in fact, had an actual surplus! Balanced budgets do not benefit the central bankers. Federal government deficit spending guarantees that the central bankers (the Federal Reserve private bankers) will make enormous profits, the number one reason, IMO, that we will never have sound government while we continue to allow private bankers to control our money supply. Unfortunately, very few people understand the workings of these private international bankers. They are the very people Thomas Jefferson warned us about, saying they are more to be feared than standing armies!

DAMN, we have BOTH central banks AND standing armies. Could that be part of the reason America is so financially screwed up?

shrekgrinch says

Why are liberals so obsessed with how to spend the money of the rich?
Unless you exist in the highest socioeconomic levels, that kind of wealth shouldn’t even be in their radar screen, much less a dominant force in their life.

It's all about class envy. The more materialistic people are, the more they envy "rich" people, and the more they want what they have. This is precisely what's behind the credit card nation that we've become. I've heard it said: "I don't want to be rich, I just want to live like I'm rich." What these types don't understand is that the rich are (tyically) rich because they are smart about what to do with their money. They didn't become rich by mortgaging their entire future on homes they couldn't afford, or by making minimum payments on their over drawn credit cards, etc. As America's standard of living continues to decline, look for class envy to increase to the point that it will be dangerous for those that have a fairly high standard of living. If you are well off, DO NOT FLAUNT IT. America is no longer the safe country it once was.

Honest Abe says

DAMN, we have BOTH central banks AND standing armies. Could that be part of the reason America is so financially screwed up?

Welcome back to an intelligent voice of reason. Where have you been Abe?

Decrying class warfare as "unfair" is simply a tactic. It's a way of attempting to invalidate the legitimate concerns about a widening wealth gap. The rich get richer, and everyone else gets the shaft. Clearly this is a problem, and attempting to suppress it and forget it, will only turn the "let them eat cake" attitude of the plutocracy into a seething problem that no one dare talk about in public media. Defuse it now and take policy actions that level the gap to US historical norms, or wait for the guillotines.

Vicente says

Decrying class warfare as “unfair” is simply a tactic. It’s a way of attempting to invalidate the legitimate concerns about a widening wealth gap. The rich get richer, and everyone else gets the shaft. Clearly this is a problem, and attempting to suppress it and forget it, will only turn the “let them eat cake” attitude of the plutocracy into a seething problem that no one dare talk about in public media. Defuse it now and take policy actions that level the gap to US historical norms, or wait for the guillotines.

And you want to trust the GOVERNMENT to level the playing field? Why not? Everything else they do they do so incredibly well.

RayAmerica says

And you want to trust the GOVERNMENT to level the playing field? Why not? Everything else they do they do so incredibly well.

Apparently we trust them with everything from food safety standards, to rescuing people at sea, all the way up to nuclear weapons. Somewhere in there I believe we do entrust JUSTICE dispensation or some approximation thereof to government employees. If you'd prefer anarchy there are a few places that have it already. I believe the people who set up our little poli-sci experiment even had various checks and balances so no government body or person was above criticism or consequence themselves.

Vicente says

If you’d prefer anarchy there are a few places that have it already.

Who said anything about anarchy? Unless of course, you believe that holding the government accountable to the U.S. Constitution is being an anarchist ... I guess that makes true conservatives anarchists ... at least in your little way of thinking.

RayAmerica says

Vicente says

If you’d prefer anarchy there are a few places that have it already.

Who said anything about anarchy? Unless of course, you believe that holding the government accountable to the U.S. Constitution is being an anarchist … I guess that makes true conservatives anarchists … at least in your little way of thinking.

Ok so who levels the playing field? The bankers maybe? That/s worked out nicely so far. They are getting mega bonuses, everyone else is getting food stamps.

bob2356 says

RayAmerica says

Vicente says

If you’d prefer anarchy there are a few places that have it already.

Who said anything about anarchy? Unless of course, you believe that holding the government accountable to the U.S. Constitution is being an anarchist … I guess that makes true conservatives anarchists … at least in your little way of thinking.

Ok so who levels the playing field? The bankers maybe? That/s worked out nicely so far. They are getting mega bonuses, everyone else is getting food stamps.

Essentially those who create a problem that throws people onto the street (such as the banking cartel in housing bubble) privatize the profit, and socialize the cost of food-stamps to the taxpayer. Thats how business works now in America. (Few profit, rest pay the consequences)

RayAmerica says

Who said anything about anarchy?

You did. In point of fact when you say things like:

And you want to trust the GOVERNMENT to level the playing field? Why not? Everything else they do they do so incredibly well.

In what way is that NOT "bomb throwing anarchist" material? When it's convenient to your argument, an absolute like GOVERNMENT does NOTHING right EVER you feel comfortable with. Other times well you are a diehard Constitutionalist, which is in fact a form of government that has many levels at which the government is supposed to "level the playing field".

Vicente says

an absolute like GOVERNMENT does NOTHING right EVER you feel comfortable with.

Nice try, but I never said that. What I did imply with my statement is that government bureaucracy isn't the answer. If you've ever had to deal directly with government bureaucracy, you'd know what I meant by that. Even if you haven't, even a cursory study of government operations reveals a high level of incompetence and overlapping. If you want an education, take a trip down to your local federal building and OBSERVE. If you have two eyes and a brain, you should come to the same conclusion.

Vicente says

Other times well you are a diehard Constitutionalist, which is in fact a form of government that has many levels at which the government is supposed to “level the playing field”.

The Constitution is actually a document that limits the scope and power of government. It was designed to protect the people against obtrusive governmental intrusion. Of course, as a radicalized liberal, you read into it what you want, and that reading will typically result into the exact opposite of what the original intent was. Unfortunately, we have an obnoxious, activist judiciary on the federal level that agrees with your radicalized interpretation. Precisely why we are in the steep, slippery decline as a nation, both morally and socially. Violating tried and true economics via intervention of the markets by the government and the private bankers (the Fed) created the bubble economy that has burst …. all ventures that are contrary to the tenets of the U.S. Constitution. That is why I have said before and I’ll say it again; America deserves the government it has. The American experiment was based entirely on the Constitution. That document continues to be ignored, trampled upon, and misinterpreted by the activist judges. We are reaping exactly what we have sown.

RayAmerica says

Violating tried and true economics via intervention of the markets by the government and the private bankers (the Fed) created the bubble economy that has burst

Wrong, and wrong. The failure was in the markets themselves. There was no intervention that led to banks making risky loans. Or credit agencies giving AAA ratings to garbage. Or Wall St. packaging this garbage into bundles and selling them as low risk.

Markets will self-correct. Eventually. Painfully. Just like they did over the last two years and continue to do so..

To blame this last bubble on government intervention is just stupid. Blaming it on lack of government intervention (regulation) is at least somewhat accurate.

tatupu70 says

Markets will self-correct. Eventually. Painfully. Just like they did over the last two years and continue to do so..

Really? Self-correct? So what was TARP all about? What was the tax credits program for housing? Loan modification programs? Cash for clunkers? GM bailout, etc. etc.? You have a strange definition of "self-correct." Care to explain further?

RayAmerica says

tatupu70 says

Markets will self-correct. Eventually. Painfully. Just like they did over the last two years and continue to do so..

Really? Self-correct? So what was TARP all about? What was the tax credits program for housing? Loan modification programs? Cash for clunkers? GM bailout, etc. etc.? You have a strange definition of “self-correct.” Care to explain further?

Are you implying that there is no invisible hand?? I thought you were all about self-correction.

All those programs were designed to cushion the fall. Self-correcting markets are painful, like I said. Government programs try to limit the pain by borrowing from good times to reduce the magnitude of the bad times.

Food stamp nation or not, a better question would be "Why" are we becoming a food stamp nation?

Our government policies put this nation into permanent decline with the can of solving the problem being kicked down the road.

When government solves problems, it doesn't solve problems for the main street. It solves problems for the wall street by socializing the cost of doing business for wall street to the main street (aka we pay and they profit). With this huge housing bubble, main street suffered and is paying for it for years to come... all while banking profits are sky high and are going up.

Today we have an education bubble, healthcare bubble, a housing bubble which is being artificially kept alive by government, a gold bubble and a stock bubble. Some profit very handsomely from these policies since they actually engineered them. The main street pays. And it's not that our government is not aware of these problems, most government officials are very intelligent and very wealthy people, and still they won't do a thing about these problems.

Another issue is most people are financially illiterate. They don't understand money and become slaves to it, as if money is magical and value of it is something worth worshiping. In reality money is just paper not backed by anything while serving as a medium of exchange. Government has no problem simply printing money and creating inflation to socialize the cost of the failed banking business to the main street. And we all still think money is worth something? Reactionary naviettes rush to buy depreciating liabilities calling it a hedge against inflation, while in reality the only way to hedge is to invest into long term companies that will still be profitable years down the road.

Add all these problems above, insane healthcare costs, costly wars in Iraq to protect Shells oil interests, outsourcing of labor.... wages have only to decline, prices on food and gas only to go up and more people make it to the poverty level. All because we have a government where organized corruption always defeats disorganized democracy.

RayAmerica says

Vicente says

an absolute like GOVERNMENT does NOTHING right EVER you feel comfortable with.

Nice try, but I never said that. What I did imply with my statement is that government bureaucracy isn’t the answer.

As I said, backpedalling. Efficiency is not the point. Is it efficient to have a bunch of Coast Guard guys sitting around playing cards because we *might* need them? Government bureacracy is inefficient as it always has been. I'm sure in 1778 they had similar complaints. Efficiency is a dodge when you wish to avoid the central question. It's still the proper role of government as administrator of our social contract. The Constitution does a quite a lot of claiming different roles as the provenance of government, from printing money to negotiating agreements and so on. You "imply" that it's NEVER the answer, when you say "isn't the answer". Maybe you mean to put a "isn't always" as for example our Constitutionally described Congress and Judicial branches have been bureacracies from the get go.

shrekgrinch says

Only to someone as clearly arrogant as you would even think that. What damn business is it any of yours someone else’s financial situation, eh? It’s none. And it certainly isn’t your money to decide how it should be spent, either.

It's my damn business, when my damn tax dollars, are used to support their damned bonuses. It's also my damn business when lots of policies are enacted that enable corporations and individuals to make RECORD damn profits and gobble up and merger ever large damn wealth into fewer damn hands and not improve the unemployment situation one iota. Dammit.

Two other judges in similar cases came out the other way, proving the bureacracy should not be in charge right? When the Supreme Court rules, I expect we'll both have to live with it, the difference is I'll still say it's their role to make that decision even if I disagree with the outcome.

tatupu70 says

Are you implying that there is no invisible hand?? I thought you were all about self-correction.
All those programs were designed to cushion the fall. Self-correcting markets are painful, like I said. Government programs try to limit the pain by borrowing from good times to reduce the magnitude of the bad times.

Maybe instead of using "self-correct" for the markets, you should have used "sorta, kinda, self-correct.' Isn't that what you are trying to say when you say these policies were designed to "cushion the fall?" I'm still wondering where it is in the Constitution that these interventions into the free market can be found.

Vicente says

When the Supreme Court rules, I expect we’ll both have to live with it, the difference is I’ll still say it’s their role to make that decision even if I disagree with the outcome.

If you had been alive back then, what would your response have been in Dred Scott v. Sandford? When the ruling came down that slaves "were not citizens and therefore could not file suit" and that "congress had no right to legilate against slavery" would you have just said "it's their role to make that decision even if I disagree with the outcome?"

RayAmerica says

Maybe instead of using “self-correct” for the markets, you should have used “sorta, kinda, self-correct.’ Isn’t that what you are trying to say when you say these policies were designed to “cushion the fall?”

No. That's not what I am trying to say at all. Read what I wrote again

I haven't sat and micro-analyzed Dred Scott as I'm sure you just did, but I'll go with the high-level view. Constitution says slavery OK so courts upheld that. I would have agitated to amend the Constitution and free the slaves of course. See Amendment 13. I'm just progressive like that, thinking the Constitution is a living document reflecting the needs of living (hopefully) civilized peoples.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Vicente says

I’m just progressive like that, thinking the Constitution is a living document reflecting the needs of living (hopefully) civilized peoples.

So the Constitution changes according to the "needs of living civilized peoples?" What if the "living people" aren't "civilized?" How exactly do you define "civilized?"

What an increase! Around 45,000,000 Americans now...

The GOP has been cranking out those JOBS BILLS haven't they? They were 110% on that JOBS thing not abortion or budget brinksmanship. That's why all these freeloaders must be people who have spanky new jobs who are defrauding the government just to get some cheese and butter. Well OK a lot of them are probably just trading their Food Stamp credits for pot or iPods or whatever hippies need these days.

@Vicente

>That’s why all these freeloaders must be people who have spanky new jobs who are defrauding the government just to get some cheese and butter.

LOL! (I think).

Whatever happened to the "recovery?" This just in: 1 in 7 Americans are now receiving food stamps!

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/03/about-1-in-7-americans-receive-food-stamps/

More good news for the Obama Recovery Team: new jobless claims highest in 8 months. Go Team!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-jobless-claims-jump-to-rb-1852891451.html?x=0&.v=1

thunderlips11 says

Doughnuts, Porn and Paper are the key to the New Era of Prosperity.

+1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576304823992479068.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5 - unemployment going up too.

We as a nation let government run our lives for us just too much. Maybe it did sound like a great social experiment at some point, today it is evident that giving up control of our future to some lazy unmotivated government bums was not the right answer.

We need to really pull the plug on the big brother.

ChrisLA says

We need to really pull the plug on the big brother.

Chris ... you are 100% correct. The Beast needs to be starved and the only way to do it is to cut their access to increased revenues.

RayAmerica says

ChrisLA says

We need to really pull the plug on the big brother.

Chris … you are 100% correct. The Beast needs to be starved and the only way to do it is to cut their access to increased revenues.

I really don't understand this thinking. We spend much more than we take in now, right? And have been for many, many years.

On what planet is it logical to think that if we took in less revenue, all of the sudden we'd balance the budget?

tatupu70 says

On what planet is it logical to think that if we took in less revenue, all of the sudden we’d balance the budget?

Why would you continue to give free happy meals to a 500 pounder that needs to lose weight?