Unemployment insurance scarborough Videos

@jhamm999 and you haven't explained why tax cuts that were supposed to create jobs didn't. buffett is very generous with his money. but he, quite rightly, thinks it's absurd for him to pay a lower percent of his income in taxes than his secretary. if you can't see the absurdity of that, i can't really help you. you realize that the idea of a strongly progressive tax and an estate tax was championed by TEDDY roosevelt, supposedly one of the heroes of the GOP. of course, he was called a socialist.

If any of you are still in doubt about Reid winning, check this out. A June 9, 2010, Rasmussen Reports post-primary poll showed her leading incumbent Senator Reid by a margin of 50% to 39%. A July 2010 poll showed Senator Reid leading Angle by 7 points. The change of margin, 18% in less than a month, IS THE LARGEST IN SENATE ELECTIONS HISTORY. don't get me wrong, Reid isn't my first choice. he's too moderate for me, i want a true progressive. Democrats need to get as radical as the tea party :)

@jhamm999 so i suppose we should give equal space in every public setting to christians, jews, hindus, mormons, jeohovah's witnesses, scientologists, sikhs, muslims, the hundreds of native american religions, wiccans, atheists and all the other sects i've forgotten. each one should get their own display. we can close the parks and stop traffic, i guess. we destroyed no mosques? what? we dropped thousands of tons of bombs and managed to miss them? seriously, get a checkup, i'm worried about you.

@jhamm999 again, invite me along when you propose this novel -- biazarre -- theory to a person who studies economics. you are obssessed with inflation. you when inflation was REAL low? the depression. let's go back there, eh? but i guess you know more about economics than business week or the thousands of economists who have used the phrase "worst recession since the great depression." btw, reagan's unemployment was still over 10 into his 3rd summer in office. so i guess he was a failure, too?

@jhamm999 don't stop rehashing on my account. a liberal can never lose when discussing sharron angle. feel free to pt out what was distorted. it certainly wasn't her social security comments. hypocrisy? how about running your entire campaign saying the deficit was killing us and then making your top priority a bill that ADDS 700 billion to the deficit. saying unemployment extension has to be paid for but not the tax cuts for the top 2 percent. obama doesn't WANT this, he did what he had to.

@jhamm999 she said SS should be phased out and she said it couldn't be saved. you can argue the economics but not what she said. on hypocrisy: dems didn't campaign on the debt as the overwhelming issue of our time. repubs did. over and over. then the bill they're willing to die for is a huge add to the deficit. according to cbo, stimulus also has added jobs and boosted gdp every qtr. then there's hypocrisy of repubs ripping stimulus then bragging about its benefits in their state/district.

@jhamm999 bush got some criticism for being on vacation more than any president in history. obama has gotten about the same for taking a third the vacation time, laura got zero criticism for her safari, yet there are hundreds of stories questioning michele's trip. you are wrong on the facts by a huge margin. have i mentioned racism in the economic talk? no, but when obama is criticized for doing EXACTLY what EVERY president has done, yes, i see racism. it comes with having your eyes open.

@tishhead no i said it would be phased out because if given the opportunity to keep their portion of the ss taxes to invest on their own the vast majority would. of course the media only played the portion about phasing it out to leave the impression that she would end it without any option. that is false. on your points about the 700 billion deficit adding,again the libs in the media are painting it as a cut,which it is not. but accepting your premise it would add 700 billion over cont.

@jhamm999 you should really face the fact that it was angle, not the repub voters. they had no problem voting for a repub for governor. as for the deal, it's terrible policy, but about the best he could get under the circumstances. i don't agree with my fellow libs who are trying to block it. allowing unemployment and middle class cuts to expire would do real damage and they're not going to get a better deal in new congress. repubs of course are disgustingly hypocritical. not a surprise.

@jhamm999 actually, mccain claimed TR as a hero then proceeded to trash obama for essentially promoting TR's values. unemployment rate has become a less useful tool as they (both sides) continually jigger with who gets counted and who doesn't. jobs created is much more straightforward, the jobs are either there or not. the only quibbling there is full-time or part-time. by any measure, bush failed on this count despite getting the tax cut he asked for. it didn't work. plain and simple.

@jhamm999 no, i don't because you haven't even taken the first step to explaining this phenomenon. no one is inhibiting your ability to worship in your church, to say you individual prayers or to discuss your beliefs. and yet you people have a pathological need to take it into the public square, to get some sort of public endorsement , to proclaim that the "US is a christian nation." it appears to be a sickness, like a child begging for approval. i find it more amusing than offensive.

@tishhead ahh the anti christian liberties union. funny i don't hear them crying about our tax dollars going to this imam or the fact our tax dollars are helping rebuild mosques in the middle east. but let some high school valedictorian say how thankful they are for jesus for granting them the gift to get where they are today and they are there!!. it's to the point in school districts you can't even say christmas. it's happy holidays. or winter solstice. way to stand up for freedom.

@jhamm999 we have had this discussion for a month. how many times have i talked about racism? very few. but when you start talking about obama's vacation time which is in line with EVERY recent president and ONE-THIRD of your recent president, i smell racism. why would someone criticize obama for something EVERY president has done? no one went after clinton or carter on this, so it's not a dem issue. as for bush, obama took over in a near-depression. we're supposed to forget that?

@jhamm999 i would love for you to go into a meeting of economists and propose the notion that the economy was as bad under carter as it was in 2008. bring a camera crew. business week, that lefty hippie rag, said this recession was the worst since the depression. the contraction from 2007 to second qtr 2009 was the worst on record, consumer spending dropped the most since 1942. even in the 70s, as for your obama envy, grow up. obama has done nothing that ALL other pres have done.

@666sigma I am just wondering who is the "non-politician" you are referring to? If you are speaking of Sharon Angle, she has been a politician since 1998, albeit a small time politician: A member of Nevada State Assembly. If you think she is of sound mind, google the word "Criminon". It is a church of scientology program for rehabilitating prisoners using L. Ron Hubbard's teachings. Sharon Angle sponsored legislation for placing this program in women's prisons in Nevada, in 2003.

@jhamm999 and yet with 7 or 8 chances, you can't even formulate a sentence to explain why worshipping in your church isn't good enough for you. a time and a place, dude, a time and a place. as for the mosques, i'm baffled why you can't see the difference. almost all of these mosques were either destroyed by us or are historical buildings, some more than 1,000 years old. and no i would not object to public funds being used to restore the old north church or a historic cathedral.

@jhamm999 i believe you TRIED to maintain that the SS quote was distorted but backed down because she said it should be phased out and couldn't be saved. i am still unaware of any other distortions. it was bush and the republicans who wrote them to expire this year. so if there is a hike, it's a bush hike. the bush cuts bloated the deficit then and they will continue to bloat them. if renewed, bush cuts will add 700 billion to deficit over clinton rates. hypocrisy on steroids.

@jhamm999 if you served, thank you for your service. however, that doesn't excuse making one of the most blindingly idiotic statements ever recorded in the english language. we didn't destory any mosques with our "shock and awe" or the massive bombing in afghan. you can still pull that chess piece back if you want. and i'm not talking a cross or a menorrah. i'm talking a display as big as your manger for every one of the 300 or 400 religions in this country. and the atheists.

@jhamm999 actually it has been asked 6 or 7 times and hasn't come close to being answered. why can't you just pray in church? what pathological need do you have to impose that on other people? building a mosque in another country that has an official state religion is so obviously different than endorsing religion in a secular state that it's ridiculous for you to even ask. calif election is close but been awhile since we elected an anti-choice candidate (fiorina).

hahaha what the hell, do 90% of you exclusively watch fox news? why all the hatred toward these guys? angle is gonna lose, simple as that. people dont go from a sane-moderate politician (who happens to be the senate majority leader) to a crazy far-far-far-right-winger overnight. if she had one insane position she might still have a chance, but nearly everything she wants to do is crazy, look at HER OWN DAMN WEBSITE. she's as far right as you can get, on everything.

@ShubieChris Pick the exception and not the rule and generalize. Harry Reid said it was "his job" to create jobs. Since when did we become communist and since when did communism do a good job of creating jobs and wealth? Every sngle economic problem in the US was CAUSED by the Federal Government including Wall Street's gambling. We are stiffling small business in favor of Wall Street, the banks, the lawyers, the unions and government. No wonder we are fucked.

@tishhead i believe i pointed out the distortions when we talked previously. what tax cuts are you talking about? the rates will stay the same as they were when bush lowered them. that is like saying i expect a 3% raise next year,then your boss tells you no we can't do it,are you then going to say you got a pay cut? now the tax cut is the payroll tax. i'm for that. the spending i'm not. they should let it go into next year and pass it and make it retro active.

I love when the media attacks non-politicians who say what many think and feel, but won't say in order to get "the vote". Lying is not a virtue. PC is not a virtue. It is a disease. It is a cancer. Andthat is what is wrong with Washington. Electing lying, deceitful politicians over honest American citizens with real values and real beliefs is FUCKED UP. How far we have moved from our founders. Our founders were the greatest collection of people on Earth EVER.

@jhamm999 yeah, business week is loaded up with a bunch of lefty hippies. i never said (you have a very nasty habit of making quotes up from me) that inflation had no impact. but it's not the measure by which any serious economist measures a bad economy. again, you would have LOVED the inflation rate during the depression. i'm curious were you calling for reagan's head in 1983 when he STILL had unemployment over 10? or were you a hypnotized reagan robot?

@jhamm999 what a good little propaganda consumer you are. we rain down thousands of tons on a huge city, but we don't kill civilians, we don't wipe out hospitals and we don't level mosques. man, that's impressive! fictional, but impressive. i suppose you bought the jessica lynch story and the pat tillman story too? so whatever the christians get, EVERY other religion and the atheists get too? do we put them all in the same park or all over the city?

@jhamm999 greenspan said "they should follow the law and let them expire." there's not much wiggle room there. the kind of cuts that would be needed to offset those cuts would contract the economy into a depression. the argument for tax cuts to the top is job creation. that clearly failed in the bush admin and failed in a big way. the key is to put money in middle class pockets and let them spend. you build from the ground up, not the top down.

@tishhead no there are some christians in the middle east. the ones that aren't dead. when it comes to using taxpayer money what difference does it make if islam is the state religion? why does our money have to go there to build mosques? if a dime went to build a church here you would be screaming. as i said b4 a church is and that is where people go to worship. why is it a crime if someone wants to express his faith in public?

This guy is the real bigot. He is just doing this to drum up viewers. He actually knows the statistics. The statistics are that 72% of all Black American women have children out of wedlock.  This is common knowledge.And the situation of Black Women and single families has been well documented by two conservative Black American Economists, William E William, and Dr. Thomas Sowell, Professor Emeritus at the Hoover Institute of Stanford University. Dore knows all of this, but he is playing the fool. For the comments that he made and the FACT that he prefers to support Teachers Unions that have made it their mission to DENY poor Black Children the same education their own  (white children) get makes Dore a pathologically low disgusting RACIST BIGOT. It doesn't get any lower than that. This makes him a particularly loathsome Judas. 

+modelmajorpita Again, no.  The facts are that the welfare state was created with the Great  Society of Lyndon Johnson.  This was an all out attack against poverty.You started out with a comment that Women needed more money.  Then you proceeded to attempt to prove that the Cato documentation was dishonest, self serving and a lie.Then you proceeded to demonstrate that teen pregnancies and abortions were at all time lows, but you neglected to mention that we are still killing over 900,000 babies, and we should rejoice that we are not killing 1.4 million like we had for the past 10 years--LOL!!Then you showed data demonstrating that I was wrong in asserting that  welfare was the largest cost besides Social Security, which is something that people pay into and not the same thing as welfare, which women never pay into and never pay back. Every time I bring up a publication that contradicts you, you conveniently assert that it is a right wing conspiracy and that I am a liar--even when I show links and data. Now, you're whining me cyber stalking you. Our problems are not related to Reaganomics you illiterate Dolt. Do an analysis of poverty in the USA, going back to the beginning of the Century, and you will find, that the percentiles vary slightly, but it hovers around 14-18% on average.  This has been the case since after WWII.Furthermore, the record actually shows that Americans women, acting as whores continually seek to bleed both the government and the taxpayer in order to obtain benefits that they never have to pay for. It is interesting that you twist reality into pretending that citizens paying into the Social Security Fund is the same thing as welfare queens mooching off the American Taxpayer while they NEVER have to pay those monies back.Why is that? If we wanted to be fair and equitable, we would lend money to welfare recipients with the understanding that should they in the future be able to pay it back, they would do so. Also, if they bequeath any assets to their heirs at time of death, the government would have to be paid first before any assets could be turned over the their children and heirs.But drama queen bigots and hustlers like yourself would never hear of that.Nor would you reprobates ever consider putting a cap on the number of children a woman could receive welfare for once she gets on welfare.It wasn't Reaganomics that caused this economic mess, but self serving Soccer Mom whores that want someone else to pay for their sexual predilections and THAT is supported by the evidence in that we are now paying 1.3 trillion dollars for welfare when a relatively short time ago we were paying nothing because welfare as we know it today did not even exist. Yes, in one sense you are correct, the "Welfare Economy" did create the "strongest economy in USA history.  But it did it on the backs of our future in terms of the high levels of borrowing that we managed to do;.Perhaps you might also want to remind your readers how we managed to accrue 18 Billion dollars in debt by the end of next year you ignorant imbecile. Anyone can create a "wonderful economy" when you rob future generations of their wealth by engaging in massive borrowing as has the USA and ALL Euro countries including Canada the UK and Australia. For all your mindlessly ignorant blathering, if we would have spent within our means, we would not have the financial chaos that we have not only in the USA, but in EVERY OTHER EURO COUNTRY.And contrary to your dipshit assertions, the International Monetary Fund is demanding fiscal responsibility and also AUSTERITY which is the FIRST thing that Thatcher would have suggested.So you can huff and puff all you want to, but it won't change the reality that nothing you have said has been honest in any way shape of form. I find that remarkable since you can't seem to stop whining about other peoples' dishonesty. 

+faultroyI actually defended a number of publications which you tried to smear by misattributing CATO's lies to them.  It's only openly biased publications willing to lie in order to advance their political ideology that I mock.Setting aside the fact that I am in the US, despite whatever your cyberstalking told you, why does it matter where I am?  I mean, you go on to complain about the economic policies of other countries affecting the U.S., even if you are once again ignorantly repeating misinformation as fact.  So why shouldn't people in other countries complain about the policies of the U.S. which affect them?The welfare state (which started in the 40's, not the 60s) was responsible for the creation of the middle class and the strongest economy in U.S. history.  Our current problems are due to Reagonomics, not welfare.  So it is true that the U.S. copying Thatcher-style policies has hurt our economy, but I am guessing you have no idea what the policies of the U.K. actually are.

+modelmajorpita Your google page says that you are from the UK.  What is your interest in the USA's stats?And why do you constantly deride any publication's article.  The article from the Daily Caller was based on Senatorial CRS Report which is actually a governmental agency.  If you want the link, I would be happy to share it. Even your own link showed that Welfare for Children was around 500 Billion--half a trillion dollars.And yes, it IS only about 1/2 of the USA Defense Budget, but that is only because the USA does not charge the UK and the Euro countries for our military which constantly intervenes in other areas and seems to be the Sugar Daddy for all of NATO.  Hopefully, in the near future, that will change, and we will be able to give the UK a bill for services rendered.  So why are you so interested in the USA's expenses?Like the UK, the USA has ONLY had the level of poor that we have today, because we are attempting to emulate the political policies of the UK and Canada.  It is hard to imagine that 60 years ago our Welfare costs were practically nothing.  There was no such thing as Welfare until the early 1960s.  Kind of shocking isn't it?  Going from practically  zero to over one trillion in about 60 years. 

+faultroyOh, The Daily Caller, what a reputable and unbiased source for your misinformation!  I'm sure their numbers are far more accurate than the 10% figure given by the congressional budget office which I linked to.Yes, spending on programs to help the poor went up between 2008 and 2011 - because the Bush Recession dramatically increased the number of poor people needing help.  Spending on welfare still was half what was spent on the military.

+modelmajorpita Ahhh....no...try again..."..Yes, the majority of the budget goes to programs which primarily help seniors.  Only 10% goes to welfare..."  This is not correct. Here is an article from the Daily Caller stating that collectively, Welfare Aid is over 1.3 Trillion and that does not include Social Security..The government spent approximately $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011 alone — a price tag that makes welfare that year the government’s largest expenditure, according to new data released by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee.The data excludes spending on Social Security, Medicare, means-tested health care for veterans without service-connected disabilities, and the means-tested veterans pension program.According to the CRS report, which focused solely on federal spending for federal welfare programs, spending on federal welfare programs increased $563.413 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $745.84 billion in fiscal year 2011 — a 32 percent increase.But you certainly get an A for trying.

+faultroy"I get it, but you are doing the exact same thing that you accuse the Cato Institute and the  Los Angeles Times for doing."I don't accuse the Times of doing anything, all they did was quote other people's lies."The bottom line is that when we take a look at the National budget, the overwhelming majority of payments are for social programs, and that includes social security and medicare. "Yes, the majority of the budget goes to programs which primarily help seniors.  Only 10% goes to welfare.//www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie"You can huff and puff all you want to, but the bottom line is that women are still getting themselves inpregnated in record numbers..."Unless you mean in record low numbers, this is yet another lie you have been told.//www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db136.htmTo quote:"The pregnancy rate for U.S. women in 2009 was 102.1 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, the lowest level in 12 years; only the 1997 rate of 101.6 has been lower in the last 30 years.Rates for women under age 30 fell during 1990–2009, while rates for women aged 30 and over increased.Rates for teenagers reached historic lows in 2009, including rates for the three major race and Hispanic origin groups.Pregnancy rates have declined about 10% each for married and unmarried women since 1990.The birth rate for married women was 72% higher than the rate for unmarried women; the abortion rate for unmarried women was almost five times higher than the rate for married women."

+modelmajorpita I get it, but you are doing the exact same thing that you accuse the Cato Institute and the  Los Angeles Times for doing.  You are making assumptions. The reality is that someone is getting all that money, and it is not just disappearing like magic that no one is getting--LOL!!The fact is that neither the Cato Institute nor you can make definitive statements because the data does not exist.According to the Cato Institute, there are over 127 FEDERAL programs to help the poor and by poor we mean especially to single unwed Mothers who are the prime recipients BECAUSE they have children, and in our society, the CHILDREN cannot possibly be left to suffer.But the reality is that these useless skanks use their children as bait to receive all these benefits, and there is really no way that you can disprove this.As a matter of fact, contrary to your comments, there are about 29% of all welfare recipients that are two generation recipients and there is nothing that can be done with this pernicious problem. So no, we reject your details because they don't make sense. Why don't we try this in another manner?  Let's look at the total of all of these welfare programs and see where they lead?  The bottom line is that when we take a look at the National budget, the overwhelming majority of payments are for social programs, and that includes social security and medicare.  We've known for many years, if we do not get all these social programs under control, the will overwhelm all budget requirements, and there will be no monies for anything else. You can huff and puff all you want to, but the bottom line is that women are still getting themselves inpregnated in record numbers and demanding the government make payments for these children when the men fail to meet their fiscal responsibilities.These women use the average American taxpayer as their baby daddy and we have people like you that are their enablers. It's been this way since the late 1960s, and it is finally coming to a head.We'll see what happens with the upcoming elections, if the Repubs take the Senate. Perhaps their will be some sensible programs that will come about to put a stop to this form of legal theft. 

+faultroyYou do realize that just because someone is quoting CATO, that doesn't change the fact that the claims still come from the CATO, right?I didn't think it was possible, but clearly I have been overestimating your intelligence.Anyway, let me point out just where CATO is decieving you: "Approximately 61% of all Needy Families fitting our profile also receive aid from the Women, Infants and Children program, or WIC..."That "profile" is single mothers with two children, not families on welfare.  In addition, they fail to mention that they included TWO WIC credits in their calculation - and as I said less than 20% of single mothers qualify for two."We also included utilities assistance, given that half of welfare recipients are on that program..."Which I addressed, pointing out that they are one-time payments to utility companies not income.Of course, while a great example of CATO being full of shit the WIC credits and utility assistance are very small.  The majority of their figure comes from medicaid (which full time minimum wage workers get) and housing assistance (which less than 15% of all people on TANF also receive).

+modelmajorpita Keep blowing smoke up peoples' asses.Here is a story from the Los Angeles Times newspaper that disagrees with your comments about participation rates. I'll quote and give the link as well. "...Approximately 61% of all Needy Families fitting our profile also receive aid from the Women, Infants and Children program, or WIC, so we included that benefit. (If the children were older, they would not be eligible for WIC but would receive other benefits such as subsidized school lunches and breakfasts.) We also included utilities assistance, given that half of welfare recipients are on that program...""...In Washington, D.C., and 10 particularly generous states — Hawaii, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, New Hampshire and California — these seven programs provide a mother with two young children an annual benefit worth more than $35,000 a year. The value of the package in a medium-level welfare state is $28,500.>>""...That may sound low, but it's important to remember that welfare benefits are not taxed, whereas wages are. So to put the welfare benefit package in perspective, we calculated the amount of money our recipient would have to earn in pretax income to bring home an equal amount of money if she took a 40-hour-per-week job..."I guess now you will say that the Los Angeles Times is a right wing lying newspaper right???-LOL!!!//articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/22/opinion/la-oe-tanner-welfare-work-pay-20130822

+faultroy "These numbers are from the Census Bureau.  Are these lies too? So now the Census Bureau are liars?"The CATO study wasn't based on census data, it was based on looking up welfare programs available in a state and adding them all together, regardless of limitations or restrictions.Here's some numbers that ARE related to the CATO study:Less than 10% of all families on welfare receive both TANF and foodstamps, CATO adds the benefits from both programs into their figure.Less than 3% of all families on welfare receive both TANF and Medicare.  CATO adds the benefits from both programs into their figure.Less than 20% of families on welfare are single mothers with two children under five, requirements to get two WIC benefits which CATO adds in to each figure.Less than 15% of all families on welfare also receive housing benefits, which CATO adds in to each figure.CATO included Medicaid benefits in their total.  Someone working full time at minimum wage receives the exact same Medicaid benefits as someone on welfare.CATO included utility assistance in their figure, even though these programs are mostly one-time benefits or debt relief - and always paid directly to the utility company.So even if you ignore the fact that TANF, foodstamps, and many other programs scale to income so you always get a net income gain from employment, CATO's claim that a "typical welfare family" receives more on welfare than they would on minimum wage is laughably false.So hey, good attempt at providing data to back up your claims - but all you did is expose the person who lied to you.  Sorry I called you a liar, to lie you have to know you are being dishonest.  You're just gullible and uniformed.

+faultroy" Lol!!  You're going on record in saying that the most famous and prestigious think tank in the world is a liar? "When a group bases a study on fraud and lies to advance their political agenda, I will point that out.Your argument is nothing more than "this lie was told by famous people and repeated a lot, so it must be true!"  You are making no effort to defend their lies or respond to my pointing out their inaccurate claims."Statistically, we've got 40% of our Caucasian women, 50% of our Hispanic women and 72% of our Black American women that have children out of wedlock."Which is related to the CATO institutes' dishonest math how?  In addition, considering the percentage of women on welfare is much lower than that, what business is it of yours or the governments? Do you think the government has the right to tell you that you aren't allowed to have children?"Someone is paying women to spread their legs.  And it is the American Taxpayer."Only when politicans and secret service are buying whores with their paychecks.  Well, at least for Democratic politicians - it seems like Republicans usually pay men to spread their legs."Hell, we even pay for their abortions.  It is taxpayer funded.  Is that a lie too?"Yes, it is in fact a lie, congratulations!  No abortions in the U.S. are paid for by taxes.  Even the plans private companies provide under Obamacare only cover contraception, not abortion.  Unless you mean when a woman pays for her own abortion, than perhaps you could say a taxpayer paid for an abortion."You need to see a professional about that nasty little bigotry of yours."Says the person treating women as inferior beings who need to be controlled by the government.  And how is my not tolerating lies "bigotry", exactly?

+modelmajorpita Lol!!  You're going on record in saying that the most famous and prestigious think tank in the world is a liar?  Can you give us evidence to support your assertion?You know what you are?  You're a rednecked racist bigot. You're going to tell me that this is not true not because you have evidence, but we're supposed to just assume your racist ass is correct?Maybe you should contact the Washington Post, or the New York Times and have them print a story on these "liars," exposing them.Statistically, we've got 40% of our Caucasian women, 50% of our Hispanic women and 72% of our Black American women that have children out of wedlock.  These numbers are from the Census Bureau.  Are these lies too? So now the Census Bureau are liars?It's no secret that these whores keep pumping out kids because it is profitable to do so. Otherwise, they wouldn't be having them. Someone is paying women to spread their legs. And it is the American Taxpayer. Hell, we even pay for their abortions.  It is taxpayer funded.  Is that a lie too? You need to see a professional about that nasty little bigotry of yours. Quit living in dreamland girl, get a grip and get off the crack. 

+faultroyThat study is by the Cato institute, right-wing libertarian hacks who manipulate data to deceive gullible idiots.In this case, they added up all welfare programs someone is theoretically eligible for (regardless of other factors, such as time limits or work requirements) even though almost no actual person receives that much in benefits.  Plus including welfare benefits you need a job to receive in your total to claim it pays more than work is clearly lying.In addition, even if someone did somehow receive all those benefits and got a job, they would still get a net increase in income because of how welfare works.  You never lose more in benefits than you gain in wages.  Never.  Getting a job is always in your best interest.I like how you ignored that per-child benefits don't cover the cost of children.  Why admit you were proven wrong when you can just get a spin wizard to lie for you?

+modelmajorpita Good for you, I'll see you and raise you one Wall Street Journal Article that I found on Google and here is the link.//blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/work-or-welfare-what-pays-more/Here is an exerpt: The authors found that in 11 states, “welfare pays more than the average pretax first-year wage for a teacher [in those states]. In 39 states, it pays more than the starting wage for a secretary. And, in the three most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer.”Now who are you gonna believe?????

+faultroyConsidering the exact dollar figure varies by state, is determined by a number of factors making each persons total benefit different, and you made the claims first and in fact specifically claimed there was documentation you knew of backing your lies, why should I go first?Whatever.  Here's the California info for child benefits://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/pg54.htmRegardless of the amount of cash benefits you get, there is a five year lifetime limit on how much you get.In addition, the average lifetime cost of raising a child in the U.S. is $245,000 which is significantly more than the benefits given, even if they weren't limited to five years.//money.cnn.com/2014/08/18/pf/child-cost/I am not the one pretending it is blacks, in fact I pointed out that the majority on welfare are white.  It is racist right-wingers who pretend that welfare is for blacks.//www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/newt-gingrich-food-stamps-blacks-naacp-freddie-mac_n_1190156.htmlSo hey, your turn.  Good luck finding any source for your false claims, aside from deranged right-wingers with no actual facts or data behind their claims.

+modelmajorpita Lol!!  Why don't you cite links to prove your case, and I'll show links to prove mine?We know this is true, because Black Americans ONLY represent 12.5% of the entire population. Whites represent 70% of the population. That is pretty racist of you to pretend that it is Black Americans. Shame on you.Bigot.

+faultroy"Hey Dipstick.  If you really believe that, then why do we allow women on welfare to continue to have more babies out of wedlock."Allow?  Are you suggesting we have a tyrannical, Chinese-style government limit on children, enforced by the police?  Do you wish to live in a fascist dictatorship where the government has control over your private life?"And let's get one thing straight you being the racist that you are, the profile of an average welfare queen is a WHITE WOMAN SINGLE WITH SOME COLLEGE."Bullshit.  That might be the typical single mother on welfare, but it certainly isn't the stereotype used by people attacking the needy."And Yea, there has been ALL kinds of studies and data showing that welfare for women that are single with CHILDREN  receive SUBSTANTIALLY  more money than women WITHOUT CHILDREN."Women with children receive more benefits, but not more benefits than the average COST of those children.  There is a net loss, so the added benefits are not an incentive."women CAN"T afford to get off welfare because they make too much money ON welfare. THAT has been well documented. "That has been often claimed by liars with no clue on how the welfare system works.  Benefit reduction is scaled to income, meaning you never lose more in benefits than you get in earnings.

Hey Dipstick.  If you really believe that, then why do we allow women on welfare to continue to have more babies out of wedlock.  And let's get one thing straight you being the racist that you are, the profile of an average welfare queen is a WHITE WOMAN SINGLE WITH SOME COLLEGE.  And Yea, there has been ALL kinds of studies and data showing that welfare for women that are single with CHILDREN  receive SUBSTANTIALLY  more money than women WITHOUT CHILDREN.  Yes, with ALL the benefits of not only welfare but other programs as well,  women CAN"T afford to get off welfare because they make too much money ON welfare. THAT has been well documented. 

I cant stand the GOP...r the dems great - Nooooo, but a hell of a lot better!

"I just get so mad." I hear ya, Mike!

the Ferengi are at it again

only because he gave tax cuts to the middle and poor and he is being stupid and keeping the tax cuts for the rich and i can prove that obama is more to the right then ronald reagan so you cant say that obama is in anyway a democrat bill clinton was a democrat and got us a huge surplus mccain would have been worse then obama he wouldnt have gotten the tax cuts for the middle and poor and he is still fighting the law that says gays should be in the military and he would have started a war in iran

@Scipio2021 Oh, don't get wrong the GOP has done nothing to prove they will not bow down to speacial intrest. I was reacting the Democrat who was in the video. If it was a republican saying something stupid I would call him out on it. I was a registered Dem for a while. Now I am independant because I don't like party politics. Politicians put their parties before the people and country, thats not right. Thats why I think its wrong dem r ging the prez a hard time. he is not the dems prez alone.

@repfreedomforce I don't buy your story. If you really were an employer, like myself, you'd recognize that the tax issue has to do with personal income tax, not your business - even if you're a pass-through like InvestigatorDave said. Considering the number of employees you have, you should be able to hire more people because of the payroll tax cuts. That saved me thousands. If you laid people off because of a 3% increase in taxes on your take-home OVER $250,000, you're a cold, cold bastard.

@Scipio2021 I am not really sure how you got to that conclusion by reading my comments? I loved the session when Grayson grilled Bernake! I liked the bills he partnered up with Ron Paul on. The problem was he lost sight of that stuff and started having too much fun calling names and making wild acuzations like all Republicans lie, when he is at the same time working with Paul on writing bills. I can't ever remember Grayson talking FED when on MSNBC, if he did I am sure it was not very long.

@Asymmatrix " Funny why?" Because it shows ignorance of economics. " What in the world does cutting the size of government" Are you in favor of cutting government or not? " handing millionaires and billionaires 700 Billion?" If you think letting people keep their own money is a handout, you must be a liberal. "Incedentally, huge increase in the size of government under Cheneybush" You bet. It was wrong when they did it. It's more wrong when Obama does it more. "2006 levels?" Ok, 2002.

Believe it or not I agree with you 100% on this point. It is absolutly crazy to hold hostage tax cuts for 98% of americans to get cuts for 2%. I would rather get tax cuts for all but I agree to risk not getting the compromise for only 2% is not right. Now they got it for everyone and that is what I would have rather seen but if this fell throu and noone got a tax cut then I would have been very disappointed. look at a guy like Ron Paul, he said he would have vote for the cut for 98%.

Lets not forget, the newly elected members of congress are not there yet. This is still the old congress at work. Alot of the congressmen and women voting will not be there soon. I am courious to see what kind of bills we see come up in the next few months. If we don't get any change then we will need to vote more out next time. We need a new direction. Back and forth between dem and Rep is the old way. We need new ideas. Rep and Dems are not that much different from eachother.

@Scipio2021 CBO said it will save money. $54 billion over 10 years. Google the following passage, if you want info on a study... In sum, the authors find that caps on non-economic damages, collateral source reform, and joint and several liability reform reduce self-insured premiums by 1 to 2 percent each. These findings indicate that tort reform reduces treatment intensity, as the drop in premiums is larger than the savings that would arise from reduced direct liability costs...

@jimmyrtle We don't need govt healthcare. We also don't need government sponsored private monopolies, which is how the ins and drug companies currently operate. We need to scrap the current health care system completely and rebuild it using the private sector. We need to make sure that the priority of the system is the cost efficient delivery of quality care. If you think we have that now you are as crazy as the people who think the govt will do a good job. Japan is one example.

@CongressManwithNuts Why do you ask? I know trickle down economics doesn't work. Too many greedy CEOs. I know that the wealthiest 2% who the Rebs want the tax cuts for have had these cuts for 7 yrs, & that there are no jobs.I know that the divide between the haves & have nots keeps widening. I hope you didn't misunderstand me. I'm all for mom & pop places. I try my best to do most of my shopping at these places.THEY are sm businesses-& they don't make a mill-or $250,00.00 a yr.

@jimmyrtle you act as if single payer doesnt work in other countrys but they live a hell of a lot longer then we do and pay a hell of a lot les and the government is already involved with our health care just not as a big way and a public option would have just been if you want the govenment involved with your health care you can have it by buying into the government plan already set up and if you dont want it its 0 money loss to you thats the public option its not sigle payer

@jimmyrtle no the reason isnt big government because in some places we need more government and yes in other places we need less but the government isnt to big in general it just depends on where you are talking about like making sure the watch list makes sense that can use less government because the watch list is to big so it doesnt do what it has to but we cant privatize the military like ron fucking paul wants or get rid of the FDA and EPA because those are needed hugely

The Onetermer you asll have been waiting for finally betrayed you loons. He comprimised, he could not push his agenda, he "CAVED IN". He threw you Dems under the bus to save his ass. McConnell and Boehner rolled Obama like a jelly donut. Opilsbury doughboy showed he is a coward, but now faced with opposition he breaks like a twig. Broke like a whippering college professor and has betrayed his last constituency, the left. Onetermer gave tax breaks to the RICH! LMAO.

@DojoNDude It's personal experience dude. I don't watch mainstream news, so I do not know any "talking points". I employ 20+ people. With additional taxation during this recession, I will have to let people go, cause my businesses aren't growing at the pace I need them to keep up with inflation + additional taxes. Less jobs = weakening economy, and I'll be spending less as well, which means businesses where I used to spread the wealth will also need to make cuts.

@Brian100487, my gut feeling is that the whole system is owned by corrupt money from big business... the republicans are totally bought out, but are better at politics... the dems are mostly bought out and play a game of "oh well, we did our best". Your left with a handful of politicians that are powerless to make a difference. I don't want to sound like those crazy militia fellows... but it looks like the tree of liberty needs to be watered. Maybe I'm wrong.

"The Rich" as you call them, the ones that move $250,000 dollars arounds each year, are small business owners. They are the life blood of this economy and by taxing them, you pile on additional burdens beyond all the regulations they already endure, and will have to cut jobs as a necessity to stay alive. $250k is really not that much money to move in any business in California. Take home profit margins are nowhere near that number. Support small business.

@Scipio2021 "It's not that I'm against Tort reform, more than it's a weaksauce idea" Plus, it'll cost lawyers money. LOL! " The GOP has no clue how to fix the health care system" Tort reform, purchases across state lines, MSAs. The GOP has plenty of good ideas. Your ideas all involve bigger government. " If you do 5 million dollars in damages you should be sued for 5 million" You're revealing your ignorance, again, if you think the caps change this.

@Scipio2021 So you cose to ignore the evidence I posted. I'll try again. the authors find that caps on non-economic damages, collateral source reform, and joint and several liability reform reduce self-insured premiums by 1 to 2 percent each. You see, they FIND that, by looking at the evidence. By looking at the states that have tort reform. Not theory, fact. Sounds like you're a lawyer. Why else would you be against tort reform? We need change now!

@jimmyrtle well it sucks for the same reason why obamas will but i have also heard it saved many people from forclosure i dont particually like it because its not a public option it has the same problem the bill obama passed does its still using the fucking insurance company unlike hawaiis hawaii has a semi single payer system that works well and that is better then MAs and that is why we need a public option so we dont have a fucking mandate any more

@Asymmatrix "They had the cut for 10 years" So what happened in the 2 years after the cuts. " and used it to outsource jobs" Do higher rates make outsourcing more or less likely? "and line their pockets" OMG! People keeping more of their own money! Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade? "Claiming that letting the cuts expire will hurt jobs creation is quite silly" Raise my tax rate, I wonder if I'll hire or downsize? Should I invest more or less?

@Scipio2021 "If Tort reform worked, you would already have this evidence and mention one single state" Where are your news stories? Tort reform was passed one year ago and costs increased more than in states without tort reform.... " Dodging the subject that any savings from Tort reform would go to the bonus checks of some CEO instead of them deciding to lower costs for their customers" CEO bonus checks would be preferable to lawyers fees.

@jimmyrtle obama wants to put it back to how it was when bill clinton was incharge and we had a huge surplus when clinton was incharge and there are a lot of rich people begging to be taxed if you need the proof to that i can also get that its the idiot republicans and corps like the coke bros that dont want to be taxed and make up stupid lies about why they shouldnt be while the senseable millionares are screaming tax us obama

What meaningless theater, this all is. America is what, 52nd in math and science? We're spenign untold trillions to hunt down cavemen in the desert but we can't keep food on our own plates? And people actually trust these braindead old farts in congress to figure this shit out? Of course not, they trust the banks. Screw this shit. I for one welcome the coming Necropoilis of America. Eat and kil the rich, then burn it all. GG.

@Scipio2021 "Dan won't go after the Federal Reserve like Grayson did" Right, Dan won't lie about the Fed. "And it's good to see you hate 99% of the GOP for lying about tax cuts paying for themselves" I don't need them to pay for themselves, I'm willing to pay for them by cutting government. A lot. "the lie of trickle down economics." Right, the economy works better when the government overspends and overtaxes. LOL!

@Asymmatrix Amen. I am not sure if wikipedia is correct, but according to the wikipedia article on the senate rules, the Senate Majoritz Leader has the right to change the rules. In other words, we could count how many democrats are traitors, then count back from 60. I believe it was 5 of the 59. So we make it 54 to invoke cloture and say fuck the republicans. Instead pussy harry reid and pussy obama did nothing.

@jimmyrtle alan isnt a moron alan is exactly what this country needs he has been fighting for the public option and to make it so the rich stop stealing from us if you volentarily want to give your money to the rich i rather you volentary give it to the poor and use it on food stamps because that has one of the biggest mutilplier effects not tax cuts on the rich that has the lowest mutilplier effect

Tea party is not republican, they are really a 3rd party who agree on some fiscal policies. Although I would argue that any republican in office while bush was prez is just as bad as a Dem when it comes to fiscal policies. However because Obama's administration along with dem controlled congress was so bad it united the pissed off tea party and happy for thel republicans.

damn she is gorgeous to bad the bitch is a gold digging whore