|
Mo_Steel posted:Not sure on that particular graph, though you may want to rehost it. That said, going to the USDA directly nets some useful resources without the "author calculations": here's a full report on SNAP as of April 2012 with tons of facts and information as well as useful charts to make sense of it all, like these: drat, I really wish I had known about this resource before I responded. This is much more in-depth; exactly what I was looking for. I will definitely bring the timetables for people getting off of foodstamps up for whatever idiotic thing he decides to respond with.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
The point he, and others who post this are trying to make is that Obama (and the Democratic Party in general) are trying to make it easier for people to be moochers and get these benefits. They want you to think that Obama has actually changed these programs to allow more people on, just like when they try to play the "he's destroying the 1990's welfare reforms!1!!" crap. (If only he was, I would have more respect for him). The point though is that this is exactly what you should see happen following the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It's the reason these programs exist. They should increase in numbers because, as Mo_Steel excellently explained, they both have income requirements. Even SSDI, which most people think you just get if you're disabled; but you don't. You have to have a qualifying disability, AND be unable to find gainful employment; not surprisingly, people with disabilities have trouble finding work during times of high unemployment. If the conversation continues, your focus should be that: 1) These programs are designed to catch people when they fall on hard times, and with more people falling on hard times, this is expected. Even with the current gains in jobs, a lot of those jobs are currently low wage and/or part time. So even people who used to work good jobs, lost their jobs and went on these programs aren't guaranteed to leave them because their new job may not pay enough to leave them completely. 2) As that SNAP report shows, despite record high participants, improper payments are historically low. These aren't moochers, they really need the help. I would just hammer home on those points and keep coming back to them when he tries to respond and don't let it get too far from the original point. Cause he'll almost certainly try to throw out some other statement to turn the conversation onto something else. e: Mo_Steel posted:
Also, this is a fantastic find, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 02:59
|
|
SNAP Report
|
Even if you make that argument, they'll counter with "well Obama ruined the economy in the first place!" or something. Or they'll cede that Bush hosed it up but Obama has had "plenty of time" to fix it by now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:good god facebook: Please ask him how he thinks his microcomputer that he's posting on came to be. He gets negative points if the words "free market" come up. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Sep 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Even if you make that argument, they'll counter with "well Obama ruined the economy in the first place!" or something. Or they'll cede that Bush hosed it up but Obama has had "plenty of time" to fix it by now. For the first part, just point out that the recession was well underway before Obama took office. If they respond with "OH YEAH? PROVE IT/YOU'RE MAKING THAT UP!", let them know that the first part of TARP was signed by GWB. Bills are not dreamed into existence immediately (it took at least a couple months/years for the government to even realize the downturn was a problem that needed addressing with action, the intial bill to be drafted, brought before the houses of congress, voted on, put into conference, revised, voted on and set in front of the President) so the economy was experiencing a downturn WELL before Obama took office. For the second part, there is no easy answer. The economy in the US is huge and complex and no solution will take effect in the short term; the best you can probably do is point out how the Great Depression started in 1930, but the US hadn't fully recovered by 1936, when FDR tried to cut spending (because DEBT!!!)and double-dipped the US for another year and change. This also serves to illustrate why getting all up in arms about the debt is dumb and will probably gently caress us. EDIT: hosed up a tag.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Even if you make that argument, they'll counter with "well Obama ruined the economy in the first place!" or something. Or they'll cede that Bush hosed it up but Obama has had "plenty of time" to fix it by now. It takes a toddler maybe ten minutes to whip off his diaper and cover his walls, self, and floor with poo poo. It takes the adult more than ten minutes to clean it up. This does not mean the adult is lazy; it means that cleanup takes longer than making a mess. A tornado or hurricane whips through a city in a matter of seconds; the recovery can take months or years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Please ask him how he thinks his microcomputer that he's posting on came to be. He gets negative points if the words "free market" come up. Tang wasnt even invented by NASA. It already existed so they used it because it was exactly the type of thing they needed. As for what they DID invent well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Please ask him how he thinks his microcomputer that he's posting on came to be. He gets negative points if the words "free market" come up. It's a nanocomputer now. For all the buzz around the word nanotechnology there was very little fanfare when integrated circuits crossed the boundary between microscale and nanoscale construction. The transistors on a modern Intel chip are 22 nanometers across. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Tang wasnt even invented by NASA. It already existed so they used it because it was exactly the type of thing they needed. They didn't use tang. They tested it and the astronauts thought it tasted like poo poo. It never went into space. Its common knowledge association is just a very successful marketing campaign by tang manufacturers. Anybody saying "woo we got tang" doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
Luckily other people pounced on him while I was away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 06:43
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
This is really long but I'm curious if anyone else has received it. Basically it's an op-ed from a guy who bought Mitt Romneys house, how they bought it with everything inside (!) and Mitt himself helped them move and did the lifting and driving, and how the Romneys lived simply and thriftily. http://www.prewitt.net/MittRomneyInsite2012-08-16.pdf quote:Growing up in Florida and Pennsylvania, we knew little to nothing of Utah, Mitt Romney, his Edit: Forgot to add, I put the exclamation mark there because I find it really weird that you would buy a house with pretty much everything inside but family mementos. Why would you be taking over their old linens and want to use their old towels? Oh, and the idea of Mitt giving his personal cell out as if he would take a phone call to discuss plumbing problems or something just anytime. E2: And the "indifference to appearance" line about a man who in his mid-sixties has had the same perfectly touched amount of grey in his hair for a decade now. jojoinnit fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Sep 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:This is really long but I'm curious if anyone else has received it. Basically it's an op-ed from a guy who bought Mitt Romneys house, how they bought it with everything inside (!) and Mitt himself helped them move and did the lifting and driving, and how the Romneys lived simply and thriftily. No gold faucets?!?! Clearly he is a man of the people!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
Wouldn't a gated development in a place like Park City be kind of redundant?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:This is really long but I'm curious if anyone else has received it. Basically it's an op-ed from a guy who bought Mitt Romneys house, how they bought it with everything inside (!) and Mitt himself helped them move and did the lifting and driving, and how the Romneys lived simply and thriftily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
quote:He drove to the local Home Depot and purchased wood to build whatever he needed for the transport. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
I haven't kept up with the thread for a bit because of work and stuff but  is this supposed to be?quote:I truly hope that everyone else in America feels the same way I do, regarding the tragic situation that occurred in Libya ... I am FURIOUS that OUR President that WE HIRED to run our country, knowingly placed a jihadist that was released from Guantanamo, as the main security contact over the US embassy that was attacked.... Of course that's why the administration is acting like this was done as a result of a video posted to youtube, rather than an act of terrorism... If the current admin told the truth, then they would have to admit that they were wrong in hiring a radical that played a key role in killing Americans... Admit fault? Na.... Obama doesn't know how to take responsibility for his actions. He only knows how to point fingers, blame others, and pin Americans against each other, in order to cause mass confusion for us to be caught up in, rather than hold him accountable for his actions... Heaven forbid we tell it like it is.... As always, ridiculous.... So Obama released someone from Guantanamo and then put them in charge of the Libyan embassy? And its their fault people died? Someone please help me with where this poo poo originates because this is so far off the deep end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
myron cope posted:What does this mean? What do you build out of wood when you're moving? Mitt doesn't buy his boxes. He builds them out of raw lumber and spits nails into the wood. Jesus was a carpenter, man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
xwonderboyx posted:So Obama released someone from Guantanamo and then put them in charge of the Libyan embassy? And its their fault people died? Someone please help me with where this poo poo originates because this is so far off the deep end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
God, I posted something about the Romney inconsistency of his "if I pay more taxes than I need I'm not qualified to be President," and his intentional underutilization of charitable contributions this year to manipulate his tax rate to be over 13%, and it's loving amazing how my relatives just eat that poo poo up with no conception of how by deferring his charity he can use it during another tax year, or how a bg chunk of his "charity" is basically a membership fee for the Mormon Church. "HOW MUCH DID OBAMA GIVE?" Uh. 22% of his adjusted gross income. Which, you know, is more than Romney claimed on his 2011 tax returns (16.4% of AGI). And hey, that's with Obama paying a higher tax rate (20.5% instead of 14.1%) and making one-seventeenth of what Romney made ($790k verus $13.7 million). Man, numbers are just hard, aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:This is really long but I'm curious if anyone else has received it. Basically it's an op-ed from a guy who bought Mitt Romneys house, how they bought it with everything inside (!) and Mitt himself helped them move and did the lifting and driving, and how the Romneys lived simply and thriftily. Also, no maid, nanny, or butler quarters? I'm guessing the writer of this slop doesn't know that most domestic workers commute to the homes where they work everyday. I used to work in a wealthy suburb of Chicago, and the bus headed through the North Shore was filled with domestic workers every day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
CarterUSM posted:God, I posted something about the Romney inconsistency of his "if I pay more taxes than I need I'm not qualified to be President," and his intentional underutilization of charitable contributions this year to manipulate his tax rate to be over 13%, and it's loving amazing how my relatives just eat that poo poo up with no conception of how by deferring his charity he can use it during another tax year, or how a bg chunk of his "charity" is basically a membership fee for the Mormon Church. He also literally *just* filed, and that Mormon bullshit doesn't count poo poo for charity when all that's happening is its being dumped right back into his campaign coffers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:The GITMO detainee they're referring to is probably Sufyan bin Qumu, who was transferred from GITMO to Libya in 2007 and released in 2008 (so, entirely under G.W. Bush), and I have absolutely no idea where they got the idea that he was the "main security contact" for the "embassy" (consulate). This is just reading like yet another "inside job" conspiracy theory designed to cast the President as an Islamist who's trying to convert the nation by...polarizing the country against Islamist groups? Its also stupid, because the White House has been openly saying they consider the attacks as possible acts of terrorism that just used the riot as cover. They've been looking into the possible terror angle since like the day it happened and recently said they have concluded it was terrorism. http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2012/sep/21/us-consulate-libya-terrorist-attack?cat=world&type=article The initial riots in Egypt seem to have been sparked by the video, which the US Embassy(?) in Egypt responded to. And when the riots (still ongoing) spread to other countries and resulted in the attack in Libya, Clinton naturally referred to the video in her immediate response. But almost immediately the Obama Administration began openly looking into the possibility that it was a terrorist attack; administration officials were talking about how rioters don't usually bring rocket propelled grenades like the very next morning. Only the media kept hammering on the youtube video, but even still the articles would include side references to "possible links to terrorist groups". The idea that Obama is trying to hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack is just absurd and completely detached from reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:He also literally *just* filed, and that Mormon bullshit doesn't count poo poo for charity when all that's happening is its being dumped right back into his campaign coffers. Wait, how does this happen? Is this some Citizens United thing, or is it like convenient contracts with the Church for whatever work or some bullshit so that church money can go to some third party that donates to political causes without violating their tax exemption?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:It's insane to think that someone can talk about living "simply" or "thriftily" in a nearly ten thousand square foot, seven bed/eight and two half bath home on eleven acres that was listed at five and a quarter million dollars. "No gold faucets" is a loving dodge when you're talking about a house that costs more than most people will earn in their lifetimes - or, for that matter, some entire neighborhoods (seriously, you could buy over half of my neighborhood for that price). Oh, and the bit about it being located "in" a public neighborhood is a loving laugh (zoom out to see how "close" it is to another house, let alone the remainder of the neighborhood). For anyone who didn't click that:  That's the ordinary, public, non-gated neighborhood Romney lives in. And the nice, normal, middle class Joe that Romney gave his phone number to, who bought this quaint cottage? International racecar driver Hal Prewitt.  quote:Everyday vehicles: Ford Escape, BMW Z8 and Motorcycles Indian Chief and BMW RT The pure loving privilege and ostentatious wealth to brag "no gold faucets, no maid's quarters" is disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Wait, how does this happen? Is this some Citizens United thing, or is it like convenient contracts with the Church for whatever work or some bullshit so that church money can go to some third party that donates to political causes without violating their tax exemption? That's a good question. The only thing I can think is this: Super-PACs have to release their donor lists eventually. So the Church can't donate that way without it becoming public knowledge sometime next year. But there are other groups, 501(c)'s I think, that you can donate to and their donor lists are private forever. And a 501(c) can donate to a Super-PAC, and only the 501(c) shows up on the Super-PAC's donor list. So the Church could filter it through a group like that. But I'm not sure there is any evidence that this has happened (of course, that's kind of the idea). The bigger issue is twofold: 1) He is donating millions to the Mormon Church, not "charity". It gets called that because they want it to invoke images of Mitt's money feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, etc. And I suppose some of it goes to that. But most of it goes to funding the chruch, building massive marble temples, and "mission" work that mostly consists of spreading Mormonism. Only a portion actually goes to what the word "charity" invokes in most people's minds. But I guess its a good thing to foster dependency on charities, just not the government? 2) The impression I got from some of the articles is that one of the things they were working on regarding his returns was deciding how much to write off as charity to make sure his taxes fell in the 14% range again for political purposes. But I'm not 100% on this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Sarion posted:But most of it goes to funding the chruch, building massive marble temples, and "mission" work that mostly consists of spreading Mormonism. Don't forget opposing homosexuality. The Mormon church spends mass amounts of money donating to political campaigns in states to try to defeat same sex marriage ballot initiates. If you call that out though you're attacking religion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Super-PACs have to release their donor lists eventually. So the Church can't donate that way without it becoming public knowledge sometime next year. quote:But there are other groups, 501(c)'s I think, that you can donate to and their donor lists are private forever. And a 501(c) can donate to a Super-PAC, and only the 501(c) shows up on the Super-PAC's donor list. Are you loving kidding  I don't know/care if the church is doing that. The fact that anyone can do it is pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Is that the Spooky-PAC that Colbert talked about a couple months back? America is hosed holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:This is really long but I'm curious if anyone else has received it. Basically it's an op-ed from a guy who bought Mitt Romneys house, how they bought it with everything inside (!) and Mitt himself helped them move and did the lifting and driving, and how the Romneys lived simply and thriftily. I know there is a huge and immense line of bullshit in there, but something really stands out with Romney renting a truck and driving it himself. Of all the people that would have a CDL to drive a 3 axel vehicle, I have a feeling Romney isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
CitizenKain posted:I know there is a huge and immense line of bullshit in there, but something really stands out with Romney renting a truck and driving it himself. Of all the people that would have a CDL to drive a 3 axel vehicle, I have a feeling Romney isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:This is really long but I'm curious if anyone else has received it. Basically it's an op-ed from a guy who bought Mitt Romneys house, how they bought it with everything inside (!) and Mitt himself helped them move and did the lifting and driving, and how the Romneys lived simply and thriftily. All you need to know to refute this is that this was just one of Romney's many homes, like the one he had in Massachusetts. This is actually important because he had to amend his federal tax returns to change his primary residence from Utah to Massachusetts in 2002 (he had been living in Utah for the past few years as part of his role with the Salt Lake City winter Olympic Games) in order to comply with Massachusetts election law when he ran for governor. Sorry, but having multiple homes (FOUR!, including Wolfeboro NH, La Jolla CA, Park City UT, and Belmont MA) thousands of miles apart really isn't living "simply" or "thriftily." CarterUSM posted:God, I posted something about the Romney inconsistency of his "if I pay more taxes than I need I'm not qualified to be President," and his intentional underutilization of charitable contributions this year to manipulate his tax rate to be over 13%, and it's loving amazing how my relatives just eat that poo poo up with no conception of how by deferring his charity he can use it during another tax year, or how a bg chunk of his "charity" is basically a membership fee for the Mormon Church. That's a pretty great argument, but I'd also like to add that it's fundamentally absurd for Romney and his supporters to argue that it's better that he paid less in taxes. Taxes are not like prices for goods and services, the amount you pay in taxes isn't analogous to how much you paid for your car, your home, etc. Paying more in taxes doesn't make you a "sucker" like you'd be if you were fleeced by paying sticker price for your car. Paying taxes is more about contributing to the common good and maintenance of your society. Bragging about paying less in taxes is like bragging about drinking all the good booze and eating all the good food at a potluck after just bringing a single fun-sized Snicker's. It means you're a selfish rear end in a top hat that just takes everything they want and balks at contributing back so other people can enjoy themselves as well. XyloJW posted:For anyone who didn't click that: So, what you're saying is that Romney helped this guy move into his new home because he felt kinship with another rich rear end in a top hat who is so obtuse that he can't see his own massive privilege and wealth or understand what it's actually like to be an average middle or working class person or even understand what the words "simply" and "thriftily" mean? Amused to Death posted:Don't forget opposing homosexuality. The Mormon church spends mass amounts of money donating to political campaigns in states to try to defeat same sex marriage ballot initiates. If you call that out though you're attacking religion. Exactly. It was aggravating as gently caress to hear the LDS Church whine about how they were being persecuted after people started protesting them after they donated millions of dollars to Prop 8. I'm just really sick of this "you're intolerant of my intolerance" bullshit coming from the right. These fuckers have such a victim complex while they simultaneously try to harm pretty much every group they don't belong to, including gays, women, non-whites, Muslims, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Oh, awesome! Good thing there isn't an easily exploitable loophole! ... Steven Colbert did a segment about this basic idea several months ago. He had on an attorney who he uses for his SuperPAC filings who is a former FEC commissioner. quote:COLBERT: So I could get money for my (c)(4), use that for political purposes, and nobody knows anything about it till six months after the election?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Steven Colbert did a segment about this basic idea several months ago. He had on an attorney who he uses for his SuperPAC filings who is a former FEC commissioner. Those kinds of segments and episodes are exactly why Colbert's show is one of the best, most important TV shows of all time. In just a few minutes over several episodes he did more to expose and criticize Citizens United and campaign finance law than almost every news show combined.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Those kinds of segments and episodes are exactly why Colbert's show is one of the best, most important TV shows of all time. In just a few minutes over several episodes he did more to expose and criticize Citizens United and campaign finance law than almost every news show combined. Yes, exactly. I mean, Potter, the lawyer, brings him a single sheet of paper, he signs it, and now he has a 501(c)(4). That's all it takes. One piece of paper and you're ready to
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Here are the two best clips about the 501(c)(4) thing, I think: Steven creates his Shell Corporation: Colbert Super-PAC SHH! to funnel money to his Super-PAC. Uh oh, a judge has ruled that 501(c)(4)'s might, maybe have to possibly disclose their donors! Good thing that the 501(c)(4) that Steven created in September 2011 doesn't have to release a thing to the IRS until March 2013. Long after the election is over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
With the election ad blitz ramping up, I'm disappointed that we haven't seen anything from Colbert SuperPAC in so long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
 Okay dude, I know you love guns. I know you think liberals like me are pussies and don't know what kind of gun is what because we're too scared to have handled firearms. I could probably more efficiently kill a bunch of people (or targets at the range) in a shorter time with a semi-automatic tactical rifle than a bolt-action hunting rifle. It's like saying a muscle car isn't much different from my dinky sedan with a 1.6L engine because I can put the same gas in both, even though the muscle car can accelerate and drive faster on the same type of fuel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
Sulphuric Sundae posted:
I think gun posters and ~*~gun people~*~ in general are really annoying (i say this as somebody who owns a gun and goes to the shooting range) but you're off base here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:I think gun posters and ~*~gun people~*~ in general are really annoying (i say this as somebody who owns a gun and goes to the shooting range) but you're off base here. In what way? His point is that they may both fire the same rounds, but the one on the left can fire at a much higher rate. Is this not true?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
Sarion posted:In what way? His point is that they may both fire the same rounds, but the one on the left can fire at a much higher rate. Is this not true? Got corrected by the guy on Facebook. "Both are semi-auto. One trigger pull, one round fired. Both have removable magazines. Functionally, they are identical." Well I'll be damned. Alright, I accept it, I am a pussy liberal who knows nothing about guns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 15:06
|
|