Obama- The Food Stamp President !

[cj's dad]

Food stamp hand outs up 25% while direct federal payouts up 66%

WEBstmp0126_345.gif.cms.png (attachment.php?attachmentid=8699&stc=1)

[boxcar]

Food stamp hand outs up 25% while direct federal payouts up 66%

WEBstmp0126_345.gif.cms.png (attachment.php?attachmentid=8699&stc=1)

That's a very racist title. :p

Boxcar

[davew]

just buying votes for coming election

[jognlope]

I agree with Gingrich, make welfare/unemployment recipients get back in the work force, give them training, but then that's another bureaucratic level that has to be funded.

[ArlJim78]

They've turned us into a nation of envy and entitlements

[cj's dad]

That's a very racist title. :p

Boxcar

As Ronny Reagan would have said "there you go again" !!

BTW- how 'ya like 'em charts and graphs ?

You know who would be proud.

[FantasticDan]

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/19/3380203/food-stamp-families-to-critics.html

[boxcar]

As Ronny Reagan would have said "there you go again" !!

BTW- how 'ya like 'em charts and graphs ?

You know who would be proud.

They make better sense than anything our resident Graphausorus ever posted. :D

But you know things are bad in this country when the Government spends taxpayer dollars to advertise their Food Stamp Program over the airwaves. They are bent on getting as many people as possible in this country addicted to welfare/entitlements. The U.S. government has become one despicable, morally-bankrupt entity. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Maybe if someone likes Romney had actually done little manual labor when they got out college like I did, he might actually know something about the working poor and people out of a job with no money. It must be nice to inherit millions so you claim to be financial genius and spout off about food stamps when you never have been poor.

[bigmack]

Maybe if someone likes Romney had actually done little manual labor when they got out college like I did, he might actually know something about the working poor and people out of a job with no money. It must be nice to inherit millions so you claim to be financial genius and spout off about food stamps when you never have been poor.
What are you, some sort of a dork? Even when faced with facts you continue on with your nonsense.

Indeed, he was already a wealthy man by the time his father, George, died in 1995. He did receive an inheritance but says he gave it away. We don't have independent confirmation of that. But a family-funded endowment at BYU started in 1998 to support the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management, bolstering Romney's claim.

He might actually know something about the working poor and people out of a job with no money. :D

[boxcar]

Maybe if someone likes Romney had actually done little manual labor when they got out college like I did, he might actually know something about the working poor and people out of a job with no money. It must be nice to inherit millions so you claim to be financial genius and spout off about food stamps when you never have been poor.

Who inherited the "millions"?

Boxcar
P.S. Rom didn't inherit his money. Don't know how to check out the facts?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-he-didnt-inherit-money-his-parent/

[hcap]

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/19/3380203/food-stamp-families-to-critics.html

1-47 percent of beneficiaries were children under age 18.

2-8 percent were age 60 or older.

3-41 percent lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called “working poor.”

So 96% of food stamp recipients are what?
The lazy? Welfare Queens? Undeserving?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226

"The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) is the nation's most important anti-hunger program. In 2011, it helped almost 45 million low-income Americans to afford a nutritionally adequate diet in a typical month.

Nearly 75 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; more than one-quarter of participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities.

In fiscal year 2011, the federal government spent about $78 billion on SNAP.

Notice that rises in numbers on SNAP correspond closely with the recent recession?

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//SNAPisProjected.jpg

Since December 2007, when the recession began, the number of people receiving SNAP has increased by almost 19 million (about 70 percent). In some of the states hit hardest by the economic downturn, caseloads have more than doubled. For example, in Nevada, Florida, Utah, and Idaho, where the number of unemployed has increased by almost 200 percent or more, the number of SNAP participants has increased by 130 to 170


So let's see. Farm subsidies,-an average of $1 Million Per Farm

Corporate welfare

http://www.jobparty.us/end_corp_welfare

Estimated savings from enacting the whole list: over $2 trillion

1-End Deferral of Taxes on Income of U.S.-Controlled Corporations Abroad
2011-2015 savings: $199 billion (Citizen for Tax Justice estimate). Encourages off-shoring of work and capital.

2-End Accelerated Depreciation on Equipment
2011-2015 savings: $141 billion (CTJ estimate). Accelerated depreciation can result in a very low, or even negative, tax rate on profits from a particular investment.

3-End Deduction for Domestic Manufacturing
2011-2015 savings: $76.7 billion (CTJ estimate). Provides virtually no benefit to the economy and is blatant corporate welfare.

4-End Last-In, First-Out Accounting (LIFO)
2011-2015 savings: $24.2 billion (CTJ estimate). Corporations use LIFO to hide their true profits.

5-Cut Subsidies to Big Agribusiness: $52 billion (Taxpayers for Common Sense). Small farms are disappearing while big agri-business racks up huge profits—with corporate welfare support.

6-Permit Government to Negotiate Drug Prices for Medicare. Savings 2012-2021: $157.9 billion. (Congressional Progressive Caucus). Barring government involvement is an indirect corporate subsidy.

7-End Tax Breaks For Drug Companies. 2011-2020 savings: $50 billion (estimated based on figures from Rep. Jerold Nadler). Stops a $5 billion-a year annual tax break for direct-to-consumer advertising. We should pay for drug companies to market to us?

8-Enact A Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee. 2012-2021 Savings: $70.9 billion (Congressional Progressive Caucus). Imposed on largest banks as a repayment of corporate welfare extended via bank bailouts for financial crisis precipitated by banks.

9-Enact a Derivatives and Speculation Tax. 2012-2022 savings: $650 billion (Congressional Progressive Caucus). Wall Street receives indirect corporate welfare/subsidies via a regulatory system and infrastructure investment for which it pays virtually nothing. A very tiny transactions tax will end the corporate welfare.

10-Cut Military Budget 2011-2020 Savings: $550 billion (Sustainable Defense Task Force). According to the Task Force, weapons research, development, and procurement activities…“now routinely cost taxpayers over $200 billion a year. Procurement costs are up 110% in real terms since 2000. Setting aside war-related expenditures, DoD “peacetime” spending on research, development, and procurement has increased 75% in real terms.” This focuses only on the Task Force’s cuts that reasonably have a “corporate welfare” component, primarily weapons systems that don’t work and/or aren’t needed to fight an enemy that does not exist.

Not to mention wall street thieving. All compared to Snap's modest $78 billion. You gentlemen are quite delusional

[boxcar]

1-47 percent of beneficiaries were children under age 18.

Did these children under the age of 18 have parents? If so, who were the real beneficiaries: The children or the parents? And if the parents, why weren't they able to feed themselves and their kids?

Boxcar

[Striker]

I'm not totally against food stamps for the people that truly need them. But how can anybody tell me that using food stamps for beer and cigarettes is ok to do on other peoples dime? I see it all the time here in Illinois, people break out the LINK card for beer and some smokes. How is this even allowed by the food stamp program in the first place?

[newtothegame]

I'm not totally against food stamps for the people that truly need them. But how can anybody tell me that using food stamps for beer and cigarettes is ok to do on other peoples dime? I see it all the time here in Illinois, people break out the LINK card for beer and some smokes. How is this even allowed by the food stamp program in the first place?
because as an "entitlement" program, it is not designed to discourage the use of food stamps. It is ENCOURAGED. If they take away the smokes, the beer, the fraud, what would be the point of being on them?
This is not to say that it does not help millions of people. I have no argument to the contrary. My only argument is that a program that creates dependency will never make a nation better, nor the people who use said program. :bang:

[lsbets]

You can't get beer or cigarettes with food stamps.

[newtothegame]

You can't get beer or cigarettes with food stamps.
LS , I think they were referring to the fraudulant use of the programs, all the while obtaining beer and food stamps. Not so much the direct purchase of said products.

[Striker]

You can't get beer or cigarettes with food stamps.
You absolutely can in Illinois. In Illinois it is called the Link card and it is just like a debit card reloaded each month for the person on the food stamp program. They can buy whatever they want with it. I've personally witnessed this in grocery stores around Illinois and know managers at local grocery stores that have called and talked to representatives of the food stamp program in Illinois that tell them the people can buy whatever they want with the card as long as the card is accepted at the store-no restrictions at all.

[newtothegame]

You absolutely can in Illinois. In Illinois it is called the Link card and it is just like a debit card reloaded each month for the person on the food stamp program. They can buy whatever they want with it. I've personally witnessed this in grocery stores around Illinois and know managers at local grocery stores that have called and talked to representatives of the food stamp program in Illinois that tell them the people can buy whatever they want with the card as long as the card is accepted at the store-no restrictions at all.
Striker, technically, you are both right.
SNAP, which is also connected to the link card in Illiois can ONLY BE USED FOR FOOD ITEMS...no beer. TANF also connected is a cash benefit assistance program on the same link card and has NO RESTRICTIONS....
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=44170

[Striker]

Striker, technically, you are both right.
SNAP, which is also connected to the link card in Illiois can ONLY BE USED FOR FOOD ITEMS...no beer. TANF also connected is a cash benefit assistance program on the same link card and has NO RESTRICTIONS....
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=44170
Exactly. That link with the percentages(91% don't get cash assistance) is a little off in my opinion. So, lets look at what qualifies you for TANF cash--I will give just one of the qualifications because I think anybody with common sense will agree that this little qualification consists more than the 7% of people on the Link program. 1. Be pregnant or have a child under the age of 19 living with them. So, if you qualify for SNAP and you have this qualification you will get at least short term cash help to use on anything you wish.

[newtothegame]

Exactly. That link with the percentages(91% don't get cash assistance) is a little off in my opinion. So, lets look at what qualifies you for TANF cash--I will give just one of the qualifications because I think anybody with common sense will agree that this little qualification consists more than the 7% of people on the Link program. 1. Be pregnant or have a child under the age of 19 living with them. So, if you qualify for SNAP and you have this qualification you will get at least short term cash help to use on anything you wish.
I don't think it matters so much as to WHO qualifies as it matters as to WHAT is being purchased.
I think ANY government funded program link TANF , SNAP, whatever should exclude items like beer, smokes, and only provide essentials like food, water, and hygiene products.
I smoke, rarely if ever drink. But, if I were on government assistance, I wouldn't expect the gov (tax payer) to buy smokes for me.....

[Striker]

I don't think it matters so much as to WHO qualifies as it matters as to WHAT is being purchased.
I think ANY government funded program link TANF , SNAP, whatever should exclude items like beer, smokes, and only provide essentials like food, water, and hygiene products.
I smoke, rarely if ever drink. But, if I were on government assistance, I wouldn't expect the gov (tax payer) to buy smokes for me.....
I agree completely and I would be the same as you would if I were on them but trust me it is the exact opposite with most that are on it. I was in a gas station one day and a woman gave her link card to the attendant and guy gives her cash back and then went immediately to the lottery ticket machine. So, might as well add lottery tickets to the list.

[JustRalph]

You can't get beer or cigarettes with food stamps.

Not legally. I can take you to several places in Baltimore , Tn and West Virginia where they can be used for anything. The cards cut some of the fraud in this manner, but it's a very fraud laden program. In Ca it's a damn business unto itself. The fraud portion that is.

All of these examples I have seen with my own eyes

[cj's dad]

Not legally. I can take you to several places in Baltimore , Tn and West Virginia where they can be used for anything. The cards cut some of the fraud in this manner, but it's a very fraud laden program. In Ca it's a damn business unto itself. The fraud portion that is.

All of these examples I have seen with my own eyes

Not really Ralph. The cards are sold for a lesser price than the remaining value, say 50%, and the card holder gives the pin#. No picture ID required, new user gets groceries half-price.

[Tom]

Need to tie the pin 3 to a specific person, and have the items purchased recorded on the card. Person whose name in on the card should have to save the receipts and justify them to the card usage every month.

[Greyfox]

You guys got it wrong.
Obama says: Bush was the food stamp President.

On video at http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-bush-is-food-stamp-president-not-me/

Also another interesting interview with Diane Sawyer at ;) :lxZ0KcUurNM

[Casino]

I currently work for DCF in Florida.Though i work with child protective services i have also worked as a socail worker for DCF.

The majority of people receiving FS dont need it. Example mexicans work off the books earn anywhere between $1800-$2500 household income, and we hand out $550 in FS why?There income is off the books no way to prove it.Also the law was passed 2 years ago no matter what you have in the bank you still qualified for FS.
Teen girls getting pregant at a young age having 3 ,4 kids.Some clients its a generation "thing"....mom,dad,grandparents lived the same way.People have abused it,no turning back it will never change.
Ive come across investigations where diapers of 2 year olds havent been changed in weeks,guess what mom still having kids.Cubans have the luxury of free health insurance,Cash $200,FS $200 for 8 months.Cash is taken away after 8 months...if you have kids and arent working you keep receving cash.
I have seen veterans and WHITE elderlypeople who have build tis country serving in the military ....have a disability not qualified because there SS check puts them over income..
Immigrants get the royal treatments ..americans get screwed royally and i mean ROYALLY!

[cj's dad]

I currently work for DCF in Florida.Though i work with child protective services i have also worked as a socail worker for DCF.

The majority of people receiving FS dont need it. Example mexicans work off the books earn anywhere between $1800-$2500 household income, and we hand out $550 in FS why?There income is off the books no way to prove it.Also the law was passed 2 years ago no matter what you have in the bank you still qualified for FS.
Teen girls getting pregant at a young age having 3 ,4 kids.Some clients its a generation "thing"....mom,dad,grandparents lived the same way.People have abused it,no turning back it will never change.
Ive come across investigations where diapers of 2 year olds havent been changed in weeks,guess what mom still having kids.Cubans have the luxury of free health insurance,Cash $200,FS $200 for 8 months.Cash is taken away after 8 months...if you have kids and arent working you keep receving cash.
I have seen veterans and WHITE elderlypeople who have build tis country serving in the military ....have a disability not qualified because there SS check puts them over income..
Immigrants get the royal treatments ..americans get screwed royally and i mean ROYALLY!Casino, I know that you hate Joe Flacco, but after the above post I have gained the utmost respect for you !!!!!!!!

[ElKabong]

I'm not totally against food stamps for the people that truly need them. But how can anybody tell me that using food stamps for beer and cigarettes is ok to do on other peoples dime? I see it all the time here in Illinois, people break out the LINK card for beer and some smokes. How is this even allowed by the food stamp program in the first place?

and what i see in dallas county tx is people lined up at the counter that cannot speak english, yet they whip out their "lone star card" / food stamp card.....somehow you don't need to be a us citizen to score a food stamp card these days

[ElKabong]

You guys got it wrong.
Obama says: Bush was the food stamp President.

On video at http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-bush-is-food-stamp-president-not-me/

Also another interesting interview with Diane Sawyer at ;) :lxZ0KcUurNM

guantanamo closed down too, right??

[JustRalph]

Casino, I know that you hate Joe Flacco, but after the above post I have gained the utmost respect for you !!!!!!!!

I figured he would chime in. He has brought this up before. In his previous moniker.

Nothing like getting info straight from the source to stop the crap from the left.

It's just the normal noises in here.

[fast4522]

My hero on many subjects.

[boxcar]

My hero on many subjects.

God forbid people should work! That would make them responsible people actually contributing to society with a real stake in America.

Of course, Obama during his campaign speech before Congress got that all backwards. He claims people who are taxed more heavily and pay their "fair share" (whatever that means) are the ones who would have a stake in this country. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Jon Stewart Hits Back At Fox Host For Trying To 'School' Him On Food Stamps (VIDEO)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/stewart-hits-back-fox-food-stamps

http://a2.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/frmnqp1yraylj93dneyp.jpg

[tucker6]

Isn't it interesting that all the liberals have left to refute Fox News is a satire show on cable. MSNBC and CNN have given up trying to refute the truth. :lol:

[Robert Goren]

Reagan almost got it right. The best social program is a decent paying job.

[tucker6]

Reagan almost got it right. The best social program is a decent paying job.
No, he got it right the first time. There is more to a job than the pay. Self esteem and self worth. The old adage, "idle hands do the devil's work" comes to mind as well. Society is better off when people work even if the worker is making less than he/she would like. I'd rather help someone who is helping themselves than someone sitting on the couch all day.

[hcap]

Isn't it interesting that all the liberals have left to refute Fox News is a satire show on cable. MSNBC and CNN have given up trying to refute the truth. :lol:What's more interesting is the fiction portrayed by Faux and cons, that anytime society attempts to help those in need, we MUST be fools for caring. There are so many other places in government wasting many times more what social programs waste.

Faux Noos is a jolke. Stewart schooled Faux

[tucker6]

anytime society attempts to help those in need, we MUST be fools for caring.

There is a difference in thinking here. You want to help everybody regardless of their participation. I want to help those who want to be helped and assist. It's akin to someone falling into a deep pit. If the person in the pit isn't willing to help in his rescue by grabbing the rope and working himself up, then try as I might, I'll be unsuccessful in getting him out. That's how I view what social programs should be. We keep throwing more and more ropes into the pit hoping some day the guy will pick one up.

[Tom]

What's more interesting is the fiction portrayed by Faux and cons, that anytime society attempts to help those in need, we MUST be fools for caring. There are so many other places in government wasting many times more what social programs waste.

Before you get food stamps, you should give up your cell phone and cancel your cable TV.
You need to prioritize your food.

Obama said that.

[hcap]

Just more conservative truisms. You define what liberals want top do by your own wrong faulty assumptions. Most social programs are means tested throughout modern industrialized societies.

Waste is not as rampant as conservatives think. Nor are people as "lazy"

[hcap]

I will not do this again. Flail away cons. Whenever facts are mentioned, this board goes full tilt into conservative lalal land.

Time for me to return to watching from the sidelines. :eek:

[Robert Fischer]

It's a joke.

Most people are ignorant to why the food stamp program was expanded so much.

Food stamps act as a subsidy for the grocery monopoly(Walmart), and for the Food Service industry.

80%+ of all US food stamps received are spent back into Walmart. Among Walmart employees ~95% goes right back into Walmart.

-a guaranteed level of demand.

Then being one of the largest employers, it allows the employees to be paid at lower wages, with less benefits, and many part-time positions. This is where the service industry comes in as well. Walmart, Restaurant and Food Services,... they have well over 50% of their employees receiving food stamps!

- SUBSIDY for wages, benefits, and hours.

This is a massive subsidy and big conglomerates are behind it.

So why is it that the media continues to enforce and re-enforce the talking point of what Jon Stewart calls "exaggerating the scope of public assistance abuse through random, often unprovable anecdotes"?

[JustRalph]

Before you get food stamps, you should give up your cell phone and cancel your cable TV.
You need to prioritize your food.

Obama said that.


Now now! You're heading into Obama territory

[tucker6]

I will not do this again. Flail away cons. Whenever facts are mentioned, this board goes full tilt into conservative lalal land.

Time for me to return to watching from the sidelines. :eek:
This is weak. Fight for your position.

[chrisl]

Go to the sidelines..We will call you when someone needs water

[Robert Goren]

No, he got it right the first time. There is more to a job than the pay. Self esteem and self worth. The old adage, "idle hands do the devil's work" comes to mind as well. Society is better off when people work even if the worker is making less than he/she would like. I'd rather help someone who is helping themselves than someone sitting on the couch all day.You like Reagan are almost right again. Not all jobs offer self esteem and self worth. In fact some jobs depend on having people doing them who have neither. The government bureaucrat in charge of recording the speeches made by congressmen and senators to an empty chamber is prime example. How must he feel at night when he knows all he did for the day was record for eternity something that nobody else will ever read or hear. He knows no matter how well he does his job, it just doesn't matter. There a lot more jobs both legal and illegal that are just like that one.

[hcap]

This is weak. Fight for your position.I have countless times. Getting very tired of the same old, same old. Carry on

[Robert Goren]

One more thing, the people who do the Devil's work do not have idle hands. Theirs hands are always working. In fact they are the hardest working people around. Just ask the people whose job it is to undo the damage the Devil's workers do.

[JustRalph]

It's a joke.

Most people are ignorant to why the food stamp program was expanded so much.

Food stamps act as a subsidy for the grocery monopoly(Walmart), and for the Food Service industry.

80%+ of all US food stamps received are spent back into Walmart. Among Walmart employees ~95% goes right back into Walmart.

-a guaranteed level of demand.

Then being one of the largest employers, it allows the employees to be paid at lower wages, with less benefits, and many part-time positions. This is where the service industry comes in as well. Walmart, Restaurant and Food Services,... they have well over 50% of their employees receiving food stamps!

- SUBSIDY for wages, benefits, and hours.

This is a massive subsidy and big conglomerates are behind it.

So why is it that the media continues to enforce and re-enforce the talking point of what Jon Stewart calls "exaggerating the scope of public assistance abuse through random, often unprovable anecdotes"?


Then cancel the program immediately. If this is all true, why are Dems not proposing canceling the program? Get rid of it. You would get half of the Repubs to vote with them. If it's nothing but a subsidy, for big business, kill it! It would be veto proof. Obama couldn't do a damn thing about it. It was expanded to maintain control. Control of people and votes

Oh yeah, the real truth is that Food Stamps came along well before the Walmarts of the world. Before WWII was over. It was pushed by an agriculture Secretary that would eventually be a Democratic Vice President. He then went on to run for President in 1948 on the Progressive ticket.

Food stamps went away after a while and returned in the early sixties. Kennedy started the ball rolling in limited numbers and from there it took off. We all know what LBJ did with the war on poverty. Kaboom!

To say that food stamps are a way of propping up Walmart is to mis-direct in grand fashion. Walmart and other grocery stores are taking advantage of a system that was put in place long before the grand retail conspiracy that you describe. It's a direct consequence of a Democratic party give away. Don't complain about it being a boon to retail when you scream every time someone wants to cut the program. You can't have it both ways.

The truth is that food stamps are a vote buying scam that trickles down through not only Federal politics but straight into state politics too. It has created a permanent underclass, encouraged illegal immigration, immoral acts and contributed greatly to the destruction of the family in the United States.

Describing it as a giveaway to retail is the ultimate mis-direction worthy of a huge bullshit award, no matter the comedienne who pleads the case.

[Robert Goren]

It is way to keep to keep the price of farm products higher by making more people able to purchase more of them. That is the reason that it administered by the dept of agriculture and funding comes from the farm bill. It is also the reason rural area congressmen and senators who rail on about it rather loudly then quietly vote for it year after year.

[davew]

It is way to keep to keep the price of farm products higher by making more people able to purchase more of them. That is the reason that it administered by the dept of agriculture and funding comes from the farm bill. It is also the reason rural area congressmen and senators who rail on about it rather loudly then quietly vote for it year after year.

Thats funny as I am in production agriculture - ag programs are to keep supply high and prices low. The govenment entities end up buying over 15% for military, jails, school programs, and food stamp cards so they can get more bang for their buck. The government does not want starving citizens (as they could uprise against many things) and they do not want to have to rely on imports (which could be used as a weapon against us) therefore they want supply adequate to feed the people.

[iceknight]

My hero on many subjects.Except when he was given money to the afghan mujahideen, or to Iraq (bending over when 37 servicemen were killed, doing nothing), then also nicaragua?

Reagan is unnecessarily deified. He was basically a charismatic movie maker who used his charm to become the President and was good with one liners and humor.

[tucker6]

Reagan is unnecessarily deified. He was basically a charismatic movie maker who used his charm to become the President and was good with one liners and humor.
You really believe that?? The cold war ended on his watch, and which was primarily caused by his ratcheting up on military spending to destabilize the USSR. It worked and he'll be remembered for that long after you and I are dead and buried. Hard to believe a simpleton actor like Reagan could manage to do that with one liners and humor. Must have been lucky. :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

Except when he was given money to the afghan mujahideen, or to Iraq (bending over when 37 servicemen were killed, doing nothing), then also nicaragua?

Reagan is unnecessarily deified. He was basically a charismatic movie maker who used his charm to become the President and was good with one liners and humor.

Yeah, turning around the economy and shutting down the Soviets means nothing. Oh, yeah.......if you lived in East Germany or Poland the biggest thing you remember is probably the the one liners...... :rolleyes:

I met a Polish truck driver who stayed at my house in California, he was a Van Lines guy who drove my house cross country when I moved back to Ohio. He was a banker in Poland when their economy collapsed. I asked him about Reagan and for the next hour he told me how Reagan and Lech Walesa saved the country and offered him a chance to move to the U.S. He was emotional.

He carried a picture of Reagan and Walesa on the dash of his truck and tears came down his face when he told me about how Reagan saved him and his children. I'm sure it was all one liners and humor.

Btw, I joined the military right as Reagan was elected. We were driving 10-15 year old police cars and pilots didn't have enough fuel to stay current (they couldn't fly) until the Reagan budgets started kicking in. We got 15 new police cars at our unit and tons of new equipment. Stuff that had Korean War serial numbers ( including Rifles and pistols) were replaced with new gear. We actually got a few computers too. They didn't do much, but word processing is a big deal when writing police reports.

But really, us military guys sat around and marveled at the one liners and humor of Reagan. That was our top priority :ThmbUp:

[Robert Goren]

Thats funny as I am in production agriculture - ag programs are to keep supply high and prices low. The govenment entities end up buying over 15% for military, jails, school programs, and food stamp cards so they can get more bang for their buck. The government does not want starving citizens (as they could uprise against many things) and they do not want to have to rely on imports (which could be used as a weapon against us) therefore they want supply adequate to feed the people. The low price part is bull shit. The idea is to keep prices so the supplies will stay high. That is why have support prices on many farm items. That is why we have major subsidies for ethanol. At one time the government even paid farmers to take land out of production to keep prices high. I know farmers think they are under rewarded but the government does a lot of things to keep them in business. Consider what farm land is selling for these days, the government must be doing a pretty good job.
It is very wise to self sufficient in food. The countries that aren't are at the mercy of those who are.

[tucker6]

Yeah, turning around the economy and shutting down the Soviets means nothing. Oh, yeah.......if you lived in East Germany or Poland the biggest thing you remember is probably the the one liners...... :rolleyes:

I met a Polish truck driver who stayed at my house in California, he was a Van Lines guy who drove my house cross country when I moved back to Ohio. He was a banker in Poland when their economy collapsed. I asked him about Reagan and for the next hour he told me how Reagan and Lech Walesa saved the country and offered him a chance to move to the U.S. He was emotional.

He carried a picture of Reagan and Walesa on the dash of his truck and tears came down his face when he told me about how Reagan saved him and his children. I'm sure it was all one liners and humor.

Btw, I joined the military right as Reagan was elected. We were driving 10-15 year old police cars and pilots didn't have enough fuel to stay current (they couldn't fly) until the Reagan budgets started kicking in. We got 15 new police cars at our unit and tons of new equipment. Stuff that had Korean War serial numbers ( including Rifles and pistols) were replaced with new gear. We actually got a few computers too. They didn't do much, but word processing is a big deal when writing police reports.

But really, us military guys sat around and marveled at the one liners and humor of Reagan. That was our top priority :ThmbUp:
... but all that's anecdotal Ralph. Reagan was all about the one liners and humor. An empty suit.

[tucker6]

Yeah, turning around the economy and shutting down the Soviets means nothing. Oh, yeah.......if you lived in East Germany or Poland the biggest thing you remember is probably the the one liners...... :rolleyes:

Reagan's funniest one-liner was when he told the soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall. How stupid was that ... Oh wait, it worked. The people themselves did it in a bloodless revolution. :ThmbUp:

[Robert Goren]

Reagan's funniest one-liner was when he told the soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall. How stupid was that ... Oh wait, it worked. The people themselves did it in a bloodless revolution. :ThmbUp: He didn't have a one liner for the marines killed Beirut. His speech writers got writer's cramp when that happened.

[tucker6]

He didn't have a one liner for the marines killed Beirut. His speech writers got writer's cramp when that happened.
You actually trying to play politics with a couple hundred dead Marines?? :bang:

[Tom]

And rewrite history at the same time.
Terrorism was NOT the focus of foreign policy back then.
It was Communism.
Ollie North learned about Bi9n Laden and the warnings were ignored by Clinton, who allowed Al Qeda to grow and prosper while developing the 9/11 plot on our shores under his nose.

Unlike the repeated attacks under Clinton, we were in new territory at that time.

[Saratoga_Mike]

He didn't have a one liner for the marines killed Beirut. His speech writers got writer's cramp when that happened.

Reagan's reaction was the right one: we brought the marines home shortly thereafter, realizing the insanity of the region. Apparently the GWB camp didn't get the memo.

Your first sentence is disgraceful, as Tucker pointed out.

[Robert Goren]

You actually trying to play politics with a couple hundred dead Marines?? :bang:The right does it for far fewer all the time. They call it patriotism. :bang: Reagan had his chance to stop al Qaeda right then and there before it had a chance to grow, but he was too busy busting the air traffic controllers union. Killing terrorists who murdered our Marines or busting a union? An easy choice for a conservative.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The right does it for far fewer all the time. They call it patriotism. :bang: Reagan had his chance to stop al Qaeda right then and there before it had a chance to grow, but he was too busy busting the air traffic controllers union. Killing terrorists who murdered our Marines or busting a union? An easy choice for a conservative.

One of your more idiotic posts (in a line of many, I might add).

[Tom]

Robert sees history though a prism of bias.
He hates conservatives and doesn't understand what happened back then.
Reagan was also too busy watching the nuke threat get diminished, the wall come down, the iron curtain disappear, and the economy start a 30 year growth period.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Robert sees history though a prism of bias.
He hates conservatives and doesn't understand what happened back then.
Reagan was also too busy watching the nuke threat get diminished, the wall come down, the iron curtain disappear, and the economy start a 30 year growth period.

Hezbollah bombed our marine barracks. At the time, Al Q did not even exist. Al Q and Hezbollah have rarely cooperated over time given their sectarian differences. RG's assertion is pure nonsense.

[lamboguy]

the Al Qaeda was formed by Osama Bin Laden in 1988, the first strike was in 1998 during the Clinton administration. then the big one came in on 9-11-2001.

they are equal opportunity terrorist's, they go after other muslim factions as well as the infidel as they put it that they are famous for attacking.

Osama Bin Laden was the original instigator of this operation, that is probably why there was such a big reward on his head for finding him or killing him.

[_______]

Hezbollah bombed our marine barracks. At the time, Al Q did not even exist. Al Q and Hezbollah have rarely cooperated over time given their sectarian differences. RG's assertion is pure nonsense.

You mean that Shia Hezbollah isn't the same as Sunni Al Qaeda?

That kind of clarity only confuses me. I thought we should have bombed Iran after 9/11.

Hezbollah does get credit for being the first to deploy much of the asymmetrical strategies adapted later by Al Queda.

So there's that connection. I personally think we need to bomb Japan again every time a suicide bomber strikes. That would get the lesson across that kamikaze attacks won't be tolerated.

[Saratoga_Mike]

1) You mean that Shia Hezbollah isn't the same as Sunni Al Qaeda?

That kind of clarity only confuses me. 2) I thought we should have bombed Iran after 9/11.

Hezbollah does get credit for being the first to deploy much of the asymmetrical strategies adapted later by Al Queda.

So there's that connection. 3) I personally think we need to bomb Japan again every time a suicide bomber strikes. That would get the lesson across that kamikaze attacks won't be tolerated.

1) Line, that's my exact point.

2) Saudi Arabia might have made more sense given the composition of the 9/11 hijackers, but I appreciate your sarcasm.

3) GWB might have taken this advice.

[Robert Goren]

Robert sees history though a prism of bias.
He hates conservatives and doesn't understand what happened back then.
Reagan was also too busy watching the nuke threat get diminished, the wall come down, the iron curtain disappear, and the economy start a 30 year growth period.I like you lived that history. Unlike you, I have a good memory. Maybe I do see Reagan differently. I remember what his tight money policy did to farmer friends I grew up with and farm town I grew up near and those surrounding towns. Small town banks going under and taking the family farmers with them. I was there in the early 80s trying to keep a small town liquor store from going under. It was not the good time there that you seem remember. Maybe things were better were you lived. Reagan was president when the Russian empire crumbled from corruption in the leadership. He gets credit something he had very little do with. I suppose he should credit for something because his supporters refuse to give him credit for much of what he did like his immigration policy or his failed Middle East policy or his tight money policy.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I like you lived that history. Unlike you, I have a good memory. Maybe I do see Reagan differently. I1) remember what his tight money policy did to farmer friends I grew up with and farm town I grew up near and those surrounding towns. Small town banks going under and taking the family farmers with them. I was there in the early 80s trying to keep a small town liquor store from going under. It was not the good time there that you seem remember. Maybe things were better were you lived. Reagan was president when the Russian empire crumbled from corruption in the leadership. He gets credit something he had very little do with. I suppose he should credit for something because his supporters refuse to give him credit for much of what he did like his 2) immigration policy or 3) his failed Middle East policy or 4) his tight money policy.

1) You would have voted for William Jennings Byran, too. Hell, maybe you did!

2) Reagan's immigration reform was a failure.

3) He removed the marines from Beirut. That was the correct policy. You know not what you speak on this issue - see earlier in this thread.

4) The president doesn't control monetary policy. You can blame Paul Volker. Of course Volker's policies helped usher in an era of low-inflation and growth. Who first appointed Volker?

[JustRalph]

I don't even know what to say.........Robert, you obviously aren't yourself. I'll give you a pass. Officially I think your just trolling at this point, whether purposefully or not, health reasons or whatever. I hope you feel better soon

[Robert Goren]

the Al Qaeda was formed by Osama Bin Laden in 1988, the first strike was in 1998 during the Clinton administration. then the big one came in on 9-11-2001.

they are equal opportunity terrorist's, they go after other muslim factions as well as the infidel as they put it that they are famous for attacking.

Osama Bin Laden was the original instigator of this operation, that is probably why there was such a big reward on his head for finding him or killing him.al Qaeda was around long before Bin Laden took control of it in around 1988. It is now public knowledge that the forerunner of al Qaeda bombed the Beirut marines. It assumed by the public that it was connected anti-Israeli factions although it is now known that Reagan and the CIA knew better. The great thing about time is eventually all the secrets come out even if it takes 25-30 years and it isn't widely covered when it does. I did not about al Qaeda and the Beirut bombing until a couple of years ago when I was researching and double checking some facts for another loosely connected post at that time.

[Saratoga_Mike]

al Qaeda was around long before Bin Laden took control of it in around 1988. It is now public knowledge that the forerunner of al Qaeda bombed the Beirut marines. It assumed by the public that it was connected anti-Israeli factions although it is now known that Reagan and the CIA knew better. The great thing about time is eventually all the secrets come out even if it takes 25-30 years and it isn't widely covered when it does. I did not about al Qaeda and the Beirut bombing until a couple of years ago when I was researching and double checking some facts for another loosely connected post at that time.

Please stop making ahistorical statements and then representing them as fact. Someone new to the board might read your post and believe what he/she's reading.

[JustRalph]

al Qaeda was around long before Bin Laden took control of it in around 1988. It is now public knowledge that the forerunner of al Qaeda bombed the Beirut marines. It assumed by the public that it was connected anti-Israeli factions although it is now known that Reagan and the CIA knew better. The great thing about time is eventually all the secrets come out even if it takes 25-30 years and it isn't widely covered when it does. I did not about al Qaeda and the Beirut bombing until a couple of years ago when I was researching and double checking some facts for another loosely connected post at that time.

Please share some links to these facts

[Saratoga_Mike]

Please share some links to these facts

Please visit www.bullshit.com.

[_______]

al Qaeda was around long before Bin Laden took control of it in around 1988. It is now public knowledge that the forerunner of al Qaeda bombed the Beirut marines. It assumed by the public that it was connected anti-Israeli factions although it is now known that Reagan and the CIA knew better. The great thing about time is eventually all the secrets come out even if it takes 25-30 years and it isn't widely covered when it does. I did not about al Qaeda and the Beirut bombing until a couple of years ago when I was researching and double checking some facts for another loosely connected post at that time.

Unless Hassan Nasrallah took over Al Queda recently, this is nonsense.

You are conflating two very different and essentially opposed organizations.

[Robert Goren]

1) You would have voted for William Jennings Byran, too. Hell, maybe you did!

2) Reagan's immigration reform was a failure.

3) He removed the marines from Beirut. That was the correct policy. You know not what you speak on this issue - see earlier in this thread.

4) The president doesn't control monetary policy. You can blame Paul Volker. Of course Volker's policies helped usher in an era of low-inflation and growth. Who first appointed Volker?Volker was appointed by Carter and unlike now the Fed at that time works closely with the President. I have never found any quotes anywhere that shows Reagan and Volker were not in complete agreement on what do. The policy did bring low inflation, but the growth is open to question. The policy was very tough on small businesses, the very people Reagan was voted in to help. I can not think of a single small business that boomed during the Reagan years. I am sure there must be some somewhere, but in this part of the country they were very rare.
I did not vote Bryan, but I would have.

[Robert Goren]

I don't even know what to say.........Robert, you obviously aren't yourself. I'll give you a pass. Officially I think your just trolling at this point, whether purposefully or not, health reasons or whatever. I hope you feel better soonYou may be right. I have drifted a little further than I meant to on the subject of Beirut Marine Barracks. Although I stand by everything I typed, there is a lot of people who don't agree me about who did the bombing. Mine is certainly a minority opinion to say the least.
What I said about Reagan and his tight money policy is what I lived through. Everything I said I saw with my own two eyes. It was a very hard time for the people who lived Hebron, Ne where I was at the time. It had not yet recovered when I left to return to Lincoln in the fall of 1986 and to began journey in the parking business after spending most of life selling booze in way or the other. It was a good move for me. Hebron is still there, sort of. It had 5 bars when I left and now has 2. That pretty much says what has happened to the town.

[davew]

The low price part is bull shit. The idea is to keep prices so the supplies will stay high. That is why have support prices on many farm items. That is why we have major subsidies for ethanol. At one time the government even paid farmers to take land out of production to keep prices high. I know farmers think they are under rewarded but the government does a lot of things to keep them in business. Consider what farm land is selling for these days, the government must be doing a pretty good job.
It is very wise to self sufficient in food. The countries that aren't are at the mercy of those who are.

You clearly have a strong opinion and lack of knowledge on the issue. I remember when hogs were selling for 12 cents a pound to the 6 companies that buy hogs in the country. The cost of production was 40 cents per pound just for the food the hogs ate. Farmers lost years of built up equity and many went out of business.

Hormel foods had record profits during this time. Their reason was 'lower than expected costs of acquisition'.

The price supports are near 80% cost of production, just enough to keep many struggling farmers around another year.

Good farmland may be selling for $10K/acre but not much is being bought by farmers. Most farmers are renting land from others. A big owner of farmland in upper midwest is insurance companies.


I could be just as ludicrous in saying the 'trucking business' is great because new trucks cost over a half a million a piece - oh, I forgot it is the trucking business owners that are getting rich, just raping those truck drivers.... if only the truck driver union was stronger :(

[Robert Goren]

You clearly have a strong opinion and lack of knowledge on the issue. I remember when hogs were selling for 12 cents a pound to the 6 companies that buy hogs in the country. The cost of production was 40 cents per pound just for the food the hogs ate. Farmers lost years of built up equity and many went out of business.

Hormel foods had record profits during this time. Their reason was 'lower than expected costs of acquisition'.

The price supports are near 80% cost of production, just enough to keep many struggling farmers around another year.

Good farmland may be selling for $10K/acre but not much is being bought by farmers. Most farmers are renting land from others. A big owner of farmland in upper midwest is insurance companies.


I could be just as ludicrous in saying the 'trucking business' is great because new trucks cost over a half a million a piece - oh, I forgot it is the trucking business owners that are getting rich, just raping those truck drivers.... if only the truck driver union was stronger :(In Nebraska, they have a corporate farming law that prevents a lot that from happening. It is in the state constitution. I would have thought it violated the federal constitution, but apparently not. The farms are huge compared to when I was growing up on one (a quarter) but they are family owned, mortgaged to the hilt in most cases but family owned. Many are owned and farmed by parents, kids and grand kids. Generally here, any rent land is rented from a retired farmer whose kids did not go into farming. Land is just about only sold when somebody dies.

[Robert Goren]

Everybody in the eastern part of the state grows corn and/or beans. I think they still grow wheat out west but you won't see a wheat field around here anymore.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Unless Hassan Nasrallah took over Al Queda recently, this is nonsense.

You are conflating two very different and essentially opposed organizations.

Mr. Goren's never been a big believer in fact-based claims.

[Saratoga_Mike]

. I can not think of a single small business that boomed during the Reagan years. I am sure there must be some somewhere, but in this part of the country they were very rare.


One your best quotes of all time!

The country’s rate of new business development continues to slide, according to a Census Bureau Business Dynamics Statistics briefing published by the Kauffman Foundation on Wednesday. The report shows the rate of new business formation has fallen to between 7 percent and 8 percent (as a portion of all companies), down significantly from the rate of 12 percent to 13 percent in the 1980s.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-small-business/post/united-states-new-business-formation-rate-continues-dropping-steadily/2012/05/02/gIQAjKOewT_blog.html

http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/2012/05/number-of-new-firms-continues-to-slide-according-to-new-census-bureau-data

[OntheRail]

I can not think of a single small business that boomed during the Reagan years.

If I could only earn like I did under Reagen. I built my business out of pocket during that time.

I'd take eight years of Reaganomics over eight years of Obamaphonics... any decade.

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

[iceknight]

You really believe that?? The cold war ended on his watch, and which was primarily caused by his ratcheting up on military spending to destabilize the USSR. It worked and he'll be remembered for that long after you and I are dead and buried. Hard to believe a simpleton actor like Reagan could manage to do that with one liners and humor. Must have been lucky. :rolleyes: I just have issues with unnecessary deification of politicians, that is all. I would like people to discuss issues, than just cling behind the coat tails of politicians. I'm not some 'liberal" obama supporter, but seriously, discuss the actual issues, than trading your Reagan souvenir cards back and forth.
Two expensive wars have placed the US in a complicated position now and of course Reagan was lucky he chose to bomb Libya from air, but just grinned and accepted the death of 37 US sailors because it would have against his earlier political gamble. Or are you guys completely ignoring that incident and in denial that it never happened?

[Robert Goren]

Reagan was the king of "Talk loud and carry a twig" policy that so many here love.

[tucker6]

I guess bravery starts at midnight with a bottle of scotch and a keyboard. :D

[Tom]

Reagan was the king of "Talk loud and carry a twig" policy that so many here love.
That talk sure did accomplish a lot.
Maybe the world pays attention when you don't talk through a teleprompter.
Guess Quadafy might might disagree with that statement.
Check with the citizens of East Berlin if they respected him.

What a crock!

[Saratoga_Mike]

Reagan was the king of "Talk loud and carry a twig" policy that so many here love.

Reagan was our last great foreign policy president. He projected power/strength and commanded respect from friend and foe alike. Equally important (and the lesson GWB apparently missed), he didn't involve the United States in unnecessary foreign entanglements.

In this thread, you've made the following factual misstatements: 1) tied Hezbollah to Al Q, 2) claimed small-businesses fared poorly under Reagan's tenure, and 3) this nonsense (subjective).

What's next?

[chrisl]

Talk loud and carry a big twig..what an adolescent statement.

[NJ Stinks]

Reagan was our last great foreign policy president.

I guess the Iran-contra affair doesn't count. :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

I guess the Iran-contra affair doesn't count. :rolleyes:

That was him doing what he wanted behind the back of Congress. That's called pushing your foreign policy :lol: