I would Support Obama if

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

He'd act like a typical American Family facing an economic crisis. Instead of breaking out an credit card w/seemingly no limit and letting the kids go on a shopping spree, cut back on spending and frivilous expenses while looking for other means to raise revenues. We're sitting on millions of acres of valuable land, sell some of that. Who in the hell is going to pay back the trillion dollars? How about starting w/the mare in Cali who saw fit to have 8 kids on top of 6 already with no means of support other than the goverment. Less Government not more is the answer I'd like to hear.

what does the government have to do with the woman in california? if you want LESS govt, then certainly the govt could do nothing to stop her. if they were to step in, and involve themselves by telling her she was at her limit, that is MORE govt, not less.
now, that particular story sounds a bit fishy, but i don't know what you expect barack obama to do about it.
as for the bailout-i don't know that it's any better, or any worse, than the one george bush pushed thru. i don't like the amount of debt piling up, and think that could be worse for the long term health of our economy than a recession/depression would be. we've pulled ourselves out of every other one of these without a bailout....

as for supporting obama--i don't know how one goes about doing that, other than to maybe not jump on every issue running down the pike to rush into a thread here. seriously tho, don't panic, don't rush to judgement, and don't expect the change he spoke of to happen overnight-if at all. if there's one thing people don't like, it's change.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what does the government have to do with the woman in california? if you want LESS govt, then certainly the govt could do nothing to stop her. if they were to step in, and involve themselves by telling her she was at her limit, that is MORE govt, not less.
now, that particular story sounds a bit fishy, but i don't know what you expect barack obama to do about it.
as for the bailout-i don't know that it's any better, or any worse, than the one george bush pushed thru. i don't like the amount of debt piling up, and think that could be worse for the long term health of our economy than a recession/depression would be. we've pulled ourselves out of every other one of these without a bailout....

as for supporting obama--i don't know how one goes about doing that, other than to maybe not jump on every issue running down the pike to rush into a thread here. seriously tho, don't panic, don't rush to judgement, and don't expect the change he spoke of to happen overnight-if at all. if there's one thing people don't like, it's change.

They could stop sending her a check every month. That would be a start.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

They could stop sending her a check every month. That would be a start.

the 'they' would most likely be california, not the feds-so i'd think your issue would be better brought up to schwarzenegger, not obama.


the states handle stuff like this--too many people blame the feds for more than they deserve in cases like this.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the 'they' would most likely be california, not the feds-so i'd think your issue would be better brought up to schwarzenegger, not obama.


the states handle stuff like this--too many people blame the feds for more than they deserve in cases like this.

But the Fed subsidizes the State of Cali and all others

According to The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Historical Tables, total outlays for Means Tested Entitlements in 2006 were $354.3 billion. This was 2.7% of GDP and Includes Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children’s health insurance and veterans pensions.
(from Table 8.1, page 133)

http://polecolaw.newsvine.com/_news/...s-welfare-cost

[dellinger63]

Total federal and state spending on welfare programs was $434 billion in FY 2000. Of that total, $313 billion (72 percent) came from federal funding and $121 billion (28 percent) came from state or local funds. (See Chart 1.)

Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. On average, the annual cost of the welfare system amounts to around $5,600 in taxes from each household that paid federal income tax in 2000. Adjusting for inflation, the amount taxpayers now spend on welfare each year is greater than the value of the entire U.S. Gross National Product at the beginning of the 20th century.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/Test080101.cfm

[Danzig]

so, you reference stuff from '00 (don't forget congress writes the budget, not the prez) and you're saying you'd support obama if not for this? i didn't know obama was the president in 2000.

like i said elsewhere, local and state govt is your first place to look at. domestically, look at congress. the president is the wrong person to place blame, or give credit to. all he can do is ask for bills and then hope they write a good bill, without a lot of extra pork garbage in it.

and that's why there should be a line item veto. then, the president isn't forced to sign a bill full of garbage just so he can get the necessary parts.

[Danzig]

also---the feds subsidize the states, but isn't it up to the state to send the money where needed? to spend the money properly?