General discussion

Obama's 3rd Year Deficit = $1.3 Trillion

http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2011/11guide.pdf


Easy to read graphs. Obama is on pace to spend more in 4 years than George W Bush did in all 8 years, including the war cost. About 25% of that spending is on Welfare costs under Health and Human Resources. Isn't that sort of funny? What "resource" is it supporting other than a modified form of moral prostitution through neo-polygany and neo-polygamy to create a self perpetuating system of dependence on govt handouts? Defense was about 20% of the total yearly cost.
Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: Obama's 3rd Year Deficit = $1.3 Trillion
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Obama's 3rd Year Deficit = $1.3 Trillion
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Pasta is cheaper than fruits and veggies

My son isn't working and his unemployment just barely covers rent and electricity. He gets $95 in food stamps for the month. He tries to buy healthy food and shops in my pantry but there are days when he just doesn't eat. He doesn't tell me but I can tell the difference when he's eating and when he isn't when I see him.

- Collapse -
$100 is sufficient money to eat per month per person

I could get by on that if I had to.

Store cost of flour is less than dollar per pound and is about 3.5-4 cups, which will easily make a dozen biscuits. Get the self rising and save on added cost. If bisquits are not a skill he's developed, then use half corn meal and make cornbread instead, something almost anyone can do. Indian Head Yellow Corn Meal two pounds for $1.49

A 5 pound bag of Russet potatoes in my area are $4. One pound of microwaved or boiled potato can be quite filling.

Carrots are $1 per pound. Add potatoes above and some flavorings and have a stew.

We pay $1 per can for Giant Food store brand chili with beans, and that's 15oz cans. I had one just today for my lunch, some homemade hot sauce (from my cayenne peppers grown this year) on top of it.

.Aa 15 oz can of Contadina Tomato Sauce or Hunt's at $1.29 will easily cover a $1 pound of store brand pasta, or $1.70 for Barilla or San Giorgio. That's quite a meal for under $2.50

Beans, such as Chick Peas, Pintos, Lentils, Navy, Black beans, all run from $2 to $2.50 per pound. Buy your son a crock pot and teach him about the lazy way to cook a filling meal. Combine with rice.

Giant store brand rice is $1 per pound for long grain white rice. Mahatma rice is the same price per pound in 5 pound bags. If he wants it more flavored go for the Rice O'Roni which is $1 for just under half a pound in the box. I used to live on that and Ramen noodles when I was unmarried in my 20's!

Oatmeal, it's under $2 per pound in the large Quaker Old Fashioned round box. I eat it "uncooked" with milk and sugar (or sweet & low) since it's already been steamed, cracked and rolled, then lightly toasted. If he can get down a pound of that after letting it soak up some milk then he'll not be hungry all day. I know!

There's no excuse for not being able to fill up on $3 per day if one is diligent about what he purchase and what he eats. Yes, means you don't frequent the fast food places and might cut back on meats and cheeses, but you can still be filled each day with just the smallest effort and economy of purchase.

These are all store prices from my area which is supposedly higher than other places than in this Baltimore to DC shopping area. I used Peapod online shopping for these local prices, it's a home delivery service provided by Giant Food stores in this area. You can check them there.

- Collapse -
(NT) Actually the timeline in Iraq was Bush's
- Collapse -
And it was an estimate

not a definitive date as it all depended, according to what I recall, on what the 'boots on the ground' generals decided was best. Bush, at least, didn't have BO's attitude about recommendations given to him...he took their advice. BO gets advice and then ignores it all, even when it comes to his own committees.

- Collapse -
and Obama took longer than even Bush

anticipated for returning the troops home.

- Collapse -
How did it take longer when it was Bush's date?

Of course, Bush thought the job was done when he landed the plane on the aircraft carrier - Mission Accomplished.

- Collapse -
I love it

One of you thinks we left too soon and one wonders why it took so long. Devil

- Collapse -
(NT) and they don't debate the facts with each other
- Collapse -
I think a lot of military can be cut

Remember when the military wanted to close some bases, there was such an uproar that a committee had to be formed to decide which bases need to be closed and Congress had to vote the whole list up or down?

- Collapse -
Missed it, huh?
"In fact I did a search of the entire document for the word "welfare" and came up empty."

So, because you couldn't find that word, you now must think "Welfare" doesn't figure into it anywhere, yes? That's basically your argument.
- Collapse -
No, it isn't

You said 25% of the budget was being spent on welfare. It isn't. The bulk of HHS spending is on other things. Some portion of it goes to welfare, but welfare does not take up 25% of the federal budget, which is what you said.

- Collapse -
what is "welfare"?

Well, for most it consists of funds given to non working adults and for support of their children, even children born "out of wedlock", the food stamp program. What's not usually factored in are the other benefits of entitlement such as Medicaid payments, school lunches, special clothing allowances (usually at school year beginning), free money through grants later toward college, section 8 help toward housing, and the list may be even longer. When all the cost is added together, I'd not be surprised if it actually comes to 25% overall. Each generation in the system teaches the next one how to stay in the system when they reach the age they will be removed from it, and if teen pregnancies are any indication in such neighborhoods, they all learn that lesson quite well.

- Collapse -
Nice try

While you'd "not be surprised," you have yet to show that any of that is true.

- Collapse -
It has to be pretty close to that 25%

when you have 49,000,000 people in the USA on foodstamps now. August 4, 2011 = http://obrag.org/?p=42584

That's 5 million more than one year earlier May 11, 2010 = http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Food-Stamp-40-Million-Sets-Record/2010/05/11/id/358647 And THAT set a record.

But we can thank BO for all those wonderful jobs he keeps bragging about creating, right? If there were so many jobs created, why do the food stamp recipient numbers keep climbing by an average of 4M+ a year? The numbers aren't dropping which would indicate people have gone back to work....the reason is because those no longer eligible for unemployment benefits AREN'T counted in the monthly/weekly reports he likes to crow about.

- Collapse -
40 percent of recipients live in households

40 percent of recipients live in households where at least one adult has a job, the working poor.

If they had a Union Job....that would get rid of 40% of the food stamp recipients.

- Collapse -
assuming a fact is folly

Once again, no substance, just statement.

- Collapse -
Once again, no substance, just statement.

Back at ya'

- Collapse -
I thought the number was even higher

Either way, a large number of the people who get food stamps are NOT on welfare, nor are they unemployed.

- Collapse -
(NT) figures were from link Toni provided
- Collapse -
what's your definition of "household"?

What is that report's definition of "household"? Does it include TWO parents or married adults in the home? Try again!

- Collapse -
So a single-parent family....

....isn't a household?

- Collapse -
I guess all the men and women....

....who lost their spouses in Iraq and are raising their kids alone aren't "households" anymore. At least not according to James.

- Collapse -
don't be obtuse

Look up at JP's "40%" post and then realize he thinks "household" refers only to those with two adults or parents in residence. Either that or he believes the word "household" implies job.

- Collapse -
A basic definition...

I found this basic description dealing with State regulations and food stamps:


A household may be composed of any of the following individual or groups of individuals:

1. an individual living alone;

2.
an individual living with others, but customarily purchasing food and
preparing meals for home consumption separate and apart from the others;

3. a group of individuals who live together and customarily purchase food and prepare meals together for home consumption;

4.
an individual who is 60 years of age or older, living with others (and
the spouse of such individual), who is unable to purchase and prepare
meals because he/she suffers from a disability considered permanent
under the Social Security Act or suffers from a non- disease related,
severe, permanent disability.

- Collapse -
You responded, to a post made by me, with
Does it include TWO parents or married adults in the home? Try again!

'Splain yourself...

You want me to "Try again"...... Try what again ?...I don't even recall trying anything the first time.

Try and convince YOU that is doesn't include TWO PARENTS or married adults?

the quote I posted was from the newspaper and had NO qualifiers about what was included in a household, the word "household" was first mentioned by you.

Is this going to be another "company and tariff" discussion?
- Collapse -
PS..........I'll correct myself before you do...

household WAS mentioned In MY post.

And I mentioned it first.

See, It's not difficult to do James.

- Collapse -
you are really here just to

create a distraction, aren't you? The point was you claimed the 40% had a job, but didn't define the job,.........oh, never mind, I won't waste more of my time on you.

- Collapse -
RE: but didn't define the job,

NOW you mention that?

You switched from "household" to "job"

I also didn't define %.

- Collapse -
"Define the job?"

What does that mean?

I googled around and it's hard to find the numbers, but what I did find also says that roughly 40% of food-stamp households are ones in which at least one member of the household has a job. By "job," they mean that the person does work for which s/he earns a wage.

CNET Forums

Forum Info