Lunch Break: Jesse Jackson honors “food-stamp President” Obama

by LauraLoo

The Rev. Jesse Jackson of Chicago’s Rainbow Push says it’s an honor for Barack Obama to be known as a food-stamp President. Do you agree?

YouTube Preview Image

Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.

[HT: WLS890AM Chicago]

 

47 thoughts on “Lunch Break: Jesse Jackson honors “food-stamp President” Obama”

  1. This according to Wikipedia:

    In April 1965, participation topped half a million. (Actual participation was 561,261 people.) Participation topped 1 million in March 1966, 2 million in October 1967, 3 million in February 1969, 4 million in February 1970, 5 million one month later in March 1970, 6 million two months later in May 1970, 10 million in February 1971, and 15 million in October 1974. Rapid increases in participation during this period were primarily due to geographic expansion.

    Usage of food stamps is expected to exceed 43.5 million people by the end of 2012.  Financial incentives are in place for states to sign up more people to the rolls.  The war on poverty has morphed into people becoming more and more dependent on government. And with big government  handing out goodies the democrats are counting on these people to vote for more of the same.

       4 likes

  2. The Obama health care mandate is not about food stamps. It is about employers paying for contraception.  The food stamp program has been with us a long time and needs to be overhauled to include healthier food.  People in America need affordable good food.  If incomes are not sufficient for people to buy good food then the food stamp program needs to remain in plane.

       4 likes

  3. The war on poverty has morphed into people becoming more and more dependent on government.
     
    I agree, Jerry.  :(  I wonder what politician will be willing to state the reality that “we can’t take care of everybody.”
     
    Even with the US’s economic troubles, Obama has still done a bad job on the deficit by not controlling it more.  I was looking at Romney’s promises to balance the budget.  (Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, I’d be for somebody if I thought they would really do it.)
     
    Man, there just ain’t no way…. Not saying he wouldn’t run less red ink than Obama, but this talk of “balanced budget” just ain’t happenin’.

       9 likes

  4. Instead, the administration’s stated intention to reject the Texas program reflects nothing more than its pro-abortion agenda, and is a blatant pander to the president’s liberal base, which has made Planned Parenthood’s abortion services a celebrated cause.”
     
    I was not a big Perry fan during his candidacy for president, but I have to say he really nailed it this time.  Don’t Mess With Texas!

       4 likes

  5. I wonder what politician will be willing to state the reality that “we can’t take care of everybody.”


    I can answer that: “Definitely not a Democrat.”

       12 likes

  6. People feed people.
    Not these mythical creatures called food stamps he’s talking about?
    What are these magical creatures of provision, and do they look anything like the cartoon M & M’s?

    If he replaced the words, ‘food stamps,’ with ‘people,’ he would be saying something.

    But he’s just big brother obama’s uncle tom, that’s all.
     

       2 likes

  7. “But he’s just big brother obama’s uncle tom, that’s all.”
     
    The black guy won.  Get over it.
     
    There really is no excuse for ignorance these days, seeing as we have the internet.  You could use the internet to learn some things about food stamps by surfing government websites and economic think tanks, but why bother when you’ve got Limbaugh, Breitbart, Savage, the entire Fox network and, yes, even Jill Stanek “explaining” it all for you.
     
    Full Disclosure:
     
    Personally, I think Obama is a loser even though he’ll probably win in November because the Republicans can’t seem to find anyone competent enough to defeat him.

       6 likes

  8. Could care less if anyone or everyone is black. Jesse Jackson sold his soul a long time ago. Obama is buying votes. There is nothing new under the sun. Except more mandates.

       7 likes

  9. The ‘war on poverty’ [wop] has no defintion of ‘victory’ and no ‘exit strategy’.

    The ‘wop’ has resulted in ‘collateral damage’ to the taditional family.

    In the ‘wop’ there is no such thing as a ‘non-combatant’ and ‘friendly fire’.

    INCOMING!

       8 likes

  10. Meh. I guess I’ll concede (this once), that you’re probably right in this instance, Doug. However, I would just like to say for the record that the CHANCES of a Republican doing so would be much greater. :3

       8 likes

  11. Bobbi,

    I would suggest you research as to who “Uncle Tom” really was before you disgrace the real “Uncle Tom” be comparing him to Jesse Jackson.

    Courtnay,

    Very true, Jackson sold his soul a long time ago to the Democrat Party that has an appalling history of racism and segregation.

    But folks we’re missing the big picture here. Was Jackson praising Obama and his policies in a …a …church!?  ARGHHHHH. Even if its not a church, as a “reverend” he should not be praising Obama or promoting his policies. Where are the seperation of church and state police???

       4 likes

  12. I wonder if one of the children fed by food stamps is Jesse Jackson’s daughter by his mistress. I would have thought that after she covered his tracks by aborting their first child, the good reverend would have either kept his pants zipped or had himself fixed.

    What a strange situation for the Jackson children. Dad got his girlfriend in trouble.

       0 likes

  13. Doug says:

    Man, there just ain’t no way…. Not saying he wouldn’t run less red ink than Obama, but this talk of “balanced budget” just ain’t happenin’. 

    Very true.  But the biggest whopper of all time has to be Obama saying he would “cut the deficit in half”.  Now, some 5 trillion dollars in added debt later we don’t hear those claims anymore…I wonder why.  Surely Mitt Romney (or any of the others) would be better at managing than Obama.  

       3 likes

  14. Gee, I was going to call him the ‘get us into more military conflicts without Congressional permission’ president.   Or the ‘my grandchildren are punishments and shouldn’t live’ president. Or the ‘can we hurry this up please, let’s not protect survivors of abortions’ president.  

    Or the “bleepity bleep” president, because I’m sure no one wants to hear what I’d like to call him.

       6 likes

  15. But the biggest whopper of all time has to be Obama saying he would “cut the deficit in half”.

    Yeah, Jerry, that was a pretty big whopper, indeed.
     
     
    Surely Mitt Romney (or any of the others) would be better at managing than Obama. 


    For the past 40 years or so, it’s been Republican Presidents who’ve really fired up the deficits.  http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
     
    Yes, Obama is the new “high avergage” dude, but Bush Jr broke past a Trillion bucks himself.

     
    A couple days ago I heard Mitt say he would balance the budget, and he sounded sincere.  I felt like, “Okay Mitt, pro-life or pro-choice, go ahead and do it.”
     
    But then I read that he says he would not let Defense spending go below 4% of GDP.  And that he says taxes would be *lowered* to ~17% of GDP.  And no cuts in Social Security for at least the next 10 years.  Well good grief, is he going to whack Medicare?  Is he gonna be able to balance the budget while keeping to what he’s said?  Just ain’t no way.
     
     
     

       11 likes

  16. Ken:  The ‘war on poverty’ has no definition of ‘victory’ and no ‘exit strategy’.
     
    Ken, there must be some basic economic law that is being violated, because you’re right, it just has not worked.  “Cannot work”?

       9 likes

  17. Doug says:

    Yes, Obama is the new “high avergage” dude, but Bush Jr broke past a Trillion bucks himself.

    There is no comparison of Bush’s debt to Obama’s. In less than two years the deficit increase under Obama exceeded all eight years of Bush.   Obama is the king of debt by any comparative measure. 

    If we re-elect Obama (unthinkable) I hope you do not have young children as there will little chance of them living and raising their own children in a thriving and prosperous economy. I am far more comfortable with Romney’s (or any of the others) ability to manage a budget than Obama’s. The only hope we have to crawl out from under this mountain of debt is by growing our way out of it and with Obama that is not going to happen. 

    I agree the Repubs could have done better but never did they have the veto proof majority that Obama had.  And if by some fluke they were to get a veto proof congress and the presidency look what happens when a Republican governor does tackle a deficit budget…does Scott Walker mean anything to you?  Now imagine the same resistance multiplied by 50 if each of the 50 states start crying about budget cuts.

       4 likes

  18. Jerry:  There is no comparison of Bush’s debt to Obama’s.

    Oh yeah there is.  Sure, Obama has higher deficits than Bush Jr, but so did Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes – they all “broke new ground” as far as debt, compared to those who went before.
    ____

    In less than two years the deficit increase under Obama exceeded all eight years of Bush.   Obama is the king of debt by any comparative measure.

    And so were those last 4 Republicans, in their time.  I’m not defending Obama here – he’s done a terrible job, as far as the deficit.  But the four prior Republican Presidents were the “king of debt” too.
    ____ 

    If we re-elect Obama (unthinkable) I hope you do not have young children as there will little chance of them living and raising their own children in a thriving and prosperous economy. I am far more comfortable with Romney’s (or any of the others) ability to manage a budget than Obama’s. The only hope we have to crawl out from under this mountain of debt is by growing our way out of it and with Obama that is not going to happen. 

    You can say that, but you could as well say it about the Republicans too.  In looking at what Romney promises, unless he cuts all other domestic programs drastically, like 50% (if he leaves Social Security alone), he won’t be able to do what he says he’ll do.  I think he likes talking about it, but does he have any type of reasonable, rational plan?  He sure hasn’t presented one.
    ____

    I agree the Repubs could have done better but never did they have the veto proof majority that Obama had.  And if by some fluke they were to get a veto proof congress and the presidency look what happens when a Republican governor does tackle a deficit budget…does Scott Walker mean anything to you?  Now imagine the same resistance multiplied by 50 if each of the 50 states start crying about budget cuts.

    Yeah, Congress is a huge factor, Jerry.  As far as balancing the budget, the Republicans have their “sacred cows” too.  Everybody wants cuts to be made, except in their favorites.  Everybody’s willing for “everybody else” to sacrifice.

    The numbers are so big that I think everybody has to take a hit.  Social programs, defense, gov’t departments – they all have to be cut quite a bit.

       4 likes

  19. Tonight, one out of every six Americans lives on food stamps. That doesn’t redound to Obama’s great compassion. In fact, he had nothing to do with setting up the food stamp program. That was Richard Nixon’s baby.

    This statistic is indicative of Obama’s ineptitude, and the fact that being telegenic, slick, and “cool” is not what pulls an economy out of recession or depression, nor do those shallow attributes help to grow an economy. Marxists have never grown economies, as economic growth is a function of Marxism’s nemesis: Capitalism.

    Obama is a failure, and worse. He’s a Marxist demagogue, as morally bankrupt as he is intellectually bankrupt. It figures that Jesse Jackson is so enamored of him. They’re cut from the same bolt of amoral cloth. 

       7 likes

  20. Doug:

    Let’s try another tact.  You claim the debt incured by each of the presidents is relative.  So, if you were the president of a club and you borrowed 5 bucks, the next president of the club borrowed 10, and the next guy 100 are you really suggesting that the three are equally culpable in running the club into debt? 

    Next, you worry that Romney has not presented a “reasonable, rational plan”.  Compared to what?  Obama’s ” trillion dollar a year deficit spending for the next decade” non-plan is what you will have four more years of if Obama is re-elected and is on its face far worse than anything I can realistically imagine coming from Romney. I looked at the Romney web site and did not see irrational ramblings or an ideological fixation—I cannot say the same for Obama’s statements and style of governance.    

     

    Finally, anyone who has a stake in the next generations living productive and prosperous lives had better look at November 2012 very carefully as it will mark a turning point. 
      

       1 likes

  21. Hi Gerard,

    According to my research, the food stamp program was started during the Great Depression and ended in 1943. It was revised in 1959 but nothing happened until Kennedy took office and announced a food stamp pilot program in 1961. In 1964 Johnson asked Congress to make the food stamp program permanent. This was the Food Stamps Act of 1964.
    The major development of The Food Stamp Act of 1977, when Carter was president, was that the stamps must be purchased. This went into effect in January 1979. By the end of the year participation had passed the 20 million mark.
    I couldn’t find anything about President Nixon’s involvement and it appears this program was in place long before, and after, his presidency. Certainly, Obama had nothing to do with it as well, except creating the need for more Americans to be on it.

       2 likes

  22. Obama is a lot of things, but the accusation that he’s a Marxist is totally laughable.
     
    As for the economic collapse, total nonfarm employment peaked at 138.023 million in January 2008.  By the time Obama took office in January 2009, employment had already fallen to 133.561 million, a loss of approximately 4.462 million jobs and the unemployment rate (U3) had already risen to 7.8%.  Job loss wasn’t arrested until February 2010, when nonfarm employment bottomed at 129.244 million jobs.
     
    Obama inherited the closest thing there is to a total economic collapse and, if it hadn’t been for some quick thinking on both sides of the aisle, the collapse would have been total.
     
    Gerard, why can’t you hang up your ideological biases long enough to apply some of your scientific fact-finding skills to economics.

       3 likes

  23. Isn’t the “Reverend” Jackson supposed to be a “fisher of men?”   He should know it’s better to teach a man to fish  than to just give him one. But then, he  and Obama didn’t really have to put much effort into getting these “fish” to follow them.

       0 likes

  24. mp, Why do you think Obama  is a loser? 
     
    This is the Cliff’s Notes version of my reply.
     
    Background:
     
    Reference:  http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=5qX
     
    In January 2008, it became obvious to most competent analysts, and I am one of those, that the US economy was entering a recession.
     
    On March 18, 2008, during the Bear Stearns Crisis, it became obvious that there was a flight to quality occurring in the financial markets.  Specifically, the yield on the 3-month treasury bill was being forced down to record low levels due to massive purchases  (See graph).  This led some of us to believe, and I was one of them, that an economic collapse was possible.
     
    On July 9, 2008, in an interview with the editors of the Washington Times, McCain’s economic adviser, former US Senator Phil Gramm, said the alleged recession was “mental.”  See:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NVjq2py7BA
     
    This convinced me that the McCain team had no idea that a recession had already started, nor had they any idea of the possible financial catastrophe ahead.
     
    On September 16, 2008, the yield on the 3-month bill began to collapse–signs of a classic Keynesian “liquidity trap” developed–and the S&P 500 index collapsed on September 29th.
     
    This is the background.
     
    Following Obama’s election in November 2008, he announced that he and his economic team would “hit the ground running” in January 2009 when he would assume the presidency.  He then went to Hawaii on vacation.  This convinced me that he did not understand the nature of the problem, nor had his economic advisers convinced him of its seriousness.
     
    On December 1, 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research announced their finding that a recession began during December 2007.  See:  http://nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html
     
    Obama’s chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, was ill-suited for the job.  Summers revised the economic plan prepared by Christine Romer, the chief economist, to suit his personal assessment of what he thought was politically achievable.  This incident shows that Summers was not suited to staff work.  It was his responsibility to fairly represent the work of his staff to the President.
     
    The new president’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, failed to vet the economic plan by requiring the economic staff to attach a statement of concurrence to the final report.  If this had been done, both Obama and Emanuel would have become aware of Summers’ alteration of the full staff’s plan and their original intent.
     
    These errors and omissions, concerning a matter of such vital importance at the beginning of Obama’s presidency, show a heartbreaking lack of knowledge, not only of economics, but also of the mechanics of decision-making.
     
    SIDEBAR:  In January 2009, Rep. Paul Kanjorski appeared on C-SPAN and explained how close the US economy–and the US political system–came to total meltdown.  See:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD8viQ_DhS4
     
     
     

       1 likes

  25. I demand to know why my 02:44 comment is “awaiting moderation.”
     
    This is outrageous.

       1 likes

  26. mp – because it contained several links, and because it is 7a and I just got online.

       1 likes

  27. mp, excellent posts.  There is ranting and raving, and then there’s being rational about things.  For what it’s worth, I too think Obama is a loser as far as the deficits and the gov’t’s budget.

       2 likes

  28. Response to ken the birther on 2 March 2012 at 3:19 pm

    God, through Moses, told the people that the poor would always be with them (see Deuteronomy 15:11) even though there needn’t have been anyone living in poverty (see verse 4 of that same chapter)…Jesus repeated this at Matthew 26:11 and Mark 14:7…

    Our nations’s “war on poverty” appears to be in shambles because people are not encouraged to live as humans…just as pets. Neither human dignity nor human empowerment (that one would think were the goals in such a “war” to lift humans out of poverty) are gained by encouraging able-minded and able-bodied humans to be dependent on the state. And because people are being considered now as less than animals, and not worthy of saving under any circumstances (if the weakest, most defenseless of us are not protected, then we are all available as canon fodder), the truth about the “war” is out: it is really a “war on humans”…

    Jill,
    Seems that Alphonzo Rachel talked about the “Declaration of Dependence” recently in a way that basically said it all regarding Mr. Jackson’s comment…what irony! 
     

       0 likes

  29. Let’s try another tact.  You claim the debt incured by each of the presidents is relative.  So, if you were the president of a club and you borrowed 5 bucks, the next president of the club borrowed 10, and the next guy 100 are you really suggesting that the three are equally culpable in running the club into debt? 

    Jerry, good discussion.  Yes, it’s relative, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not “very, very bad.”  ;)  There is the devaluation of our currency, for one thing.  The raw numbers inflate, over time, and it’d be best to look at deficits and debts as percentages of GDP, Federal revenue, etc.  Again, not saying that trillions or even hundreds of billions of Dollars isn’t heinous, as far as it being “in the red.”

    Hear me – I think Obama should have done more to lessen the deficit.  He was faced with quite a “meltdown” in the economy, and I think a Republican President would have done some things in the name of stimulus – Bush Jr. had already started the ball rolling there, anyway – and if there’s a “defense” for Obama I think that’s it.  However, this is not to say we “should” be running over a trillion bucks in red ink.  It’s due to the fact that Obama’s not a fiscal conservative that the deficit is as big as it is.
    ____

    Next, you worry that Romney has not presented a ”reasonable, rational plan”.  Compared to what?  

    Compared to what is possible.  Compared to what he says.  He can say “balance the budget” but he’s not really “a fiscal conservative,” either.  He too is a “big gov’t guy,” though it’s focused slightly different than what’s the case with Obama.
    ____

    Obama’s ” trillion dollar a year deficit spending for the next decade” non-plan is what you will have four more years of if Obama is re-elected and is on its face far worse than anything I can realistically imagine coming from Romney.

    And some people would have said the same thing about Reagan and both Bushes.  You’d think Reagan would be a “conservative,” eh?  But when we look at recent history, it would be a “miracle” if a Republican President just maintained the same level of deficits as the prior Democrat, let alone actually had lower ones.  http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
    ____

    I looked at the Romney web site and did not see irrational ramblings or an ideological fixation—I cannot say the same for Obama’s statements and style of governance.   

    I’ll take a look at the site.  Hey – the country is in bad shape due to debt, and these deficits are hurting us very badly.  I’m all for balancing the budget, as impossible as I see that being.
    ___ 

     
    Finally, anyone who has a stake in the next generations living productive and prosperous lives had better look at November 2012 very carefully as it will mark a turning point.

    I don’t think so.  Ron Paul is the only one who’d I give even half a chance of really making a difference.  And he ain’t gonna get in.

       3 likes

  30. This is a bit of a weird debate. So do people think it is bad that we’re helping low income people buy food?  Is the hope that more people starve?  I don’t really get what people are arguing here.

    Is the argument that a lot of people are on food stamps?  Yes, there’s too many – so what is the solution?  Level the playing field more?  Get more unions in and pass more living wage laws?  

    Is the belief here that Mitt Romney is going to be better at relating the problems that the poor face?  He’s already said he doesn’t worry about the poor.

    This ia very odd debate.  

       1 likes

  31. “Yes, there’s too many – so what is the solution?”

    Have you ever watched Maafa 21, ExGOP?

       0 likes

  32. Prax – I have not – what is the solution presented by that documentary?  

       0 likes

  33. Maafa 21 is easily debunked, and has been.
     
    Ex-GOP, it’s not “hoping that more people starve,” but the bottom line is that the country simply cannot take care of so many people, as they are doing now.  The government, the system, “we taxpayers,” etc., cannot support so many, or cannot support them to the present degree.
     
    I see a lot of people on both “sides,” i.e. Dems and Reps or ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ complaining about the other side and the politicians there, but how many people are actually looking at the numbers, at our situation, and realizing how bad a problem the debt and deficits are?  Not very many, not compared to the first group.
     
    Little old Greece was/is a big problem, and it’s been very expensive to shore it up and put some heavy-duty band-aids on, but there’s no doing that for the US.  We’re years from being where Greece is, but perhaps not all that many….
     
    “Realizing just how bad a problem…” – and this is with the extremely low interest rates that prevail now.  I think people are nuts.  They are loaning money to the US Gov’t for 30 years (for example) at 3.12%.  Unbelievable.
     
    Well, one day the market is going to wake up and see what a sucker bet that is, and we’ll have rapidly-increasing interest rates, which would be a crushing economic blow if it happened now.  Given the gov’t’s borrowing needs, I don’t see how it won’t be crushing whenever it comes.

       6 likes

  34. Hans:  Isn’t the “Reverend” Jackson supposed to be a “fisher of men?”   He should know it’s better to teach a man to fish than to just give him one.
     
    Hans, this is under some doubt at the present time.
     
    “If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day.  If you teach a man to fish, he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.”

       5 likes

  35. Doug,
     
    I don’t see how there can be any doubt about that proverb  (without your add-on).

       1 likes

  36. Hans, to be serious, yes – totally agree with you. 
     
    Unfortunately (I guess) it’s not just a matter of teaching – some people have to learn the hard way, even over and over.  I think that’s part of the human condition, even to the point where some have to truly be facing starvation before it kicks in.

       3 likes

  37. Doug:

    We have to approach the uncoming elections with the appropriate sense of urgency.  I appreciate your professorial detachment but with so many people viewing Obamanomics though rose colored glasses we need to take every opportunity to clairify the situation.

    Here is where we are at: We are on the proverbial boat ride down river fully unaware that around the next bend is a killer waterfall.       

       2 likes

  38. Doug – 

    We do have to remember that in the not too distant past, there was the projection that we would have no deficit by now.  All paid off.  Things aren’t as hopeless as they appear.  A balanced budget has been accomplished before.

    We need to restrain spending and make some smart moves, but we also need to increase revenue through higher taxes.  

    If the deficit is a massive issue, we need to attack it without taking so many options off the table.  Both sides continue to have these lines in the sand…any of those lines are more important to the parties than the deficit.  If we’re going to make a dent, it is going to take some compromise. 

       1 likes

  39. No, no, no. We can only get the deficit under control by getting the economy going. Not by more taxes and regulations. That’s like expecting a marathon runner to win with a 50-lb backpack.

       0 likes

  40. Hans – 

    First off, I never said anything about regulations.

    Secondly, then the line in the sand you are drawing is that the general health of the economy is more important than deficits.  Now, I tend to agree with you – back when the GOP crazies were saying that we needed to do massive cuts to balance the budget right away, I (as most economists were saying as well) said we needed to heal the economy and then both cut spending and raise taxes.

    But eventually, both need to happen.   

       1 likes

  41. We have to approach the uncoming elections with the appropriate sense of urgency.  I appreciate your professorial detachment but with so many people viewing Obamanomics though rose colored glasses we need to take every opportunity to clairify the situation.

    Here is where we are at: We are on the proverbial boat ride down river fully unaware that around the next bend is a killer waterfall.
     
    Jerry, I agree that things are “urgent,” to say the least.  The only place I disagree with you would be on the assumption that the Republican nominee would make a significant difference.  History – and I think the past performance of Romney/Santorum – suggest otherwise.  One caveat that I feel might apply there is that Romney is sensitive to criticism that he’s “not conservative enough,” and if President, I bet that at least in the beginning he’d lean pretty far that way.
     
    I probably do seem pretty detached at times, but it’s more just a deep and currently unshakeable cynicism about politicians and our gov’t in general.  Frankly, I think we passed the point of no return decades ago.  No rosy glasses here – whether it’s Obama or not, deficits like we’ve currently got are lethal in the end.  
     
    That waterfall, oh yeah, it’s there.

       3 likes

  42. Ex-GOP:  We do have to remember that in the not too distant past, there was the projection that we would have no deficit by now.  All paid off.  Things aren’t as hopeless as they appear.  A balanced budget has been accomplished before.
     
    I don’t think we’ve really had a balanced budget since Eisenhower.  There are the “off-budget” expenditures – a foolish accounting shenanigan – which mean that Clinton never had an actual surplus.  The deficit was only a few hundred billion Dollars, and less than previously for some years, and less than anytime since, but it was still red ink.
     
    Used to be, you could see the report from the Congressional Budget Office on the cost of running the gov’t.  It came out in June, for the prior fiscal year, and it was all there, “off-budget” BS and everything.  The easy public access to it got cut under Bush Jr – last I saw was in 2006
    ____
    We need to restrain spending and make some smart moves, but we also need to increase revenue through higher taxes.  

    If the deficit is a massive issue, we need to attack it without taking so many options off the table.  Both sides continue to have these lines in the sand…any of those lines are more important to the parties than the deficit.  If we’re going to make a dent, it is going to take some compromise. 
     
    True.  But things are really polarized right now, and both sides have too many “deal-breaker” items.  I don’t think *anything* should be off the table (short of needing money to defeat an imminent nuclear attack on the US).  I’d say that for the long term, the one thing that can be counted on is for the federal gov’t to do the worst thing for the most amount of people.
     

       4 likes

  43. Doug – the crazy thing is, gridlock might be the best thing to make a huge dent in the deficit.  Now it might cause the economy to crash back down, but unless lawmakers do reach agreements on things, we’ll have across the board spending cuts (even on the military), and the tax cuts will expire – all of them.  It will take compromise and action to get either of those things not to happen.

    I’m sure though that when push comes to shove, the two parties will agree on a way not to have to make hard choices! 

       1 likes

Comments are closed.