You don't even know me!!! But please keep it up I get a great laugh from you every single time

Oh please, you try too hard. I did not see a photo on the article so I cannot say what the photo was but so what? The information is credible and plagarizing means I claim to have wrote it, which I do not.

that is why I posted a thread to everyone using article to please include links. I went to the link posted about the picture and there was a picture top right.

for the article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/usa-2008-the-great-depression-803095.html

for the picture used in the article:
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=1&language=en-US&family=editorial&p=New%20York%20Mayor%20Hands%20Out%20Coats%20To%20The%20Poor%20&src=standard#

Because for some people - it is easier to put on the Democratically issued rose-colored glasses, blame all ills on Bush, and clamor, whine, cut and paste that he is evil, and we need to elect a Democrat.

Don't like that the economic programs Clinton started are having impacts - Blame Bush

Don't like the fact that the out-of-control housing market caused by consumer greed is now biting us in the a$$ - Blame Bush.

Don't like the fact that Clinton allowing the USS Cole bombing and the capture of US Servicemen by China embolden Al Quada and other terrorist groups? - Blame Bush for an "illegal war" (That no tribunal has even ben considered for)

Don't like the current Democratic plans which include some massive tax increases would probably tank the economy worse than most other actions - Blame Bush for a bad economy.

Don't like the fact that a few terrorist who tried to kill American GIs got roughed up a bit - Blame Bush

Don't want to face the fact that a few thousand innocents got killed in the Towers - Hey..you got it - Blame Bush.


Now, not all Democrats wear such glasses. Some realize that party affiliations do not solve problems. Some just actually work from that side to try and *take actions* - knowing they must meet the Republicans in the middle and beyond on some issues (and vice versa) to *solve the friggin' problem for the people*

But then - those are not the Democrats that upon the *valid* election of George Bush - proclaim the American public 'too stupid to vote'

I guess my point is when a boulder is rolling down hill...how can one man be blamed for not stopping it? I don't recall the president having absolute power

How do you know the information is credible? Because someone wrote it for a news company? WOW. I don't think I need to point out why such conclusions are ridiculous, to simply assume something is credible because of the company behind it.

And, not linking to a source can be considered plagiarism or can be seen as stealing intellectual property, a commericial property. By not linking you are taking traffic away from the published source, and that is against intellectual property rights. Even though no one has ever been convicted and charged for this, it is still bad form to steal property and place on another property without given due service to them.

Honestly, you aren't technically even allowed to post any articles on this site, that have been copyrighted and there is a statement that reprint without purchasing the rights to do so. Which, there is for all major newspaper websites.

You should at least be respectful and link to the original source and site you took it from.

that's what I've been saying...no one listens to me

Lindyy says:

Gee, if we are in such a great depression, why did I get a 3% raise in January? And, why can my employer pay all of my Health Insurance premiums?

And, why did I get a $650 Christmas bonus?

Hmmmmmmm.

The greedy lending companies and banks caused the housing market problem. They came up with 'subprime' (people with bad credit) loans and the ARM mtg. to subprime borrowers causing people to be unable to afford their homes and have them foreclosed.

Does not anyone ever read or listen to the news completely? Or is it what I call "selective memory" again?

Lindyy


Lindyy

i don't find the article very credible

The article isn't credible. They use PROJECTED numbers, not real numbers. And the suggestion from the article is that we are already at the highest level of food stamps since the institution of the program.

Fact is, that is not true yet, and it does not mean that the projections are correct, one way or the other. However, they pass it off as being fact.

"Food stamps are the symbol of poverty in the US. In the era of the credit crunch, a record 28 million Americans are now relying on them to survive - a sure sign the world's richest country faces economic crisis." - "USA 2008: The Great Depression" By David Usborne in New York. April 1, 2008: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/usa-2008-the-great-depression-803095.html

Okay, let's have some fun with numbers now to expose the truth.

This according to "Food stamp use in U.S. at record pace as jobs vanish" by Erik Eckholm in the International Herald Tribune on March 31, 2008.

"As a share of the national population, food stamp use was highest in 1994, after several years of poor economic growth, with an average of 27.5 million recipients per month from a lower total of residents." - http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/31/america/31foodstamps.php


Okay, so IF we did go to 27.6+ million people on foodstamps THEN we would be at a record.

HOWEVER, there is a factor you MUST add in. The change in population from 1994 - 2008 is greater than 40 million!

According to the US census bureau, the US population in 1994 was 260,327,021 - http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt

In 2008, according to the US census bureau, the US population is 303,765,035 - http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Okay, now it is time to work the numbers:

In 1994 with a population of 260,327,021 and the food stamp poverty being 27.5 that means rounded up, 11% of the US population was on food stamps.

In 2008 with a population of 303,765,035 with a PROJECTED food stamp poverty of 28 million that means 9% of the US population will be on food stamps.

SO, when you break down the numbers you get a totally different story.

1994: 11% of the US population on food stamps

Projected 2008: 9% of the US population on food stamps

It was TWO PERCENT WORSE in 1994, and we haven't even gotten to that point of 28 million yet!

I hate to say this, but the country deserves this. America chose big government over the free market and now we are reaping the "benefits" of the road to socialism.

Good riddance.

Or, as the great economist Friedrich Hayek said in his famous book, we are on the "Road to Serfdom".

Yes, yes, Hayek, that's his name. It was on the tip of my tongue.

Another good one;

"All of the services commonly thought to require the State—from the coining of money to police protection to the development of law in defense of the rights of person and property—can be and have been supplied far more efficiently and certainly more morally by private persons. The State is in no sense required by the nature of man; quite the contrary." - Murray Rothbard

Turn back America, before its too late. Observe the individual and the free market, and you just MAY dig yourself out of this collectivist spending pit you've dug yourself in to. More entitlements? Socialized medicine? Higher taxes? All the better to strangle the life out of you with, my dear.

Lindyy says:

Oh, PLEASE, no higher taxes. I am taxed to death as it is!

Lindyy

Little factoids like that to tend to wander past a few folks' minds, and don't stick around long......

'ell, if this is a 'Great Depression' I know at least one Sr. Consultant and 6 farmers are hoping for a few more years of this sort of 'crisis' We were discussing that over breakfast today.