Presidential Election Fraud is Everywhere, Be Very Careful

[Sonoran6]

Zack, you make an interesting point, but are either intentionally leaving out details or just misinformed. Yes what you posted is mostly true, but you fail to mention that waivers that weaken or undercut welfare reform will not be approved. Meaning that if a state wishes to empower their citizens to get off the federal tit and provide for themselves, their magical Obama waiver will be denied. Also, foodstamp benefits are up from $39 billion in 2008 to over $82billion in 2012. that is DOUBLE or if you want percentages, up over 100%!!! Reform does not equal runaway expansion.

 

[ZackDaniels]

I'm not sure what you're saying there exactly. The waivers are for not following the federal program while still being able to get federal funding for a state substituted program. If the state wishes to remove entire aspects of welfare aid being granted... then of course they'll be denied federal funding for their welfare program.

If their program removes welfare support and thus costs less - on what grounds could they possibly qualify for needing more welfare funding from the federal government? They shouldn't need it as they're not providing it?

Food stamps have gone up since 2008 because of the acute job loss and need for federal aid. Late 2008 is when the bottom fell out of the market and kicked off 'the great recession'. The % of people needing federal assistance vs the booming bubble economy that preceded it should probably have more than doubled.

:edit:
Noting again that they have to comply with federal guidelines that are currently set out in order to get the federal funding now. If there were something as you suggest that made the state's welfare costs drop do to a lack of welfare, but still presented an honest need of federal funding... the way it stands they would be denied anyway for not following the rules. The Obama administration's push doesn't change that aspect of it at all... it just empowers the states to follow their own state specific rules if they're approved to be sufficient.

 

[Dr.n2o]

Great ideas but if it were a particular states decision to decide on limitations for free money to be "lazy", well you would see a whole bunch of "lazy" people get crazy real quick. Crime would spike so god dam high you're head would spin.....Like I said before, there's too many useless people on the planet. China pays their factory workers just enough to live and eat for what they make in a week ! U.S. corporations outsouce EVERYTHING over there for their own financial gain. I can't even find a ******* cheap nail clipper that doesen't say "made in China" on it. Corporation CEO's will continue to outsource as long as it benefits pocket linings......period. It makes my F'n stomach literally turn upside down every time I think about people who feel entitled to "free" money for doing absolutely ****.....Started working when I was 12 and never stopped. Wait, am I the crazy one ? :ummm:

 

[ZackDaniels]

Great ideas but if it were a particular states decision to decide on limitations for free money to be "lazy", well you would see a whole bunch of "lazy" people get crazy real quick.

You're right and coming from Illinois I can attest to governors and the like pocketing millions instead of helping the people that elected them into office.

The administration's plan tries address those concerns by requiring goals of any experimental programs.

Here's the quote from the memo I linked earlier:

In addition, terms and conditions will require either interim targets for each performance measure or a strategy for establishing baseline performance on a set of performance measures and a framework for how interim goals will be set after the baseline measures are established. The terms and conditions will establish consequences for failing to meet interim performance targets including, but not limited to, the implementation of an improvement plan and, if the failure to meet performance targets continues, termination of the waivers and demonstration project.

Meaning the state won't be disqualified from federal funds if they try something experimental, but if it actually hurts instead of helps the state will be required to adjust the program, or revert to the federal rule. If neither happens and the program sticks around as a big loser then the state's waiver can be revoked, and thus future requests for federal funding can be denied.

The intent is pretty obviously to allow states to experiment with improving their own welfare programs without risking their federal assistance for doing so. Their right to experiment can be revoked if it fails. The goal of the legislation being that one more more states DO succeed in making a better welfare system, and that can be used to improve the federal guidelines so all states implement any improvements.

Long term this means : much less money spent on welfare because there is much less need for welfare.

This really seems like a good plan to me, but going back to my original point this seems to be about as much as a president can do while the programs are largely state run. They can't control the rules of welfare. They can only control the rules in which states qualify for federal help if their welfare system runs out of money.

 

[MR_NST]

You do realize that "Bush" didn't create the budget or allocate spending? That was our congress. Its how our government functions.
How can you say the snowball was already running down hill when the last four years created more debt than the previous 8? Bush aint spending anything now. Our entitlements DWARF military spending.....

I do know how the gvmt runs, no political major but still, by saying Bush, i meant/should have said, Bush and his entire 8 years of government... You know what i mean, everyone knows one man doesnt run the show, but i agree its still easiest to point a finger at one person.

I do still stand behind the ball down the mountain comment. i will concede the 8 tril' didnt come from the last office, BUT, dont deny that a considerable portion was used to either bolster the economy due to previous offices laws, acts/ policies, or deal with a war that should have been over a few years ago. bring the boys and girls back...

it would be foolish to think that obamas perfect, but look what he got into. When somethings ******, of course you put some cash into it to fix it, but again, policies that were introduced years ago set the ball in motion. (i should add the housing issue was started by Clintons gvt, but Bushs gvt did nothing but feed off it as people were spending!!!! You CANT tell me, all the eggheads there at the time, not one said this isnt going to end well?)

i still think, Obamas trying to put people back to work, not help buisness friends...

info...

-hes put a substantial amount of money into nuclear energy, 10s of 1000s of good jobs, construction, maintenance etc...
-saved the auto industry, argue whether it was worth it or not... ppl are working.
-ive read the stock market is up 75% since obama took office and inherited the economic disaster, that tells me somethings looking up in the states for the country as a whole.
-also read that the housing market is on its way back up. slowly tho. but its still positive.

maybe this would have happened with McCain? maybe not, but the reality is hes taken a tortured economy and started rehabbing it. i think as a working man, I would vote him in.

And entitlements, trust me on this one, weve got the same problem here... Lazy people expect everything, hard working guys pay for it. I GET IT, if theres no work, theres no work. but you cant tell me that there isnt ANY job to work. you can walk to the unemployment line, you can work. it might not be your trade/ craft/ skillset. but the funny thing is, we can learn.

Just a general comment, You may drive a desk... or used to, go grab a shovel and help build some of the projects the gvt is putting money into to help the economy.
People are just lazy... end of story.

But thats just what i see.

peace,
evan...

 

[Sonoran6]

words

Over his four years in office, Obama promised that he would focus on creating "jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced." However, as he racked up trillions in new debt, billions of dollars did go to create jobs that were then outsourced or spent overseas. Whether it is electric cars made in Finland or solar panels in Mexico, taxpayers would be astonished to learn that their hard earned money went abroad for jobs that weren't created in the United States. Automobile bailout? GM built plants in Mexico with that money.

All of this outsourcing is killing America.


Back in 1950, the population of this country was less than half of what it is now, and yet there were more Americans working in manufacturing back in 1950 than there are today.


The decline in manufacturing jobs in the United States has been really dramatic since the year 2000.

22 statistics which prove that the current path that we (USA) are on has been absolutely disastrous for American workers...

#1 One professor has estimated that cutting the U.S. trade deficit in half would create 5 million more jobs in the United States.
#2 The United States has a trade imbalance that is more than 7 times larger than any other nation on earth has.
#3 Overall, the United States has run a trade deficit of more than 8 trillion dollars with the rest of the globe since 1975. That 8 trillion dollars could have gone to support U.S. businesses and pay the wages of U.S. workers. Federal, state and local taxes would have been paid on that 8 trillion dollars if it had stayed in the United States.
#4 When NAFTA was passed in 1993, the United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of 1.6 billion dollars. In 2010, we had a trade deficit with Mexico of 61.6 billion dollars.
#5 In 2001, American consumers spent 102 billion dollars on products made in China. In 2011, American consumers spent 399 billion dollars on products made in China.
#6 The Chinese undervalue their currency by about 40 percent in order to gain a critical advantage over foreign competitors. This means that many Chinese companies are able to absolutely thrive while their competition in the United States goes out of business. The following is from a recent Fox News article....

To keep Chinese products artificially inexpensive on US store shelves, Beijing undervalues the yuan by 40 percent. It pirates US technology, subsidizes exports and imposes high tariffs on imports.
​

#7 According to the New York Times, a Jeep Grand Cherokee that costs $27,490 in the United States costs about $85,000 in China thanks to all the tariffs.
#8 The U.S. trade deficit with China during 2011 was 295.4 billion dollars. That was the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.
#9 Back in 1985, our trade deficit with China was only about 6 million dollars (million with an "m") for the entire year.
#10 U.S. consumers spend about 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that Chinese consumers spend on goods and services from the United States.
#11 The United States has actually lost an average of about 50,000 manufacturing jobs a month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
#12 According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing about half a million jobs to China every single year.
#13 The United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.
#14 During 2010 alone, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities closed their doors in America every single day.
#15 Since the auto industry bailout, approximately 70 percent of all GM vehicles have been built outside the United States.
#16 As I have written about previously, 95 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession were middle class jobs.
#17 According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades if current trends continue.
#18 The percentage of working age Americans that are employed right now is actually smaller than it was at the end of the last recession.
#19 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is nearly three times as long as it was back in the year 2000.
#20 Due in part to the globalization of the labor pool, only about 24 percent of all jobs in the United States are "good jobs" at this point.
#21 Without enough good jobs, more Americans than ever before are falling into poverty. Today, more than 100 million Americans are on welfare.
#22 In recent years the U.S. economy has embraced "free trade" and the emerging one world economy like never before. Instead of increasing the number of jobs in our economy, it has resulted in the worst stretch of job creation in the United States in modern history....

If any single number captures the state of the American economy over the last decade, it is zero. That was the net gain in jobs between 1999 and 2009?nada, nil, zip. By painful contrast, from the 1940s through the 1990s, recessions came and went, but no decade ended without at least a 20 percent increase in the number of jobs.




My point? **** Obama, and **** Romney. They are both determined to globalize America and continue shipping jobs overseas. This 2 party system is a massive limitation to real change and leadership USA needs. This election cycle specifically is distraction from the REAL issue. THE WORLD IS ABOUT TO GO UNDER A MAJOR FINANCIAL COLLAPSE. So, by all means, lets argue about Rombama and Obamney... that will solve the monetary crisis created by central banking, fiat money, and endless wars....(Rome, and Russia tried this too, remember how that worked out?)

 

[ZackDaniels]

Outsourcing

Largely agreed. A couple things though.

2000 is when the internet and communications really became viable. You couldn't have a significant outsourcing operation managed via telephone lines as it wasn't cost effective, or efficient enough. Not to mention all the ways the net allows to keep tabs on shipping, the rise of inventory tracking software, etc. Outsourcing has increased so much since 2000 because of the number of ways it's become possible to outsource since then.

Businesses do what's cost effective. Companies on the whole are not going to stop outsourcing until it's no longer cost effective to do so. In some companies it's not cost effective because the loss of business it can represent. In others it would slow them down too much regardless of the improvements of communication, and a lot of that of that has to do with culture differences and not technology differences. So to stop this you need to make it more cost efficient to run a business in the US, and employ US workers.

How does a government fix it?

Education for one - with a focus on math and science to encourage tech advances and come up with ways to make the most of resources here. A lot of recent job growth is a direct result of new natural gas mining methods. Fracking is a hot button environment issue but it's an example of job growth and industry unavailable prior to new research making it so. This also increases our exports and thus lowers our trade deficit.

Taxes and 'labor tariffs' for another - to artificially create a higher cost of sending jobs overseas. It's not a cut and dry solution though. It's hard to target something like that so where oddball consequences don't happen. US company's sell their goods internationally and need to compete in the international market. Part of what makes that happen is their cost to make goods. Forcing the jobs back here without a reasonable answer for that can actually increase the trade deficit and possibly kill US companies entirely. That means all those jobs that were forced back home are now gone entirely, and the trade deficit is increased. A bill with this method in mind was recently attempted and was knocked out by Republicans in congress. This article does a good job on pointing out why that was probably the right thing to do. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...outsourcing/4LtC7Q46AIJxZCtq4rX3tI/story.html

Even this is way oversimplifying the cause and effect of this. It's a very difficult problem to solve and it took years of collective discovery, management, and technical advances to create. It's not going to be solved in a single term, and quite possibly not in several terms regardless of who's president.

You can't just 'call China a currency manipulator' and fix the problem. I would be surprised to learn you could even make the most common technical devices using 100% US manufactured components. Thinking computers, monitors and televisions, cell phones, etc... that whole industry that has exploded since 2000 can't be made in its entirety here even if we wanted to. So overnight you 'get tough on China' and in doing so increase the cost of all those things with no US made alternatives available inside or outside the country... now what?

 

[ZackDaniels]

If any single number captures the state of the American economy over the last decade, it is zero. That was the net gain in jobs between 1999 and 2009—nada, nil, zip. By painful contrast, from the 1940s through the 1990s, recessions came and went, but no decade ended without at least a 20 percent increase in the number of jobs.

I started reading this article and will probably end up buying this guy's book. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

I've only just started reading it but he seems to go to a lot of length in saying job creation is a very important factor in a healthy economy. He says that job creation stagnating doesn't have a lot to do with outsourcing and has more to do with corporate mergers and the increase of monopolies and oligopolies. That theory certainly supports your 95% of jobs lost are middle class jobs stat.

When companies merge up their production staff stays about the same as they still have the same amount of crap to output when they were 2 different companies. The upper class management positions turn into board and director positions, they're not lost just reclassified.

All those middle managers and now redundant 'lead such and such' type positions are kicked to the curb though aren't they? Well... certainly not all of them, but roughly half of them? Who needs 2 'lead designer' or 'lead architect' or 'regional manager' positions now that they're 1 company? Not many... take it down to 1 and the other guy gets in the unemployment line.

So which of the two candidates is going to get tough on mergers and start enforcing anti-trusts? Come to think of it I haven't heard boo on this from either side.

 

[MR_NST]

Mr_nst vs Sonoran6

winner... Sonoran6

and i think im better educated amongst the my friends and coworkers when we talk politics... yikes.

**** it... everyones ******.

im gonna start on the whiskey, open invites, just pm me...

peace,
evan

 

[RaWarrior]

This is the reason I stick around here despite I sold my Vmax


Internet+ politics= shitstorm, in 99% of online venues

here, 5 pages in and it's actually intelligent discussion without mindless bashing of one person/idea or another.


be careful, might actually learn something

 

[dannymax]

This summer I was a conveneince store in line, there's this huge lardass lady in front of me with an armload of chips, candy, frozen meals, and sucking on one of those half-gallon fountain drinks. Goes up to the register and don't you know it, whips out that EBT card to pay for it all. Then if that wasn't enough, she has to get 2 packs of cigarettes, paid for with her own cash since EBT won't. Sure, I can pay for her junk food to get even fatter, while the money she actually has gets put toward cigarettes to give her cancer, that I will later pay the healthcare for. I wanted to knock her right the **** out.

I experienced a similar situation but my lard-ass had a small (7 or 8 yr. old) dull-normal, rug-rat in tow. I looked down, saw a dime on the floor and thinking it would be a nice treat for the kid said 'Did you drop that dime?'....'No'....'Well, do you want it?'....'I ain't pickin' it up!'

I thought....'Well by the ****, I will'....and I put the ******' dime in my pocket!



Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can
quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic.
Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English
from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon


"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of
entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier
to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore
the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate
willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much
deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of
what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind
anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a
fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those
who made him their president."

 

[sdt354]

I can't stand either. It's sad to try to decide upon the lesser of two evils! Let the mud slinging begin, or conntinue. I know more about Rommney being from MA. It's not a good situation.

 

[gamorg02]

I can't stand either. It's sad to try to decide upon the lesser of two evils! Let the mud slinging begin, or conntinue. I know more about Rommney being from MA. It's not a good situation.

instead of trying to choose between the lessers of two evils, you can look at other options and find someone who fits your ideals. I have. To me, the 2 party system is not helping/working and I intend to cast my vote as so.

 

[Sonoran6]

instead of trying to choose between the lessers of two evils, you can look at other options and find someone who fits your ideals. I have. To me, the 2 party system is not helping/working and I intend to cast my vote as so.

If we all refuse to participate in the illusion of choice, the system would be forced to adapt. Sounds like perhaps a Gary Johnson vote from you? Just speculating

 

[gamorg02]

If we all refuse to participate in the illusion of choice, the system would be forced to adapt. Sounds like perhaps a Gary Johnson vote from you? Just speculating

indeed good sir. he most closely represents what i think this country needs and how it should be done.

been watching this for all those interested in other candidates:

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Third-Party-Presidential-Debate/10737435220-1/

 

[RaWarrior]

Just illustrates how incredibly lazy these welfare leeches are. There's free money on the ground, but it requires effort on their part to bend over and pick it up.....so not worth it. Unbelieveable. Why bend over for a dime when the government will send a few hundred bucks to your doorstep?

Money's money. People think it's being a tightwad to pick up a quarter or other stuff....hey, it's free money! I don't have pretensions that I'm so rich that I'm above picking up a dime or quarter I find on the ground.

Third/minority parties have never had big turnouts, but they have been rising the last few elections....a sign people are getting tired of having to pick who they hate less between the GOP or Dems.

Might take years, decades, but I bet numbers for independent party candidates will steadily rise until they reach a certain point, and then all of a sudden it will "tip"....something will give it a nudge....a candidate makes a royal pooch screw, a new news media president that doesn't have one party or the other's cock in their mouth and reports things straight, something will happen that makes independents into a real "threat" to the old system rather than just a minority choice nobody pays any real notice to.

 

[gamorg02]

Third/minority parties have never had big turnouts, but they have been rising the last few elections....a sign people are getting tired of having to pick who they hate less between the GOP or Dems.

Might take years, decades, but I bet numbers for independent party candidates will steadily rise until they reach a certain point, and then all of a sudden it will "tip"....something will give it a nudge....a candidate makes a royal pooch screw, a new news media president that doesn't have one party or the other's cock in their mouth and reports things straight, something will happen that makes independents into a real "threat" to the old system rather than just a minority choice nobody pays any real notice to.

yes i hope that comes to fruition sooner or later. http://www.isidewith.com/ shows that obama is first but johnson is second in where peoples beliefs align.

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

The fact that Obama is still first is what really worries me about the mindset of the majority of people in this country. Of course, you have to realize that the major portion of the population is in the major cities, where welfare (and crime, and drugs, and poverty) are highest.

 

[poppop]

Far as welfare goes.Some truly need it,With all the factory closers right around here are huge,I think we have to thank nafta for that.With the rest of welfare the system is so screwed up,It's like the farmer is inviteing the fox into the hen house.And then wandering where the chickens went?Huge coruption in all of it,look at john corzine he makes bernie madoff look like a poster boy!But he walked off scott free,Him and hunderds more like him.Goverment dosent work becuase of special intrest.and the affluanit.Our system has failed.End of story.

 

[gamorg02]

The fact that Obama is still first is what really worries me about the mindset of the majority of people in this country. Of course, you have to realize that the major portion of the population is in the major cities, where welfare (and crime, and drugs, and poverty) are highest.

well "i side with" has each 'area' separate and also rates the 'areas' how much you care about them too. it'd be interesting to see all the data.

i actually agree with him on a lot of non-fiscal issues, like social issues. but don't believe fiscally we're on the right track so as i said before i found someone who's ideals i agree with almost completely.