Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

‘Cliff’ Avoided, So It’s On to Next Fiscal Crisis

New deadline on cuts now two months away

January 3, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Onward to the next fiscal crisis. Actually, several of them, potentially....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(68)

daWraith

Jan-06-13 6:17 PM

During fiscal year 2012, the U.S. government spent a record $80.4 billion on food stamps, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a $2.7 billion increase from FY 2011. (Fiscal year 2012 ran from Oct. 1, 2011 through Sept. 30, 2012.)

According to the Monthly Treasury Statement that summarizes the receipts and outlays of the federal government, $80,401,000,000 went towards SNAP during FY 2012, which was a $2.7 billion increase from $77,637,000,000 in FY 2011.

The SNAP program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which also runs other food assistance programs under the auspices of the Food and Nutrition Service Agency.

In total, nearly $106 billion was spent on food assistance in 2012, with $18.3 billion that went to “Child Nutrition Programs.”

Total federal spending on SNAP has increased each year during President Obama’s first term in office.

Thanks Opie :(!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sounder

Jan-06-13 4:30 PM

A strong middle class won't be created anytime soon in the Ohio Valley nor in much of the rest of the United States because the number of people who made their into that income class were able to do so with an economy that couldn't be sustained, so dependent on those pea and shell economic sleights of hand. It's magic. Unless the U.S. can determine how to reinvent itself as a manufacturing country, a sophisticated manufacturing center then no way in any way is a middle class going to be sustained nor reach the levels that it once had in that decade of the 1950's. Spending needs to be brought near in line with tax revenues but cutting the deficit isn't going to bring back the good old days.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Jan-06-13 4:15 PM

And from the Examiner, "To make matters worse, what job gains there were last month all seem to be at the very bottom of the pay scale. According to the BLS household survey, all net jobs created in December among those 25 and older went to people with a high school education or less (about 37 percent of the labor force). Two-thirds of the jobs created went to high school dropouts (less than 10 percent of the workforce). This may be a good thing for those lacking in educational attainment, but it is also a sign of just how far from reality Obama's rhetoric has been about creating the jobs and industries of the future."

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Jan-06-13 4:13 PM

@Ice, Usually more jobs does equal greater tax revenue, but under Obama the majority of jobs produced are low paying and thereby not producing a great amount of tax revenue. From the NY Times, "“The overarching message here is we don’t just have a jobs deficit; we have a ‘good jobs’ deficit,” said Annette Bernhardt, the report’s author and a policy co-director at the National Employment Law Project, a liberal research and advocacy group."

"Lower-wage occupations, with median hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for 21 percent of job losses during the retraction. Since employment started expanding, they have accounted for 58 percent of all job growth."

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-06-13 4:01 PM

Iscreamed proves once again why liberals ARE liberals: they are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINFORMED.

Any attempt at the truth is dismissed as RIGHT WING SCARE TACTICS, FOX NEWS, RUSH LIMBAUGH, etc. etc.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-06-13 3:59 PM

Iscreamed,

Bloomberg 7/11/12

Now that health care is off the front burner, it’s time to fix Social Security. Social Security’s trustees say the system needs only “modest changes.” In fact, the system is desperately broke.

Table IV.B6 is a long-run balance sheet for Social Security. It shows that the system’s $88.9 trillion in liabilities exceed its $68.4 trillion in assets by $20.5 trillion.

The liabilities are the present value of the system’s projected benefit payments, whereas the assets are the system’s $2.7 trillion trust fund plus $65.7 trillion in projected taxes, also valued in the present.

The $20.5 trillion fiscal gap separating Social Security’s liabilities and assets -- its unfunded liability -- is enormous; it is 1.4 times U.S. gross domestic product and 34 times annual Social Security taxes."

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Jan-06-13 1:02 PM

icecream wrote: If we can just get those PEOPLE BACK TO WORK, then the government will get MORE REVENUE, and the DEFICIT will SHRINK...

Gee, Why didn't I think of that. So let's just create jobs for all the unemployed. But how will we pay them? We can borrow about 10 trillion to pay them. Then we can use the taxes we collect from all the newly created jobs to pay off that 10 trillion. Hell, let's just borrow 20 trillion and double their wages.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Jan-06-13 12:48 PM

icecream, remember Al Gore's lockbox? Well, it's still full of IOU's

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Jan-06-13 12:46 PM

icecream wrote:" SS has NEVER ADDED to the NATIONAL DEBT--"

But that is no longer the case.

How can Social Security have no deficit and yet add to the national debt? Money that workers pay into the system goes largely to fund benefits for people who have already retired. Any surplus goes into the Trust Fund – now more than $2.7 trillion – which invests in government bonds. In 2010, however, the amount that Social Security took in fell short of the amount needed to pay benefits. That gap is growing and is projected to surpass $100 billion a year before the end of the decade. This shortfall can be covered by taking money out of the Trust Fund. But every time that’s done, the government has to redeem some of the bonds in the Fund for cash. It gets that money by selling other bonds to the public. And while bonds in the Fund represent money that the government owes to itself, and therefore don’t count toward the national debt, bonds sold to the public do. (Time magazine)

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-06-13 10:32 AM

icecream “WRATH-FACE HAS BEEN POSTING FOR TWO YEARS ON THE NATIONAL DEBT--LIKE THE SKY IS FALLING”

That Wrath-face. What a card. As if $16.4 TRILLION dollars is a lot. There’s LOTS more other people’s money out there to tax and spend. And when that’s gone we can always print and borrow more. “Eat drink, and be merry...” I always say. What’s the rest of that line?

icecream “Now about jobs-we need a strong middle class, employed and paying taxes, that will help pay down the debt deficit.”

Right. And the only way to make them stronger is to increase taxes on those who earn income and then spread that wealth around, so those who earn the least are free to work less and less. Entitlements are the key to strength in the new America.

icecream “"Glo”

Darn. That 1000 character limit cut off more icecream wisdom on how the Global Economy doesn’t involve imports or exports. I was sure looking forward to that...

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-06-13 10:31 AM

icecream “SS has NEVER ADDED to the NATIONAL DEBT”

That’s a relief. Because I foolishly believed the October 2012 Congressional Budget Office report that says SS has been contributing to the deficit since 2010. I know I can count on your thorough debunking of the CBO's report, though, because you typed NEVER ADDED in all caps, so it MUST be true.

icecream “FIRST, IT IS NOT OBAMA'S UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM--HE DOESN'T OWN IT!”

Of course he doesn’t! How silly. Just because he’s been the President for four years, and a US Senator for four years before that, and the leader of the Party that has been in charge of the US Senate for the last six years, he has no responsibility for the miserable US unemployment problem. What do you think he is, some kind of leader?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

icecream

Jan-06-13 1:05 AM

Troll; I can't address all you wrote now..I found you quite entertaining though... I must post this before I forget--cause I'm REALLY old!!! "Originally SS was called Social Security Insurance. SS has NEVER ADDED to the NATIONAL DEBT--it should NOT NOW or EVER BE on the ON the TABLE for NEGOTIATION"

OK, FIRST, IT IS NOT OBAMA'S UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM--HE DOESN'T OWN IT! Even though he has proposed ideas to help it--INFRASTRUCTURE IS CRUMBLING!!! Then he is criticized for this attempt because the government isn't an employer. I agree, except when Eisenhower signed into law the beginning Interstate system we all enjoy...it is crumbling and needs work, it is REALLY OLD... SECONDLY, WRATH-FACE HAS BEEN POSTING FOR TWO YEARS ON THE NATIONAL DEBT--LIKE THE SKY IS FALLING..HE'S BEEN GETTING HIS NEWS FROM THE WRONG SOURCE--FOX & RUSH OPINIONS-NOT NEWS. Now about jobs-we need a strong middle class, employed and paying taxes, that will help pay down the debt deficit. "Glo

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-04-13 8:33 PM

icecream “WRAP YOUR BRAIN AROUND this concept. The UNEMPLOYMENT rate is TOO****N HIGH”

You just figured that out, eh? And you voted for the 15% unemployment President twice because...?

icecream “...and all that America's politicians can talk about is the budget DEFICIT”

Conservative politicians have been talking about the Obama unemployment disaster for years. Maybe you’ve been listening to the wrong news channel. Or you’ve been babbling the whole time instead of listening...

icecream “I've understood GLOBAL ECONOMY since before you were born.”

You mean back when “Importing and exporting is not what today's GLOBAL ECONOMY IS ABOUT”? That was sometime before the Roman Empire, so you’re a few years older than I thought you were, ma’am.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-04-13 7:35 PM

Wienerdawg, you dementia-addled idiot, Barack Obama add more debt to the United States in 4 years than ENTIRE COMBINED SUM of Every President from George Washington to George W. Bush if you count the $6 Trillion added immediately plus the deferred costs of Obamacare through 2019.

Is that true of England??? Germany??? Canada?

Then how can you say it a Global Economy thing?

One Idiot, One Party Rule.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

icecream

Jan-04-13 7:14 PM

Troll; I've understood GLOBAL ECONOMY since before you were born...Now, WRAP YOUR BRAIN AROUND this concept.

The UNEMPLOYMENT rate is TOO****N HIGH, and all that America's politicians can talk about is the budget DEFICIT. If only they knew that we can take care of BOTH of them AT ONCE.

Notice anything? Like, how every time UNEMPLOYMENT RISES, the budget DEFICIT also RISES? And how every time UNEMPLOYMENT FALLS, the budget DEFICIT also FALLS?

Why could this be? For one thing, the budget DEFICIT is largely a function of the government's INABILITY to COLLECT enough TAX revenue from UNEMPLOYED people. If we can just get those PEOPLE BACK TO WORK, then the government will get MORE REVENUE, and the DEFICIT will SHRINK...

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Wheeldog

Jan-04-13 12:30 PM

The global economy is a relatively new creature created through complex international financial institutions, multinational trade agreements, and systems of exchange that can be flashed around the world in a matter of seconds. There are no true national companies now. They belong to international conglomerates that transcend national boundaries. Developments in China or Germany can and do reverberate around the globe affecting stock markets continents away. This system is enormously complex and delicately interdependent. Read "The Collapse of Complex Societies" by Tainter. It is an excellent overview of how such complexity has influenced nations throughout history.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

impact

Jan-04-13 10:37 AM

I love it when Shark gets pious and biblical. He forgot to mention abortion

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-04-13 7:04 AM

icecream “Importing and exporting is not what today's GLOBAL ECONOMY IS ABOUT”

icecream “right something intelligent”

I can't decide which is funnier.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

icecream

Jan-04-13 3:09 AM

@dyingov;

Importing and exporting is not what today's GLOBAL ECONOMY IS ABOUT!

Google Global Economy--read for a bit then come back and right something intelligent about GLOBAL ECONOMY!...

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-03-13 10:37 PM

wheeldog, Columbus was involved in Global economics when he "discovered" America! At what point in the US history do you think we were NOT importing and exporting?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shark88

Jan-03-13 10:16 PM

Certainly the economic competition has changed, however that has little to do with personal responsibility, honor, supporting traditional American values, upholding our Constitution and respecting the right to pray and read a Bible in gov't buildings. The same buildings owned by the people.

If Americans would live, love, and learn the right way, this nation would once again be One Nation Under God & be a loaner nation instead of a debtor nation.

The people are simply reaping what they've sown. It has nothing to do with a global economy.

Kick the teachings of Jesus out of government. Believe man evolved from a monkey. Elect people like Bill Clinton & Barak Obama & you have all the ingredients for chaos, confusion, & mass failure.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Wheeldog

Jan-03-13 10:04 PM

If it were not so sad it would be comical. So many seem obsessed with assigning blame for the state of the economy focussing primarily on politicians and refusing to see beyond the borders of our own country. Somehow they can't wrap their minds around the fact that we are part of a global economy, and the problems we now face were decades in the making. It really didn't matter who won the last presidential election or which party holds the position of the majority in either the House or Senate. The economy has literally run out of steam. The economies of the industrialized nations were built on increasing supplies of cheap energy and expanding international markets. It was fueled by easy credit and the willingness of people to spend more than they earned (borrow). Around the globe that economic era is ending. We now face the bill for the high flying lifestyle of the recent past. There are rough times ahead.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

walksabout

Jan-03-13 5:58 PM

well, duh. it is called theIRS.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-03-13 5:44 PM

Imphat, I'll promise to be NICER if you promise to get SMARTER!!!

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

promo61

Jan-03-13 5:37 PM

@Shark88,@WVEXPAT; thanks for making points in your posts.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 68 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: