The number of Americans receiving food assistance has surpassed the number of private sector workers in the U.S.

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Average economic growth rate for Bush, 1.7%. O'Blunder, 1.5%. Yes, I know O'Blunder inherited the Bush recession (albeit the result of policies engineered by Democrats).

Those damn facts...

As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee from 1995 through 2000, Phil Gramm was Washington's most prominent and outspoken champion of financial deregulation. He played a leading role in writing and pushing through Congress the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banks from Wall Street. He also inserted a key provision into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that exempted over-the-counter derivatives like credit-default swaps from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Credit-default swaps took down AIG, which has cost the U.S. $150 billion thus far.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...877330,00.html #ixzz2YdlBPtgm

From his Wiki page:

Some economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm and signed into law by President Clinton – the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act — was significantly to blame for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis.[11][12] The Act is most widely known for repealing portions of the Glass–Steagall Act, which had regulated the financial services industry.[13] The Act passed the House and Senate by an overwhelming majority on November 4, 1999.[14][15]
Gramm responded in March 2008 to criticism of the act by stating that he saw "no evidence whatsoever" that the sub-prime mortgage crisis was caused in any way "by allowing banks and securities companies and insurance companies to compete against each other."[16]
Gramm's support was later critical in the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which kept derivatives transactions, including those involving credit default swaps, free of government regulation.[17]
In its 2008 coverage of the financial crisis, The Washington Post named Gramm one of seven "Key Players In the Battle Over Regulating Derivatives", for having "[p]ushed through several major bills to deregulate the banking and investment industries, including the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that brought down the walls separating the commercial banking, investment and insurance industries".[18]
2008 Nobel Laureate in Economics Paul Krugman, a supporter of Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton, described Gramm during the 2008 presidential race as "the high priest of deregulation," and has listed him as the number two person responsible for the economic crisis of 2008 behind only Alan Greenspan.[19][20] On October 14, 2008, CNN ranked Gramm number seven in its list of the 10 individuals most responsible for the current economic crisis.[21]
In January 2009 Guardian City editor Julia Finch identified Gramm as one of twenty-five people who were at the heart of the financial meltdown.[22] Time included Gramm in its list of the top 25 people to blame for the economic crisis.[23]

Last I looked Gramm was a Republican

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

You are exactly right, CandyAss. Most of those jobs have never been intended for a head-of-household or single earner situation. Maybe the fact that there are 9 million fewer jobs since O'Blunder took office and only 47% of Americans have full-time jobs has a little to do with folks having to settle for these jobs.

Nice try, dumbass but your inability to read for comprehension, while astounding, is pretty normal for a Texan filtering things through rat wangism. You might go back to the subject of the thread and dwell on the question of what has the Republican controlled House of Representatives done with regards to any sort of job stimulation package? I guess passing a "repeal" of the Affordable Care Act umpteen times is their centerpiece since it's supposed to be a "job killer."

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Average unemployment for Bush's eight year presidency was 5.3%. O'Blunders' five years is 8.9%?? Of course, these are based on the U3 numbers, not the more accurate reflections of the U6 number. But you don't want to hear that, I'm sure, cause the published number is bad enough for Mr. Hope and Change.

Average economic growth rate for Bush, 1.7%. O'Blunder, 1.5%. Yes, I know O'Blunder inherited the Bush recession (albeit the result of policies engineered by Democrats). But Bush inherited the Clinton Dot-Com bust, right?? (Also engineered by Democrat policies.)

Those damn facts...

"Those damn facts..." speaking of which, you might let your eyes wander up to the post above this. Dang, a Texas Aggie running the economy. How'd that work out? Hmmmm, I wonder if the Republican controlled Congress repealing the Glass-Steagall Act had anything to do with it?

You are a fool and completely uninterested in having anything that resembles an intelligent conversation. This is why no one takes you Teawipe carpers seriously. All you guys do is dress-up and re-list the tired, untrue set of talking points given to you by the Cock Broz.

Most of the economical screw ups in the last 25 years have Republican fingerprints all over them, all in the name of "less government and regulation." And, who benefitted the most from returning to the Financial Wild West?

Go back to your lipstick and pig.

[nwarounder]

There is no law forcing anyone to sign up for all these teat suckling programs. I remember a time, not so long ago in America when people were actually embarrassed to sign up for government programs, so they went out and worked that much harder so they didn't have to. Now it's all about screaming in public and on video "Vote for Obama, he gives us free phones you know, free Obamaphones".

With Obama, no doubt the liberals have won the populous over on the "sit on the couch and get ridiculously obese" mentality.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

There is no law forcing anyone to sign up for all these teat suckling programs. I remember a time, not so long ago in America when people were actually embarrassed to sign up for government programs, so they went out and worked that much harder so they didn't have to. Now it's all about screaming in public and on video "Vote for Obama, he gives us free phones you know, free Obamaphones".

With Obama, no doubt the liberals have won the populous over on the "sit on the couch and get ridiculously obese" mentality.

HA! Urban myth (or, as it were, rural myth) kind of like "I remember when I was a kid and walked 10 miles to school, it was uphill there and back, it snowed in the morning and I had no shoes and I had to wear combat boots 4 sizes too big on the way back when it was 110-degrees."

I suggest that everyone stand back since you're so full of sh*t that you could explode any second.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

There is no law forcing anyone to sign up for all these teat suckling programs. I remember a time, not so long ago in America when people were actually embarrassed to sign up for government programs, so they went out and worked that much harder so they didn't have to. Now it's all about screaming in public and on video "Vote for Obama, he gives us free phones you know, free Obamaphones".

With Obama, no doubt the liberals have won the populous over on the "sit on the couch and get ridiculously obese" mentality.

damn Im sick of the free phone bullshit ... those god damn free phones were available BEFORE Obie ever took office

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

HA! Urban myth (or, as it were, rural myth) kind of like "I remember when I was a kid and walked 10 miles to school, it was uphill there and back, it snowed in the morning and I had no shoes and I had to wear combat boots 4 sizes too big on the way back when it was 110-degrees."

I suggest that everyone stand back since you're so full of sh*t that you could explode any second.

I didn't know it was an urban legend, if what you say is true. I can say, however, that if I were to have to receive government handouts in order to survive, I would be embarrassed and feel like I was a failure, based on the standards I have set for myself. Obviously those standards may be higher than others have set for themselves, I'll give you that.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

damn Im sick of the free phone bullshit ... those god damn free phones were available BEFORE Obie ever took office

Wasn't meant to imply Obie started it, just that it and has been expanded under Obie.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Wasn't meant to imply Obie started it, just that it and has been expanded under Obie.

expanded how ? as in more people take advantage of the program that doesn't cost taxpayers a single PENNY ?

its been expanded since Woodrow Wilson, the program was EXPANDED in 2008

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

expanded how ? as in more people take advantage of the program that doesn't cost taxpayers a single PENNY ?

its been expanded since Woodrow Wilson, the program was EXPANDED in 2008

Maybe you should start another thread if you want more details...

"The U.S. government spent about $2.2 billion on the program last year alone, reports The Wall Street Journal, which conducted a review of the program's funding."
"Lifeline users have helped companies like TracFone grow because carriers get $9.95 per month from the government for each Lifeline customer they have."

http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-phon...2/12/id/490022

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Maybe you should start another thread if you want more details...

"The U.S. government spent about $2.2 billion on the program last year alone, reports The Wall Street Journal, which conducted a review of the program's funding."
"Lifeline users have helped companies like TracFone grow because carriers get $9.95 per month from the government for each Lifeline customer they have."

http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-phon...2/12/id/490022

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Lol, you are talking about two different programs. One is Lifeline and the other SafeLink Wireless. Nice try though, both are wealth distribution laws that cost taxpayers dollars, one straight from the government, the other straight out of taxpayers wallets.

What I can't figure out about you is that you seem to support every socialist program ever conceived, but you seem embarrassed by them at the same time, and try to pretend that they don't cost money. Very confusing

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Lol, you are talking about two different programs. One is Lifeline and the other SafeLink Wireless. Nice try though, both are wealth distribution laws that cost taxpayers dollars, one straight from the government, the other straight out of taxpayers wallets.

What I can't figure out about you is that you seem to support every socialist program ever conceived, but you seem embarrassed by them at the same time, and try to pretend that they don't cost money. Very confusing

I stated the facts about the program known as Obamaphone


you are stating the facts about this


http://progresstexas.org/blog/conser...feline-program


see the difference?

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

I stated the facts about the program known as Obamaphone


you are stating the facts about this


http://progresstexas.org/blog/conser...feline-program


see the difference?

Are you reading? I posted the link about the Lifeline program which the government pays 2.2 billion of our taxpayers dollars on. This same article you are linking says this:
"Let's talk a little about "ObamaPhone". The program is actually called Lifeline..."

What I know is that there are two different programs, both of which cost taxpayers dollars and one is funded by the government at a cost of 2.2 billion dollars last year.

Like I said previously, if you are going to support socialist ideas, at least be like BL, Doove, and others and admit straight up that you want rich people to pay for free shit for the poor. To make statements insinuating free phones for some doesn't cost others any money is futile.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Are you reading? I posted the link about the Lifeline program which the government pays 2.2 billion of our taxpayers dollars on. This same article you are linking says this:
"Let's talk a little about "ObamaPhone". The program is actually called Lifeline..."

What I know is that there are two different programs, both of which cost taxpayers dollars and one is funded by the government at a cost of 2.2 billion dollars last year.

Like I said previously, if you are going to support socialist ideas, at least be like BL, Doove, and others and admit straight up that you want rich people to pay for free shit for the poor. To make statements insinuating free phones for some doesn't cost others any money is futile.

are you reading is a better question

the so called Obama phone doesn't cost taxpayers a dime, read fact check

life line, pushed by republicans costs taxpayers millions, by your own statement

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

are you reading is a better question

the so called Obama phone doesn't cost taxpayers a dime, read fact check

life line, pushed by republicans costs taxpayers millions, by your own statement

Both cost taxpayers dollars, one program is funded by the government, the other is funded by people with jobs or money that is added on to their cell phone bills. We all know this, guess you are too embarrassed of your own beliefs to admit that you support it and would rather argue over who calls which program the Obamaphone program.

The one thing is certain, the poor people that get these free phones don't give a shit what the program is called either, as long as they get their free phone from somebody else.