Check out some similar questions!

George_1950 · Feb 12, 2009, 08:06 AM

The Heritage Foundation says, yes: "The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC." Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending

excon · Feb 12, 2009, 08:30 AM

Hello, George:

Yeah, if I was you guys, I'd be bummed too. You should NEVER have given the Democrats such a victory. Who's surprised at what they're doing?

Maybe if you had yelled a little louder when Bush doubled the deficit, you might be taken a little more seriously here...
In fact, if you did that, you might not have lost.

It's INTERESTING... All you right wingers here seem to have disavowed the Bush spending years, and you ALL say you didn't support it.

Ok, I think this software will allow you to go back and show us the posts where spending by the dufus outraged you.

I'm waiting...

excon

speechlesstx · Feb 12, 2009, 08:54 AM

Do you really mean "All you right wingers here" this time?

George_1950 · Feb 12, 2009, 08:54 AM

Well, excon, you have to admit, Ann Coulter is provocative; I expect a lot of Leftists, while disagreeing with the message, admire the messenger. Wouldn't a debate between Obama and Coulter be a show? Speaking of debates with Obama, I don't know that he's ever debated anyone who didn't agree with him, but the agenda is getting out now.

excon · Feb 12, 2009, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Do you really mean "All you right wingers here" this time?

Hello Steve:

Yes.

YOU, however, are an honorary liberal.

excon

George_1950 · Feb 12, 2009, 08:58 AM

By the way, it wouldn't surprise me if 20% of the Florida voters are registered in another state as well. I have personal knowledge of this from an incident in Mexico Beach, FL, some 20 years ago. I'm happy to learn that Ms. Coulter was cleared. It's amazing how many of these right wingers have difficulty with the law.

excon · Feb 12, 2009, 08:59 AM

Hello again, George:

Sorry. I moved it.

excon

George_1950 · Feb 12, 2009, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, George:

Sorry. I moved it.

excon

You blew that one!

tomder55 · Feb 12, 2009, 11:06 AM

It's INTERESTING... All you right wingers here seem to have disavowed the Bush spending years, and you ALL say you didn't support it.

Ok, I think this software will allow you to go back and show us the posts where spending by the dufus outraged you.

Ok here was my response to a posting by Dark Crow about Bush and Republican spending and the Art Laffer theory about taxes.There are others also but this one best sums up my thinking about the subject.

The Republicans forgot the 2nd part of the equation ;controlling spending . If they had been disciplined in that then the little deficit that remains would already be surplus and they would still have the majority .

The Laffer curve and the supply side theories has proven time and time again to be correct . The problem people tend to have regarding the Laffer Curve is that they confuse economics with their political considerations. Many people have political reasons to desire high income tax rates on the rich. They wish to prevent the rich from earning more money, even if the resulting tax revenue is smaller than it would otherwise be, and the economy less productive . These people do not believe that the income tax on the rich can ever be "too high." They are willing to deprive the government of revenue and deprive the economy of the productivity of the rich, all for the sake of their politics.

But historically the theory has proven to be correct .
JFK ,Reagan ,and GWBush all cut taxes and periods of prosperity followed.

In all three cases however while Income taxes were lowered ;and tax revenues increased , neither the Democrat leadership in the 1960s or the Republican Reagan (with a Democrat majority in Congress)and Bush administrations (with a Republican majority ) lowered the rate of growth in federal spending. While the income tax revenues increased substantially, federal spending increased even more. Yes they can be blamed for their undisciplined spending ;but not for the tax rate reductions.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...it-144939.html

excon · Feb 12, 2009, 11:09 AM

Hello tom:

Check *. You're off the list.

excon

George_1950 · Feb 12, 2009, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello, George:...It's INTERESTING... All you right wingers here seem to have disavowed the Bush spending years, and you ALL say you didn't support it.

Ok, I think this software will allow you to go back and show us the posts where spending by the dufus outraged you.

I'm waiting....

excon

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ty-213579.html
Check it out.

excon · Feb 12, 2009, 11:26 AM

Hello again, George:

May 7, 2008 is a little late in the ballgame... But, I'm easy.

Check * you're off the list.

excon

George_1950 · Feb 12, 2009, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, George:

May 7, 2008 is a little late in the ballgame... But, I'm easy.

Check * you're off the list.

excon

That was the first one I came to. But consider what you are asking: a conservative that supports increases in government spending? You be looking for a white crow!

twinkiedooter · Feb 12, 2009, 06:19 PM

I find this most interesting. Everyone seems to forget that the "welfare" is not free. Someone in the family has to go out and "work off the benefits" whether they be Food Stamps or AFDC. Someone must do some "community service hours" or whatever work is designated to them to do. Be it answer phones in a government office or work at the local dog shelter. Food Stamps and AFDC is a way of getting really cheap labor for the government. It works out to about $2.00 an hour when all is said and done - NOT the $7.30 wage minimum. If that was the case, then all welfare recipients would not have to spend as many hours out of the home working off their "free handouts" that they get. Just take a look at the Food Stamp program's requirements and you'll see what I'm talking about.

George_1950 · Feb 12, 2009, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

... Just take a look at the Food Stamp program's requirements and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Only requirement for food stamps that I've ever heard of is 'sign up'. It's only an income test.

inthebox · Feb 12, 2009, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello, George:

Yeah, if I was you guys, I'd be bummed too. You should NEVER have given the Democrats such a victory. Who's surprised at what they're doing?

Maybe if you had yelled a little louder when Bush doubled the deficit, you might be taken a little more seriously here.....
In fact, if you did that, you might not have lost.

It's INTERESTING... All you right wingers here seem to have disavowed the Bush spending years, and you ALL say you didn't support it.

Ok, I think this software will allow you to go back and show us the posts where spending by the dufus outraged you.

I'm waiting....

excon

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1475860

G&P

excon · Feb 13, 2009, 04:42 AM

Hello in:

January of 2009 is NOT long enough.

Check ** You're still ON the list.

excon