Ky. congressman has well-lubed operation
Whoa.
I know it’s not cold hard cash stashed in a freezer, but still … the amount of money involved is a little mind-boggling.
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has funneled more than $236 million in federal funds since 2000 to a web of nonprofit groups he created back home in the Bluegrass State, according to a new report by an ethics watchdog group.
Another group of private firms linked to Rogers and the nonprofit companies received another $227 million in federal loans, grants and contracts during the same period, a three-month investigation by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) found.
Rogers’ family members, current and former aides, donors and business associates have benefited personally from the congressman’s largesse with federal dollars, according to the report. For instance, Rogers’ son, John, worked for one Kentucky company – Senture – that received a $4 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security with Rogers’ help back in 2004. Senture, which has now added offices in several other states, announced last year that it would receive contracts from several other federal agencies, including the Veterans Administration and Education Department….
The nonprofit groups set up by Rogers comprise an alphabet soup of acronyms: the Center for Rural Development, Inc. (CRD), Forward in the Fifth, Inc. (FIF), Southeast Kentucky Economic Development Corporation, Inc. (SKED), Southern & Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association, Inc. (TOUR SEKY), Eastern Kentucky Personal Responsibility in a Desirable Environment, Inc. (PRIDE), Unlawful Narcotics Investigations, Treatment and Education, Inc. (UNITE), and the National Institute for Hometown Security, Inc. (NIHS).
“
That’s $560 million — more than a half a billion. At that rate, the good congressman from Kentucky will be getting into real money sometime soon.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
400 comments Add your comment
Mr Right
April 26th, 2011
10:59 am
Just checking in to see who in the GOP Jay is slamming today!
larry
April 26th, 2011
11:04 am
Just checking in to see who in the GOP Jay is slamming today!
Sounds like he need slamming. Welcome to Mr. Roger’s neighborhood.
Blaming it on Obama in 3, 2, 1, ………….
larry
April 26th, 2011
11:05 am
” he needed slamming, not ” he need. ooops
USinUK
April 26th, 2011
11:07 am
“Another group of private firms linked to Rogers and the nonprofit companies received another $227 million in federal loans, grants and contracts during the same period”
oof.
how many family members are on their boards???
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
11:07 am
Looks like I need to marry into a politician’s family! They take care of themselves, dont’ they!?
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
11:09 am
Jay bashing on Republicans – twice this morning.
You know they can’t take all this truth, Jay. They will be having mental brerakdowns all afternoon until they can get home to watch some soothing Fox News.
El Jefe
April 26th, 2011
11:09 am
Guess he is following his Democrat friends example.
Jefferson
April 26th, 2011
11:10 am
Young Paul(Rand) will be out on his ear if he don’t do the same. Those folks live high on the hawg(pork) in KY.
Mr Right
April 26th, 2011
11:11 am
I didn’t bother to read Jays copy and paste I just knew he would be slamming someone with a R by their name!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 26th, 2011
11:12 am
National Pork Association was already taken I guess. Did he try National Association for Pocket Lining?
carlosgvv
April 26th, 2011
11:13 am
Jay, it should be pointed out that those funds the good Congressman has funneled are TAX dollars. So, the next time you write a piece about how we need to increase taxes, keep in mind it is boondoggles like this that keep us taxpayers from supporting any new taxes.
USinUK
April 26th, 2011
11:13 am
Finn – 11:09 – nah, we’ll just hear loads of “but … but … but … the UNIONS … the Kennedys … ACORN … blahblahblah”
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 26th, 2011
11:14 am
Finn…this will certainly make them happy:
Olbermann’s Current TV Show Called ‘Countdown,’ Launches June 20
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
11:14 am
Good point, carlos @ 11:13.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
11:14 am
We’re mad as hell but does this really surprise anyone? What to do, what to do, the out of control freight train keeps gaining speed..
USinUK
April 26th, 2011
11:15 am
carlos – I don’t think anyone argues with you that boondoggles / outright fraud should be weeded out
however, tax dollars also support clean air and water, safe drugs, safe food, safe highway infrastructure, the internet, etc …
Jefferson
April 26th, 2011
11:15 am
Mealy mouth Mitch McConnel bearly won his reelection last time but takes pride in being a traitor. Another KY gem.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
11:18 am
I’m shocked to learn that the Democrat Senate and your Idiot Messiah signed off on all this, Jay. Just shocked!
Steve P.
April 26th, 2011
11:18 am
Jay, the republicans have been to busy working JOBS bills to pay attention to some petty crony politicians.
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
11:19 am
Of course, it’s good to know the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. They ultimately decide who gets what piece of the pie.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
11:20 am
“has funneled more than $236 million in federal funds since 2000″
Then we have:
“I’m shocked to learn that the Democrat Senate and your Idiot Messiah signed off on all this, Jay. Just shocked!”
Lil’ Barry, there was a Democrat Senate and a Democrat President in 2000-2008? Idiotic comment…
ty webb
April 26th, 2011
11:20 am
“well lubed”, and a gay marriage post within 24 hours Jay? Really?
RW-(the original)
April 26th, 2011
11:21 am
“KY” and “well lubed” in the headline. This one’s gonna get ugly.
/drive by
Rightwing Troll
April 26th, 2011
11:21 am
Well then, where are the jobs?
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
11:21 am
it is boondoggles like this that keep us taxpayers from supporting any new taxes.
oh, that’s the reason you guys beech and moan all day about paying your taxes? Ok, so it doesn’t have anythng to do with greed, right? As in, let others pay for this great country we live in but not me.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
11:23 am
Watch the libbtards scream like little girls should someone propose zeroing out this spending.
USinUK
April 26th, 2011
11:23 am
“Lil’ Barry, there was a Democrat Senate and a Democrat President in 2000-2008? Idiotic comment…”
dude. smacked down by someone on your own side of the aisle.
that’s gotta hurt.
Dave R.
April 26th, 2011
11:24 am
I suspect that this character will be resigning soon, unlike Dems do when caught.
carlosgvv
April 26th, 2011
11:25 am
USinUK
The problem is that boondoggles and outright fraud in American politics are next to impossible to weed out. This is why I strongly resist paying any new taxes and think probably half of my taxes paid already have been wasted.
Message from Matti
April 26th, 2011
11:25 am
Of course Kentucky’s large Pekoe Head contingent is already greasing up for very angry, public protests to this unacceptable use of their tax dollars, right? The links to those reactionary events will be forthcoming any moment, I’m sure!
USinUK
April 26th, 2011
11:26 am
carlos – “The problem is that boondoggles and outright fraud in American politics are next to impossible to weed out”
well, this article seems to suggest otherwise.
just sayin
Jay
April 26th, 2011
11:27 am
Rogers’ district re-elected him with 77.4 percent of the vote last year.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
11:28 am
Democrats controlled the House and Senate after the 2006 election, and the White House after 2008, so yes, I’m shocked that they approved this.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
11:28 am
This sounds like the benefits the friends and family of those dreaded socialist, facist and dictatorial regimes get. Didn’t Neil Bush walk away from the S&L mess of the 80’s without a scratch. Didn’t W get an election. They are consistent, those Repugnicans. It sure pays to have friends.
USinUK
April 26th, 2011
11:29 am
could someone please explain election dates and FY budgets to the reality-impaired LBB??
the stoooopid … it’s eye-watering
Jay
April 26th, 2011
11:31 am
Yeah, Dave R., maybe he’ll resign just ahead of the ethics committee report, go back home and get elected governor.
It’s been known to happen, you know.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
11:31 am
“Democrats controlled the House and Senate after the 2006 election, and the White House after 2008, so yes, I’m shocked that they approved this”
Okay sweety, so what about 2000-2006? Why ignore those years?
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
11:31 am
“Rogers’ district re-elected him with 77.4 percent of the vote last year.”
Looks to me like they did that because they all worked for him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
RW,
Booooooooooo.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
11:32 am
More than $250 million was from the 111th congress, which was under Democrat control of both houses. The democrat senate and your Idiot Messiah signed off on it. Thanks for playing, biaatch.
getalife
April 26th, 2011
11:33 am
Another con living off the government.
We hear this from our cons everyday so lets hear it again cons.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
11:34 am
“More than $250 million was from the 111th congress, which was under Democrat control of both houses. The democrat senate and your Idiot Messiah signed off on it. Thanks for playing, biaatch.”
Agreed, but again, why are you ignoring the years 2000-2006? You’re as much of a partisan hack as Cynthia and Jay.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
11:35 am
“You’re as much of a partisan hack as Cynthia and Jay.”
Let me add in Hannity and Rush too just to be fair to both sides.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
11:35 am
We’ll get Peadawg yet — just wait.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
11:35 am
USinUK!
I have totally forgot to ask you about all the wedding buzz. Are you all agog????
Jefferson
April 26th, 2011
11:36 am
One day some of you may figure it out that spending will always be there and the only way to get even is to raise the revenue. Corporate, income, gains — which to raise is debatable, whether to raise or not is denial.
Paul
April 26th, 2011
11:36 am
Ties in very nicely with the previous thread, Jay.
Reminds me of the old joke about the guy at the bar talking to a friend right after he’d found his wife in bed with another man for the umpteenth time: “She promised that was the last time.”
Some of these voters are like the guy at the bar -
getalife
April 26th, 2011
11:36 am
So, when cons get free stuff from the government, they think it is okay.
Hypocrites.
getalife
April 26th, 2011
11:38 am
Where is your welfare poutrage cons.
Crickets.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
11:38 am
Paul,
“Some of these voters are like the guy at the bar -”
Or the dude’s employees!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 26th, 2011
11:38 am
It’s not his fault. The Dems made him earmark that spending. He’s a victim.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
11:38 am
gottalie, who said it was OK?
Didn’t think so.
getalife
April 26th, 2011
11:39 am
Come on cons.
Be consistent with your welfare arguments or don’t use them anymore.
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
11:40 am
So, Conservatives want to rave about the poor people living off government handouts but when it’s someone who already has money, it’s ok? That’s kind of backward indignation, isn’t it?
Doesn’t the fact that they already have money BUT still are on the take make it much worse than a poor person taking handouts? No?
Those morals, they are FUBAR. How do you people sleep at night?
getalife
April 26th, 2011
11:40 am
come on lil w bailout,
Lets read your outrage.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
11:41 am
“So, when cons get free stuff from the government, they think it is okay.
Hypocrites.”
“Where is your welfare poutrage cons.
Crickets.”
There won’t be much argument on this blog about whether or not it’s ok…I don’t see how anyone could say this is ok.
getalife
April 26th, 2011
11:42 am
Come on pea,
You spew about welfare everyday.
Lets read it.
Jay
April 26th, 2011
11:42 am
More than $250 million was from the 111th congress, which was under Democrat control of both houses. The democrat senate and your Idiot Messiah signed off on it. Thanks for playing, biaatch.
Really, Lil One? What’s your source for those numbers? Certainly not from the CREW report, because I’ve looked. It seems to me that you’re just making stuff up to justify your position, also known as flat out lying.
Also, show others more respect or find amusement elsewhere.
BTW, in looking through the CREW report — http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/pork-parade-rep-hal-rogers — I also found this little gem:
“The nonprofits collectively employ 147 people, according to their most recent tax forms. The tax forms also disclose salaries for twelve paid board members – some whom work only part-time – who made an average of $104,000 per year, ranging from a high of $173,581 to a low of $69,339.”
Nice.
USinUK
April 26th, 2011
11:43 am
Bosch – I don’t know if I’m agog, but I definitely have my viewing plans lined up (heading next door to watch it with neighbors) … making a carrot cake … possibly working from home …
no frickin WAY am I going to be in the city
Doggone/GA
April 26th, 2011
11:43 am
“So, the next time you write a piece about how we need to increase taxes, keep in mind it is boondoggles like this that keep us taxpayers from supporting any new taxes”
Let’s see if I can follow this logic: if someone murders someone with a gun, we should stop selling all guns from now one. Is that the RIGHT logic?
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
11:45 am
What’s my source? Your link to Politico!
getalife
April 26th, 2011
11:46 am
Didn’t think the cons would man up.
Anyhoo, we will need to unite to stop all the people gaming our system.
It is thoroughly corrupt.
Divided we failed and they won.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
11:46 am
“Come on pea,
You spew about welfare everyday.
Lets read it.”
I’ve said many times that we, as a country that has a spending problem, can’t afford ANY, I REPEAT ANY, type of welfare right now. Make a percentage cut ACROSS THE BOARD so everyone, every department, every program feels it.
USinUK
April 26th, 2011
11:47 am
again, could someone please explain election dates and FY budgets to LBB?
the boy clearly needs all the help he can get.
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
11:47 am
Wow, people are trying to make this a partisan thing.
IT’S NOT A PARTISAN PROBLEM, IT’S A POLITIAN PROBLEM.
Democrats have done it, Republicans have done it. IT’S ABOUT THE MONEY, NOT THE PARTY.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
11:48 am
Come on Jay, those guy’s earned that $70K sitting on that board part time. Why don’t you get on that family receiving that $250.00 a month in food stamps.
Yippee
April 26th, 2011
11:48 am
Unfortunately, party affiliation aside, this type of thing has become much too common on the Hill. But then one has to ask: Did he steal the money or was it secured through criminal enterprise?
I doubt it came any way other than the same old modus operandi, it was VOTED on by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Yes, Jay and the sycophants will always jump to arms when the spotlight is on anyone other than their guys. But then that is human nature, right?
Hey, here is a tidbit that may merit some conversation. Remember the other day a bunch of folks were all jacked up about an oil company, maybe Exxon, making a bunch of profit and showing an 18 percent increase in profit for the first quarter? And I recall that our Dear Leader roared and then through down the gauntlet of an investigative commission to look into such egregious profiteering.
Well, should we expect a similar reaction and response to this item in today’s news? Hmmmmm.
Ford today reported a $2.6 -billion profit in the first quarter, up 22.4% from a year ago and its best January to March quarter in 13 years.
Using the “gasoline sellers are evil” logic, will Dear Leader demand that Ford lower prices? Oh wait, I guess it’s not that the price of Fords is too high, it must be that the union needs more benefits.
Paul
April 26th, 2011
11:48 am
getalife 11:39: “Come on cons. Be consistent with your welfare arguments or don’t use them anymore.”
Nailed it.
______________________________________________________________________
Gotta wonder, couple posts like this, and one or two of our most infamous anti-Obama free marketers are nowhere around. Coincidence?
Well, it’s not like they’d make any new arguments….
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
11:49 am
Jay says: The tax forms also disclose salaries for twelve paid board members – some whom work only part-time – who made an average of $104,000 per year, ranging from a high of $173,581 to a low of $69,339
Okay, Now I know where to get my part-time job to supplement (or overtake) my regular job!
Kind of funny...
April 26th, 2011
11:49 am
Jay reports what this congressman does, all documented and on record, and gets criticized for “slamming” a Republican.
Seems to me the “slam” was self inflicted.
getalife
April 26th, 2011
11:49 am
pea,
Good for you.
Now stop playing the welfare card.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
11:50 am
“Okay, Now I know where to get my part-time job to supplement (or overtake) my regular job!
No kiddin’….
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
11:50 am
Jay, I’m ready to accept your apology for calling me a liar ( in the same post in which you demanded that I show others more respect, ironically enough).
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
11:50 am
Doggone/GA
April 26th, 2011
11:43 am
Go figure.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
11:51 am
“Now stop playing the welfare card.” – Huh? You asked me about welfare and I answered. What card did I play?
Jay
April 26th, 2011
11:51 am
Well, Lil Barry, much as it pains me, I owe you an apology. There it is, right in the Politico story.
The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks earmarks, has different and considerably lower — but still significant — numbers for ‘09 and ‘10.
But again, my sincere apology.
Yippee
April 26th, 2011
11:52 am
“through”
yeah, yeah, I made a mistake and mintended to type “threw”
getalife
April 26th, 2011
11:52 am
pea,
cons play the welfare card everyday.
Do you read this blog?
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
11:52 am
Yippee, Other than your use of “Dear Leader” I agree with your post.
We shouldn’t be going after these profitable companies directly. We should be removing the tax credits that they get to write off.
Plus, they should be hiring more people to keep the economy cruising. It’s better FOR THEM (oil and car companies) since more people who work mean more people who drive.
Jefferson
April 26th, 2011
11:54 am
Most people can live without a Ford, hardly the same as gasoline. What’s your point ?
getalife
April 26th, 2011
11:56 am
“What’s your point ?”
He is happy our President saved the automotive industry and all those jobs.
Yippee
April 26th, 2011
11:56 am
Dude,
You’re right. I should have refrained from using the Dear Leader rhetoric. And then there was the second flub: “mintended”. I’ve got to quit chewing gum when typing.
Edward
April 26th, 2011
11:57 am
It is so funny to read these comments. When a Dem is found with his hand in the cookie jar, righteous indignation spews like volcanic ash from the mouths of the teabaggers. But, when it is a GOP/bagger doing the pork shuffle, the only thing they spew are copious quantities of, “But, THEY did it, too!,” with absolutely no condemnation of the vile b*st*rd committing the offense. All they can do is attempt to deflect the blame to someone else. That’s the mark of true hypocrisy.
maude
April 26th, 2011
11:59 am
Damn it Jim, Spock’s down there and he’s half human…..
Soothsayer
April 26th, 2011
12:00 pm
Corporate capitalism—because it was trumpeted throughout the Cold War as a bulwark against communism—expanded with fewer and fewer government regulations and legal impediments. Capitalism was seen as an unalloyed good. It was not required to be socially responsible. Any impediment to its growth, whether in the form of trust-busting, union activity or regulation, was condemned as a step toward socialism and capitulation. Every corporation is a despotic fiefdom, a mini-dictatorship. And by the end Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil and Goldman Sachs had grafted their totalitarian structures onto the state.
The Cold War also bequeathed to us the species of the neoliberal. The neoliberal enthusiastically embraces “national security” as the highest good. The neoliberal—composed of the gullible and cynical careerists—parrots back the mantra of endless war and corporate capitalism as an inevitable form of human progress. Globalization, the neoliberal assures us, is the route to a worldwide utopia. Empire and war are vehicles for lofty human values.
We continue to talk about personalities—Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama—although the heads of state or elected officials in Congress have become largely irrelevant. Lobbyists write the bills. Lobbyists get them passed. Lobbyists make sure you get the money to be elected. And lobbyists employ you when you get out of office. Those who hold actual power are the tiny elite who manage the corporations.
This a great article if you have a few minutes to spare.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
12:00 pm
Thanks Jay. I hope I can be as big a man as you have been should the need arise.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
12:01 pm
Jay, a little humility never hurt anybody. Besides, lbb might just take your gesture and learn from it, but I seriously doubt it….
Yippee
April 26th, 2011
12:01 pm
The point: Profit margins aren’t bad.
They are a fundemental requirement of staying in business and thus employing people. Remember folks, Ford didn’t take the stimulus handout (i.e. YOUR TAX DOLLARS). The issue of subsidies and tax credits need to be addressed for sure, but using the straw man of profits is to attempt to mislead and obfuscate. Things politicians mastered long ago.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
12:06 pm
**I hope I can be as big a man as you have been should the need arise.**
Well, I posted too soon, I dig the civility….
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
12:08 pm
Soothsayer
April 26th, 2011
12:00 pm
This article make a strong point. One must see the end of Capitalism on the horizon. The fault of the system (like all systems possess)is the inherent greed the system promotes. Human nature can only stay in check for so long. Time dictates the agenda and the time has come.
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
12:10 pm
Soothsayer says: Lobbyists write the bills. Lobbyists get them passed. Lobbyists make sure you get the money to be elected. And lobbyists employ you when you get out of office.
And the wheels keep on turnin’!
SOME Lobbyists are designed to be the expert advisor for some of the legislation that can help government decide how best to write the law. Unfortunately MOST lobbyists become leeches off the government teat and never let go. And they get their buddies to join them, and then their families. and then their families’ buddies. and so on.
So now all the buddies get together and design legislation that keeps feeding themselves ever more and more, and the legislators who write the bills get much of that money back PERSONALLY by getting expensive trips, expensive gifts, and other perks.
And it goes ’round and ’round and ’round.
Unfortunately, I don’t have those connections, family members, etc who can funnel those funds to me, so I just keep paying my taxes into the money burning system.
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
12:12 pm
The fault of the system (like all systems possess)is the inherent greed the system promotes.
But Conservatives want to remove regulations. Crazy
Yippee
April 26th, 2011
12:13 pm
Lunch whistle blowing down at the sockmonkey factory. Gotta go get some grub.
Best wishes for a good afternoon to everybody, even my lib friends.
I have to say that I was impressed with Jay’s apology. Sometimes we all jump too quickly, usually to our eventual embarrassment. I have deep experience
Southern Comfort
April 26th, 2011
12:14 pm
Peadawg @ 11:20
Roger’s just making sure his people get full on those big money sammiches.
Jefferson
April 26th, 2011
12:16 pm
If the city decides to make high profits on water that is not bad?
I keep forgetting their commandment “Thou shalt worship money”.
Bruno
April 26th, 2011
12:17 pm
In memory of Phoebe Snow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OxTVxGhHFM
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
12:17 pm
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
12:12 pm
Crazy.
Completely.
Jefferson
April 26th, 2011
12:19 pm
BTW, Ford knew if they asked for a bail out that the country would have been better off without them anyway, just think of all the oil leaking from the front and back at the same time that could be eliminated… joking there Ford owners…
Night Train
April 26th, 2011
12:19 pm
Again, Cut Spending!
Before you Raise Taxes.
This kind of spending needs to be cut no matter which party created it.
TnGelding
April 26th, 2011
12:19 pm
To the victor go the spoils! But this seems a little excessive. Look for him to be resigning soon. Sooey pig!!!
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
12:20 pm
If the city decides to make high profits on water that is not bad?
What? The city isn’t in the business of making profits. Any thing they make above breaking even is funneled back into improved service – adding an employee, replacing outdated equipment., etc.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
12:22 pm
“Thanks for making my day!”
Not a problem. I, unlike many on this blog, don’t have a problem bashing BOTH sides of the aisle.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
12:22 pm
77.4% of the voters in his electorate re-elected him? This is the whole problem with how stupid we are as Americans. Everybody knows how corrupt and rotten Congress is but everybody thinks their congressman is fine and that its everybody else who has the corrupt Congressman. It really is amazing. Nobody seems to realize their own Congressman is part of the problem.
And while Jay is obviously bashing a Republican I’m sure any reasonable person on here knows that both parties have their fair share of pork barrel spending re-election oriented crooks passing out the goodies to their electorate.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
12:23 pm
Oh goody…unless Jay deletes a previous post…FIRSTIES BIAATCH!
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
12:23 pm
SoCo,
We’re gonna get Peadawg on our side — just wait. Should I do the Red Rover call?
Jefferson
April 26th, 2011
12:24 pm
Finn, what I’m saying is they could and it WOULD be bad, much like the oil companies taking money from all the other businesses with their price gouging. Somebody here was worshipping profits and the backs of a needed necessity vs profits on optional spending.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
12:25 pm
Doom,
MY representative only uses money for economic development, don’t cha’ know.
Mr Right
April 26th, 2011
12:25 pm
who made an average of $104,000 per year, ranging from a high of $173,581 to a low of $69,339.”
Sounds like someone who has a gov job !
BMDPD
April 26th, 2011
12:26 pm
Thulsa, oops! You just said reasonable. This is not a party thing. This is a politician thing.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
12:26 pm
“We’re gonna get Peadawg on our side — just wait. Should I do the Red Rover call?”
Not going to happen. I don’t like ANY form of subsidies/welfare and think all should get cut. Liberals, for the most part, only don’t like them for businesses.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
12:26 pm
Peadawg,
Blog god doesn’t care if you use the word “bitch” — well, as long as you don’t actually call anyone that.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
12:27 pm
USinUK,
Carrot cake? Blech. What a waste of perfectly good cake to put carrots and raisins in it. Blech. But that creme cheese icing is quite delicious.
BMDPD
April 26th, 2011
12:28 pm
It is amazing how Bart Gordon of TN got extra money for hospitals just after approving the healhcare bill. This is frustrating, but if you want to bring out the bad in one, then you need to bring out the bad in all. Jay, you are only telling half the story. Most if not all scumbag politicians do this stuff.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
12:28 pm
“Blog god doesn’t care if you use the word “bitch” — well, as long as you don’t actually call anyone that.”
Biatch sounds better
. It isn’t as mean/direct but it still gets the job done.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
12:28 pm
“I don’t like ANY form of subsidies/welfare and think all should get cut”
We know Peadawg, especially women who go through pharmacy drive throughs and won’t pay 50 cents for a prescription but drives a cadillac and spends 30 on her nails, right??
Did you ever seek therapy for that?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
12:29 pm
“We know Peadawg, especially women who go through pharmacy drive throughs and won’t pay 50 cents for a prescription but drives a cadillac and spends 30 on her nails, right??”
Yup, especially them!
BMDPD
April 26th, 2011
12:31 pm
Pea, I agree with you. Spending cuts across the board. Then when, the government proves that they can be fiscally responsible, they can also raise taxes across the board. We are all Americans.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
12:34 pm
I agree, spending cuts across the board, go back to clinton era tax levels and we might be seeing some daylight in a few years…
Mick
April 26th, 2011
12:36 pm
Additionally, end all wars, and foster in a new era of isolationism and mercantilism…
RB from Gwinnett
April 26th, 2011
12:39 pm
Hmmm…. At first glance, I was thinking Jay might have actually found a story with some merit. However, as is normal for stories the intellectually dishonst Jay Bookman writes, I thought it might be worth a closer look. It appears Jay left out quite a few minor details such as….
Rogers wasn’t the chairman when all this money was appropriated since 2000. He didn’t become chairman until 2011.
He says family members worked for these companies, but only mentiones one son, John, who “worked” for a firm that received some funding. How about a little more info on the timing of when he worked there, how long, what he did there, and how he benefitted from what funding, Jay. You know, the kind of info a JOURNALIST would provide.
Jay also left out this tidbit from the story…
“Rogers’ influence back home will only grow now that he is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, despite an earmark ban instituted by House Republicans at the start of this Congress and now grudgingly adopted by both chambers, according to CREW. Rogers earmarked more than $250 million in the 111th Congress alone, but he signed onto the earmark ban as part of his successful campaign to win the gavel at House Appropriations from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).”
Oh, you mean as committee chairman he can’t earmark any funding to these organizations??? So this is a non story, right?!!
Maybe if you could find it in yourself to be objective for just a day, Jay, people might consider you more than just a pathetic hyper partisan hack….
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
12:39 pm
Not going to happen. I don’t like ANY form of subsidies/welfare and think all should get cut.
Peadawg isn’t a socialist, I guess. I have to agree – no tax breaks for anything – no 1040 itemization, no small business tax breaks, not corporate welfare. If you can’t run a business without help from the government, shut it down.
Southern Comfort
April 26th, 2011
12:41 pm
Bosch
Peadawg will remain center right. If he is to elevate from grasshopper to EOI, he must be as non partisan as possible.
Peadawg
I prefer the spelling beeyatch!
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
12:41 pm
I agree with Peadawg on across the board cuts for EVERYTHING. Everybody needs to feel the pain NOW, because if we don’t feel a little bit of the pain now, it’s going to get progressively worse and worse.
The Thing that should get cut even MORE is Defense spending. We should be able to close about 30 bases in areas of the world that are peaceful. We should also go by our “We will stand down as they stand up” philosophy in Iraq. What are we still doing there? They’re running themselves now, right?
In Afghanistan, well. . . until they WANT to fix themselves, nobody can fix them. We can slowly withdraw, and support the people that we can, but until they REALLY want to govern themselves peacefully, we can’t make them. And nobody has been able to change that for centuries.
So, we should stand down as a standing army, and only continue to fight the actual terrorists. Fighting actual terrorists takes intel and cunning, not a standing army.
Social Security and Medicare are easy to fix. Just fix the retirement age to life expectancy and we’re good to go. Subtract 10 years from life expectancy and you get your new retirement age!
carlosgvv
April 26th, 2011
12:41 pm
USinUK 11:26
This article just talks about it. How is it weeding it out?
RB from Gwinnett
April 26th, 2011
12:42 pm
BTW, if 77% of people in your district vote for you, it’s pretty likely any funding you send to your district will go to your donors and supporters, Jay. That’s not a news story; it’s simple math.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
12:45 pm
Finn, you agreed with half of my statement. Notice the word, “ANY”. Welfare for the poor and elderly need to be reduced as well.
carlosgvv
April 26th, 2011
12:45 pm
Finn McCool 11:21
I will try to make this simple so that even you will understand.
We taxpayers don’t want to pay more because the politicians are wasting a lot of the money we are already paying.
Paul
April 26th, 2011
12:46 pm
Anybody notice how Ryan’s budget didn’t cut any of this stuff? The easy half a billion?
I guess he thinks the millionaires’re getting a big enough tax cut -
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
12:48 pm
RB: “Maybe if you could find it in yourself to be objective for just a day, Jay, people might consider you more than just a pathetic hyper partisan hack….”
Do you understand the difference between a news story and an op-ed column?
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
12:48 pm
Here’s another point I want to make on the whole subsidizing the theme park thing from this morning:
The company should do it’s research to KNOW if they can make a profit by building a theme park in Georgia. If they can make profits – build it. If not, don’t build it. There is an element of business risk involved that they are passing on to the tax payers. When they request subsidies, they are saying they want the tax payers to take all the risks involved. If they want us to subsidize the business – for example let’s say 30% of start-up costs – then Georgia should own 30% of the business.
If they start a theme park that loses money every year, guess who gets stuck with the bill?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
12:50 pm
Very interesting, RB.
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
12:50 pm
Peadawg: Welfare for the poor and elderly need to be reduced as well.
Toss in a WHOLE BUNCH more outrage for Welfare for the Huge corporations, and we’ll be on the same page.
Why should Huge Corporations keep getting all the breaks? Just two or three of those huge corporations getting off Corporate Welfare will be able to pay for ALL of the “poor and elderly” welfare, because, you see, they’re POOR.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
12:52 pm
“Toss in a WHOLE BUNCH more outrage for Welfare for the Huge corporations, and we’ll be on the same page.”
Again, notice such words as ANY, ALL, and AS WELL.
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
12:52 pm
Capital flows to profits and profits are partly the result of sound business decision making. The fact a company needs government subsidies suggests the bankers have already looked at the project and deemed it not profitable – otherwise they would be all over it.
RB from Gwinnett
April 26th, 2011
12:54 pm
“Do you understand the difference between a news story and an op-ed column?”
Yes, I do!!
The better question is does Jay understand the difference between a journalist and a hyper partisan hack with a podium. As long as he continues to claim he’s a journalist, that will be the standard he’s held to. If he will just publicly admit he has no journalistic standards and is in fact nothing more than a hyper partisan hack, I’ll stop criticizing his pathetic journalism.
Do you get it?
maude
April 26th, 2011
12:54 pm
I propose a tax on blog bloviators!
Scooter (The Original)
April 26th, 2011
12:56 pm
SHOCKING! The citizenry centralizes so much power and control into so few and we are to be surprised when the few take care of their own. What kind of freaking fool believes in altruistic politicians?
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
12:56 pm
Peadawg: Again, notice such words as ANY, ALL, and AS WELL
I did notice, but you singled out the poor and elderly in that post.
Come to think of it, did ANY of those non-profits taking government money hire any poor people, or just give more rich people paid board positions?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
12:57 pm
“I did notice, but you singled out the poor and elderly in that post.”
I was simply adding to Finn’s comment about corporate welfare.
getalife
April 26th, 2011
12:57 pm
“Thanks Jay. I hope I can be as big a man as you have been should the need arise”
No, you will not.
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
12:59 pm
Scooter: What kind of freaking fool believes in altruistic politicians?
I WANT to believe!!
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
1:00 pm
Paul
April 26th, 2011
12:46 pm
Anybody notice how Ryan’s budget didn’t cut any of this stuff? The easy half a billion?
Paul,
No. I haven’t read Ryan’s budget. Frankly I have zero faith in either party doing anything to cut out the pork. I hate to be such a pessimist but it is my firm belief that Congress changes people. I think the freshman republican class went in there with the right intentions of stopping the looting of the country. But give them 1 or 2 terms and they will be just as egotistical, just as corrupt, and just as wicked with the taxpayers dollars as the congressman there of both parties already are.
Both parties have philosophical differences that seem enormous but when you get right down to it there really isn’t that much difference between them- they just make us think there is. The difference is in their public rhetoric but in their actions I just don’t see a lot of a difference in terms of pork barrel spending.
John Birch
April 26th, 2011
1:00 pm
Still ducking the real story of the day, which is 18.3% of personal income in the US now comes from Uncle Sam, having grown from less than 2% 80 years ago. We have created a permanent, dependent entitlement class, which will continue to expand and destroy the economic health of the country. But Bookman thinks this is a good thing.
Southern Comfort
April 26th, 2011
1:00 pm
Paul
The GOP has also agreed to almost double the debt ceiling by voting in favor of the Ryan budget. You don’t hear that point being made either.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
1:01 pm
RB — “Yes, I do!!”
It’s pretty clear you don’t, since you’re demanding some sort of balance in this editorial piece. Op-eds generally do not admit of much balance; see Messrs. Wingfield, Barr and Wooten for further examples of same.
“The better question is does Jay understand the difference between a journalist and a hyper partisan hack with a podium.”
Yes! Yes, he does!
A journalist works for the AJC and said hacks with podiums work for World Nut Daily. (laughing)
“As long as he continues to claim he’s a journalist, that will be the standard he’s held to.”
What, exactly, is *your* personal experience with journalistic standards?
“If he will just publicly admit he has no journalistic standards and is in fact nothing more than a hyper partisan hack, I’ll stop criticizing his pathetic journalism.”
You clearly didn’t notice that the “hyper partisan” hackery you’re decrying was linked to from somewhere else. (pointing, laughing)
“Do you get it?”
Sure! Likely Fox News viewer with an axe to grind.
John Birch
April 26th, 2011
1:02 pm
T Doom – Think term limits and balanced budget amendments.
Don't Tread
April 26th, 2011
1:04 pm
The government spends our money on stupid stuff like this but yet we don’t pay enough taxes, according to Democrats. It’s long past time to get serious about the spending issue.
All of you who want to increase the tax burden, go ahead and pony up, since it’s such a great idea.
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
1:05 pm
RB: The better question is does Jay understand the difference between a journalist and a hyper partisan hack with a podium
I wouldn’t actually call him “hyper partisan” as the article today could have been either party at any time in the last 50 years.
I definitely would call Jay Partisan since, well, he is!
Although I am getting suspicious on the similar posting of Jay and Cynthia, and the other day, Luckovich. Usually they write their own things, and ne’er do the topics meet. But over the last 2 – 3 weeks, there has been at least 3 posts each that crossed topics.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
1:08 pm
John Birch,
That is the only hope I see- term limits and balanced budget amendments. If governors can balance budgets then why can’t presidents? As for term limits I’m surprised that this issue has been dormant again for awhile. It occasionally comes up but interestingly enough no one is talking about it anymore. We’re becoming like Rome- rotting from the inside and collapsing from within.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:09 pm
Jay…..your point?
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
1:09 pm
Don’t Tread: The government spends our money on stupid stuff like this but yet we don’t pay enough taxes, according to Democrats
Do you realize the HUGE fiscal hole that we are in as a country?????
If you did, you’d realize that we need BOTH: Spending cuts AND raising taxes. One or the other may reduce the yearly deficit and maybe even balance the budget. Even with a balanced budget we are still IN THE HOLE UNTIL THE DEBT IS PAID OFF.
Not sure why some people just DON’T GET IT.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
1:10 pm
What Logical Dude just said. :1
Jay
April 26th, 2011
1:10 pm
Well let’s see, RB. Yes, he just became chairman of appropriations, but he’s been a powerful force on that committee for a long time. In 2003, for example, Rogers became chair of the Homeland Security subcommittee on appropriations, which helps explain how he got $52 million for the “National Institute for Hometown Security,” which he himself founded, in his district. And while earmarks have been killed, at least temporarily, Rogers is also skilled at steering grants to favored groups in his district, which has received an estimated $63 million through that means since 2000.
In addition to funding his son’s employer, Rogers also got $5 million to support research into wild cats, which is interesting in part because his daughter works for the Cheetah Conservation Fund, in Namibia. He is also a part owner in the local Citizens National Bank, which most of the nonprofits in question happen to put their federal largess.
But yeah, you’re right. Nothing to see here at all.
Also, as CREW notes:
“When the “reformed” Rep. Rogers retains money in the budget for Rural Business Enterprise Grants awarded through the Agriculture Department, he’s speaking in code. Money from those programs, and others at agencies ranging from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Education, has a tendency to flow to the entities in Rep. Rogers’ web.”
John Birch
April 26th, 2011
1:10 pm
Logical – That’s because when the news of the day is Obama staff member caught with prostitute or most Americans favor Republican budget plan, Jay writes some drivel about the state or some Rep in another state who we don’t know or care about. At least Cynthia ocasionally has the integrity to critiize the Dems, the King family, etc., but Jay is 100% partisan hack.
Libertarian
April 26th, 2011
1:11 pm
Washington waste and corruption?
Nothing new here.
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
1:12 pm
Everyone is for cutting spending – but not for cutting the services they use or rely on.
One person can call a service useless or a waste but someone else is probably using that service or relying on it.
larry
April 26th, 2011
1:14 pm
Hal Rogers- Nathan Deal , Nathan Deal – Hal Rogers
Members of the CREW crew.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:14 pm
Finn…..Everyone is for cutting spending….but not for cutting the services they or rely on…..
hmmmm…so you must be dependant on Medicare and Welfare. I feel sorry for ya.
larry
April 26th, 2011
1:19 pm
Just remember you can not spell corruption without two R’s .
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:19 pm
Did everyone leave?
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
1:19 pm
“but you singled out the poor and elderly in that post”
I’ve never had a problem with tax payer dollars being used to help the elderly or people who care for them.
RB from Gwinnett
April 26th, 2011
1:19 pm
Joe, would it be OK with you if Fox News were the only news channel available on your TV?
With the totally one sided “opinions” at the AJC, that’s exactly what the city of Atlanta has in it’s newspaper.
Think about how that works in reverse.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:20 pm
Larry…..and you cant spell deception witout a D.
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
1:21 pm
With the totally one sided “opinions” at the AJC, that’s exactly what the city of Atlanta has in it’s newspaper.
Hardly. Go check out Kyle.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:21 pm
RB….agreed and the funny thing is that Georgia IS a red state.
HEY AJC….KEEP TRYING!!
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
1:21 pm
“Nothing to see here at all. ”
These are not the droids you’re looking for.
Oh, okay, these are not the droids we are looking for.
Move along.
Okay, move along.
larry
April 26th, 2011
1:22 pm
I’ve never had a problem with tax payer dollars being used to help the elderly or people who care for them.
Add to that the disabled too.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
1:22 pm
“With the totally one sided “opinions” at the AJC, that’s exactly what the city of Atlanta has in it’s newspaper. ”
Yeah, Wooten, Wingfield, and Barr are all just chopped liver.
Moderate Line
April 26th, 2011
1:23 pm
A record 18.3% of the nation’s total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010. Wages accounted for the lowest share of income — 51.0% — since the government began keeping track in 1929.
From 1980 to 2000, government aid was roughly constant at 12.5%. The sharp increase since then — especially since the start of 2008 — reflects several changes: the expansion of health care and federal programs generally, the aging population and lingering economic problems.
“What’s frightening is the Baby Boomers haven’t really started to retire,” says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes of the 77 million people born from 1946 through 1964 whose oldest wave turns 65 this year. “That’s when the cost of Medicare will start to explode.”
ragnar danneskjold
April 26th, 2011
1:24 pm
Perhaps now the spendocrats will agree that we need to cut spending before we raise taxes.
larry
April 26th, 2011
1:24 pm
Mr. Rogers sounds like he had his own jobs program much like our Mr. Deal. His own jobs program for certain people that is.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
1:24 pm
John Birch
April 26th, 2011
1:10 pm
Most Americans don’t favor the Repugnican(Ryan)budget plan. Even if an Obama “staff” member gets caught with a prostitute, is he costing you half a billion dollars?
So Mr. Bookman writes about a Rep. in a state that you don’t know or care about, who is costing you half a million dollars, but you would rather hear about a prostitute. You guy’s are hillarious!
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
1:26 pm
SoCo: The GOP has also agreed to almost double the debt ceiling by voting in favor of the Ryan budget. You don’t hear that point being made either.
——–
So Ryan’s curs aren’t deep emough for you?
Do you support raising the debt ceiling without making substantial reforms? I think that’s just dangerous.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:26 pm
Willie….”costing” you half a million dollars??? hahahah please explain. This should be good!
RB from Gwinnett
April 26th, 2011
1:26 pm
“Rogers is also skilled at steering grants to favored groups in his district, which has received an estimated $63 million through that means since 2000.”
Just curious, Jay. Did anyone in congress with a “D” by their name secure any earmarks for their districts? Or was it just this one R?
Was any of the money sent to these organizations squandered, Jay? Used in inappropriate manners, laundered, wasted, embezzeled by family members, anything? Basically, Jay, has the man done anything wrong or illegal that you can report?
Or is this just your way of casting doubt because he has an R by his name in your usual hyper partisan pathetic hack way?
BTW, if the man can’t agree with the earmark ban, I hope the R’s in his district send him home. This earmark crap needs to stop.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
1:27 pm
Dadblame iPhone spellcheck
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
1:27 pm
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
1:19 pm
“but you singled out the poor and elderly in that post”
I’ve never had a problem with tax payer dollars being used to help the elderly or people who care for them.
Bosch,
Even most conservatives like myself believe in a social safety net to help the poorest of the poor or the elderly, the infirm, etc. I think where we differ is that I do not support the idea of supporting people who choose to live off the govt as a lifestyle- in other words government dependency, especially when it comes to able bodied men and women who simply refuse to work or to help themselves.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:27 pm
Willie….I just called my bank just to make sure and a half a million dollars has not been withdrawn.
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
1:27 pm
Legalize prostitution so we can reduce instances of rape and get clean hookers in the process!
Wouldn’ this be a better place to live if everyone was within 30 minutes of a happy ending?
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:29 pm
Finn…we are, there are asian massage parlors on every corner!
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
1:29 pm
Republicans can’t say what or how they will make spending cuts BUT we catch a guy red-handed in Kentucky and the Republicans want to ignore it.
You folks are the nuttiest group.
ODDOWL
April 26th, 2011
1:30 pm
Posters who repeat their posts do so because they know that no one is reading their drivel.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:30 pm
Finn…what are the R’s ignoring?
Paulo977
April 26th, 2011
1:31 pm
“nonprofit companies received another
$227 million in federal loans, grants ”
USinUK…now, now, isn’t this what REAL
laissez-faire is all about ? Leave us the hell alone?
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
1:32 pm
UGA, do you have to comment on every post? Is it lonely in the house after your parents go to work? Perhaps you need to get a dog.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
1:32 pm
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:26 pm
I stand corrected. It’s half a billion according to the article.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:34 pm
Finn….we all have a dog he is called Mr. Barack Hussein Obama….come on…good boy….you can do it.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
1:35 pm
” I think where we differ is that I do not support the idea of supporting people who choose to live off the govt as a lifestyle”
No Doom, we don’t differ on that at all. I think where we differ is that I do not feel the need or have the ability to judge people based on prejudice.
jm
April 26th, 2011
1:35 pm
Smaller government is better government. When will you turkeys get it? All the money is pilfered in one way or another.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:35 pm
Willie….but you said Million not Billion….Oh I get it when your lord Obama is spending Trillions it really doesnt matter if we are talking Millions or Billions. Nice Post!
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
1:37 pm
For your consumption: From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)
How much is our WHOLE COUNTRY WORTH? Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period..
2010’s annual gross domestic product (GDP) = $14.66 trillion.
As of March 25, 2011, the Total Public Debt Outstanding of the United States of America was $14.26 trillion.
So, what you basically have is a country where if you SPENT EVERYTHING YOU HAD, EVERYTHING YOU MAKE, AND EVERYTHING YOU SAVED, you would barely cover the actual debt.
Any questions? (okay, I gotta go be a good capitalist, so check wikipedia if you have any questions)
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
1:37 pm
RB — “Joe, would it be OK with you if Fox News were the only news channel available on your TV?”
No, but I bet it would suit you if Fox News were the only channel available on my TV.
“With the totally one sided “opinions” at the AJC, that’s exactly what the city of Atlanta has in it’s newspaper.”
Well, there’s Jay and Cynthia on one side, and Kyle and Rootin’ Tootin; Jim Wooten on the other side, plus about half of Bob Barr on that side, too, so I’d venture that the AJC editorial section’s slightly more tilted *at* you than *away from* you.
“Think about how that works in reverse.”
Think about what I just said.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
1:38 pm
“Oh I get it when your lord Obama is spending Trillions it really doesnt matter”
Other than the stimulus package early in his tenure and the auto bail outs which have been repaid, what has Obama spent money on that is any different than previous administrations?
jonas
April 26th, 2011
1:38 pm
Who Are The Biggest Porkers: New Report Details Earmark Spending
For those who work for a living and don’t feel a need to deal with insecurities by hiding behind cute blog names sites like ABCnews provide nice data on the garbage from both sides of the aisle. Good work Jay uncovering the Kentucky dude- maybe later you can give us your aunt’s recipe for buttermilk biscuits. stay tuned… story developing
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:39 pm
Bosch….would you like to see the tab for Obamacare. I mean the actual number not the number he lied about?
carlosgvv
April 26th, 2011
1:39 pm
Thulsa Doom
Just exactly who are these people who “choose to live off the Govt. as a lifestyle” and how much money per year per person does the Govt. give them?
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:39 pm
Bosch….what about the cost per day being spend in Libya?
Misty Fyed
April 26th, 2011
1:39 pm
Ok… It’s time for Congress to have it’s own Office of Inspector General funded by the 50 state governments. Too easy for Congress to kill investigations by cutting funding.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:40 pm
Carlos….seriously…you must really like getting that gubament check twice a month. Nice work.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
1:40 pm
willie lynch,
You can’t possibly believe its only Republicans who dispense this kind of largesse. Both sides have congressman who reel in enormous amounts of pork dollars. Just a fact of life and if you believe the Dems don’t do any of this pork spending then you must also believe in the tooth fairy.
Here we have a Republican throwing around a half billion in pork. Nancy Pelosi and a Dem controlled Congress threw nearly a trillion in wasteful spending at us called the stimulus.
Which is worse- a half billion or nearly a trillion dollars?
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
1:42 pm
“Nancy Pelosi and a Dem controlled Congress threw nearly a trillion in wasteful spending at us called the stimulus. ”
One third of the stimulus was tax breaks.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
1:43 pm
Other than the non-stimulating union slush fund “stimulus” package early in his tenure and the auto bail outs which have not been repaid and likely will lead to $11 billion in losses to the taxpayer, what has Obama spent money on that is any different than previous administrations?
——-
Fixed.
Other than that? There’s no money LEFT after that!
Southern Comfort
April 26th, 2011
1:44 pm
LBB
I would prefer that Congress quit playing games knowing that they all want to do the same thing. Both parties know the limit will need to be substantially increased if only to accommodate for compounding interest. The vote to raise the limit is not the opportune time for a game of chicken.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 26th, 2011
1:45 pm
Obozo: “We aren’t broke. There’s still some ink left in the printing presses.”
jm
April 26th, 2011
1:45 pm
its the end of the world, as we know it…..
http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/The-End-of-QEII-It%E2%80%99s-Time-to-Make-the-Donuts.aspx
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
1:46 pm
carlosgvv
April 26th, 2011
1:39 pm
Thulsa Doom
Just exactly who are these people who “choose to live off the Govt. as a lifestyle” and how much money per year per person does the Govt. give them?
Carlos,
We have a permanent underclass of people who live off of the govt in the form of welfare checks, section 8 housing, food stamps, medicaid, etc. To say they don’t exist is to say its not daylight outside as I write this. Want to add up the numbers- just look at the rise in the medicaid rolls in the last year or 2. Or look how much the federal govt for that matter spends on medicaid or how much Georgia spends on food stamps, etc. Are you saying that these people using food stamps, medicaid, etc don’t exist? If so I’ll come over and pick you up and take you to a grocery store in Marietta where dang near every person in line at the checkout is paying for their groceries with food stamps.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
1:47 pm
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:35 pm
You’re pretty childish and not very bright. If you see the spending of dollars by our government to revive the worst economy in 80 years as a problem you have a lot to learn.
I don’t think this amount of money would have to be spent if we didn’t have the problems we have. When you buy a rundown piece of property (America) you have to spend money on it’s rehab. I know this is a bit too deep for your intellectual abilities but try to comprehend it. Looking and seeing are two different things.
It is said “words show forth the mind of a man”, you appear empty headed.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:47 pm
jm….it was the end of America as we knew it when Obama got elected. Great job America!
Gman
April 26th, 2011
1:47 pm
UGA1999, must be pretty moldy in that basement. It’s effected your common sense. It appears as if the Democrates are responsible for this funneling of taxpayer dollars to this Republican’s family and friends by your reasoning or lack there of.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
1:48 pm
Lil Barry Bailout,
Funny but we all forgot about the 11 billion that the taxpayer will lose on GM alone. Suddenly this 1/2 billion is looking like a drop in the bucket. Trillion dollar stimulus anyone?
Hillbilly Deluxe
April 26th, 2011
1:48 pm
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has funneled more than $236 million in federal funds since 2000 to a web of nonprofit groups he created back home in the Bluegrass State, according to a new report by an ethics watchdog group.
Normally, I don’t like to stick my nose in the affairs of other states but this is Federal money involved. He needs to go.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:50 pm
Willie….first of all using the names childish and not very bright, just show your intellect. It is more like having a family that is on a fixed income and all of their credit cards are maxed out. Then going and getting more credit cards to pay off the other credit cards.
We are accumulating aditional debt to pay off debt. Great job obamanomics.
Buying a run down property and fixing it up is fine. However when you DONT HAVE THE MONEY IN YOUR BUDGET…..YOU SHOULD NOT DO IT!!
THIS IS NOT THAT HARD WILLIE B.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:51 pm
Gman….can you read? Is that what I said. More examples of Demoncrats lying! Great job.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
1:51 pm
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
1:46 pm
Funny how the rise in Medicaid you cite coincides with the great unemployment numbers that were garnered under the previous administration.
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
1:54 pm
huh?
An Anti-War Candidate Announces for President
http://truthout.org/anti-war-candidate-announces-president/1303823158
A Republican? Might have a shot at dethroning the Chosen One
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
1:54 pm
Mr. Doom — “To say they don’t exist is to say its not daylight outside as I write this.”
Then if they are so easy to find, it should be child’s play for you to substantiate their existence. Please proceed, sir.
“Want to add up the numbers- just look at the rise in the medicaid rolls in the last year or 2.”
Fine. Your link, please
“Or look how much the federal govt for that matter spends on medicaid or how much Georgia spends on food stamps, etc”
Demonstrating how much is spent on those things does not establish that there is, as you have claimed, a permanent underclass that makes their living solely off such largesse.
“Are you saying that these people using food stamps, medicaid, etc don’t exist?”
No, I think we’re saying that the people you alleged — who make their living solely off government largess while being otherwise able to secure gainful employment — are not nearly so ubiquitous as you would have us believe. I do, however, remain persuadable in the face of hard *evidence,* however.
“If so I’ll come over and pick you up and take you to a grocery store in Marietta where dang near every person in line at the checkout is paying for their groceries with food stamps.”
And *all* of those folks make their livings *solely* off government largesse while otherwise being physically able to work, right?
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
1:55 pm
“Funny how the rise in Medicaid you cite coincides with the great unemployment numbers that were garnered under the previous administration.”
funny how those unemployment numbers kept rising under the current administration. Also funny how those unemployment numbers started rising in the first place when the Republicans lost the house and the senate.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
1:59 pm
“Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has funneled more than $236 million in federal funds since 2000 to a web of nonprofit groups he created back home in the Bluegrass State”
So in 11 years he has funneled about 1/4th as much money as Barack Obama plans to raise for his re-election campaign coffers ($1 billion).
Liberals sure do have selected outrage/
RB from Gwinnett
April 26th, 2011
2:00 pm
Joe, here’s a homework assignment for you. Go look at the political endorsements made by what you call the balanced editorial board at the AJC and tell us how balanced it looks in the middle of a red state.
And, yes, I’m aware they stopped doing endorsements a year or 2 ago, but let us know what you find.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:03 pm
Looks like Joe Mama has never driven through Techwood Homes…or Perry Homes…or Bankhead Court…
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
2:03 pm
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
1:50 pm
So we should not have invested in the greatest nation on earth, we should have, as I guess you screamed, “not done it”. A family with maxed out credit cards may take a consolidation loan to bring them in to one manageable payment. The United States of America is the worlds largest business, and like any business needs capital, so do we.
President Obama didn’t start our borrowing from China nor did he start the selling of our Bonds to foriegn nations. Cash infusions to businesses are normal but in the case of this business the numbers are large because the company is large.
We should not have fixed it? This clearly shows a lack of maturity in your understanding of the nature of govermnent/business/politics etc. Like Finn said, go play with your dog.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:06 pm
Liberals are so funny…trying to paint Republicans as extremists in a state totally dominated by Republicans. That’s as dumb as trying to assert that a permanent underclass of welfare-dependent able-bodied people doesn’t exist.
Oh wait….
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:08 pm
Willie….ok lets see if I can dumb this down even more for you. What is better (to have debt or to have a balanced budget)?
You are correct he didnt start the borrowing but he is sure accumulating it faster than we can print it.
Wait a minute…you say the US government is the worlds largest business, but I always here the left say that the government is not a business. Which is it. WOW you guys are confused. If the government is a business we are about to have to claim bankruptcy….GREAT JOB OBOZO!!
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:09 pm
Harry Callahan — “funny how those unemployment numbers kept rising under the current administration. Also funny how those unemployment numbers started rising in the first place when the Republicans lost the house and the senate.”
Looking at actual employment figures tells quite a different story.
I always know that when someone harps on unemployment percentages, that they:
A) Don’t know what they’re talking about
B) Don’t know what that number actually shows and what it leaves out
C) That they’re not interested in the actual employment numbers that underlie the U3; they’re just looking to score cheap political points
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:09 pm
Willie….also if the US government is a business….why did you vote for a man with virtually no business experience and no political experience. GREAT WORK!!!
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:10 pm
Joe….9.2% Great work…..lets see what is going to happen in 2012 when unemployment is at 11% and gas is at $5 per gallon. CYA OBOZO!
LeeH1
April 26th, 2011
2:12 pm
Well, Jay may be bashing the Republicans, but I want to know why aren’t the Tea Party folks saying this? They are the ones who should be doing this sort of digging and shining a light on corruption.
Except they pander to the Republicans like the hypocrites they are! Trust a Democrat to find out what a Tea Party member should know!
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:13 pm
Lee….Trust a Democrat? YEAH RIGHT!!!
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
2:13 pm
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
1:55 pm
Well let’s see…the tax cuts went into effect in 2001 and by 2007 we’re hemorrhaging jobs. The Dems took over in November of 2006 yet they produced the policies that spurred this? Ok, thanks.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:13 pm
“We should not have fixed it? This clearly shows a lack of maturity in your understanding of the nature of govermnent/business/politics etc. Like Finn said, go play with your dog.”
Your assertion that government “stimulus monry” fixed anything shows a lack of maturity in your undersatnding of business and economics. Go play with your illegitimate child.
Redneck Convert (R---and proud of it)
April 26th, 2011
2:14 pm
Well, when I saw Bookman’s headline I danged near had a heart attack. I thought it was about how I got all lubed up waiting for the GA statehouse people to do their thing to me with the tax bill and then I thought, “Dang! If GA won’t do it to me KY will.” I I’m talking about the state, not the lube.
Anyway, I don’t see a suprize in anything Bookman writes about this guy. Why do you think people spend $2 million to get elected to a job that pays $225,000? You know good and well the reason ain’t Patriotism. There’s money in political office. Just watch old Nathan. He may be broke and in debt today, but by the time he leaves office he’ll be one of the richest men in GA. He won’t owe anybody a penny and he’ll go right to work with the people he appointed.
So tell Bookman to let me know when he’s got some real news. I don’t regard a politican being crooked as a dog’s hind leg as news.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:15 pm
“Well let’s see…the tax cuts went into effect in 2001 and by 2007 we’re hemorrhaging jobs.”
Why do you reckon Obozo extended those tax cuts?
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:17 pm
Willie…why don’t you explain the linkage between lower taxes and hemorraghing jobs. I’m sure the blogosphere would enjoy a good laugh.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:17 pm
“Ky. congressman has well-lubed operation”
Barney Frank is from Kentucky?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
2:19 pm
“Why do you reckon Obozo extended those tax cuts?”
No twig and berries? No spine?
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:19 pm
Barney Frank stands for everything that is wrong in this country!
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:19 pm
Peadawg….yeah but we knew that before he extended the tax code.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:19 pm
“Well, Jay may be bashing the Republicans, but I want to know why aren’t the Tea Party folks saying this?”
I guess you slept through the 2010 primary election season, where the Tea Party went after big-spending Republicans with great vigor. Or maybe you were just on a cocaine-fueled haze…
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:21 pm
harry
Funny how the economy and real estate market crashed in 07 after the “ownership society” was promoted by the previous admin. Lax regulations and look the other way banking were the order of the day. Obama comes in and you demand he “fix it” immediately…
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
2:21 pm
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:09 pm
I don’t know who you’ve been talking to but what is government if not a business?
I have never stated that I voted for President Obama but you and your kind act as though he caused the problems. Of course he would borrow more than anyone else the breadth of the calamity requires it.
And why all this interest in a balanced budget? Who has produced one in the last 30 years? Oops.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:21 pm
“Well, Jay may be bashing the Republicans, but I want to know why aren’t the Tea Party folks saying this?”
This is what happens to people who get all their “news” from the AJC. Total and complete ignorance of the world around themselves.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:22 pm
“And why all this interest in a balanced budget? Who has produced one in the last 30 years?”
No one.
But the Republican-controlled House came very close during Clinton’s second term.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:23 pm
Willie….”your kind” please explain?
Why is it that you keep living in the past. Again who forced this clown to run? Like it or not it IS his issue now.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:23 pm
Harry….amen!
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:24 pm
“Funny how the economy and real estate market crashed in 07 after the “ownership society” was promoted by the previous admin. Lax regulations and look the other way banking were the order of the day. Obama comes in and you demand he “fix it” immediately…”
Mick,
Funny how you can go to youtube and see Bush administration offials fighting to control Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, only to be stymied by Barney Frank and his lib buddies.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:25 pm
**But the Republican-controlled House came very close during Clinton’s second term**
They only came close because of the democrats voting a tax increase in 94, without one repub vote…
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:25 pm
Mick,
Funny how libs said they wanted gasoline to be $5/gallon, and then when it went near that high right on top of the mortgage crisis, it pushed us into recession.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
2:25 pm
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:17 pm
I believe the mantra was reduce taxes create jobs. That failed and now what do you clowns say, reduce taxes create jobs. You guy’s must be looking at that big swirly thing they used to show when they were hypnotizing people. Repeat after me reduce…
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:26 pm
“They only came close because of the democrats voting a tax increase in 94, without one repub vote…”
LMAO.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:26 pm
RB — “Joe, here’s a homework assignment for you.”
I’m not doing your work for you. If you have a point to make, then man up and make it here. With links, please.
“Go look at the political endorsements made by what you call the balanced editorial board at the AJC and tell us how balanced it looks in the middle of a red state.”
Okay, you either aren’t paying attention or you aren’t very smart. I did *not* call it balanced. I said that, if anything, it was more tilted at *you* than at *me.*
You need to pay closer attention, RB>
“And, yes, I’m aware they stopped doing endorsements a year or 2 ago, but let us know what you find.”
No. If you have a point to make, then make it your ownself.
Logical Dude
April 26th, 2011
2:26 pm
Harry says: funny how those unemployment numbers kept rising under the current administration. Also funny how those unemployment numbers started rising in the first place when the Republicans lost the house and the senate.
Funny how this coincided with the greatest recession since the Great Depression 80 years ago. As much you like to blame Democrats, please look past your prejudice and see that it is NOT A PARTISAN PROBLEM.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:26 pm
Mr. Callahan — “Looks like Joe Mama has never driven through Techwood Homes…or Perry Homes…or Bankhead Court…”
I’ve driven through all of them. Man up and make your point, sir.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:27 pm
willie,
I asked you to explain the linkage between lower taxes and hemorrhaging jobs. I assume your post @ 2:25 means essentially that you cannot do so?
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:27 pm
harry
Funny how all you believe that fanni/freddie is the sole demon here. Once again ownership society anyone? Previous admin was bragging how many minorities were becoming homeowners, you can’t have it both ways..
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:28 pm
“I’ve driven through all of them. Man up and make your point, sir.”
I thought my point was obvious…that a permanent underclass of able-bodied welfare dependents DOES exist.
Next time I’ll type s-l-o-w-e-r for benefit of the intellectually impaired.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:28 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe….9.2% Great work…..lets see what is going to happen in 2012 when unemployment is at 11%”
Which one of the three are you?
I have my suspicions, but I’m willing to hear you out.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
2:29 pm
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
1:51 pm
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
1:46 pm
Funny how the rise in Medicaid you cite coincides with the great unemployment numbers that were garnered under the previous administration.
Willie Lynch,
I’m not sure what planet you live on but under the Bush administration unemployment averaged a little over 5 %. It wasn’t till Obama that we hit 10% unemployment. I guess you never let the facts get in the way of your argument do you?
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
2:30 pm
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:23 pm
It is his issue and he’s done a great job on phase one, stopping the freefall our country was in.
The world trade centers came down in seconds but took years to build. Why don’t you and your kind (and if this needs explaination you’re worst that I thought) stop with the foolishness and start helping.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:31 pm
**It wasn’t till Obama that we hit 10% unemployment.**
That’s equivalent to saying that bush successfully captianed the titanic until after he hit the iceberg and turned the helm over to obama, c’mon man…
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:31 pm
“Funny how all you believe that fanni/freddie is the sole demon here”
You have no idea what I believe.
My opinion, the crisis was created by stupid government policies encouraging home ownership for everyone, stupid borrowers who can’t do elementary school math to determine if they can afford a mortgage payment, and stupid bankers who lent money based on credit scores and little else, to people with no down payment.
And the bankers felt confident to do that because they knew instinctively that government (both parties) would be only too happy to perform the un-capitalist act of subsidizing their losses with taxpayer money.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:32 pm
Mick…They only came close because of the democrats voting a tax increase in 94, without one repub vote…
If you are so eager to give the government more of your money…did you send in an additional check this year with your tax filing?
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
2:32 pm
” It wasn’t till Obama that we hit 10% unemployment. I guess you never let the facts get in the way of your argument do you?”
And I guess you skipped the lessons on cause and effect.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:33 pm
willie…
We’re all still waiting for you to;
1) Explain why Obama extended hte Bush tax rates if they led to “hemorrhaging jobs”, and
2) Explain the linkage between lower tax rates and job losses
Thanks in advance.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:33 pm
Willie…..HOLY CRAP!!! HOw do you figure he has done anything to stop the free fall we were in. Please tell me ONE thing he has done that has actually immproved our situation.
Willie…I do help. I own three businesses and employ people from my community. What do you do?
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
2:34 pm
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:27 pm
Harry if we must major in the minors. The fact is we accepted a policy of lower taxes and in the end we ended up in the worst recession since 1929 and our government borrowing at an alarming rate. I think the argument for the success of this policy is much harder to make. We had lower taxes and we lost jobs.
TaxPayer
April 26th, 2011
2:34 pm
Let’s see, without reading any of the comments, I’ll venture that the cons are saying, “Obama bad socialist baby killer communist illegal alien…” while they have said nothing about the Republican and therefore condone his action because, well, he is a Republican and Republicans are for smaller government and eliminating the debt and deficit and apple pie and patriotism.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:34 pm
“And I guess you skipped the lessons on cause and effect.”
Classic…a liberal trying to understand the difference between correlation and causation…
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:35 pm
Mr. Callahan — “I thought my point was obvious…”
It wasn’t.
“that a permanent underclass of able-bodied welfare dependents DOES exist.”
The mere existence of housing projects does not establish the existence of the permanent underclass you allege, sir. It’s pretty obvious that you’re leaping to conclusions rather than establishing evidentiary proof of your claims.
“Next time I’ll type s-l-o-w-e-r for benefit of the intellectually impaired.”
Good. Then perhaps you will make fewer foolish and unsupported claims.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:35 pm
Willie….we had lower taxes and lost jobs. IS that why as soon as Obozo past the bush tax extension the unemployment rate improved nearly over night? Great work.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:36 pm
“Harry if we must major in the minors. The fact is we accepted a policy of lower taxes and in the end we ended up in the worst recession since 1929 and our government borrowing at an alarming rate. I think the argument for the success of this policy is much harder to make. We had lower taxes and we lost jobs.”
Congratulations…a complete non-answer. Your time in Advanced Liberal Reasoning classes was well spent.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:36 pm
“The mere existence of housing projects does not establish the existence of the permanent underclass you allege, sir.”
I’m afraid it does, sir.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:36 pm
Mr. Doom — “I’m not sure what planet you live on but under the Bush administration unemployment averaged a little over 5 %. It wasn’t till Obama that we hit 10% unemployment. I guess you never let the facts get in the way of your argument do you?”
Do you need to be hit over the head with the job creation numbers again, Mr. Doom?
You *know* how worthless the U3 value is.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
2:37 pm
Oh, so it seems we have another name changer amongst us.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:39 pm
Joe….go ahead I would love to hear it.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:39 pm
“They only came close because of the democrats voting a tax increase in 94, without one repub vote…”
Oh sure. That was it, the tax increase. It had nothing to do with;
1) Increased tax revenues due to dot-com bubble
2) Republican-originated welfare reform
3) Republican Senate fillibuster of Clinton’s 1993 “Ecomic Stimulus Plan”/gigantic deficit spending scheme (sound familkiar?)
4) Republican budget plans
LMAO…it was the tax increase…
Bud Wiser
April 26th, 2011
2:40 pm
Don’t see much comment from the media stooges about Obama’s estimated $1 BILLION he plans to spend on next year’s reelection campaign, do we?
There may not have been such a waste of money spent since the “stimulus” dollars, since the Obama ship is going down faster than the Titanic. Of course, like the “stimulus”, no one will know for sure where all the money goes since they plan to take no public money for financing, therefore have no requirement to show accountability for where it goes.
This is the most inept and hideously secretive administration since that fool Carter.
I wouldn’t hire this moron to bag groceries for me at my store.
Oh, and you Obama lovers, how is the price of gasoline thing working for you idiots so far? Isn’t the prophetic…”energy prices will necessarily skyrocket…” quote from the Idiot in Chief just music to everyone’s ears? What’s this you say…”blood for oil, blood for oil…; oh wait again, that was just your moronic chant against Bush/Cheney, not Obama/Sleepy.
Hahahahahahaha
If you had any shame, you’d be dying inside; instead, you flaunt your stupidity by continually supporting this ignorant sap. Go on, go on.
2012 is just around the corner, and the Democrat Party as we now see it will evaporate, all orchestrated by your uppity Kenyan.
Enjoy.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
2:41 pm
Joe Mama
As the economy was stuck squarely in the economic doldrums during 2009, people who lost their jobs — and their private health insurance — joined the Medicaid program in droves, driving a 22 percent increase in federal spending on the program, according to the latest National Health Expenditures reporIn addition to increased enrollment, the Medicaid spending jump was also a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which funneled $34 billion to the states in the form of an increased Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP). In comparison, the federal share of Medicaid spending in 2008 – prior to passage of the stimulus package in early 2009 — was $7 billion.t. Source is politico in 2011 http://healthreformreport.com/2011/01/politico-covers-the-recession-ballooning-medicaid-rolls.php
Where are all these govt dependents? As Harry said go down to Perry Homes, Techwood Homes, Bankhead Court, I’m sure you will find lots of them.
Also, I’ll pick and answer 2 points of yours for each of your blog responses. You tend to have multiple little points and counterpoints and I just don’t have the time to get bogged down in answering 10 questions from you. No offense but it just gets to be too much.
TaxPayer
April 26th, 2011
2:41 pm
Georgia’s unemployment rate, under total Republican rule, is worse than the nationwide unemployment rate. So, the Republican policies actually make things worse than the Democratic policies.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
2:42 pm
So, George, why the name change?
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:42 pm
UGA1999
@
April 26th, 2011
2:32 pm
Yes.
harry@ 2:31
You are correct, lots of blame to go around, even the people who did not participate in the real estate orgy got burned by the actions of so many greedy criminals. We are still digging out..
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:43 pm
Harry….isnt it absolutely amazing how blind and ignorant these posters are from the left. No wonder the Dems target the low income, uneducated voter….MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:43 pm
Mick….you are right Barney Frank is a greedy criminal. Nice post!
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
2:44 pm
Obama’s estimated $1 BILLION he plans to spend on next year’s reelection campaign
LOL, in an attempt to beat who? The Republicans don’t have a single soul who can even get close to the Chosen One. It’ll be a landslide so he should not spend the money.
AmVet - A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt
April 26th, 2011
2:44 pm
It wasn’t very long ago that a couple of the popular, but meaningless battle cries, of the fiscally non-conservative Republicans, was targeting “earmarks” and “pork”.
Remember all that pious outrage?
The reality?
Hal Rogers is just another of many spendaholic neo-cons, and living proof that Republispeak, though impressive to the sheep, is just empty blather…
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:44 pm
Mr. Callahan — “I’m afraid it does, sir.”
No, sir, I’m afraid it does not.
The existence of housing establishes that some people need housing assistance for some period of time. It does *not* establish the existence of a *permanent* assistance-consuming underclass who, as was earlier suggested, are otherwise capable of securing gainful employment.
I’m sure that you want to *believe* that the existence of housing projects proves that such an underclass exists, but it doesn’t. You might do better to find some socioeconomic surveys that you can link to here, rather than making unsupported assertions, naked stabs in the dark and outright wild-@$$ guesses.
If you need some help or suggestions about where to look for evidence of that sort, I could probably be convinced to help you, especially if you restrained your jerky attitude about people who don’t agree with you being s-l-o-w-e-r than you are.
There may be something to your argument, but you’re not going to convince me simply by being a d**k about it.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
2:44 pm
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
2:29 pm
So you’re saying the unemployment rate went from 5%to 8% on January 20,2008?
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:45 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe….go ahead I would love to hear it.”
Love to hear what? My suspicions regarding you?
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:46 pm
harry
Higher tax rates = more revenue = lower deficit toward balanced budget. See how easy that was?
USMC
April 26th, 2011
2:46 pm
Harry Callahan — “Looks like Joe Mama has never driven through Techwood Homes…or Perry Homes…or Bankhead Court…”
What are you talking about, Harry? Joe Mama grew up in Perry Homes!
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:46 pm
Finn…..it will be a landslide. Have you seen the latest polls. Just because you believe it doesnt make it fact.
Obama is a goner.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
2:47 pm
Joe Mama,
Be honest about it. The country was sliding into a recession from the Clinton dot.com bust as Bush was coming in so jobs were being lost as Bush was just starting his presidency. And then when Bush’s recession hit in his last year it gave back many of the jobs the economy had created in the middle years.
Bush’s job growth was anemic because of the 2 bookend recessions but to hear a liberal make fun of Bush’s job creation is quite comical given the 10% unemployment numbers we’ve had under Obama. Nearly 2 1/2 years in we are finally seeing a smidgen of growth in spite of Obama but we are finally just under the 10% mark here in Georgia and still around 9 1/2 % nationwide.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
2:47 pm
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:35 pm
I’m sorry, you are as bad as I thought.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:47 pm
Joe….no I dont care how infactuated you are with me. I wanted to hear you opinion on the tax code and job creation. Oh mature one.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:48 pm
“Obama is a goner.”
I remember a lot of people thinking the same thing about the previous guy in 04…
USMC
April 26th, 2011
2:48 pm
“Higher tax rates = more revenue = lower deficit toward balanced budget.”
Wrong. Lower tax rates bring higher tax revenues.
Spending is the problem.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:49 pm
“Of course, like the “stimulus”, no one will know for sure where all the money goes ”
More importantly, no one will know where the Obama $1 billion campaign funds came FROM…
Finn McCool
April 26th, 2011
2:49 pm
I think the reason sooooo many Republicans are obsessive about the poor and who is receiving what welfare is cause they know they are a hair’s breadth of being in that same situation.
It scares the bejesus out of them.
Similar to why they hate the illegal immigrants – but in that case it’s becasue they are competing with them for the low skill jobs.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:49 pm
Moving the goalposts, Mr. Doom, moving the goalposts. Bad show on your part.
“As the economy was stuck squarely in the economic doldrums during 2009, people who lost their jobs — and their private health insurance — joined the Medicaid program in droves, driving a 22 percent increase in federal spending on the program, according to the latest National Health Expenditures reporIn addition to increased enrollment, the Medicaid spending jump was also a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which funneled $34 billion to the states in the form of an increased Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP). In comparison, the federal share of Medicaid spending in 2008 – prior to passage of the stimulus package in early 2009 — was $7 billion.t. Source is politico in 2011 http://healthreformreport.com/2011/01/politico-covers-the-recession-ballooning-medicaid-rolls.php”
Well, then, those folks *just joined* the underclass, so those folks can’t be part of the permanent population you claimed to exist.
“Where are all these govt dependents? As Harry said go down to Perry Homes, Techwood Homes, Bankhead Court, I’m sure you will find lots of them.”
Nope, nope. I’m looking for the permanent members of the underclass who are otherwise capable of securing gainful employment, but who choose not to do so. Substantiate the existence of same, please.
“Also, I’ll pick and answer 2 points of yours for each of your blog responses. You tend to have multiple little points and counterpoints and I just don’t have the time to get bogged down in answering 10 questions from you. No offense but it just gets to be too much.”
None taken. I tend to be very complete and I try to reply to all points my post-opponents make. Some people find that off-putting.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:50 pm
Joe Mama,
I don’t need to do research. I can see with my eyes.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:50 pm
USMC — “What are you talking about, Harry? Joe Mama grew up in Perry Homes!”
So much for veterans respecting other veterans.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
“Be honest about it. The country was sliding into a recession from the Clinton dot.com bust ”
So, Doom, it’s Clinton’s fault. How honest of you.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
doom
The housing bust plus the economic meltdown in 08 is about an 8.0 on the richter scale of recession compared to the minor aftershocks that bush had to contend with…there is no comparison..
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
Clinton only had job numbers because of the dot com bubble, Bush’s numbers were bad because he came in with a recession. Obama comes in during the worst world economic collapse in almost 100 years but he’s the problem.
Fascinating!
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
Mick….there is a HUGE difference.
TaxPayer
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
UGA1999, WOW, Barney Frank. That’s your comeback. How about some of the real problems such as the billion dollar fraud ring in Florida.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
Willie Lynch,
Nope. Unemployment I believe hit 7% in Bush’s last months in office. Under Obama it went to 8 then to 9 and then finally to 10%. Still having trouble with facts willie? And are you having trouble with the fact that as an average Bush still averaged just over 5% for his presidency. Here are the facts-
Bill Clinton (D) – 5.2%
George W. Bush (R) – 5.27%
Barack Obama (D) – 9.3%
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:52 pm
TaxPayer. How about the Trillion dollar fraud ring in Washington?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
2:52 pm
That’s a nice theory, Finn. So why are Liberals obsessed with the wealthy?
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:53 pm
** Lower tax rates bring higher tax revenues.**
The tooth fairy would be so proud of your logic….
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:53 pm
“Higher tax rates = more revenue = lower deficit toward balanced budget. See how easy that was?”
Mick,
All I see is how easily you are duped.
If higher taxes and balanced budget = jobs, why do you think Obama extended the Bush tax cuts and then created the biggest budget deficits in the history of the known universe?
Liberals are so funny.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
2:53 pm
” I’m looking for the permanent members of the underclass who are otherwise capable of securing gainful employment, but who choose not to do so.”
Joe, I’ve asked that question many times of our wingnut friends — name a welfare program that gives money to those who are just too damn lazy to work.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:54 pm
Mick….you do understand that the last time taxes were raised over all intake from the government decreased! Great work.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
2:54 pm
“Still having trouble with facts willie?”
Are you still having trouble with cause and effect, Doom?
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:55 pm
“The tooth fairy would be so proud of your logic….”
Maybe the tooth fairy should go to the CBO website and look at federal government revenues before and after the Reagan and Bush tax rate decreases.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:56 pm
“name a welfare program that gives money to those who are just too damn lazy to work.”
LOL.
All of them.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
2:57 pm
Harry….AMEN!!!
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
2:57 pm
” name a welfare program that gives money to those who are just too damn lazy to work.”
They all do, Bosch. But that’s NOT the same as saying everyone on welfare is just too damn lazy to work. See the difference?
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
2:57 pm
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
doom
The housing bust plus the economic meltdown in 08 is about an 8.0 on the richter scale of recession compared to the minor aftershocks that bush had to contend with…there is no comparison.
Mick,
That is a matter of opinion. Bush inherited not only the dot.com bust but 9/11 hit just 8 months into his presidency and belted the economy also. A lot of presidents have inherited recessions. The question is what do you do to get out of it. Under Bush we recovered fairly quickly and enjoyed moderate, decent economic growth in the middle 6 years.
I’ll admit that Obama inherited a bad situation with the housing bust but everything the man did simply compounded the recession and delayed it. his perilous fiscal policies have put us on the road to bankruptcy. This point is not debatable and the modest recovery we are now having is threatened by his spending- inflation is looming, the weaker dollar means gas is skyrocketing along with all goods in the U.S that have to be trucked- basically everything- and so we now are met with the very real possibility of a double dip recession.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
harry
Twisting what I wrote a bit? Never mentioned jobs but since you brought it up, more employment brings in more revenue. Obama made a deal with the repubs for the tax cuts – I was against that deal. You and doom are being disingenious about the great recession obama inherited, we were going to hemorage jobs no matter who was elected and the stimulus at least stopped the bleeding…
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
willie is still dodging my two questions…must be related to AmVet…
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
“See the difference?”
No, Peadawg, there are pesky rules called eligibility requirements, and none of those programs have as an eligibility requirement, “must be too damn lazy to work.”
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
2:59 pm
Mr. Doom — “Be honest about it.”
I *am* being honest about it.
“The country was sliding into a recession from the Clinton dot.com bust as Bush was coming in so jobs were being lost as Bush was just starting his presidency. And then when Bush’s recession hit in his last year it gave back many of the jobs the economy had created in the middle years.”
Nope. Job creation numbers show that Bush had positive job creation numbers in only 2 years of his ENTIRE Presidency, and those jobs didn’t cover the losses suffered in the other six. The Bush years were a net LOSS to employment in this country.
Do you want me to post the numbers again? I’ve posted them at least three or four times in the last couple of weeks.
“Bush’s job growth was anemic because of the 2 bookend recessions but to hear a liberal make fun of Bush’s job creation is quite comical given the 10% unemployment numbers we’ve had under Obama.”
Bush’s job loss period was longer and milder; Obama’s was shorter and deeper. But Obama turned it around *much* faster than Bush did. If anything’s comical, it’s the conservative reliance on a number (the U3) that tells *very* little of value about employment.
BOTH Bush and Obama suck for job creation. But Obama inherited a *much* worse problem (this is illustrated by the numbers I’m again offering you) and he turned it around *much* faster than Bush did. Those are facts.
“Nearly 2 1/2 years in we are finally seeing a smidgen of growth in spite of Obama but we are finally just under the 10% mark here in Georgia and still around 9 1/2 % nationwide.”
Which means nothing, given how U3 is calculated. If population remained steady, or if population and the size of the labor force trended together (they haven’t in recent years; the labor force has been shrinking), then comparing U3 over time would be meaningful. But when those two figures stop trending together as they are doing now, they cease to be meaningful.
Most observers don’t realize that, and most people don’t have a background in statistics or the time to dig into the numbers.
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
3:00 pm
“They all do, Bosch. But that’s NOT the same as saying everyone on welfare is just too damn lazy to work. See the difference?”
Liberals don’t really “do” nuance, or fine shades of meaning, despite their alleged intellectual superiority.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
3:00 pm
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
I don’t believe I’m having any problem with the numbers. By your statement we can deduce that Bush’s unemployment numbers moved 2% as have Obama’s. If we are to use the average percentile you’ve indicated surely we would have to give President Obama 8 years to offer any serious comparisons.
Does that seem correct?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
3:01 pm
“No, Peadawg”
And people on here call me ignorant and naive….
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:01 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe….no I dont care how infactuated you are with me.”
I’m sorry, UGA, but I’m just not that into you. Besides, my wife is better looking than you.
“I wanted to hear you opinion on the tax code and job creation. Oh mature one.”
Okay. Do you have specific questions?
USMC
April 26th, 2011
3:01 pm
“So much for veterans respecting other veterans.”-Joe Mama
I apologize Joe, I thought it was funny; no harm intended:-)
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
3:02 pm
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
I’ve answered the one question even if you didn’t like it. But I don’t recall a second question.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:02 pm
Obama comes in during the worst world economic collapse in almost 100 years but he’s the problem.- willie lynch
willie lynch,
Really? The worst economic collapse in almost 100 years? Do you have any freaking idea just how asininely stupid that sounds? Ever heard of the great depression Willie? How about Jimmy Carter with the term stagflation- economic recession, inflation was in double digits and interest rates were around 16-18%- numbers we can’t even imagine today. What Obama inherited is a joke compared to the great depression and the Carter years. Go learn some basic history sir.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:03 pm
“And people on here call me ignorant and naive….”
Well, then tell us Peadawg, which programs give money for the sole purpose of just being too damn lazy to work?
Harry Callahan
April 26th, 2011
3:03 pm
How do I know many welfare recipients would rather draw a check than work? Because I see with my own eyes that illegals come here to wash dishes, bus tables, build houses, cut grass, and trim hedges. All of which would be available to the people sitting out on the stoops of the public housing areas with their small children at 11:00PM when I’m leaving a Braves or Thrashers game.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
3:03 pm
doom
The dot com bust and the housing bust are like comparing an ant and an elephant. The housing bust caused a worldwide quake. How’s the value of your house these days? Houses in your neighborhood? State? Country? It’s going to take several more years for inventory to be sold off. Be real about the current conditions…
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:04 pm
“How about Jimmy Carter ”
Wow, now it’s Carter’s fault. How honest of you Doom.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:04 pm
Mr. Callahan — “I don’t need to do research.”
Actually, you do. Your guesswork and suppositions are neither supportive of or evidence proving your claims.
“I can see with my eyes.”
Yeah, that used to be considered evidence that the earth was flat. Shrug.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:05 pm
“All of which would be available to the people sitting out on the stoops of the public housing areas with their small children at 11:00PM when I’m leaving a Braves or Thrashers game.”
And you know those people don’t work how exactly Harry? You go ask them?
USMC
April 26th, 2011
3:05 pm
“The tooth fairy would be so proud of your logic….”-Mick
That’s cute Mick. Ever heard of the Law of Diminishing Returns?
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:06 pm
Bosch….and how do you know they do?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
3:06 pm
“Well, then tell us Peadawg, which programs give money for the sole purpose of just being too damn lazy to work?”
Food stamps and Medicaid come to mind. But again, I’M NOT saying everyone on those programs are lazy. Again, there is a difference. That’s where the waste and fraud come into play…the ones who game the system.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:07 pm
Mr. Callahan — “Liberals don’t really “do” nuance, or fine shades of meaning, despite their alleged intellectual superiority.”
You’re the only one I’ve noticed dissing the intelligence of your post-opponents today; ironic considering your claimed Magical Truth Divining powers.
Jay
April 26th, 2011
3:07 pm
Doom, you’re smart enough to know that the unemployment rate represents the culmination of job losses or gains over many previous months, and thus not suitable for the comparison you attempt to make. You know that, but attempt it anyway, which also suggests that you know the weakness of your general argument.
We lost an average of 191,000 jobs a month in the second quarter of ‘08, 334,000 a month in the third quarter, 651,000 a month in the fourth quarter and 752,000 a month in the first quarter of 2009, when Obama took office.
From that point, job losses began to decline almost immediately, and over the past year we’ve added 1.5 million jobs.
Fresh sheets upstairs.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:08 pm
willie lynch,
no. Now you’re just trying to play statistical games. And you are no statistician sir. Bottom line is that for much of Bush’s presidency we enjoyed decent economic growth with low unemployment averaging around 5% and it was only in the last year that it fell to 7 %. In Obama’s mere 2 1/2years we have averaged a full 2-3% higher at around 9 1/2 % with barely a glimmer of hope. We are just now seeing some economic growth and it is very modest at that. Bush had 2 bad years and 6 decent years. Obama has had nearly 2 1/2 years and its all been bad, bad, bad.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:08 pm
USMC — Apology accepted, no harm done.
We’re all adults here, but I don’t think there’s any call to get personal with other posters.
Mick
April 26th, 2011
3:09 pm
usmc
Sorry, but if what you are suggesting is true then we should be walloping in surplusses by now…
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:09 pm
Jay….you may have added ficticious jobs but unemployment is still at 9.2% great work!!
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:10 pm
Mr. Callahan — “How do I know many welfare recipients would rather draw a check than work? Because I see with my own eyes that illegals come here to wash dishes, bus tables, build houses, cut grass, and trim hedges. All of which would be available to the people sitting out on the stoops of the public housing areas with their small children at 11:00PM when I’m leaving a Braves or Thrashers game.”
Translation — ‘Because it seems like the most plausible explanation to me, and I don’t feel like actually doing any reading or research to back up my claims.’
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:11 pm
“Bosch….and how do you know they do?”
George W,
Because the Georgia TANF program requires it:
http://team.georgia.gov/portal/site/DHS-DFCS/menuitem.5d32235bb09bde9a50c8798dd03036a0/?vgnextoid=2bea2b48d9a4ff00VgnVCM100000bf01010aRCRD
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:13 pm
Mr. Doom — “Bush had 2 bad years and 6 decent years. Obama has had nearly 2 1/2 years and its all been bad, bad, bad.”
Nope.
If you were a working man, fully *75% of Bush’s term* involved month-over-month job losses. Again, I’ll be happy to supply you those numbers.
Mr. Obama has gotten us out a deeper hole MUCH faster than Mr. Bush did. We have a long way to go — no doubt about it — but he’s ahead of Mr. Bush at this stage.
Conservatives *used* to care about facts and truth and honesty. Please don’t disappoint me, Mr. Doom.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:14 pm
“Food stamps and Medicaid come to mind.”
No Peadawg, even those programs have eligibility requirements, you don’t get those for just being too damn lazy to work. Try again.
USMC
April 26th, 2011
3:15 pm
“Sorry, but if what you are suggesting is true then we should be walloping in surplusses by now…’
I would contend that there are other forces besides Taxes that are required for surpluses; like out-of-control spending, etc.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:15 pm
Jay,
I beg to differ. Nothing weak about my argument. The issue here is that you guys just don’t want to admit that unemployment is dramatically worse under Obama and the facts bear that out. Sure some jobs have been added back in but at what cost? A trillion dollar stimulus and nearly 5 trillion in new debt to bring unemployment back down to a still staggeringly skyhigh 9.3%? The numbers don’t lie.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:15 pm
UGA1999 — “Jay….you may have added ficticious jobs”
He didn’t. Would you like to see the numbers, or are you just going to dismiss them because they disagree with you?
“but unemployment is still at 9.2% great work!!”
What was your major, exactly? I’m guessing that it didn’t require a lot of math.
ODDOWL
April 26th, 2011
3:19 pm
The Republicans are operating a continuous criminal enterprise. These thieves and ripoff artists should be subjected to the RICO laws. The naive, ignorant, gullible tax payers who vote Republican are the culprits who are responsible for electing this Republican criminal element.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:20 pm
Joe….again, your point….are you having a difficult time with the 9.2% number? Do you know what percentages are?
Or the fact that he lied about job creation?
The first lie was an obvious one. According to Obama’s own report, the statistic detailing the creation of 55,000 at US automakers was taken from the BLS, which shows that the increase in jobs over the year included all automaker manufacturing jobs in the US, not just US companies. That means Toyota jobs, Hundai jobs, Ford jobs or any other job creation from an automaker so long as they were residing in America. Did Obama nationalize Ford and foreign automakers as well?
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
3:21 pm
Bosch, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on there being fraud/waste in Medicaid and Food Stamps.
Jay
April 26th, 2011
3:21 pm
In addition, Joe Mama, there were fewer people employed in the private economy when Bush left office than when he took office eight years earlier.
Over eight years, negative job growth.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:23 pm
Jay…Obama over two years….dramatic increase in unemployment. Pick your poison.
Jay
April 26th, 2011
3:25 pm
Doom, you actually do know better, that’s the sad part.
You clearly recognize how distorted a number that is.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:25 pm
“I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on there being fraud/waste in Medicaid and Food Stamps.”
No, Peadawg, we don’t have to agree to disagree — I agree with you on that, but people do not simply get money for being too damn lazy to work.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:26 pm
Bosch…..actually yes they do.
USMC
April 26th, 2011
3:27 pm
“The Republicans are operating a continuous criminal enterprise.”
No where near as successful as the Chicago-land Mobster in the White House; talk about criminal.
Peadawg
April 26th, 2011
3:29 pm
Bosch,
If you agree that there is FRAUD and WASTE in those programs then you also agree that there people on those programs b/c they are too lazy to work. They’re the same thing. What the hell do you think FRAUD and WASTE mean?
Joe Cool
April 26th, 2011
3:31 pm
“Nope. Unemployment I believe hit 7% in Bush’s last months in office. Under Obama it went to 8 then to 9 and then finally to 10%. Still having trouble with facts willie?”
Let me help you out DOOM
President Obama 1st month in office numbers: FEB. 2009: 8.2% | March 2011: 8.8%
You do that math DOOM.
Dont let a thing called facts get in the way.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Tundra Dude
April 26th, 2011
3:31 pm
Yippee@12:01 pm, wrote in part:
Remember folks, Ford didn’t take the stimulus handout (i.e. YOUR TAX DOLLARS).
I think he’s referring to the bailout, TARP.
Ford CEO Mulally declared, “We do not face a near-term liquidity issue, and we are not seeking short-term financial assistance from the government,”
Bald-faced lie. I guess the TARP was too transparent for Ford. They used the “stealth bailout” via the Fed, hoping no one would notice.
Ford Motor Credit had borrowed nearly $4 billion from the Fed’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF). And just two weeks after this remark, Ford Motor Credit borrowed an additional $3 billion from the CPFF. In all, Ford borrowed $7 billion between October 27, 2008 and June 17, 2009.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:31 pm
USMC>>….AMEN DUDE AMEN!
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:32 pm
If you were a working man, fully *75% of Bush’s term* involved month-over-month job losses. Again, I’ll be happy to supply you those numbers.- Joe Mama
Joe Mama I suppose that could be factually correct but its also statistically misleading and you should be bright enough to see the obvious reason why. Most economists consider 5% full employment. Its hard to improve upon 5%- very little room to improve on but a lot of room to fall back from. Its like a gymnast hitting a 9.9 on 3 straight routines and then in her next several meets hitting only 9.7 or 9.8 consistently. Did she really get a lot worse? I mean come on? Its hard to improve when you’re right near what is considered full employment and almost the only place to go is down. Very poor analysis of you. I expect and demand better!
Mr. Obama has gotten us out a deeper hole MUCH faster than Mr. Bush did. We have a long way to go — no doubt about it — but he’s ahead of Mr. Bush at this stage.
I disagree with you here also Joe. It shouldn’t take this long to pull out of a recession. In my opinion his actions simply prolonged the recession and made things dramatically worse. Not to mention that all we have to show is an additional 5 trillion in new debt.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
3:32 pm
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:08 pm
I believe Jay has already offered you a reasonable explaination on those numbers. But if we must… Bush’s unemplyment rate by the time Obama took office was 7.6% by most estimations Obama’s higehst unemployment rat so far has been a 2.6% increase on that number. If Bush took office with a 4.2% unemployment rate his 3.4% job loss number is greater than that of President Obama.
Now you do understand greater than and less than don’t you?
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:32 pm
Joe….and now it is above 9%. He has had two years and it is still going up. Great work!
2012 unemployment near 11%, higher taxes and $5 gas. CYA O’Loser!
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:34 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe….again, your point….are you having a difficult time with the 9.2% number? Do you know what percentages are?”
I’m not having a difficult time with it at all. I know exactly what goes into that number, and, more importantly, exactly what’s left out of it. I know the effect of population and labor force changes on that number, and I know that it doesn’t show what you apparently think it does.
I also know that people who rely on it as much as you are simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
“Or the fact that he lied about job creation?”
No, he didn’t. Once again, would you like to see the numbers?
“The first lie was an obvious one. According to Obama’s own report, the statistic detailing the creation of 55,000 at US automakers was taken from the BLS, which shows that the increase in jobs over the year included all automaker manufacturing jobs in the US, not just US companies. That means Toyota jobs, Hundai jobs, Ford jobs or any other job creation from an automaker so long as they were residing in America. Did Obama nationalize Ford and foreign automakers as well?”
Yadda yadda yadda. Would you like to see the numbers or not?
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:36 pm
Joe Cool,
Nope. As I said unemployment was in the 7 % range when Bush left or at least that’s what economists believed it to be. And February and March 2009 are Obama- not Bush even if a pres can’t do much in the first month or 2 in office. Interestingly enough their was a dispute before the stimulus bill was passed that the Dem leadership in the house had promised the Republican minority that if they passed the stimulus package that unemployment would never rise above 8%. Why would this be said if unemployment was indeed accepted as already being 8% or more?
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:38 pm
Jay, UGA1999 clearly doesn’t understand how both things can be true at the same time, so he latches onto the single number that agrees with him.
I see it all the time on your blogs.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:38 pm
“Bosch…..actually yes they do.”
Did you want something George W?
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
3:38 pm
Joe…”Yadda yadda yadda” is that your response to facts?? hahah unbelieveable.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:40 pm
Peadawg,
I know that you haven’t wrote this, in fact, you wrote the exact opposite, but many here automatically assume that if you are enrolled in one of those programs — that automatically equals you are just too damn lazy to work.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:40 pm
willie lynch,
Nice try but a better estimation is the overall performance and hence overall average. Nice try though. You can’t dismiss the entire 8 year Bush presidency by pointing out the last half year where things went sour and then say that last year is indicative of his entire presidency. Its a ridiculous notion. Also please see my explanation to Joe Mama about full employment. You really can’t do much better than 4-5% unemployment- that is full unemployment and from there the only place to go is down.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:42 pm
“by pointing out the last half year where things went sour and then say that last year is indicative of his entire presidency”
Ok, that proves that Doom missed his lessons on cause and effect.
Jay
April 26th, 2011
3:43 pm
Again, Thulsa, there were fewer Americans working when Bush left office than there were when he took office eight years earlier. Negative job growth over his presidency.
I don’t know how you can get more “bottom-line” than that.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
3:45 pm
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:40 pm
Apply your own logic, you said:
“You can’t dismiss the entire 8 year Bush presidency by pointing out the last half year where things went sour and then say that last year is indicative of his entire presidency”.
Then how do you harp on unemployment numbers of a man who hasn’t been in office half that time? This is where your argument goes silly. Either it applies to both or it applies to none.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:45 pm
Bosch,
I understand cause and effect quite well. You keep saying I don’t. Please explain your point exactly as to how and why I’m wrong. But make it quick. I’m about to head out and besides Jay has more raw meat upstairs for everyone.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:46 pm
” Please explain your point exactly as to how and why I’m wrong.”
I don’t have to Doom, your posts show it quite well.
Joe Cool
April 26th, 2011
3:46 pm
“Nope. As I said unemployment was in the 7 % range when Bush left or at least that’s what economists believed it to be. ”
Well doggoneit….thats the problem. You got that “believed” fact going on huh. Lets try REAL Numbers boo. I know how hard that can be for you.
President Obama 1st month in office numbers: FEB. 2009: 8.2% | March 2011: 8.8%
That would mean plain and simple, that is a +.6…..correct DOOM?
Lets see how hard it is to get a simple yes or no..lol
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Tundra Dude
April 26th, 2011
3:46 pm
willie lynch@2:51 wrote, in part:
Bush’s numbers were bad because he came in with a recession.
A popular opinion. Why then the CBO’s first 10-year projections, (shortly after Bush-lite took office)
were for a $5.9 _Trillion_ surplus. ??
The deficit hawks of today were Surplus Hawks back in 2001. They accused the CBO of lowballing the surplus. It shudda been $1 Trillion higher, they said. (they wanted higher projections, to give more to their corporate sponsors ($$$).
What happened to all those rosy projections….Obama’s first CBO projection was a 1.2 Trillion deficit…
Thanks, Bush (the lesser).
Jon K, non-voting furriner (got papers), and equal opportunity basher.
Bosch
April 26th, 2011
3:46 pm
Actually Doom, your posts show that you don’t understand it quite well.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:51 pm
Jay,
You and the other libs are whining about the mess Obama inherited while singlehandedly dismissing the fact that Bush also inherited a recession and unemployment numbers dipping as he was entering office. Somehow that escapes you that you entered at a high when unemployment was dropping and the numbers were also dropping when he left. This has dramatically skewed the numbers- you should know better. But nevertheless his unemployment numbers averaged substantially lower so far than Obama.
Almost 2 1/2 years into the Obama presidency we are still well over 9 % unemployment at a cost of 5 trillion in new debt? And you think Obama has done well? Surely you jest? For 5 trillion being thrown into the economy you better have a helluva lot better than 9.5% unemployment almost 2 1/2 years into your presidency!
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:52 pm
Mr. Doom — “Joe Mama I suppose that could be factually correct”
It *is* factually correct. Once again, would you like to see the numbers?
“but its also statistically misleading”
No, it isn’t. Relying on U3, as you are doing, is statistically misleading when population growth and labor force growth no longer trend in tandem. That’s a mathematical *fact.* If anyone’s being statistically misleading, it is you.
“and you should be bright enough to see the obvious reason why.”
One, I am bright enough, and two, you are really making some beginner errors in the way you’re using that U3 number. You apparently presume that I’m not as swift as you are when it comes to numbers, but your own defense gives you away — it’s you who’s lagging behind with the math.
“Most economists consider 5% full employment. Its hard to improve upon 5%- very little room to improve on but a lot of room to fall back from. Its like a gymnast hitting a 9.9 on 3 straight routines and then in her next several meets hitting only 9.7 or 9.8 consistently. Did she really get a lot worse? I mean come on? Its hard to improve when you’re right near what is considered full employment and almost the only place to go is down.”
A standard percentage — like the U3 value you cite — is misleading when the two numbers is it based upon do not trend in tandem. That’s a mathematical fact. President Bush’s employment figures look better than they are because the American labor force was SHRINKING during his administration — and U3 does not calculate people who are considered to have permanently left the labor force. Who’s counted among those people? Folks who have run out of unemployment benefits but still haven’t found a job. For purposes of U3, those people don’t count as people any more. They still don’t have a *job,* but U3 doesn’t count them any more. Therefore, the long-term unemployed magically evaporate from the figures once they’ve been unemployed long enough.
Result? They’re not counted against the unemployment rate any more. Unemployed — but NOT COUNTED. And you’re RELYING on that figure?
GMAB. Does that sound like honesty to you?
In order to keep up with population growth, at least 1.8M/year or 150K/month new jobs must be added. President Bush only managed to do that 75% of the time during his administration.
“Very poor analysis of you. I expect and demand better!”
Quite frankly, sir, you’re either misinformed or else you simply don’t know what you’re talking about here. And you have no standing to *demand* anything of me.
Now, I have *politely* offered to show you these numbers and walk you through them several times. It is clear to me that you either don’t want to look at them or that you already know what they say and you don’t want to hear it again. But the fact is that U3 is a poor comparative measure, at best, of unemployment at this time.
“I disagree with you here also Joe. It shouldn’t take this long to pull out of a recession. In my opinion his actions simply prolonged the recession and made things dramatically worse.”
Well, from where I am standing, you are either ignoring facts that are inconvenient to your argument or else you’re substituting political orthodoxy for honesty and forthrightness. Either way, I’m sincerely disappointed in you, Mr. Doom.
“Not to mention that all we have to show is an additional 5 trillion in new debt.”
How about that $5T in deficit spending that President Bush engaged in? That bother you any?
Joe Cool
April 26th, 2011
3:52 pm
Bless your heart Doom.
Just spewing numbers the gummy bears told you.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:53 pm
Bosch, No clear explanation as to why you disagree with my statements and cause and effect?
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
Joe Cool,
Perhaps you should also speak with willie lynch a fellow lib who also agrees that most economists believe that the bush unemployment numbers topped out at 7.6%. And let me ask you once again. Those 8% #s that are from Feb. and March of 2009 right? Exactly who was in office at that time sir?
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
3:57 pm
Tundra Dude
April 26th, 2011
3:46 pm
My quote was based on the line being used by those on the right to justify Bush’s numbers.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
3:58 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe…”Yadda yadda yadda” is that your response to facts??”
I’ve been asking you all afternoon long if you want to see the numbers. You have repeatedly failed to respond to that question, and have been rude in your replies. I think you’re either ignorant on this topic (and don’t realize it) or you *do* realize what the numbers say and you don’t want to deal with them.
“hahah unbelieveable.”
I see no reason why I should continue to be polite to you when you can’t manage to do so yourself.
Jay
April 26th, 2011
3:59 pm
Thulsa, if you want to base your argument on trying to equate the relatively small dot-com recession — it began in March 01 and was officially over by Nov 01, just eight months later — with the greatest economic collapse in 80 years taking place when Obama took office, you are certainly free to do so.
But it doesn’t begin to hold water.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
4:00 pm
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
3:55 pm
Again are you saying that the policies of Barack Obama caused unemployment to jump like that in 1 1/2 months? You are listening to gummy bears.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
4:05 pm
Joe….polite? Seriously….grow up.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
4:06 pm
nd U3 does not calculate people who are considered to have permanently left the labor force. Who’s counted among those people? Folks who have run out of unemployment benefits but still haven’t found a job. For purposes of U3, those people don’t count as people any more. They still don’t have a *job,* but U3 doesn’t count them any more. Therefore, the long-term unemployed magically evaporate from the figures once they’ve been unemployed long enough.-Joe Mama,
Joe Mama,
You are sooooooo busted. I was hoping you would go there because this where you get busted. I was wondering if you were going to bring up this fact about the people who’ve left the unemployment figures because they are no longer looking. The reason you and Obama are exposed is because the same applies to Obama. The reality and we’ve all read these numbers is that many economists feel like the Obama unemployment numbers are realistically significantly higher and that the true numbers are more along the line of 22% peak in the 2009. Surely you’ve heard and read these stats by more than 1 source but I will leave you with at least one source.
The true rate of unemployment for October 2009 may be 22.1 percent, not the 10.2 percent reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert reports.
Unemployment at 22.1 percent, if accurate, would be at numbers not seen since peak unemployment during the 1973 to 1975 recession.
Read more: Shocking numbers: Real unemployment tops 22% http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=115487#ixzz1Kf4k1dek
Economist John Williams, publisher of ShadowStats.com, estimates that the peak of unemployment in nonfarm unemployment in the Great Depression of the 1930s would, by his methodology, have registered at 34 to 35 percent in 1933.
So, how does the Obama administration get away with reporting the lower unemployment percentage?
Corsi explained that the Clinton administration changed the way BLS calculates unemployment statistics by excluding “discouraged workers,” those who had given up looking for a job because there were no jobs to be found.
Since the Clinton years, discouraged workers looking for a job for more than one year are not counted as “unemployed” because they are considered to have dropped out of the labor force.
The BLS still includes in “U6 Unemployment” calculations short-term discouraged workers, as long as they have been looking for a job less than one year.
This definition permits the Obama administration to under-report “U3 unemployment” at 10.2 percent when real unemployment as calculated before the Clinton administration redefinition is twice that amount, Red Alert contends, and U6 unemployment lies somewhere in between.
These differences are illustrated in the following chart that Williams produces in the “Alternative Data” section of his website named “Shadow Government Statistics: Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting.”
Read more: Shocking numbers: Real unemployment tops 22% http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=115487#ixzz1Kf4unnMD
Read and enjoy, I’ll see you guys later.
willie lynch
April 26th, 2011
4:09 pm
Thulsa the Dumb,
Get out man, the dirt is filling that hole.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
4:09 pm
with the greatest economic collapse in 80 years taking place when Obama took office, you are certainly free to do so.-Jay
Love the revisionist history there Jay. Seems the Carter years must have therefore been a goldilocks economy in your opinion. See you guys later.
Mr Right
April 26th, 2011
4:10 pm
Are you or is your company seeking a federal government contract? No problem – all you have to do is first disclose all the money the company and/or executives gave in political donations and who they gave it to. Surely this will have no political implications at all. Oh, the best part about this executive order? Unions are exempt from it. That’s some high quality HopeNChange Yea, talk about a “well- lubed operation’.
Thulsa Doom
April 26th, 2011
4:10 pm
willie lynch,,
Read and learn about the real unemployment rate under Obama. Its all over but the shouting.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
4:15 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe….polite?”
Yes. Polite. Good manners are never out of place.
“Seriously….grow up.”
I strongly suspect I’m older than you, and more mature into the bargain.
Now, I’ve politely asked you several times if you want to see the job creation numbers and perhaps have an explanation of what’s there so that you can examine it at your own pace and convenience. I would appreciate the courtesy of a direct reply, as opposed to the continued and increasingly shrill defense of your own untenable position, sir.
UGA1999
April 26th, 2011
4:20 pm
Joe….are these real numbers or the numbers that Obama has lied about. Also if you are going to show the job creation numbers, please also post the job lost numbers.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
4:38 pm
Mr. Doom — “Joe Mama, You are sooooooo busted.”
You *think* so, but I’m ahead of you, as usual;
“I was hoping you would go there because this where you get busted. I was wondering if you were going to bring up this fact about the people who’ve left the unemployment figures because they are no longer looking. The reason you and Obama are exposed is because the same applies to Obama.”
I *know* that. (laughing) You think I don’t *know* that already?
Obama’s numbers are significantly higher because of the extension of unemployment benefits; that’s why you see a horrendous increase in his job creation figures early in his term. If you’d LOOK at the numbers I’ve offered you, you’d see that President Bush left office with some EQUALLY horrible numbers, except that he *hadn’t extended unemployment benefits* like Congress did after Obama took office. So Obama’s got a justification for horrible numbers early on — and Bush *doesn’t* have one for the tail end of his Administration.
“The reality and we’ve all read these numbers is that many economists feel like the Obama unemployment numbers are realistically significantly higher and that the true numbers are more along the line of 22% peak in the 2009. Surely you’ve heard and read these stats by more than 1 source but I will leave you with at least one source.”
I’m well aware of what they say. The fact that you’re posting them gives credence to my argument and Jay’s that you actually know what we’re telling you and that you simply choose to ignore it.
It’s a shame that you’ve chosen partisanship over honesty, Mr. Doom.
“The true rate of unemployment for October 2009 may be 22.1 percent, not the 10.2 percent reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert reports.”
Pfffft! Jerome Corsi? Since you’re posting the U6 figures for Obama, let’s see if you have the stones to post the U6 figures for Mr. Bush then, tough guy. (laughing)
“Unemployment at 22.1 percent, if accurate, would be at numbers not seen since peak unemployment during the 1973 to 1975 recession.”
Aaaaaaand now you’re comparing U3 to U6 over time. Now I *know* that you’re intentionally being misleading.
“Read more: Shocking numbers: Real unemployment tops 22% http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=115487#ixzz1Kf4k1dek”
Respectfully, I have personal experience with the management at WND, and they are freakin’ NUTS. I don’t accept anything that comes from them. Kindly find another source, please.
“Economist John Williams, publisher of ShadowStats.com, estimates that the peak of unemployment in nonfarm unemployment in the Great Depression of the 1930s would, by his methodology, have registered at 34 to 35 percent in 1933.”
Yep. I’m familiar with ShadowStats.
“So, how does the Obama administration get away with reporting the lower unemployment percentage?”
I wouldn’t call it ‘getting away with;’ there are a passel of Republican howler monkeys in the trees, shrieking the lower number over and over. (pointing, laughing)
“Corsi explained that the Clinton administration changed the way BLS calculates unemployment statistics by excluding “discouraged workers,” those who had given up looking for a job because there were no jobs to be found. Since the Clinton years, discouraged workers looking for a job for more than one year are not counted as “unemployed” because they are considered to have dropped out of the labor force.”
That’s actually inaccurate. Discouraged workers = no longer drawing unemployment benefits. At the time, the duration of benefits was a year, but that’s no longer the case. But yes, the calculation method was changed that way during the Clinton Administration. That’s nothing I didn’t already know.
“The BLS still includes in “U6 Unemployment” calculations short-term discouraged workers, as long as they have been looking for a job less than one year.”
I *know* that already. (eyeroll)
“This definition permits the Obama administration to under-report “U3 unemployment” at 10.2 percent when real unemployment as calculated before the Clinton administration redefinition is twice that amount, Red Alert contends, and U6 unemployment lies somewhere in between.”
If you’re going to cite Bush U3 and compare it to Obama U3, but now you want to cite Obama U6, then be a man and cite Bush U6. Go ahead.
“Read and enjoy, I’ll see you guys later.”
It’s nothing new, Mr. Doom. And all you’ve done is demonstrate that you *do* know what Jay and I are talking about. I think I liked you better when I thought that you were uninformed. Now I know that you’re being intentionally obtuse and misleading, I like you a lot less.
Joe Mama
April 26th, 2011
4:41 pm
UGA1999 — “Joe….are these real numbers or the numbers that Obama has lied about.”
Nope, they’re the real numbers. Not coming from the White House. Would you care to see them?
“Also if you are going to show the job creation numbers, please also post the job lost numbers.”
They’re the NET job creation numbers. That means that they show the *aggregate* of jobs created and jobs lost each month — so some months show *negative* numbers.