I know that times are hard and people are interested in government assisted housing, but this? There were crowds of 30,000 people looking to benefit from government-subsidized housing!

Thirty thousand people turned out in East Point on Wednesday seeking applications for government-subsidized housing, and their confusion and frustration, combined with the summer heat, led to a chaotic mob scene that left 62 people injured.

All of this resulted from people attempting to obtain Section 8 housing applications and, against long odds, later securing vouchers for affordable residences. Some waited in line for two days for the applications.

Offering applications for the first time since 2002, East Point Housing Authority officials had triple the crowd they anticipated, and one that was three-fourths of the 40,000 population of the south Fulton city. Things got out of hand when people started cutting into lines and authorities attempted to move groups to different areas.

The question is not how to deal with crowds. The question is, how did anyone in the U.S. ever get to this point? I wonder what these people would be doing if there were no government assistance? I doubt that they would just die or live on the streets, they would have to find a way to make things work. As it stands they don't have to. The truth is that simple.

If there's little or no work where you live; you have to go some place where there is work. That's the truth.

The government has created a situation where 3/4 of a city's population are dependent on government for their most basic needs. I wonder how these people are going to vote come November? This is scary, what will these people do when the money runs out?

Is this change you can believe in?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Since when does the government ban foods? Since when does a free-market / free society put up with this sort of regulation?

This is over the top!

A bottled water ban? OK. No more regular Coke and Pepsi in government vending machines? All right, if we have to. But no more Happy Meals?

That's the ban that San Francisco is mulling over. Some city supervisors say the toys in McDonald's Happy Meals unfairly lure children to eat unhealthy food.

McDonald's has launched a spirited defense of the iconic meals, which have been part of the chain's menu since 1979, more than 30 years. The meals are a way to draw families to its restaurants, a key demographic for a global chain hungry for customers.

I suppose that the fat kids are unfairly luring their parents into giving them money so they can buy the Happy Meals.

I have a question. Who would vote to put anyone in office to collect tax payer money and make these completely useless decisions?

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

"Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis" This is a very telling document. Now that the CBO website is not being flooded; I can get my hands on the document. Here are some quotes...

- Some Consequences of Growing Debt

The economic effects of budget deficits and accumulating government debt can differ in the short run and the long run, depending importantly on the prevailing economic conditions when the deficits are incurred. During and shortly after a recession, the higher spending or lower taxes that generate larger deficits generally hasten economic recovery. In particular, when many workers are unemployed, and much capacity (such as equipment and buildings) is unused, higher government spending and lower tax revenues usually increase overall demand for goods and services, which leads firms to boost their output and hire more workers.4 But those short-term benefits carry with them long-term costs: Unless offsetting actions are taken at some point to pay off the additional government debt accumulated while the economy was weak, people’s future incomes will tend to be lower than they otherwise would have been. More generally, persistent, large deficits that are not related to economic slowdowns—like the deficits that CBO projects for coming decades—have a number of significant negative consequences. Therefore, the sooner that policymakers agree on credible long-term changes to government spending and revenues, and the sooner that those changes are carried out without impeding the economic recovery, the smaller will be the damage to the economy from growing federal debt.

- Crowding Out of Investment

One impact of rising debt is that increased government borrowing tends to crowd out private investment in productive capital, because the portion of people’s savings used to buy government securities is not available to fund such investment. The result is a smaller capital stock and lower output and incomes in the long run than would otherwise be the case. The effect of debt on investment can be offset by borrowing from foreign individuals or institutions. But additional inflows of foreign capital also create the obligation for more profits and interest to flow overseas in the future. Thus, although flows of capital into a country can help maintain domestic investment, most of the gains from that additional investment do not accrue to the residents.

Let me sum it up for you.

- The huge deficits we now have; (which are NOT caused by the economic downturn) such as Health Care Reform, result in damage to the economy in the long term.

- The increase in debt has forced the government to borrow from foreign entities. Which in the short term helps, but at a cost. Because the borrowed money is really foreign investment in the U.S.; the American people are not the ones who will reap the benefits of debt repayment.

- Need for Higher Taxes or Less Spending on Government Programs

Another impact of rising debt is that, as government debt grows, so does the amount of interest the government pays to its lenders (all else being equal). If policymakers wished to maintain government benefits and services while the amount of interest paid grew, tax revenues would eventually have to rise as well. To the extent that additional tax revenues were generated by increasing marginal tax rates, those rates would discourage work and saving, further reducing output and incomes. Alternatively, policymakers could choose to offset the rising interest costs, at least in part, by reductions in benefits and services. To be sure, slowing the growth of government debt to hold down future interest payments would require increases in taxes or reductions in government benefits and services anyway. However, earlier action would permit the changes in policy to be smaller and more gradual, and it would give people more time to adjust to the changes—although it would also require more sacrifices by current generations to benefit future ones.

The democrats plan for America is NOT sustainable. Congress is trying to spend beyond the country's ability to make good on the debt. Not only do we not have the money, we can't afford to borrow that much money, because the sheer act of borrowing to that extent renders the our economy virtually unprofitable! Foreign investment will dry up once people realize that the U.S. economy is no longer growing.

In other words the democrats proposed "fixes" to our financial situation will dead-end the country.

We don't have any more options, we have to turn this around. We have to elect leaders who will fix these problems by getting out of the way and letting the markets correct.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Does anyone remember when Nanci Pelosi said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." She was referring to the health care reform legislation. The problem is that the majority of people who voted for the health care reform takeover legislation didn't know what was in it. The #2 person in the senate didn't even know what was in the latests financial reform bill!

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin admitted Friday that he is "in the dark" about the national health care bill currently under construction by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In an exchange on the Senate floor, Republican Sen. John McCain asked Durbin, "Should we not at least be informed as to what the proposal is that the Senate Majority Leader is going to propose to the entire Senate?" Durbin's answer: "I would say to the senator from Arizona that I am in the dark almost as much as he is, and I am in the leadership." Durbin explained that during a Democratic caucus, Reid and the small group of senators involved in crafting the bill turned to their fellow Democrats and "basically stood and said, 'We are sorry, we can't tell you in detail what was involved.'"

"Isn't that a very unusual process?" asked McCain, noting that "we are discussing one-sixth of the gross national product; the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage-making. Yet here we are at a position on December 12, with a proposal that none of us, except, I understand, one person, the Majority Leader, knows what the final parameters are, much less informing the American people. I don't get it."

"I think the senator is correct," Durbin answered, "saying most of us know the fundamentals, but we do not know the important details behind this." Durbin went on to claim that Reid is not to blame for the situation; rather, the blame lies with the Congressional Budget Office, which Reid has asked to do a cost estimate on the bill. "We may find that something that was sent over there doesn't work at all, doesn't fly," Durbin said. "They may say this is not going to work, start over." Therefore, Durbin said, Democrats are keeping it all a secret. "It is frustrating on your side," Durbin told McCain. "It is frustrating here." But, Durbin added, he hoped to have the Congressional Budget Office report soon.

This proves a few things. Most important is the fact that this bill was drafted in secret. Why would a bill of this importance need to be done in secret if there is nothing dubious in it?

The above conversation, between Durbin and McCain, took place on December 12, 2009. The bill was passed in the senate on December 24, 2009. The bill was not finalized by December the 12th. This means that the senate had less than 12 days to go through a bill, more than 2,000 pages long, before voting on it! Can anyone be expected to believe that those who voted on the legislation actually understood it?

Obama just signed the financial reform legislation, making it law on the 21st of this month. Another bill more than 2,000 pages long. The president gave a speech after signing the bill.

The president sought to reassure Wall Street and financial institutions in his remarks, insisting that the reform will "foster innovation, not hamper it."

The president did acknowledge that much of the impact of the bill will ultimately be left to regulators and that companies will still have leeway to act irresponsibly. Many provisions in the legislation won't take effect for a year or more as regulators set out the new rules.

The president concluded his remarks by stating that there is "no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street."

"In the end, our financial system only works - our market is only free - when there are clear rules and basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excess, that ensure that it is more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system," he said. "And that's what these reforms are designed to achieve: no more, no less. Because that is how we will ensure that our economy works for consumers, that it works for investors, that it works for financial institutions - that it works for all of us."

Huh? I thought that the division between Main Street and Wall Street was the entire selling point for financial reform? Wall Street is just a bunch of "fat cats" right? We don't want to have to bail out big business anymore right? What in the world is he talking about? You can't have it both ways...

The scary part is this, "The president did acknowledge that much of the impact of the bill will ultimately be left to regulators..." Hmm. I mentioned this about he health care bill last year. All of the recent legislation is intentionally ambiguous.

Regulators will determine what the new financial rules are going to be. Regulators that are yet to be appointed. This, of course, makes it impossible for businesses to determine what direction to go in. Businesses need stability in the market, NOT the government! Every time the government interferes with the market it injects instability. When the government announces regulations and doesn't define them it insures instability.

Just look at what Chris Dodd (one of the bill's authors) had to say.

“We can’t legislate wisdom or passion. We can’t legislate competency. All we can do is create the structures and hope that good people will be appointed who will attract other good people,” Mr. Dodd said.

Basically Chris Dodd and Barney Frank have authored a bill that outlines a structure which, if in the wrong hands, can severely hurt the economy. Brilliant!

That ought to foster trust in the system.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

We can't have tax cuts for those "Rich" people who make more than $250,000 a year. Bush is bad and tax cuts are bad! This has remained the tag line for vast majority of democrats since before Obama was elected.

Now there are a handful of democrats stating publicly that they are in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts. Interesting how things come out in the end.

Two more Senate Democrats called for extending tax cuts for all earners—including those with the highest incomes—in what appears to be a breakdown of the party's consensus on the how to handle the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said in an interview Wednesday that Congress shouldn't allow taxes on the wealthy to rise until the economy is on a sounder footing.

Hold on just a minute here! Does this mean that "trickle-down" economics DOES work? I thought that by allowing top income earners to keep more of there money had no positive impact on the economy. At least that's what we were told by Obama.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said through a spokesman that he also supported extending all the expiring tax cuts for now, adding that he wanted to offset the impact on federal deficits as much as possible.

They are the second and third Senate Democrats to come out publicly in recent days in favor of extending all the tax breaks for the time being. Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) made similar comments last week.

"As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn," Mr. Conrad said. "We know that very soon we've got to pivot and focus on the deficit. But it probably is too soon to cut spending or raise taxes."

The comments from the senators represent a departure from what appeared to be an emerging unified Democratic stance on the Bush tax cuts, which held that those for the wealthiest Americans should be allowed to expire.

I thought we were recovering? We were just a week ago, right, what happened?

This is yet another example of how the government is attempting to spin the economic picture to "appear" as if things are getting better. The administration wants to avoid references to the "Misery Index" from the Carter years. You can only hide the truth for so long. The cat's out of the bag, we are not on the path to recovery and this episode shows that the administration is not making decisions conducive to recovery.

If Trickle-Down economics doesn't work, why are some democrats worried about a tax increase for those who make more than $250,000?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.