"Police racism may have compromised 3000 San Francisco cases, officials say"

( . )( . )

Banned
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
4,875
Reaction score
177
Location
Cobra Kai dojo
Maximus Rex said:
Simply put, certain (white) individuals need to be banned from this forum
Fixed.

Funny how the 3 regular "I is just soooo oppressed by the white devils potable water, sewage disposal, rubbish disposal, electricity, schools, libraries, vaccinations ,decades of affirmative action, kid gloves, white guilt, apologies, media glorification and welfare" are the same 3 posters always and only crying for bannings and turning this place into a PC haven for sh!tibs/anti-whites. :whistle:
 

Embers84

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
210
Reaction score
44
Jaylan said:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/08/san-francisco-police-racism-text-messages

Well i'll be damned. :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ages-throw-3000-criminal-cases-into-question/

The quotes in this article are very telling.


Good ole white power racist on a police force. I wonder how many lives hes fvked up because of his prejudice.

Black success had this guy really butthurt. The next few years are gonna be big for law enforcement reform as more cops and PDs get caught up in these messes. In the technological age you cant hide this sh!t anymore.

Anything can be caught on video, and anything you put through the internet or phone network will exist forever.

Anyways, I'll let the apologists have at this one. Enjoy.

Good post man. Seems like the others don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot crying about "race posts" when they engage in anti black posts all the time. They will probably try to disrupt the thread, so it gets locked so no more comments can be posted. It's time for these cops to face the music for their crimes. Can't believe people in here don't care about police brutality when they can cetainly be a victim of it when cops gets overly aggressive in force.



Tictac said:
You really are no more than a race troll Gaylan.

You're not going to ever do anything about anything other than post this drool on an obscure website.

You, embers Rex, Milkshake and mocha (social justice league) have fun now with your old woman 'ain't it awful' fest.
Old man Tictac only likes pro GOP and pro white posts. Anything that shows the opposite he gets angry. If this site is so obscure, why are you on it all day and night? Why do you care? Go for a walk if you don't like it. Old timer, you were wrong on the Iraq War, unemployment, Labor Participatio rate, welfare, Freddy Gray, the media, race and everything else. Funny that you try to act like an authority when you don't know sh1t.




( . )( . ) said:
:crackup: @ the logic trap. Now que the mad scramble to backtrack on the "SEE YOU GUIZE WHITEY BE DA DEBBIL SEE?!!" narrative and commence the "COZ DIEVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH" cult-marx buzzwords.

The formulaic gaylan, he's? a parody of himself.


Says the guy who peppers his right wing buzzwords in all his posts with a "gay" smiley face. Never posts anything decent except to ridicule someone to ruin a good thread.


( . )( . ) said:
:crackup: I notice rascal99v aka embers84 has not just cut back on it's 20 smiley faces per mommy blogger post it makes but done away with them entirely.
Another insult. This guy has nothing except for useless posts accusing and attacking people. Nobody should take you as a serious poster.



Stagger Lee said:
So what? So what if some officers sent each other supposedly "racist, sexist, and homophobic texts"? It doesn't mean they treated anyone unfairly.
Yeah, racist cops aren't going to show racism against the groups they hate. You are a total idiot if you believe that. Sounds like you're making an excuse for racism since it goes with your beliefs.
 

( . )( . )

Banned
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
4,875
Reaction score
177
Location
Cobra Kai dojo
:crackup: I notice rascal99v aka embers84 has not just cut back on it's 20 smiley faces per mommy blogger post it makes but done away with them entirely.

Embers84 said:
Nobody should take you as a serious poster.
Because creating a 2nd account specifically to tell everybody how great the kenyan commie is and how evil those fly-over state rural white gentiles are is serious business yo!
 

speed dawg

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
4,768
Reaction score
1,235
Location
The Dirty South
If the mods ever ban a poster like Danger before Maximus Rex, they can kiss my ass goodbye too. I may not matter, but I can choose which boards to give hits.

I love this board, just like I love the United States. But when idiots like Maximus Rex or Obama call the shots, it's time for a shake up.
 

Jaylan

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,121
Reaction score
133
speed dawg said:
If the mods ever ban a poster like Danger before Maximus Rex, they can kiss my ass goodbye too. I may not matter, but I can choose which boards to give hits.

I love this board, just like I love the United States. But when idiots like Maximus Rex or Obama call the shots, it's time for a shake up.
Don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you :wave:
 

Jaylan

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,121
Reaction score
133
^I dunno, history has shown that most of the ethnocentric homeland wanting folks tend to be pretty racist and discriminatory. Can you think of any large movement in history for a homogeneous homeland that wasnt discriminatory against anyone?

Can you think of a homogeneity movement that was not belligerent or violent in any way? I cannot think of one, but please present one that talks of peaceful secession. Id love to be enlightened.
 

Tictac

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
1,256
Location
North America, probably an airport
Priss prance some more Gaylan/FatalGay. It's kinda funny.

You can't be wrong because all you do is type sh*t. You can't answer a simple question without twisting it to problib drool and staying all outrage queen. You simply ignore because you are a deliberate ignorant.

It's true I have a few years on you. I wouldn't trade a minute of my existence for all of your miserable years.

Now rage Queen Gaylan/FatalGay with whatever log-in you choose. It is all you capable of. You will do nothing but type here.
 

Stagger Lee

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
138
Jaylan said:
^I dunno, history has shown that most of the ethnocentric homeland wanting folks tend to be pretty racist and discriminatory. Can you think of any large movement in history for a homogeneous homeland that wasnt discriminatory against anyone?

Can you think of a homogeneity movement that was not belligerent or violent in any way? I cannot think of one, but please present one that talks of peaceful secession. Id love to be enlightened.
There you have it, any white country remaining white like they historically been for thousands of years=nazee. Everywhere else that's homogeneous and not white *shrug*.

Can YOU name a heterogeneity movement that was not belligerent and violent in some way? The US lol?
 

( . )( . )

Banned
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
4,875
Reaction score
177
Location
Cobra Kai dojo
Jaylan said:
^I dunno, history has shown that most of the ethnocentric homeland wanting folks tend to be pretty racist and discriminatory.
Sheesh Whitey can't catch a break. Sticks around and it's "Whitey be holdin us down". White flights or even *gasp* dares to want his own homogeneous homeland like all the other races and he's now "rayciss".

Make up your mind gaylan.
 

Embers84

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
210
Reaction score
44
speed dawg said:
But when idiots like Maximus Rex or Obama call the shots, it's time for a shake up.
Obama is the President, he does call the shots. Don't like it? Tough. Nothing you can do about it.


( . )( . ) said:
Sheesh Whitey can't catch a break. Sticks around and it's "Whitey be holdin us down". White flights or even *gasp* dares to want his own homogeneous homeland like all the other races and he's now "rayciss".

Make up your mind gaylan.
He talks ebonics now trying to divert attention away from the real subject.



Danger said:
It never fails. I have had hordes of liberals yell, scream, rage, call names, change subjects but I stand unwavering asking the same question over and over waiting for an answer, refusing to move the subject until they answer, and it follows this same pattern above EVERY TIME..

You're trying to change the subject matter from what this thread is about just like I suspected that from these right wingers trying to get it locked . The only name calling I see is constant use of the word "sh!tlib" and other right wing buzzwords, disrespectful terms to describe the President, hate against blacks by several posters. It happens ALL the time. And yes, I blame Bush because he started all the mess we have, the sh1t in the Middle East, the economy, illegal immigration. If it wasn't for his ineptness Obama wouldn't have had to clean up his sh1t he started that you guys want to re-write history pretending it didn't happen.





Danger said:
Embers,, should you jump back in, will you be coming back to the discussion on what percent of the media is liberal/conservative? Remember you switched metrics mid discussion when you realized you were losing?
Let's not forget how wrong you were on The Labor Participation Rate and with the media, Unemployment dropped to 5.4% and The Labor Participation Rate increased to 62.80. Are you going to answer this since you never did?



Danger said:
Wow I cannot believe Embers is still posting this propaganda.

We all know the labor force participation rate is at an all time low, which when factored in means unemployment is at record highs.

Ah the deluded left, lol.
Embers84 said:
63.01 percent from 1950 until 2015
62.70 percent in March of 2015
58.10 percent in December of 1954


http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

The lowest Participation Rate was in December of 1954 at 58.10%

The current Participation Rate is 62.70%. That is not the lowest of all time. That is a lie. You are wrong. Unemployment is at 5.5%. Those are NOT record highs. You are wrong.


63.01 percent from 1950 until 2015

62.80 percent in April of 2015


http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

Almost back to normal even with baby boomers retiring. What are you going to use against Obama now?




Danger said:
Embers,, should you jump back in, will you be coming back to the discussion on what percent of the media is liberal/conservative?

Again, I posted several links that shows what percentage of the media is Conservative vs Liberal. Conservatives dominate the media with broadcasting companies such as, Fox, Sinclair, Gannett, Raycom, Tribune, Cox, LIN Media, Local TV LLC, Scripps, Nexstar, Meredith, Journal Broadcast Group, Hubbard, Schurz, Dispatch Broadcast. This is the bulk of the Television media that owns right wing ABC, NBC, CBS affiliates that reaches the largest portion of American TV audiences. I don't know why you can't grasp that. when no Liberal broadcasting companies have the same power or resources as conservatives do. Everything I post, show absolute facts. you dismiss them and change the subject like you accuse others of. Even with Sinclair alone, that dominates any liberal media since they are pushing their right wing news into the entire mainstream media.

WJLA is owned by Sinclair and is their major Affiliate ABC TV station in the US. The same WJLA who was putting out biased stories against the protesters and Gray in Baltimore pushing their spin for the cops innocence. Their version was picked up by yahoo news, CNN, the big 3 Networks to give a right wing media bias in the mainstream news attacking blacks, Liberals, Obama in favor of the cops pushing an anti black bias . So, you are wrong and you know it.

If you want to debate more about the media I would be more than happy to, but don't hi jack this thread going off topic when it proves your side to be wrong on racism. .That's why you want to go off topic to divert attention away from it.



WJLA
Affiliations: ABC
Channel: 7

Owner: Sinclair Broadcast Group


WJLA-TV, channel 7, is an ABC-affiliated television station located in the American capital city of Washington, D.C.. The station is owned by Hunt Valley, Maryland-based Sinclair Broadcast Group, which also operates local cable channel NewsChannel 8.

On January 23, 2009, WJLA laid off 26 staff members, including several on-air reporters due to financial constraints. The laid off reporters include Andrea McCarren, Sarah C. Lee, Alisa Parenti, Emily Schmidt, Jennefer Donelan, and weekend sports anchor Greg Toland. Most of the dismissals took effect immediately, but some were allowed to serve out their contracts

WJLA also announced a 4.9% salary cut for all remaining staff and a halt to company contributions to 401(k) retirement plans.

Post-acquisition, concerns began to emerge surrounding how Sinclair's historic right-wing slant may affect WJLA's news coverage. After Sinclair took over the station, WJLA began to air conservative commentaries by Sinclair executive Mark E. Hyman, along with stories from Sinclair's Washington bureau—all of which were critical of the Obama administration. The station also partnered with the conservative Washington Times to feature its weekly "Golden Hammer" award—highlighting "the most egregious examples of government waste, fraud and abuse", as a segment during its newscasts. WJLA staff members felt that it was inappropriate for a station in Washington, D.C. to air stories that are critical of the federal government; one of whom told The Washington Post that with these changes, the station may "lose the trust they built up with people over years and years. We've told people, 'We're just like you,' not, 'We're looking out for the tea party."


On January 26, 2015, the station made changes to its news set and also, debuted a fresh new on-air look along with new theme music for its newscasts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WJLA-TV

There are NO Liberals on network affiliates pushing biased slanted news like this. Liberals do not give biased commentaries on local news against conservatives. No Liberal ever pre-empted regularly scheduled programming to air biased documentaries or give free air time to candidates on their networks. NO Liberals have the power to compete against the right wing media when the same companies both own TV and Radio and Liberal News doesn't sell. If you can find examples where Liberals have the power to block programming on network affiliates for biased documentaries then link it. If you can find examples where Liberals hand picked a national candidate to endorse them on network affiliates giving them free air time nationwide then link it. If you can find examples where Liberals have their own network news bureau like Sinclair does, pushing biased news on ABC, NBC, CBS affiliates then link it. Find a "Liberal Affiliate TV station" that leaks biased news into the mainstreamedia. If you can't link any of this then shut up, because no "Liberal Media" exists, only in the right wing myth it does, so they can buy up more TV stations to fill their portfolios feeding you the lies you eat up with the rest of the sheep who follow.
 

Embers84

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
210
Reaction score
44
( . )( . ) said:
Pretending the Kenyan "community organizer" is doing a good job and how bad those fly-over state rural whites are is only "real" to you rascal99v aka embers84.
Accusations and insults is the only thing you can post trying to discredit people here. It's funny how you right wingers try to pretend President Obama is doing a bad job when ALL facts and figures shows he is doing a remarkable job. Go crunch the numbers, pull up some stats and compare Obama vs Bush. Obama has outpeformed both Bushes combined and even Reagan. You're an idiot parroting nothing useful at all. You should be happy this President is doing well. Why would you want our country to fail? What an idiot. You're wrong again.




Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhar...performs-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/



The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) today issued America’s latest jobs report covering August. And it’s a disappointment. The economy created anadditional 142,000 jobs last month. After six consecutive months over 200,000, most pundits expected the string to continue, including ADP which just yesterday said 204,000 jobs were created in August.

One month variation does not change a trend

Even though the plus-200,000 monthly string was broken (unless revised upward at a future date,) unemployment did continue to decline and is now reported at only 6.1%. Jobless claims were just over 300,000; lowest since 2007. Despite the lower than expected August jobs number, America will create about 2.5 million new jobs in 2014.

And that is great news.

Back in May, 2013 (15 months ago) the Dow was out of its recession doldrums and hitting new highs. I asked readers if Obama could, economically, be the best modern President? Through discussion of that question, the number one issue raised by readers was whether the stock market was a good economic barometer for judging “best.” Many complained that the measure they were watching was jobs – and that too many people were still looking for work.


This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history

President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’

As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhar...performs-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.


We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.


What about the Labor Participation Rate?

Much has been made about the poor results of the labor participation rate, which has shown more stubborn recalcitrance as this rate remains higher even as jobs have grown.

The labor participation rate adds in jobless part time workers and those in marginal work situations with those seeking full time work. This is not a “hidden” unemployment. It is a measure tracked since 1900 and called ‘U6.’ today by the BLS.

As this chart shows, the difference between reported unemployment and all unemployment – including those on the fringe of the workforce – has remained pretty constant since 1994.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhar...performs-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/

Labor participation is affected much less by short-term job creation, and much more by long-term demographic trends. As this chart from the BLS shows, as the Baby Boomers entered the workforce and societal acceptance of women working changed, labor participation grew.

Now that ‘Boomers’ are retiring we are seeing the percentage of those seeking employment decline. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic.


What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the eight years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.

Economic growth, including manufacturing, is driving jobs

When President Obama took office America was gripped in an offshoring boom, started years earlier, pushing jobs to the developing world. Manufacturing was declining in America, and plants were closing across the nation.

This week the Institute for Supply Management(ISM) released its manufacturing report, and it surprised nearly everyone. The latest Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) scored 59, two points higher than July and about that much higher than prognosticators expected. This represents 63 straight months of economic expansion, and 25 consecutive months of manufacturing expansion.

New orders were up 3.3 points to 66.7, with 15 consecutive months of improvement and reaching the highest level since April, 2004 – five years prior to Obama becoming President. Not surprisingly, this economic growth provided for 14 consecutive months of improvement in the employment index. Meaning that the “grass roots” economy made its turn for the better just as the DJIA was reaching those highs back in 2013 – demonstrating that index is still the leading indicator for jobs that it has famously always been.

As the last 15 months have proven, jobs and economy are improving, and investors are benefiting

The stock market has converted the long-term growth in jobs and GDP into additional gains for investors. Recently the S&P has crested 2,000 – reaching new all time highs. Gains made by investors earlier in the Obama administration have further grown, helping businesses raise capital and improving the nest eggs of almost all Americans. And laying the foundation for recent, and prolonged job growth

However, it is undeniable that President Obama has surpassed the previous president. Investors have gained a remarkable 220% over the last 5.5 years! This level of investor growth is unprecedented by any administration, and has proven quite beneficial for everyone.

Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a “smaller government.” Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy.

[Update 10/4/14 - August jobs report revised upward to 180,000 as September jobs creation returns to 248,000 lowering unemployment rate to 5.9% - lowest unemployment number in 6 years.

[Update 10/16/14 - Initial claims for unemployment drop to the lowest level in 14 years - all the way back to 2000 - indicating an improved economy, additional jobs and fewer people looking for work.]

[Update 11/7/14 - Jobs created in August was revised upward to 203,000 - almost exactly where ADP had the number in August. September was also revised upward to 256,000. Unemployment falls to 5.8% as October is initially reported at 214,000, making 9 consecutive months above 200,000. ]

[Update 12/7/14 - Jobs growth continues in November, with over 300,000 new jobs in America it is the largest monthly employment increase in 3 years; while simultaneously wages rise as well.]

[Update 1/9/15 - Jobs growth continues in December. Over 252,000 new jobs created in America, and unemployment falls to 5.6%. Further the October and November numbers both were upgraded by +50,000 more jobs.]

[Update 1/14/15 - Streak of hiring makes 2014 the best year for new jobs creation since 1999 - when Bill Clinton was President. Confidence high for 2015]

[Update 2/6/15 - Jobs production continues as 257,000 new jobs were created in America in January. And wages make their highest jump in 6 years. Further, the November jobs number was revised upward to 414,000 - and the December number was revised upward to 329,000. Pay in 2014 rose 2.2%, vs. inflation of .8%]

[Update 3/6/15 - U.S. economy adds 295,000 new jobs in February. Extends string of 200k+ new jobs for 12 consecutive months, the best jobs growth performance since 1994-1995. Unemployment falls to 5.5%, a post-recession low.
 

Tictac

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
1,256
Location
North America, probably an airport
Why according to embers, we are living in paradise!

Yes, paradise.

Can't you just feel it? Things have never been better and all due to Obama and all in just 6 years.

We have achieved a golden age in domestic and foreign policy!

Now type another tome or two embers. See if you can suck up every meg of cyberspace for your drivel.

Longer posts please!
 

( . )( . )

Banned
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
4,875
Reaction score
177
Location
Cobra Kai dojo
Under obammy

Tictac said:
Why according to embers, we are living in paradise!

Yes, paradise.

Can't you just feel it?
*7.5 trillion more dollars of debt.

*11,472,000 Americans left the workforce

*A record 20% of Americans now on food stamps

*Welfare recipients now at an all time high

*The countries AAA credit rating gone because of spending

*Guns and ammo ownership skyrocketing

*Sh!tlib communities fracturing left and right

I can feel something ;)
 

Embers84

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
210
Reaction score
44
( . )( . ) said:
A record 20% of Americans now on food stamps
Wrong again. Quit listening to your biased right wing media to give you bullsh1t stats. Get the information yourself so you know exactly what happened.


Food stamp growth started before Obama took office

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...6f49b00-f844-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html

By Allen McDuffee

The continuation of Newt Gingrich’s moniker for President Obama as the “food stamp president” among Republicans this election season is the product of selective memory and political expediency, writes Cato Institute’s Tad DeHaven.

Although the food stamp program hit an all-time high this summer of 46.7 million individuals in June, DeHaven says the trajectory can be traced back to the 2002 farm bill passed by a Republican-controlled House and signed by President George W. Bush.

According to DeHaven:

What Republicans don’t want to acknowledge is the role they played in expanding the food stamps program before President Obama ever took office. The 2002 farm bill—passed by a Republican-controlled House and signed by Republican President George W. Bush—expanded the food stamps program. As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page correctly noted yesterday, “The food-stamp boom began with the George W. Bush Republicans, who expanded benefits in the appalling 2002 farm bill.”

It’s also worth looking at Cato’s handy chart on the growth since 2000, based on OMB data.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/food-stamp-republicans



Newt’s Faulty Food-Stamp Claim


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


Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.”He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.

The former speaker made that claim Jan. 16 in a Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., and his campaign organization quickly inserted the snippet in a new 30-second TV ad that began running Jan. 18 in South Carolina.

Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it’s also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.

But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s


It’s possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.

Update, Feb. 5: Revised USDA data released in February showed the downward trend continued for a second straight month in November, when the number of persons getting food stamps was 134,418 fewer than it had been at the peak.

Obama’s Responsibility

Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an “entitlement society,” increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps.

But Gingrich strains the facts when he accuses Obama of being responsible. The rise started long before Obama took office, and accelerated as the nation was plunging into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007.


To be sure, Obama is responsible for some portion of the increase since then. The stimulus bill he signed in 2009 increased benefit levels, making the program more attractive. A family of four saw an increase of $80 per month, for example. That increase remains in effect and is not set to expire until late next year, according to USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel.

The stimulus also made more people eligible. Able-bodied jobless adults without dependents could get benefits for longer than three months. That special easing of eligibility also expired on Sept. 30, 2010. Spokeswoman Daniel told us that 46 states have been able to continue the longer benefit period under special waivers granted because of high unemployment. Previously, able-bodied adults without dependents could collect food stamps for only three months out of any three-year period.

Otherwise, current eligibility standards are unchanged from what they were before Obama took office, USDA officials say. Generally, those with incomes at or below 130 percent of the official poverty level, and savings of $2,000 or less, may receive aid. The income level is currently just over $29,000 a year for a family of four.

That leaves the economic downturn that began in 2007 — and the agonizingly slow recovery that followed — as the principal factors making more Americans eligible for food stamps. Officials say that another factor is that Americans today are less reluctant to accept aid than before.

Of those whose income was low enough to qualify, only 54 percent actually signed up in 2002, but that rose steadily to 72 percent by fiscal 2009, the latest USDA figures show (See Table 2).

USDA researchers said the jump in the participation rate happened because of actions by state governments. In a report released in August 2011, the Office of Research and Analysis said:

USDA: States have increased outreach to low-income households, implemented program simplifications, and streamlined application processes to make it easier for eligible individuals to apply for and receive SNAP [food stamp] benefits. Most States also have reduced the amount of information that recipients must report during their certification period to maintain their eligibility and benefit levels, making it easier for low-income households to participate.


Another reason may be that “food stamps” no longer exist as paper coupons. Instead, beneficiaries now receive plastic debit cards, known as “Electronic Benefit Transfer” or EBT cards, which look pretty much like an ordinary credit card when used in a supermarket checkout line.

EBT cards have been used in all states since 2004, according to the USDA website. The change to plastic cards was done both to reduce the possibility of fraud, and also to reduce the stigma felt by beneficiaries, and may account for some of the increase in participation.

In fact, the program is no longer officially called the “food stamp” program. Since 2008, it has been the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP for short.

Who Gets Food Stamps?

The most recent Department of Agriculture report on the general characteristics of the SNAP program’s beneficiaries says that in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010:

47 percent of beneficiaries were children under age 18.
8 percent were age 60 or older.
41 percent lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called “working poor.”
The average household received a monthly benefit of $287.
36 percent were white (non-Hispanic), 22 percent were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10 percent were Hispanic (Table A.21).

49 percent were white (non-Hispanic); 26 percent were black or African American; and 20 percent were Hispanic (of any race).

Note that Census data somewhat understate the total number of persons receiving food stamps, compared with the more accurate head count from USDA, which is based on actual benefit payments. Survey participants may be reluctant to state that they have received public assistance during the year. So the Census figures on race and ethnic background can’t be guaranteed to be completely accurate. But we judge the Census figures to be a better approximation of reality regarding race and ethnic background than USDA figures.

But the plain fact is that the growth started long before Obama took office, and participation grew more under Bush.

Kevin Concannon, the USDA’s undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, told the Wall Street Journal: “I realize Mr. Gingrich is a historian, but I’m not sure he’d get very high marks on that paper.”

— Brooks Jackson

Footnote: There was an earlier easing of eligibility standards buried in a 2008 farm bill that Congress enacted over Bush’s veto. Obama voiced support for the measure while campaigning, but was not present for either the Senate vote to pass the bill or the vote to override.

Both votes enjoyed strong bipartisan majorities. Only 12 Republicans and two Democrats voted to sustain Bush’s veto, for example. Bush didn’t mention the food stamp provisions when he vetoed the bill, but instead cited what he called excessive subsidies to farmers.
 

Embers84

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
210
Reaction score
44
( . )( . ) said:
*The countries AAA credit rating gone because of spending
Know the facts before you post biased spin.


Bush VS Obama


Stimulus and Jobs

http://y.ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Monthly_0208_0514.jpg



U.S. Government Spending

http://y.ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Bush_Obama_Spending_2014.jpg



Budget Deficits

http://y.ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Bush_Obama_Deficit_2014.jpg





Tictac said:
Why according to embers, we are living in paradise!

Yes, paradise.

Can't you just feel it? Things have never been better and all due to Obama and all in just 6 years.

We have achieved a golden age in domestic and foreign policy!

Now type another tome or two embers. See if you can suck up every meg of cyberspace for your drivel.

Longer posts please!

I know your memory is cloudy old timer, but let's not forget about the "Good Old Days" with George W. Bush who was LOSING a half million jobs per month, record high unemployment, 2 recessions, deficits, record spending, and nearly put us in a Great Depression. Obama is creating jobs, unemployment is at a record low, longest private sector job growth, debt is being reduced, most jobs created since 1999, and the economy is in good shape. We are better off with Obama than with Bush. W never had any of this with Obama, so yes it is paradise compared to the crap we suffered under Bush and GOP leadership. Refresh your memory with this.



Bush Economy Continues Tanking

New Measures Needed to Help Workers



December 5, 2008


Employment figures released today by the Department of Labor show that the economy is reeling and workers are suffering greatly. In November, businesses slashed 533,000 jobs, the largest monthly loss of jobs in 34 years. Unemployment rose to 6.7 percent, the highest level in 15 years. And 200,000 more jobs were lost in September and October than previously estimated. There are now fewer jobs in the economy than there were two years ago, even though the population has increased by 5 million people during that time.

Since December 2007, when the current recession began,the economy has lost nearly 2 million jobs. Most job losses have been quite recent, meaning that the severity of the recession is accelerating. Over 1.2 million jobs have been cut in the past three months, and the economy has now shed jobs for 11 consecutive months. The current recession has already lasted a year, and if it lasts just four months longer—which is likely given its increased severity—the current recession will become the longest recession since the Great Depression.

There were almost no positive signs in the Department of Labor’s figures. Job losses were widespread across almost every industry. Only education and health care and government employment grew, but by just 52,000 and 7,000 respectively. These increases are far less than enough to make up for losses elsewhere—a trend that has been occurring for some time.

Employment in professional and business sectors fell by 136,000 in November. Manufacturing dropped 85,000 jobs and has declined by 604,000 jobs since December of 2007. Construction lost 82,000 jobs and has fallen by 780,000 since its peak in 2006. Employment in financial activities fell by 32,000 for the month and 142,000 since December 2007. Leisure and hospitality employment declined by 76,000 in November and has fallen by 204,000 since peaking in April 2008. Retail employment fell by 91,000 for the month and 440,000 since last November. All told, job losses over the past three months are the worst since a three-month period in 1974.

Even the unemployment rate—which is at its highest level since 1993—suggests deeper problems. Despite more and more people being added to the unemployment rolls, nearly 40 percent of people have been unemployed for over 15 weeks. This is because people who are currently unemployed are not able to find work, and they are likely suffering as unemployment benefits run out. In addition, many people have simply stopped looking for work—meaning they are not counted as officially unemployed—and still more are only able to find part-time work. When these people are included, the rate of labor underutilization is 12.5 percent.

Indicators for the future are also bleak. Temporary employment—which is generally considered a predictor of larger changes in the labor market because many companies use temporary help services as a means to quickly adjust their operations to meet fluctuating demands for their products and services—continued to shed jobs.

Temporary help services lost 78,000 jobs in November and nearly 400,000 jobs since November 2007.On another front, the average workweek for production and nonsupervisory workers fell to 33.5 hours—the “lowest in the history of the series,” according to the DOL. That means that many businesses are reducing hours in an attempt not to lay off people, but even these measures may prove futile if the recession continues. It also means that workers fortunate enough to still have a job are earning less money because they are working fewer hours.

In addition, in just the past few days, a number of large companies have announced plans for significant layoffs, including AT&T, DuPont, Viacom, JP Morgan Chase, and Delta.

This month’s jobs report—one of the last of George W. Bush’s presidency—provides an important opportunity to put his record in historical perspective.

The current economic downturn, which was just officially declared a recession last week, marks the second recession of Bush’s presidency. The first occurred from March through November 2001. While a few other presidents have also had two recessions on their watch, almost none have had a record on jobs as poor as Bush’s. Perhaps only Herbert Hoover, the president who helped steer the country into the depression, has a jobs record worse than Bush.

While President Bush’s labor market record is better than Hoover’s, Bush has presided over the worst annual job creation record of any president since Hoover. Most presidents in the 20th century have created jobs at an annual rate of between 2 percent and 4 percent. Hoover lost jobs at an annual rate of 4.4 percent, making him the only president to preside over an economy that actually lost jobs. While President Bush has not lost jobs, he created jobs at an annual rate of only 0.4 percent through the end of November. And the economy is now losing jobs at a rate of 1.4 percent per year.

Bush’s record on wages and income inequality is perhaps even worse than his record on jobs. Under Bush, wages and income for most Americans have been essentially flat and income inequality has risen to extreme levels not seen since Hoover’s presidency. Under President Hoover, income inequality, as measured by the ratio of the average income of the top 10 percent compared to the average income of the bottom 90 percent, rose from 7.1 percent in 1929 to 7.8 percent in 1932.

Under President Bush the rise in inequality has been even greater, with the ratio rising from 6.8 percent in 2001 to 7.9 percent in 2006, the most recent year the data is available. These periods of high income inequality sharply contrast with the period of 1942 to 1987, when the ratio of top incomes to the incomes of most Americans never exceeded 5.

Clearly, for too many workers, the economy is not doing well. Despite the economy’s deep problems, Bush continues to obstruct needed stimulus measures. Thankfully, the Bush presidency is nearing its end. We now have an opportunity and an obligation to reverse course.

Smart policies can help minimize job losses and sow the seeds for a recovery. Stabilizing the financial and housing markets and passing a significant new stimulus with targeted aid to those most in need and measures geared to create jobs are key first steps. But there will also need to be a major focus on making the economy work again for workers—such as through the Employee Free Choice Act, which makes it easier for workers to join unions so they can bargain for improved wages and benefits. Getting out of the deep hole we are in will not be quick or easy, but it can be done.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2008/12/05/5266/bush-economy-continues-tanking/

Good Old Fashoned Republican economics that destroys an economy and a country. And they want more of the same with republican leadership. Bush handed Obama this mess and right wingers had enough never to criticize him for taking over the 2nd worst economy in U.S. History.
 

( . )( . )

Banned
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
4,875
Reaction score
177
Location
Cobra Kai dojo
:rolleyes: 2012? Nice try rascal99v aka embers84. Here's one a bit more recent and straight from the Census Bureau.
Last year, according to data from the Census Bureau, there were 115,013,000 households. With 23,052,388 households – or 20 percent of the total number of households –now dependent on food stamps.
It's probably safe to assume those 1 in 5 food stamp dependent households children are also included.

btw while I'm here and just to piss you off:

In a leaked memo to clients, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of Americans out of work at an astronomic 37.2 percent, as opposed to the 6.7 percent claimed by the Federal Reserve.

“The unemployment rate only describes people who are currently working or looking for work,” he said.

Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent. This number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment. But it does describe how many people are not able to, do not want to or cannot find a way to work,” he and colleague Megan Russell reveal in their client report, which was leaked to the Washington Examiner.
http://rt.com/business/us-unemployment-economy-crisis-assistance-006/
rascal99v said:
Know the facts before you post biased spin.
Credit rating stands at AA. http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/2014/06/07/us-aaa-credit-rating-missed/10190239/ what are you not understanding here?
 

Embers84

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
210
Reaction score
44
( . )( . ) said:
The countries AAA credit rating gone because of spending
Did you forget about how your big government spending right wingers increased the size of government setting record numbers and deficits under Bush?


Spending Under President George W. Bush

http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 12.5 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 53 percent.

One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent.

Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget.

President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.

Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 24, 2004.




Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, an estimated $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a conservative estimate, since it doesn’t include at least $50 billion for the 2005 cost of the Iraq occupation.


As predicted by Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs, author of such key books as Crisis and Leviathan and the new Against Leviathan, this explosion of government power would only have been possible in the aftermath of 9/11. Times of crisis present the easiest opportunities for politicians to take advantage of a frightened American public.

President George W. Bush is now on his way to becoming the first full-term president since John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) to not veto a single bill. The result is a congress that has been completely unconstrained in satiating its appetite for pork and corporate welfare. In response, Democratic challenger John Kerry hasmaligned alleged spending cuts and called for even higher taxes and spending. The consequence is that we now have two parties competing to see which can grow government faster.

From the massive increases in agricultural subsidies in the farm bill of 2002, to the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement of 2003; from the 47% increase in the defense budget, to the 80% increase in education spending, George W. Bush has demonstrated that “limited government” is not part of his political vocabulary.

George W. Bush: Biggest Spender Since LBJ


DECEMBER 19, 2009



http://www.cato.org/blog/george-w-bush-biggest-spender-lbj

The Congressional Budget Office has released final budget numbers for fiscal year 2009. The numbers allow us to take a last look at the Bush administration’s record on spending from a statistical point of view.

The following three charts show annual average real (or constant dollar) outlays during the tenures of recent presidents. Presidents were in office for either 4 or 8 budget years, except JFK (3 years), LBJ (5 years), Nixon (6 years), and Ford (2 years).

President George W. Bush’s last year was fiscal 2009. Outlays that year were $3.522 trillion, according to the CBO. However, $108 billion was spending for the 2009 economic stimulus package passed under President Obama. Bush was thus roughly responsible for $3.414 trillion of spending in 2009, which includes outlays for the financial bailouts enacted under his watch. (For FY2009, $154 billion for TARP and $91 billion for Fannie and Freddie).


Spending in Bush’s first year (FY2001) was $1.863 trillion, thus he presided over an 83-percent increase in overall federal spending, which includes defense, domestic, entitlements, and interest. Even without TARP and Fannie/Freddie, spending was up a huge 70 percent under Bush over eight years. By contrast, total spending under eight years of President Clinton increased just 32 percent. These are the overall increases in nominal dollars.

Now let’s look at the real annual averages. Figure 1 shows the average increase in total spending under recent presidents.

Bush II was the biggest spender since LBJ. His spending increases were far larger than the three prior presidents.

Of course, presidents share spending power with Congress and it is easier for presidents to control discretionary spending than entitlement spending. Nonetheless, the results in these charts reflect the general spending approach taken by the presidents quite well. For example, Bush II was instrumental in adding the Medicare drug benefit, which by 2009 was adding more than $60 billion a year to federal spending.

Figure 2 shows total federal spending without interest payments. Presidents have the least discretionary control over interest.

The biggest spenders by this measure were again LBJ and Bush II. Note that Bush’s record by this measure is worse than in Figure 1. That is because Bush lucked out with relatively low interest rates on the federal debt and relatively low amounts of federal debt because of four years of surpluses under President Clinton.


For Figure 3, I took out both interest payments and defense spending from the totals. So spending includes domestic discretionary spending and so-called entitlement spending–in other words, mainly spending on the growing federal welfare state. By this measure, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon had awful records. These were the years of massive creation and expansion of federal subsidy programs for the elderly, state governments, and many other groups. By the late-1970s, the creation of new programs had slowed but existing programs continued to grow.

The 1980 election of Ronald Reagan represented a revolt against the rapidly expanding welfare state. His record shown in Figure 3 of just 1 percent real spending growth over eight years was impressive, at least relative to the other presidents of the last half century.


What about Bush II? Figure 3 shows that he was the biggest domestic spender since Nixon. He set the stage for the explosive spending growth we are seeing under President Obama. Big spending was a key cause of Bush’s failure as president both economically and politically.

Big Republican Spenders creating debt and increasing government handing it off to Obama to fix. Right Wing Hypocrisy folks!
 

Tictac

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
1,256
Location
North America, probably an airport
Record deficits under Bush!

Hilarious Embers.

Keep 'em comin'.

When Bush left office, debt was $10.7 trillion and debt/GDP was 74.1%.

Debt is now $18.1 trillion and debt/GDP is 101.5%.

69% of total U.S. Debt has been issued by one President - Barack Obama and in less than 7 years.
 
Top