Presidential Debate #2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Report: Welfare government’s single largest budget item in FY 2011 at approx. $1.03 trillion

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 total sum taxpayers spent on federal welfare programs was derived from a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on federal welfare spending — which topped out at $745.84 billion for fiscal year 2011 — combined with an analysis from the Republican Senate Budget Committee staff of state spending on federal welfare programs (based on “The Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance”), which reached $282.7 billion in fiscal year 2011.

The data excludes spending on Social Securityhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png, Medicare, means-tested health care for veterans without service-connected disabilities, and the means-tested veterans pension program.

Read more: dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/report-welfare-governments-single-largest-budget-item-in-fy-2011-at-approx-1-03-trillion/#ixzz29fbtRf6S
 
Welfare spending jumps 32% in four years

Welfare spending has grown substantially over the past four years, reaching $746 billion in 2011 — or more than Social Security, basic defense spending or any other single chunk of the federal government — according to a new memo by the Congressional Research Service.
The steady rise in welfare spending, which covers more than 80 programs primarily designed to help low-income Americans, got a big boost from the 2009 stimulus and has grown, albeit somewhat more slowly, in 2010 and 2011. One reason is that more people are qualifying in the weak economy, but the federal government also has broadened eligibility so that more people qualify for programs.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who requested the Congressional Research Service report, said it underscores a fundamental shift in welfare, moving away from a Band-Aid and toward a more permanent crutch.
“No longer should we measure compassion by how much money the government spends but by how many people we help to rise out of poverty,” the Alabama conservative said. “Welfare assistance should be seen as temporary whenever possible and the goal must be to help more of our fellow citizens attain gainful employment and financial independence.”

Read more: Welfare spending jumps 32% in four years - Washington Times washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/18/welfare-spending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/#ixzz29fcOhQO6
 
_Abyssinia said:
Am not sure about %, but I think only think women of the hard left see abortion access and HHS mandate for employers as a serious issue. I do not believe that most women worry about being able to get contraception and abortion if Romney would be elected. Obama has spent months using this as an attack on Romney and now Romney and Obama are equal with women in the swing states so that attack has not been successful
Click to expand...
Really? You mean the polls are not actually biased/rigged/manipulated as was being claimed what…a week or two ago? :confused:
 
Romney says Obama also has investments in Chinese companies and through a Cayman Islands trust

One of the many tense moments in the second presidential debate turned on a new topic in the race: President Barack Obama’s pension account.
Code: 
Here’s how it came up: Early in the face-off, Obama scoffed at Mitt  Romney’s pledge to crack down on unfair trading practices by China,  saying Romney is currently invested in companies "that are building  surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks."

Romney later explained that, yes, he understands that his blind trust  has invested in foreign firms, including companies in China. Then he  confronted Obama.
more…
 
Pension Envy: Who Has More—Obama or Romney?

…As far as size?
From the standpoint of a public pension, Obama is well-heeled.
As president, he will receive $191,300 annually for life — win or lose in next month’s election — and receives a travel allotment as well as mailing privileges. Should Obama lose, his **presidential pension **kicks in immediately after leaving office.
Given that the president enjoys a normal life span, the pension allotment would be worth upwards of $6 million.
The federal budget spends about $3 million annually for the four living ex-presidents. Obama also will get Secret Service protection.

In addition, Obama may be due a nice pension for the eight years he served in the Illinois Legislature as a state senator.
Illinois is infamous for its lavish **pension plan **for former lawmakers. A Freedom of Information Act request for Obama’s pension amount submitted Wednesday to the General Assembly Retirement System of Illinois was not immediately answered, nor was a call to the Obama campaign.

But what about Romney?

It’s extensively documented that Romney is, well, a rich guy. He earned untold millions —though famously circumspect about releasing tax returns — while leading private equity giant Bain Capital and has a substantial retirement plan.
His Individual Retirement Account could be worth in the neighborhood of $87 million, as documented in an extensive report from the Washington Post.

But as for a strictly public pension? Zip, zero.

Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.

So while Romney appears headed for a happier retirement financially, he’ll be footing his own bill — unless, of course, he wins next month. In that case, his nest egg will be even that much bigger than Obama’s.
 
Study: Black Americans Feel Less Empowered Under Obama Than They Once Did

Four years after Barack Obama was elected president, this is not exactly a “post-racial” America.

A new study from Washington University in St. Louis finds that under Obama, many black Americans feel less free than whites when it comes to political participation.
Political Cartoonists Take On President ObamaSEE:]

From 2005 to 2011, only 45 percent of blacks said they believed the government would allow them to make a public speech, while 67 percent of whites believed they could, the study found.

The study found that while the election of Obama initially boosted feelings of political empowerment among black Americans, those sentiments significantly faded in the years that followed—especially among conservative and religious blacks.

more…
 
_Abyssinia said:
Am not sure about %, but I think only think women of the hard left see abortion access and HHS mandate for employers as a serious issue. I do not believe that most women worry at the kitchen table about being able to get contraception and abortion. Obama has spent months using this as an attack on Romney and now Romney and Obama are equal with women in the swing states so that attack has not been successful
Click to expand...
It’s always hazardous for a man to opine about what women want. But I do know what my wife says, at least. She would rather have a good job that pays her substantial wages that she can spend as SHE sees fit, rather than have no job and get some benefit (especially some penny-ante thing like Obama hands out) from the government that IT chooses for her. And boy, was she adamant about that!
 
More evidence of deception

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.
American Crossroads, taking exception to Obama’s announcement last night that he really *had *declared Benghazi to be an act of terrorism, has sent out a memo, which reads:
The President clearly misled the American people with this claim, because if Obama’s Rose Garden speech was indeed the White House position, it did not inform any subsequent statement by the White House press office — and was even directly contradicted by his own spokesman several days later. On September 20 — eight days after Obama claims to have called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” — Jay Carney affirmed to reporters that the White House had never called it “a terrorist attack.” From the gaggle on Air Force One, en route to Miami, 9/20/2012:

more…
 
_Abyssinia said:
Gallup came out with a poll that said most important issue for women was abortion which I am struggling to believe

I do not believe that most women worry at the kitchen table about being able to get contraception and abortion. Obama has spent months using this as an attack on Romney and now Romney and Obama are equal with women in the swing states so that attack has not been successful
Click to expand...
Question on the 39% who listed abortion as the number 1 issue. What percentage were pro-life versus pro-choice? Couldn’t pro-life women who want an end to abortion also list it as the #1 issue?
 
buffalo said:
In your estimation how many women as a % see abortion and contraception as a definite vote for Obama?
Click to expand...
For most women, the economy is really the issue. Most of them are very interested in grocery and gasoline prices, and a lot of them are trying to raise children on single incomes. They can’t afford to lose their job.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Gallup came out with a poll that said most important issue for women was abortion which I am struggling to believe

I do not believe that most women worry at the kitchen table about being able to get contraception and abortion. Obama has spent months using this as an attack on Romney and now Romney and Obama are equal with women in the swing states so that attack has not been successful
Click to expand...
Slanted questioning. Focus group data during debates simply does not bear this idea up.
 
seekerz said:
Really? You mean the polls are not actually biased/rigged/manipulated as was being claimed what…a week or two ago? :confused:
Click to expand...
NO they still are, particularly the ones by media groups like MSNBC, CNN and so on.

Watch Rasmussen, the best of the bunch. Not a media outlet. Their REAL BUSINESS is polling and statistical analysis.
 
buffalo said:
Romney says Obama also has investments in Chinese companies and through a Cayman Islands trust

One of the many tense moments in the second presidential debate turned on a new topic in the race: President Barack Obama’s pension account.
Code: 
Here’s how it came up: Early in the face-off, Obama scoffed at Mitt  Romney’s pledge to crack down on unfair trading practices by China,  saying Romney is currently invested in companies "that are building  surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks."

Romney later explained that, yes, he understands that his blind trust  has invested in foreign firms, including companies in China. Then he  confronted Obama.
more…
Click to expand...
They’re both rich, come on. And if you’re wealthy and you have money to invest, some of it is in Chinese investments. It’s the only place you can make any money in this economic environment. Obama knows that as much as Romney does or at least he should. If he’s doesn’t, he’s negligent about the conditions that affect many Americans. Many Americans have 401K plans and so on through work and they know all this stuff.

Obama’s net worth is more than $15,000,000. He’s loaded. Michele is loaded too. Anyone who thinks he’s not has been misled.
 
iloveangels said:
NO they still are, particularly the ones by media groups like MSNBC, CNN and so on.

Watch Rasmussen, the best of the bunch. Not a media outlet. Their REAL BUSINESS is polling and statistical analysis.
Click to expand...
I think Gallup just may be the one to watch this time. Rasmussen is clearly low for Romney, when you note that every poll gives Obama low marks on just about every issue.
Remember, Rasmussen is using a 2004/2008 blend. They should probably be using a 2004 model (or a blend of 2004 and 2010, if that is possible)
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
I think Gallup just may be the one to watch this time. Rasmussen is clearly low for Romney, when you note that every poll gives Obama low marks on just about every issue.
Remember, Rasmussen is using a 2004/2008 blend. They should probably be using a 2004 model (or a blend of 2004 and 2010, if that is possible)
Click to expand...
What’s really interesting, when combined with this result, is that the Obama administration has been picking on Gallup, trying to make them cooperate.

hotair.com/archives/2012/10/11/did-gallup-change-its-sampling-under-pressure-from-the-left/

If you go out and look at historical data, this race is much more like 2004 than 2008, yes.
 
iloveangels said:
What’s really interesting, when combined with this result, is that the Obama administration has been picking on Gallup, trying to make them cooperate.

hotair.com/archives/2012/10/11/did-gallup-change-its-sampling-under-pressure-from-the-left/

If you go out and look at historical data, this race is much more like 2004 than 2008, yes.
Click to expand...
Yup. Because Gallup is perceived as "fair and balanced; middle of the road; moderate :doh2: ; non-partisan) and Rasmussen is perceived as right (politically) when they really aren’t.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Yup. Because Gallup is perceived as "fair and balanced; middle of the road; moderate :doh2: ; non-partisan) and Rasmussen is perceived as right (politically) when they really aren’t.
Click to expand...
Correct. Polling with biased voter populations is pretty much pointless from a statistical point of view, not to mention unethical. You might as well just make the numbers up, go out for coffee and save time.

BUT both of these companies don’t only do presidential polling. They also have a polling business for companies, educational institutions and other organizations who can pay for this expensive service. Pew is in the same category. They’re going to be very circumspect about throwing away their reputations on a single presidential race. It’s simply not in their interest, from a business or professional ethics point of view, no matter how many hissy fits Obama and his crew has.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top